There is speculation that a McCain speechwriter lifted some phrases about Georgia from a Wikipedia article (link via Wikipedia Blog).

According to Taegan Goddard of Political Insider, here are the three instances that people are focusing on:

First instance:

one of the first countries in the world to adopt Christianity as an official religion (Wikipedia)

vs.

one of the world's first nations to adopt Christianity as an official religion (McCain)

Second instance:

Last week, I wondered whether adding information about the John Edwards "love child" controversy to Edwards' Wikipedia article was way to sneak a smear in through the backdoor. Well, Edwards has admitted to the affair (though, he denies the "love child" part).

So, it seems The Enquirer was on to something, regardless of whether it is a "legitimate" news source. And here we are - less than two weeks removed from an edit war - with a John Edwards Wikipedia article that isn't even locked. Here's the section on Edwards' affair:

Wikipedians are grappling with the story of John Edwards and his "love child." The usual arguments of "liberal bias" are floating around, but it seems reasonable to question a story that is only being reported by two media outlets: The National Enquirer and Fox News.

The issue at hand seems to be "verifiability." What constitutes a "verifiable" fact? This is Wikipedia's threshold for what can be included in an article. If it can be cited, it can (in most cases) be included in the article. But what about a story that is just simmering below the surface? A story that is only being reported by two sources, one of which is a tabloid and another which seems to have a very distinct political agenda?

Currently, the John Edwards article references the scandal this way:

We have yet another example of how Wikipedia has shaped (and narrowed?) our understanding of what a wiki does. The latest in the "pedia" craze is McCainPedia.

McCainpedia.org is a wiki run by the DNC's Research, Communications, and Internet teams. The goal is to centralize research material, allowing the general public to use it as they see fit. Unlike some wikis, McCainpedia is read-only and can't be edited by the public. This allows us to fully validate all of the information that appears, ensuring accuracy and reliability.

It's not that McCainPedia is bad, it's that it contributes to an ever-growing list of "pedias" that envision a wiki as a knowledge repository or an information dump. Are there other ways to use wikis? Ways beyond the encyclopedia model? It seems like we're not even trying to imagine what wikis can do.

McCainPedia is not an "anyone can edit" wiki; it's written by the "DNC's Research, Communications, and Internet teams." Its information seems to be well-sourced (statements footnoted with links to the Congressional Record).

One more shameless plug for the week. Here's a video that Austin musician Kat Edmonson put together. They stopped by our house during an Obama volunteer meeting and asked us to be in the video. I think the song is great, and the video is well done too:

Check out this video from the Austin-American Statesman about Obama's grassroots efforts in Austin. You might see a familiar face...

The New York Times is covering Wikimania 2007, an international conference for Wikipedians. The Times points out that the conference is being held in Taiwan, just across the way from mainland China where Wikipedia is blocked. Times writer Noam Cohen uses this tidbit to point out how politics is an "irritant" to Wikipedians:

Simply put, politics is an irritant to Wikipedians, an annoying human tic that stops people from agreeing on facts and spreading reliable information. Enforcing a politics-free policy has helped the Web site achieve unprecedented growth. The various Wikipedias have more than 200 million unique visitors a month, far short of the more than six billion people in the world but still not too shabby.

I do think that some Wikipedians would argue that politics (or "bias," or "opinion," etc.) keeps their community from "agreement," but that seems to run counter to what actually happens in the pages of Wikipedia. That is, as much as folks within and outside of the community want to talk about "reliable information" and "facts," the text is not set up to arrive at stable conclusions. Instead, it offers a great way to peak in on various conversations about truthS. If we recognize that Wikipedia is a radically collaborative, that it is a collection of arguments - I don't quite understand how we could argue that it is anything else - how could we possibly ask that it land on a stable Truth or that it result in an "agreeing on facts."

If we shift our view, then politics isn't an irritant. Instead, it's just one more factory at play in the various conversations happening on Wikipedia. Some might argue that Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View Policy throws a wrench in what I've been saying. Such an argument would point to this policy and say that Wikipedia is attempting to remove all variables (politics, bias, etc.) in the name of Truth. Certainly, some would read it this way - I do not. For me, the "NPOV" policy is not about removing bias, it's about attempting to present various points of view. In fact, I think the policy is misnamed, because I don't think there is such a thing as a "neutral point of view." Still, there's another way to read the policy.

I could write an entry about "Partial Birth Abortion" by writing that "Some argue...while others argue....still others argue..." This doesn't remove bias, and it doesn't mean that I am writing without bias (after all, I could be leaving out important parties to the debate, revealing my own biases and ignorances), it just attempts to give a lay of the land - a "map" of the controversy. If folks want to call this neutral, I think they're misguided.

Which brings us back to the NY Times quote that calls politics a "tic" and an "irritant." There is no (man...do I really have to still say this) statement that is not already infused with politics and bias. Politics is never a tic or an irritant, it is already a part of every utterance spoken, written, or grunted.