Idealizing the Star Spangled Banner, Curious Announcement, and more
American bias?
Kevin Myers wrote an Irish Independent opinion column on 25 February that tangentially accused Wikipedia's contributors of idealizing America's fortunes at the time the Star Spangled Banner was penned. Myers contends that the US essentially lost the War of 1812 to Canada, but "Wikipedia's US monitors" instantly correct "every attempt by Canadians to put it into the historical record." He provides no supporting evidence, but was likely referring to controversy at the War of 1812 article and an ensuing Mediation Cabal case, closed in Nov 2009. Your reporter finds no evidence that opinion strictly reflected the nationality of editors (nor of historians for that matter).
Curious Announcement
BBC Radio 4's comedy series The Museum of Curiosity announced its new co-host (or "curator") via Wikipedia on 26 February. Dan Schreiber, the co-creator and co-producer of the show, tweeted that the name could be found on the newcomer's Wikipedia page, and offered a prize to the discoverer. This edit was subsequently found to name Jon Richardson.
Briefly
- New York Times Upfront, a publication of Scholastic Corporation, on 8 February featured an article "Free Speech vs. Privacy" by John Schwartz about the conflict between different countries' free speech and privacy laws as they relate to content in Wikipedia articles. (see Signpost coverage of an earlier NYT article by Schwartz on the same legal case)
- The Wall Street Journal Classroom edition for students published a January cover article, "What's Wrong with Wikipedia?", documenting Wikipedia's sustainability challenges. It cited Felipe Ortega's 2009 research. (see extensive coverage on 23 November, 7 December, and 30 November of 2009)
Discuss this story
When I first saw the name I thought User:Kevin Myers. Presumably not the same YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is the matter with this Mr. Myers? Why pick on Wikipedia, instead of historians? —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 00:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Erm...The United States lost to Canada? At the time of the War of 1812 Canada was still a part of the British Empire. The U.S. failed in its objectives relating to Canada, but it lost the war with Britain, not Canada. – Joe N 21:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mr Myers does have a point, there is a connection between what Wikipidia says in this regard, and the nationality of the editors. If you read the lengthy Mediation cabal, the most fanatical editors supporting the US win are often more likely US. In the Cabal, I was the main person pushing for a Canadian/British win to be recognised, and I'm not from the US (I'm Australian). There are some Americans that see it as a loss for the US as there are some US historians who see the war as a loss, however Mr Myers definitely has a point. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will also note that with the War of 1812 article, the opinion that the War of 1812 was won by the British was continously blocked from being included in the article, by mainly US editors. This was against Wikipedia policy WP:Undue Weight - which says that all significant opinions should be fairly represented in an article ( in this instance including the view that the British won the war). Eventually the mediation cabal corrected this. If you look at the article discussion page, there is still a warning by "the editors" that the conclusion that the war was a draw (and the British didn't win) is the prevailing viewpoint of the article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]