Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Republicans Stats Wikipedia Politics

Wikipedia Edits Forecast Romney's Vice Presidential Pick 300

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the ron-paul-2012 dept.
Hugh Pickens writes writes "In 2008, as The Washington Post wrote at the time, 'just hours before [Sen. John] McCain declared his veep choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, her Wiki page saw a flurry of activity, with editors adding details about Palin's approval rating and husband's employment. ... Palin's entry was updated at least 68 times, with at least an additional 54 changes made to her entry over the preceding five days.' The obvious — in hindsight — implications of the Wiki activity: Aides were going into the entries to tune them up and clean out any material that was either embarrassing or erroneous. Now Mark Memmott writes on NPR that today's Wikipedia activity may lend a clue to Mitt Romney's vice presidential pick, expected to be announced within a few days. So what's going on now with some of those said to be among the leading possibilities to be joining Mitt Romney on the Republican ticket? On August 7, Rob Portman's Wikipedia page was revised 100 times, the Wikipedia page for Marco Rubio was revised 22 times, and the page for Tim Pawlenty was revised only 5 times. Of course, Memmott adds, somebody who knows about the 2008 Wiki tea leaves may just be messing with our minds."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Wikipedia Edits Forecast Romney's Vice Presidential Pick

Comments Filter:
  • Colbert! (Score:5, Funny)

    by scorp1us (235526) on Wednesday August 08, 2012 @09:33AM (#40917927) Journal

    He's activated the Colbert Nation to edit Wikipedia yet again on his show last night.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08, 2012 @09:37AM (#40917975)

    ...did the GOP start believing in Wikipedia?

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      Well... every smartass has to point out there is some bad information in Wikipedia. The GOP should be right at home there.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by uigrad_2000 (398500)

      Tea Party --> Freedom from government and lawyers
      SOPA --> More power to government and lawyers
      Wikipedia opposes SOPA, tea party supports Wikipedia??

      • by h4rr4r (612664) on Wednesday August 08, 2012 @10:12AM (#40918329)

        Tea Party supports Freedom from government and lawyers how? They are a another tool to get the useful idiots to vote in policies that hurt themselves. Ask those folks about their stance on gay marriage and watch how fast they support government intrusion into people private lives.

    • by vlm (69642)

      ...did the GOP start believing in Wikipedia?

      Is it a revealed work or intelligently designed? I think we can rule out being intelligently designed. That leaves us with a revealed work. Also the deletionists have made a nice apocrypha of wiki pages. So. GOP was taken over by religious nuts awhile back and they like a revealed work, surprise surprise.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Ever since they realized they could "Change history" by editing the facts to match Sarah Palin's version of Paul Revere's ride.

    • by bmo (77928)

      They don't.

      They believe in Conservapedia.

      http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page [conservapedia.com]

      Go. Read.

      --
      BMO

    • by cpu6502 (1960974) on Wednesday August 08, 2012 @11:15AM (#40919105)

      >>>...did the GOP start believing in Wikipedia?

      About the same time the DNC became a pro-war party.

  • by Cute Fuzzy Bunny (2234232) on Wednesday August 08, 2012 @09:38AM (#40917987)

    Its entirely possible that whichever candidate will get the nod had his wikipedia fixed up a couple of months ago, to avoid notice of this. The other candidates fixing theirs up might just be window dressing in case there is a problem with the first candidate and they need a replacement.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08, 2012 @09:47AM (#40918107)

      Your theory requires careful planning AND execution of a plan by a politician. Somehow, I find myself looking for other more credible explanations.

  • Hmmm... (Score:5, Funny)

    by MightyMartian (840721) on Wednesday August 08, 2012 @09:39AM (#40917999) Journal

    Curiously, the entry for Beelzebub was edited 250 times, Quetzalcoatl 100 times and Ronald Reagan's Zombie an astonishing 345 times.

    • Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08, 2012 @09:47AM (#40918109)

      I would totally vote for any candidate who ran with Beelzebub as their running mate. He is after all the devil we know.

  • by wisnoskij (1206448) on Wednesday August 08, 2012 @09:41AM (#40918019) Homepage

    Wikipedia locked articles for controversial subjects. And what is more controversial than a politician come election period.

    • by dkleinsc (563838)

      Lots of things are more controversial than a particular politician (e.g. pretty much anything about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict). With politicians' pages, the New York Times actually ran an article on a Hillary Clinton supporter that was "protecting" her page from criticism by reverting any negative edits he could find.

  • by MickyTheIdiot (1032226) on Wednesday August 08, 2012 @09:42AM (#40918037) Homepage Journal

    Quick! Someone go make 200 edits to David Duke's Wikipedia entry!

  • by tepples (727027) <tepples@[ ]il.com ['gma' in gap]> on Wednesday August 08, 2012 @09:45AM (#40918083) Homepage Journal
    Rob is probably one Portman that you don't want to see naked and petrified [google.com].
  • It's not impossible, but if you look at the editors who've made most of the edits, they're fairly active, longstanding Wikipedians who edit lots of things. A more likely explanation is that the causality is the other way around: they've heard the speculation about Rob Portman and Marco Rubio from the news, just like the rest of us have, and went over to see what shape the Wikipedia article is in. Some out of personal interest, some out of political interest, but probably not with inside information.

  • by milbournosphere (1273186) on Wednesday August 08, 2012 @09:52AM (#40918161)
    Tannenbaum maintains an election model that currently predicts an Obama win (334 to 206 electoral votes) http://www.electoral-vote.com/ [electoral-vote.com]
    • The numbers are even worse for the Republicans (347-191) accoring to Tannenbaum's "Rasmussen fee" page. Here he filters out Fox's polling company which has questionable polling practices. This polling group has consistently polled in favor of Republicans. From electoral-vote.com: "Silver analyzed 105 polls released by Rasmussen Reports and its subsidiary, Pulse Opinion Research, for Senate and gubernatorial races in numerous states across the country. The bottom line is that on average, Rasmussen's polls we

      • by Teancum (67324)

        A whole lot can happen between now and November, where the real fight hasn't started yet in terms of Obama vs. Romney yet. I certainly wouldn't count out Romney from winning, but I will admit that at the moment the contest is up to Obama to lose by doing something really stupid.

        I really like these charts [electoral-vote.com], particularly the ones covering previous elections. What seemed to galvanize voters in 2004 was the decided lack of leadership on the part of John McCain, or at least a feeling that Obama could do a bette

        • by Richy_T (111409)

          2004? If only he wasn't eligible for office again. Though that would mean we would have been through 8 years of him so maybe not.

      • barring a revelation that Obama was involved in Michael Vick's dogfighting ring, this is going to be an easy win for Obama.

        Breaking news: Brock Obama [knowyourmeme.com] was heard singing the theme song [youtube.com] of the TV show based on a popular dogfighting simulator [memebase.com] video game [thegamerslab.com].

  • by OakDragon (885217) on Wednesday August 08, 2012 @10:18AM (#40918411) Journal
    I'm wondering who Obama's running mate will be.
  • Really competent, intelligent, honest people cannot run for political office. This is especially true of the presidency. For many, many years, the choice has only been who is least destructive. That keeps getting harder as the quality continually drops and the corruption rises. We are manipulated into thinking we have a choice but we don't. Anyone have any suggestions for a decent country to move to?
  • The VP's two jobs don't happen very often but when they occur it's pretty important. I wish there was more of a primary selection process for VP rather than the candidate's behind the scenes political machinations as recommended by their overpaid consultants. If the president is incapacitated then we get the VP, like it or not, who did not have to go through the primary process and be selected by the party members as the president was.

  • by NicknamesAreStupid (1040118) on Wednesday August 08, 2012 @10:57AM (#40918873)
    He should select Ron Paul. It would consolidate the Republican base. On the other hand, if Ron Paul runs as an independent in just a few swing states (e.g., Texas), Ron will give the election to Obama. As VP, Ron could be effectively managed, as Kennedy did with Johnson and Reagan did with Bush. Remember what Mr. Gates used to say, "keep your friends close and your enemies closer."

    However, I am talking about Mitt, a man with few political instincts. Therefore, he will pick Portman as an electoral hedge, because Rob is from the critical swing state of Ohio.
    • by h4rr4r (612664)

      How would that help?

      Those voters will already vote for the Republican candidate. Ron Paul could not carry Texas or any other such state. I am not sure why would even think he could, other than the fevered dreams of false libertarians.

      • by Richy_T (111409)

        Many Libertarians are committed to voting third party rather than Romney. Supposedly if Paul joined with Romney, that could pull some of those votes in and help prevent a spoiler. It's all academic though.

    • Ummmm . . . hate to break it to you, but Texas is about as far from a swing state as possible. It is as predictably (as in, double-digit lead) red as New York, Maryland, and California are blue. Texans haven't voted for a Democrat for President since 1976. See http://www.270towin.com/states/Texas [270towin.com]

To avoid criticism, do nothing, say nothing, be nothing. -- Elbert Hubbard

Working...