Wikipedia:Peer review/Keith Olbermann/archive1

Keith Olbermann
We are having a POV dispute going on at this page. Apparantly, someone believes this article is nothing but a left-wing shill for Olbermann, and does not focus on the downside of his career or his alleged liberal biases. Others think that the article is fine as it is. I just don't want this to be a personal attack against him, nor a fan page. We just want to see an outsider have a look and tell us what changes, if any, need to be made. Thanks. --D-Day(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?) 15:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * For neutrality disputes, you can try Requests for comment as mentioned above in the introduction. Thanks. &mdash; RJH 15:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Looking over it, I notice an abundance of favorable adjectives, especially in the beginning of the first section where it discusses his job, such as the "noticed for his quick wit" thing which really seems pretty subjective and even if it could be referenced, the words used in that area seem needlessy POV. if there's something an editor wants to put in about "alleged liberal biases", then citations would probably be needed to some degree. Homestarmy 15:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

There was bias in this article, which I cleaned up to some degree(i.e. there were much more favorable adjectives). The editor in question has tried to put in favorable mention to Olbermann's opponents, such as OlbermannWatch, which we suspect is his website. But I will take yours and any other comments into question. --D-Day(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?) 15:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[User:rcox1963] (i.e., Robert Cox) D-Day wrote "The editor in question has tried to put in favorable mention to Olbermann's opponents, such as OlbermannWatch, which we suspect is his website." This is a knowingly false statement and I call on D-Day to admit this and issue a retraction.

I have been quite open about being the editor of OlbermannWatch both here and in the press including a quite public debate with Jimmy Wales about how this entry demonstrates the liberal bias that I believe defines Wikipedia. D-Day knows full-well and knows that I had absoutely nothing to do with listing OlbermannWatch in this Wikipedia entry (I have previously provided a link to a PRO-Olbermann fan board where one of the posters wrote about their efforts to edit the Keith Olbermann entry to their liking and, for whatever reason, including a link to Olbermann Watch).

So there is no "we suspect is his website" becuase (a) there is no "we" just D-Day (b) no "suspect" because I have been quite open about being the owner-operator of OlbermannWatch.com. My concern with this entry has been well-documented and made quite openly.

D-Day, on the other hand, has not been so honest and open as is the case here. This is the same D-Day who put up a blog about "Olbermann Watch Watch", making all sorts of threats and derogatory personal comments about me. When I "outed" him in the Wikipedia discussion for the Keith Olbermann entry he tried to hide what he had done and who he really was by deleting the blog and disavowing what he wrote (he also then asked me to accept his apology for what he had done all the while continuing to make false statements about me; needless to say I did not accept this policy in light of his continued attacks on me in a different venue (this one).

Let me add that I have no problem with OlbermannWatch not being linked on Keith Olbermann or Countdown with Keith Olbermann entries. My objection in this regard was the use of the wiki to promote Olbermann fan sites (blogs and forums). If any site/blog is going to be listed then Olbermann Watch shoudl be listed for a very simple reason. It is by far the largest "Olbermann" independent web site on the Internet. There are pages within sites such as MSNBC.com and Wikipedia that are larger but unlike those large sites which contain just a page about Olbermann, OlbermannWatch is a fully realized web site devoted to nothing other than the subject of Keith Olbermann. That Olbermann Watch would not be listed when other sites with a tiny fraction of the readership are listed is absurd - and a clear attempt to use Wikipedia for the purpose of driving traffic to those sites. For the Anti-Olbermann Watch crowd which seems to frequent this entry, the solution is simple, do not list ANY sites other than the MSNBC.com page for Coutndown with Keith Olbermann and Keith's own blog at bloggerman. com. Otherwise, not listing Olbermann Watch while listing smaller sites is a violation of Wikipedia promotion policy.