Washington – Capitol Hill is in the grip of the great Wikipedia scandal. Various congressional aides, with mischief in their hearts and too much time on their hands, have been tampering with the popular online encyclopedia.
Some changes are clearly self-serving. Aides to Rep. Martin Meehan, D-Mass., acknowledged they erased a Wikipedia entry that reminded readers how the seven-term congressman once vowed to serve no more than four terms.
Other alterations are more mysterious.
The Wikipedia entry for Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Fort Morgan, originally noted that: “As a state legislator, Musgrave spent much of her time on social issues, particularly authoring bills to deny marriage rights and parental rights for gay and lesbian families. One of her final, failed bills would have made it more difficult for same-sex parents to see their children in the hospital during an emergency. Musgrave also cast the only vote against legislation to give battered spouses paid leave from work.”
After an anonymous contributor altered the text, the congresswoman’s entry presented a more moderate image: “As a state legislator, Musgrave spent much of her time on social issues, particularly authoring bills to protect children and the traditional definition of marriage, as well as gun owner’s (sic) rights.”
Sometimes the changes were meant to be injurious. One vandal wrote that Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., was “voted the most annoying senator by his peers in Congress. This was due to Senator Coburn being a huge douche-bag.”
More than 1,000 changes have been traced to House and Senate IP (Internet Protocol) addresses, according to the resourceful Evan Lehmann, who broke the news in the Lowell (Mass.) Sun. On several occasions, Lehmann discovered, Wikipedia editors have had to block the congressional IP addresses.
We in the journalism racket, smarting from the loss of ad revenue to the Internet, try to contain our glee when Wikipedia and other news and information sites screw up. Our franchise is truth, while the Internet’s raw, democratic nature makes it particularly vulnerable to rumor, lies and hoaxes.
For the record, Oliver North did not warn the Iran-Contra committee back in 1987 about Osama bin Laden.
Nor was Winston Churchill saved from pneumonia by the discoverer of penicillin who, as a boy, had been rescued from drowning by Churchill’s father.
And, alas, Britney Spears did not complain about marriage and motherhood: “It’s this reality. Like, omigod, I have to tell the maid to buy diapers and get the pool boy to walk the dog.”
OK, so a handful of newspapers fell for the Spears quote. Everyone makes mistakes.
Readers of this space know that, from time to time, I lose a lifelong struggle with numbers. I once wrote a column assessing economic growth under Republican and Democratic administrations, using figures uncorrected for inflation. As many indignantly and properly noted, the Carter years were a golden era only if you enjoyed double-digit inflation, gas lines and factory layoffs.
Just a few weeks back, in a column on the Supreme Court, I subtracted 1883 from 1896 and came up with three for my answer.
I resolve to submit all future arithmetical calculations to Molly Anspach, my 8-year-old niece, for vetting. (For the record, Plessy vs. Ferguson was decided in 1896, not 1886.)
It may not always seem so, but we care about accuracy, a lot, in the craft. If you are lucky as a young reporter, you spend time as an apprentice with a gruff city editor who drills standards and practices into your skull.
Jayson Blair, I suspect, never had that kind of tutor. Mine was Lou Linley, who also taught me a bit about bourbon, rewrite, the fairer sex and the poems of Robert Service. I’d have sooner gnawed my hand off than turn in a lie to Lou to edit.
You don’t need genius to deduce that, for all its great traditions, a craft that relies on tree pulp and petroleum ink, dependent for delivery on cars, trucks and bicycles, will give way to the Internet and computerization. The challenge for those of us who work on newspapers is to handle the transition – and still make money – while continuing to tell you the truth.
A few years ago, the late Jim Batten, then president of the Knight-Ridder chain, was asked why he was a newspaperman.
“In today’s world, in the United States, the communities we serve and the country we serve face very daunting problems that must be solved if we are to continue to realize the promise of America for our children and grandchildren,” Batten said. “I deeply believe that newspapers, well-edited, well-published, are wonderfully situated to be instruments of helping America find its way, solve its problems, seize its opportunities,” he said. “And that’s an ennobling way to spend one’s life.”
We really believe this stuff.
In a democracy, where the people govern, we need a place to go where we can find the facts.
John Aloysius Farrell’s column appears each Sunday in Perspective. Comment at the Washington and the West blog () or contact him at jfarrell@denverpost.com.
