Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy


 * Keep. (Yes, this is rather long, sorry.)  Last night in the discussion page for the original article on John Seigenthaler Sr. I advised the following --


 * I am also introducing a new subject heading which may seem premature now, but I suspect will prove to be appropriate during the coming months.

-- and I did that, creating the subject heading "Seigenthaler's Wikipedia Controversy", in addition to making some other edits that I thought more constructively referenced the portions of the original article that generated the controversy. Although a portion of my edit has survived, the separate subject area was merged back into the previous section. Reflecting upon it, I decided that the admins, or whomever, had decided they didn't want to give the controversy that much prominence, and I can sort of comprehend that reasoning, although I believe it is mistaken.

Later last night, though, I had the thought that the controversy is going to eventually need a separate article. The reference to the controversy in the biography of Mr. Seigenthaler should be cut back to one terse sentence with a link reference to a separate article on the issue, since the issue itself is an issue and is something other than a part of Mr. Seigenthaler's biography as such.

I also had the thought that the entry on Mr. Seigenthaler is already too long and should be cut back. Compare its length with those for journalists Harrison Salisbury, A.M. Rosenthal, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Charles Collingwood, Arthur Krock or Frank McGee. In contrast with Mr. Seigenthaler, the Wikipedia does not even have entries on Tom Wicker, Turner Catledge, Heywood Hale Broun or Claude Sitton. (Yes, I know what I should do about that.)

This community has been too obsequious in its efforts to mollify Mr. Seigenthaler. Despite the community's sustained work, Mr. Seigenthaler has continued to find fault with his entry and to defame this entire community. It's about time that someone forthrightly told Mr. Seigenthaler that if he wants a different entry, he can write the thing himself.

But I also had the thought that maybe I was getting a little too worked up over this thing, and with that I went to bed.

Then this afternoon I turned on the television and largely at random left the thing at CNN. The next thing I knew, I was watching Mr. Seigenthaler and Jim Wales being interviewed by Kyra Phiilips.

During the interview, Ms. Phillips opined that she had read Wikipedia article on her and "that's not how I want people to see me and understand me. And what I'm about and what I write about in my interviews, et cetera. So, you know, it's not just individuals like John, but me and many other people, that just have concerns that this is creating gossip that can be very harmful."

Interestingly with the Wikipedia there is, of course, a remedy for Ms. Phillips' vanity. But my point is this, I spent 15 years in reporting and publishing and I have three press awards. And I can not describe the level of agitation that I felt at hearing someone who claims to be in journalism implying that she ought to be able to approve what people write about her. Words fail me here.

My point in all this is that this thing is bigger than many Wikipedians seem to realize. Mr. Seigenthaler appeared Friday night on MSNBC and today on CNN. I spent 15 years in the news business. I am telling you that this kind of thing does not just happen. Somebody is working an agenda here.

During the CNN interview, Mr. Seigenthaler stated, "... can I just say where I'm worried about this leading. Next year we go into an election year. Every politician is going to find himself or herself subjected to the same sort of outrageous commentary that hit me, and hits others.  I'm afraid we're going to get regulated media as a result of that.  And I, I tell you, I think if you can't fix it, both fix the history as well as the biography pages, I think it's going to be in real trouble, and we're going to have to be fighting to keep the government from regulating you."

Of course Mr. Seigenthaler said all this in exactly that tone of voice someone uses when saying he doesn't want exactly what he does want, which is government regulation of the content of the internet to the benefit of large corporations that can afford to satisfy the demands of those controls. Not to mention that based upon his activities so far, Mr. Seigenthaler is arguably one of the last people on earth to be relied upon for "fighting to keep the government from regulating" the Wikipedia.

And, of course, every politician in the country is already subjected to what he or she frequently regards as "outrageous commentary" from the industry Mr. Seigenthaler represents.

"Well, I'll tell you what gentleman, why don't we continue this conversation after the election," Phillips suggested.

This is not going to go away.

"Ultimately the marketplace will take care of Wikipedia," Mr. Seigenthaler said. (And the marketplace will probably take care of the Wikipedia's little dog, too, if Mr. Seigenthaler has anything to say about it.) "I'm concerned, deeply concerned about the fact that in the five days since I wrote the article in 'USAToday', in those five days, they created a new biography ..."

Concerned? Considering it's an all-volunteer effort, I would think he'd be grateful.

By marketplace, of course, Mr. Seigenthaler means the same few large corporations that already own most of the mainstream maedia in this country.

And when Mr. Seigenthaler says, "I think if you can't fix it, both fix the history as well as the biography pages, I think it's going to be in real trouble," he means that he wants those pages locked up so that there is no chance that anything that doesn't conform to his view of history will ever reach the public.

I should interject here that one deficiency of the current Wikipedia biography of Mr. Seigenthaler is that it fails to mention that he is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. This man is a pillar of the American establishment.

"Do you have fact checkers?" Ms. Phillips asked Mr. Wales. "Have you hired people that you trust that are smart that do their research and constantly check up on everything that goes into your Web site?"

During the interview, CNN posted one of those bottom of the screen headlines subliminally stating that the Wikipedia was the work of 'amateurs'.

I defy anyone to read the Wikipedia entries in subject areas such as mathematics, physics, and philosophy, as well as history and biography, and call them the work of amateurs.

The goal of these attacks is to defame the Wikipedia, but not to destroy it.

Hiring professional fact checkers and editors -- the sort of people that Ms. Phillips rather dubiously describes as "smart" -- would mean converting the Wikipedia into the same sort of bureaucratic market-driven enterprise that all the mainstream news organizations are. Then, of course, one of those large corporations will happily buy it.

And that will end not only the Wikipedia as it exists today but all the other wikis out there that have been inspired by it.

Without meaning to, and without even any thought that it might do so, the Wikipedia community now finds itself in a fight for its future. The future of the entire internet is in play here. The point at issue is not just whether or not the public is allowed to participate in public discourse without the approval of the likes of Mr. Seigenthaler and Ms. Phillips.

This fight is about whether or not large corporations will own speech. Words and their meanings form the numinous portal to the world of the human spirit. The media corporations are designing to own the human spirit.

Fight them.

-- Marcopolo 01:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)