From Jim Gilliam's blog archives
Dirt buried in the Wikipedia
April 20, 2005 7:58 AM
One of the funniest things at the internet evangelism conference was when the blogging panel edited the Liberty University wikipedia page.
The University is also known for its draconian dress codes became: The University is also known for its interesting dress codes, and excellent Internet evangelism conferences.
I just went to see if those edits were still there
Theyre gone, but those edits set off a series of others edits including this juicy one.
Other projects include over 800,000 square feet (74,000 m²) of space for a student center, the movement of Thomas Road Church and Lynchburg Christian Academy to a property adjacent to the Main Campus (which mean is that all of the high school girls will be around the college aged men... all i have to say about this is LAWSUITS waiting to happen) Get it together jerry. No highschool students should be anywhere near college aged people.( LU students arnt as "christian" as some might think), LU Student facilities expanded, and the above mentioned Law School and Library.
There is also NO plan to prevent freshemn from bringing their cars on campus, thus makin less room for the upper classmen, faculty and staff. Some might wonder what the third and fourth floors of the DEMOSS building are really for..(i would like to know that also) and Yet LU still decides to take mass amouts of money from its already poor students. Lets not forget about the $7.00 free book that we all got last year..(im going to keep checking my student account to make sure that financial aid didnt charge me for the most recent "free" gift that we recieved)
Which was reverted 19 minutes later by a super user at the Wikipedia. Only to be changed again by a not-too-bright student unfamiliar with the ways of wiki:
wow... you guys work fast at replacing things about liberty and J-Fizzle. I mean I love our school and all but honestly ..how much do you get paid for changing this wikipedia site back over and over and over again... I am truly amazed.
Lets get on to our great LU...Founded in 1971.. Liberty University was set upon a hill.. to be Lynchburg, VA's very own.. CITY ON A HILL.
Jerry Falwell walked every foot of the mountain claiming it for God...well he rode a bike...maybe.. I dont think he really walked EVERY foot of this campus... back to the story.
the school soon became the leading Christian university which I think is totally awesome concidering...
I love LU and as soon as the people here start to learn how to spend the money that the students give them ( and not putting it into a football training house, giving a team of self-centered, boys who can't seem to keep their own stuff straight) we might get somewhere..
I wonder what else is hidden in the wikipedia history. I could write a bot that looked for changes that were quickly reverted, and then dumped all the spam. Whats left might actually be interesting.
Dirt buried in the Wikipedia
Next Entry: Rupert Murdoch... blogging? (05.07.2005)
Previous Entry: "postmodern" (04.16.2005)
Read the 6 comments.
I just accidentally deleted Mike Ackerman's comment while I was purging a bunch of spam. My apologies.
Wed Apr 20 2005 1:54 PM
Nothing important in my last post... just expressing my frustation with Wikipedia
I did notice you deleted your last blog entry about a conference by a pastor of a mega-church and his "P.E.A.C.E." plan. What I found curious was that the "P" stood for "Provide support servant-leaders." "Servant leader" is straight Wal-Mart rhetoric.
Wed Apr 20 2005 2:23 PM
Thanks for opening the world of Wikipedia history to me, Jim. I had never bothered to look behind the scenes. Fascinating stuff.
I found an interesting take on 'balance' in the Wikipedia discussion section related to George W. Bush:
- - - - - - - - - -
Here's my take: It should do none of the above listed. Instead, we should hold it to a higher standard: We should represent the facts in representative proportion. That each, each fact will be weighted by it's informativeness (that is, unexpectedness), relevancy (that is, hamming distance), and importance (that is, its impact on the empirical world). Each fact will be given space in the article commensurate with that weighted value, so as to maximize the total value of the article.
This may result in an article very critical of a person, or very flattering to that person, but this is no objection. Balance does not mean creating a completely ambiguous article. A balanced and neutral article may support a certain pov much more than it does another. For instance, an article might support the POV that science if founded on empiricism much more than the POV that science is founded on catholicism, and thereby "creation science", which is totally invalid from an empirical philosophy, as not science. Also would a fundamental principal of science, "falsifiability", overwhelmingly support the "POV" that "creation science" is not science. Yet one could argue, from the logical fallacy that a balanced presentation of the facts results in a POV ambiguous article, that the science article should be rewritten such that the "POV" that "creation science" is science is supported in the science article as much as the "POV" that it is not science.
I hope my point is made clear by this example. One should not assume the conclusion (such as two given povs being equally supported by the facts), and select facts so as to support that conclusion. One should weigh each fact on the same scale, regardless of what pov's it supports or sheds doubt on, and let the facts, submitted to a candid world, speak for themselves. Kevin Baastalk 00:08, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
Wed Apr 20 2005 3:42 PM
I was working on a post about the PEACE plan, but I got interrupted with other stuff. I thought I had saved it as a draft, but then that night I saw it was posted doh! I will finish that post up later. it's interesting, really!
Wed Apr 20 2005 6:20 PM
Seroiusly dude, that bot idea would rock ass. I'm a big wikipedia fan and always wondered about the creative process that goes into articles about countries/institutions with polarized opinions.
Tue May 3 2005 12:36 PM
There is a great, if not overly bitchy, article on slate comparing wikipedia to the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:
This little incident makes the comparison even more apt I think.
Wed May 4 2005 1:36 PM