Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Wikipedia Politics

Let the Campaign Edit Wars Begin 571

Hugh Pickens writes writes "Megan Garber writes that in high school, Paul Ryan's classmates voted him as his class's 'biggest brown noser,' a juicy tidbit that is a source of delight for his political opponents but considered an irrelevant piece of youthful trivia to his supporters. 'But it's also a tension that will play out, repeatedly, in the most comprehensive narrative we have about Paul Ryan as a person and a politician and a policy-maker: his Wikipedia page,' writes Garber. Late Friday night, just as news of the Ryan choice leaked in the political press — the first substantial edit to that page removed the 'brown noser' mention which had been on the page since June 16. The Wikipedia deletion has given rise to a whole discussion of whether the mention is a partisan attack, whether 'brown noser' is a pejorative, and whether an old high school opinion survey is notable or relevant. As of this writing, 'brown noser' stands as does a maybe-mitigating piece of Ryan-as-high-schooler trivia: that he was also voted prom king. But that equilibrium could change, again, in an instant. 'Today is the glory day for the Paul Ryan Wikipedia page,' writes Garber. 'Yesterday, it saw just 10 [edits]. Today, however — early on a Saturday morning, East Coast time — it's already received hundreds of revisions. And the official news of the Ryan selection, of course, is just over an hour old.' Now Ryan's page is ready to host debates about biographical details and their epistemological relevance. 'Like so many before it, will be a place of debate and dissent and derision. But it will also be a place where people can come together to discuss information and policy and the intersection between the two — a town square for the digital age.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Let the Campaign Edit Wars Begin

Comments Filter:
  • by dtmancom ( 925636 ) <gordon2&dtman,com> on Monday August 13, 2012 @09:43AM (#40972345) Homepage
    Obama's place of birth is an actual Constitutional issue. Ryan's cliques in high school are not.
  • Screw Wickipedia (Score:2, Insightful)

    by p51d007 ( 656414 ) on Monday August 13, 2012 @09:47AM (#40972379)
    If anyone seriously takes the information on Wickipedia as "fact", if they are a (so called) journalist, they need to be flogged. Most of the things you find on the wicki site are at the mercy of whomever put it there, not backed up with FACTS. But, since we are talking about a conservative, it's fair game to trash. Now, since Obama is "the one", his wicki site is probably watched like a hawk, or locked down. I think all politicians wicki sites should be removed or locked down because trolls love to cause problems, and the general apathy of the American public. Most Americans, sadly, get more worked up over who is sleeping with whom, or the latest American Idol standings, than what the IDIOTS in DC are doing to us.
  • I'm actually more interested in what Obama did in College, than high school, but that's still mostly irrelevant.

    abolish Medicare and Social Security

    It's Obamacare that specified 700B of cuts to Medicare in the baseline budget. Ryan's budgets keep Social Security the same for anyone currently over 55 and rather then let Social Security go bankrupt in the near future, modify it so that it's are able to last for much longer.
    Of course, having passed more of his budgets through Congress than Obama has (who can't even get Congressional Democrats to vote for his ideas in bill form), Ryan has had to be the adult in the room and actually consider the effects of things on the deficit and future entitlements.

    This VP pick shows that Romney is more interested in governing well and taking on serious issues than he is interested in short-term political gain from a couple of poll points in a swing state or two. Ryan was by far the best serious candidate for the VP job.

  • by paiute ( 550198 ) on Monday August 13, 2012 @09:54AM (#40972453)

    The fact is - it is an ABSURDITY created BY the Obama camp, to make appear as ridiculous those looking into the REAL dodginess in his his background.

    Newt Gingrich - member of the Obama camp? The levels of double dealing and obfuscation continue to fold back upon themselves like a pastry chef preparing baklava.

  • by h4rr4r ( 612664 ) on Monday August 13, 2012 @09:56AM (#40972489)

    Why would it be? That would have been checked before he registered to be a candidate.

    I still don't understand it anyway, since the constitution says natural born and I would assume that covers anyone that was became a citizen by birth. I for instance was born outside the US, but because one my my parents was a US soldier I was a citizen by birth.

    Wiki quotes the Congressional Research Service to say;

    "The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term âoenatural bornâ citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship âoeby birthâ or âoeat birth,â either by being born âoeinâ the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship âoeat birth.â Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an âoealienâ required to go through the legal process of âoenaturalizationâ to become a U.S. citizen.[1]"

    Which seems to agree with my analysis.

  • by smooth wombat ( 796938 ) on Monday August 13, 2012 @09:57AM (#40972493) Journal

    This is a situation where the page should have locked to prevent the edit wars. Granted, no one knew who the VP pick was going to be, but as soon as humanly possible, the page should have been locked down and only selected individuals allowed to edit it for completeness, not remove things which, while not necessarily relevant, give a broader picture of who the person is.

  • Wars? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by rossdee ( 243626 ) on Monday August 13, 2012 @09:59AM (#40972509)

    Romney and Ryan want to increase Defense spending. Why? Do they want us to get us involved in more wars?

    At least Obama has got us out of one unnecessary war started by the previous Republican administration, and is slowly scaling back the other one.

    Tell the Republicans that if they want to lower the deficit they should cut back on the defense budget and stop getting us into wars.\

    And the rich people don't need more tax cuts.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 13, 2012 @10:03AM (#40972533)

    Obama's place of birth is an actual Constitutional issue. Ryan's cliques in high school are not.

    It is a Constitutional issue only because he is black. Nobody gave a shit that McCain was born on a military base in Panama or that Romney's father was born in Mexico when he tried to run for President. But Obama had to have been ineligible. It is a double-standard and it is racism. And it is also factually incorrect. So fuck you for bringing it up again.

  • by Bill, Shooter of Bul ( 629286 ) on Monday August 13, 2012 @10:09AM (#40972599) Journal
    That is another good point. You can't tell us how serious the deficit is, and then include tax cuts. That makes me awefully sucspicious of the motivation.
  • by rickb928 ( 945187 ) on Monday August 13, 2012 @10:17AM (#40972669) Homepage Journal

    Since this is the era of the politics of personal destruction, anything is fair game.

    Of course, it's dysfunctional, but we aren't going to change this soon. Our political process is too polarized now.

    And of course, issues really don't matter to the side that sees them as a liability.

  • by Sparticus789 ( 2625955 ) on Monday August 13, 2012 @10:21AM (#40972717) Journal

    Not like Obama's friend ever attacked and killed people. Like attacking the Pentagon. Oh wait....

  • by crazyjj ( 2598719 ) * on Monday August 13, 2012 @10:22AM (#40972731)

    Yes, except Medicare is open to all seniors over 65. His "replacement" is open to everyone too--everyone who can pay the difference between their voucher and what their insurance actually costs, that is:

    If the chosen plan costs more than the premium-support [i.e., their voucher], the senior would pay the difference.

    Oh, got a pre-existing medical condition that makes your insurance cost more than your voucher? Tough luck, grandma.

  • by RoccamOccam ( 953524 ) on Monday August 13, 2012 @10:22AM (#40972733)
    I don't understand this demagoguery by the Left. Are you saying that using the current tax rates (or higher) is the only way to get to a balanced budget? This seems to ignore two things: government revenues are not a linear function of tax rates (sometimes they are inversely related!) and lower spending can offset lower revenue.
  • by Trepidity ( 597 ) <[gro.hsikcah] [ta] [todhsals-muiriled]> on Monday August 13, 2012 @10:32AM (#40972831)

    In theory government revenues don't need to be a linear function of tax rates, but in normal ranges they typically are. If you raised the top rate from 33% to 99%, you wouldn't see a tripling of revenue, but if you raised it from 33% to 34%, likely you would get more revenue; and if you lowered it to 32%, likely you would get less revenue. The Laffer Curve is not empirically supported, if that's what you're thinking of.

    And, in general, I don't think lowering revenue when you already have a deficit problem is a good way to go. If we're running surpluses, then sure, cut taxes; but we aren't.

  • by Bill, Shooter of Bul ( 629286 ) on Monday August 13, 2012 @10:37AM (#40972889) Journal
    What? I don't understand what you're trying to say. Using terms like "liberal" or "conservative" makes me think that you are trying to score political points instead of dealing with a serious issue. We spend more money than we take in. So it makes sense to increase the amount of money we take in, and reduce the amount of money we spend. Is that not, just plain logic?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 13, 2012 @10:37AM (#40972893)

    As an Independent voter, I like the fact that he actually has concrete ideas that we can discuss and debate, however it all seems to be moot when you consider that he and the fellow house republicans were unwilling to even begin to compromise to achieve an actual solution. Promoting him, is like promoting gnu hurd. Yeah, its different and maybe theoretically better, but no, its not really ever going to effect anything. Great artists ship.

    How can anyone "compromise" when the ruling Dems won't even pass a budget?

    And why is "compromise" always result in higher taxes and bigger government? That's NOT a "compromise".

  • by omnichad ( 1198475 ) on Monday August 13, 2012 @10:39AM (#40972913) Homepage

    Such is the fate of politics. Screw informed debate. Let's just get some passionate fanatic people to follow us wherever. It's much easier that way. I wish republican/democrat debate within house/senate bill votes and the presidency were based on actual thinking and not just pushing an ideology that one has become a fanatic of.

    It's not popular to try. You really have to blame the voters for this. The political candidates almost HAVE to act this way to even have a chance of getting elected.

  • by Attila Dimedici ( 1036002 ) on Monday August 13, 2012 @10:54AM (#40973083)
    Obama could have put the birther issue to rest once and for all if he had released his birth certificate back when it first arose in 2008. There are only a limited number of logical explanations for his failure to do so. The least conspiracy sounding is that he did not do so in order to cause the "birther" issue to take hold and make everyone who questioned any of Obama's history look like a crackpot.
    Considering that Obama's literary agent was in 2008 still promoting Obama's autobiography by saying that he was born in Kenya, it was not unreasonable for people at the time to wonder if he was actually born in the U.S..
  • by Dr. Evil ( 3501 ) on Monday August 13, 2012 @10:55AM (#40973089)

    "be the adult in the room ..."

    " more interested in governing well and taking on serious issues than..."

    Why do condescending posts with weasel words like these get attention in U.S. politics?

    As an outside observer, Romney demonstrated that he's a dangerously ignorant and unqualified in how he pre-campaigned in England and Israel. He doesn't even have any power and he already embarrassed the country twice. He's not even qualified to be an aide to an ambassador.

    Good leadership would be for him to hang his head in shame, forget national leadership and stick to positions of domestic politics.

  • by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Monday August 13, 2012 @11:07AM (#40973261)
    Talk about selective memory. Besides releasing an official copy which Birthers claimed was faked AND the state of Hawaii under the Republican governor, Linda Lingle, repeatedly stating that, yes, he was born in Hawaii, what proof do you need? But please don't let these inconvenient facts get in the way.
  • You forgot:

    11. Don't vote, thereby assuring the guy you like least wins

    If a frw more assholes had gotten off their asses in 2000 and voted, we would not have invaded iraq and we would not have a horrible deficit. al gore is not g w bush. and if you think they are the same person, or that their parties are the same, you really are a giant fucking moron

  • by Dodgy G33za ( 1669772 ) on Monday August 13, 2012 @11:21AM (#40973427)

    So let me get this straight. The richest country in the world can't afford free health care for all of its citizens?

    But many other countries, such as the UK, Australia, Sweden, Germany, Cuba, can.

    I dunno how the intricacies of your society work but from where I am standing (in Australia) I would say something over there is seriously fucked.

    Maybe you just like to keep the poor people in your society poor. That's fine. Maybe you should have let the south win the civil war though, just to make it a bit easier.

  • by Attila Dimedici ( 1036002 ) on Monday August 13, 2012 @11:21AM (#40973433)

    And it's Ryan who proposed abolishing it altogether.

    Exactly when did he do that? The only proposals by Paul Ryan on Medicare I have seen were one's that called for reforming it so that it does not go bankrupt. As to his proposals for Social Security, how is proposing to modify it so that those younger than 55 have a chance of actually collecting money from it while not making any changes to it for those over 55 saying "Screw You if You're Over 55!"? I suppose you like the Obama slogan better, "If you're under 40, plan on working till you die (if you can find a job)"

  • by DrXym ( 126579 ) on Monday August 13, 2012 @11:22AM (#40973445)
    Sorry but no. No amount of evidence would convince them that he was born in Hawaii. Not in 2008 and not now. Obama had already released information about his birth and there was plenty of circumstantial evidence that he was born in Hawaii such as an announcement in the births column of a local newspaper. Was that enough? No the birthers proclaimed, it was all forgeries! So they shifted the goalposts and demanded the long form cert. When that was delivered eventually (probably by an exasperated Obama) that too was decried as a forgery.

    The problem here is that birthers are conspiracy kooks. No amount of evidence will change their minds. Evidence is not something to be taken at face value. Instead it must be demanded, and if by chance it is supplied it must be marginalised and denied and new evidence demanded. It's a tactic common with other denialist causes - 9/11 truthers, anti-vaxxers, creationists etc.

  • by drnb ( 2434720 ) on Monday August 13, 2012 @11:32AM (#40973613)

    As for the usefulness of Ryan's brown-noser status: Well it's not particularly important except that Americans like to know the personality of their prospective leaders.

    All politicians are brown nosers, even Obama. Witness the years of sitting through Rev Wright's sermons even though he severely disagreed, sitting there merely because Wright was the local "king maker" and getting elected to the Illinois legislature without the Rev's support would be impossible.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 13, 2012 @11:43AM (#40973797)

    How do you get your brain so broken that you only see bogeymen? Do you hit yourself with a hammer every day? Grow up, would you? All you geeks need to grow the everloving fuck up and shed this ideological mind cancer.

  • by shutdown -p now ( 807394 ) on Monday August 13, 2012 @05:14PM (#40977653) Journal

    How can Paul Ryan be a Neocon when he's Catholic, just like the most famous Democratic president JFK? Never mind the Vatican, American Catholics tend to be middle of the road in most things, including evolution and birth control except when it comes to abortion.

    Rick Santorum is Catholic, and he's decidedly not middle of the road in many things, not just abortion.

    "Catholic" is really too broad a brush to be meaningful. There are people who self identify as Catholic but don't really practice their faith much, there are hardcore traditionalists, and there's everyone in between.

  • by Hatta ( 162192 ) on Monday August 13, 2012 @05:46PM (#40977969) Journal

    if you don't vote, you reward the corrupt plutocracy.

    If you do vote, you also reward the corrupt plutocracy.

    If you abstain: You allow evil to prevail by default
    If you vote R: You're voting for corrupt plutocracy
    If you vote D: You're voting for corrupt plutocracy
    If you vote third party: You get laughed at.

    What does one actually do that hurts the plutocracy?

    a country of free people requires a country of people willing to fight for themselves. for not fighting for your beliefs, you represent the end of a free society.

    What part of voting == fighting for your beliefs?

    I don't vote, but if you're serious about fighting for what's right, I'll meet you in the city square with everyone else. When do we start?

"Engineering without management is art." -- Jeff Johnson

Working...