Hugo Chavez, Adventures in Wikipedia-Land
Politics
| September 28, 2006
| Tim
While reading the Wikipedia article on Hugo Chavez, I noticed this section, regarding the 2004 recall election:
Critics called the results fraudulent, citing one exit poll which indicated that the results were the complete opposite of the reported ones, and raising questions about the government's ownership of voting machines.
The "critics" in question weren't just nameless entities, but were in fact Harvard and MIT economists. And questions weren't merely raised about "ownership" of the voting machines, but in fact the machines were allegedly altered to print out their results only after connecting to headquarters -- allowing for fraud.
I decided to add these details to see what would happen. My update:
Critics, including economists Ricardo Hausmann of Harvard and Roberto Rigobon of MIT, called the results fraudulent, alleging a "very clear trails of fraud in the statistical record", electronic voting machines whose results could be altered remotely, and citing an exit poll which implied the actual results were the opposite of the reported ones.
Apparently, there are powers-that-be who are alerted to such edits, because within minutes, someone (named "SuperFlanker") had hacked up my change by inserting an entire sentence, ungrammatically, in between dependent clauses. He also couldn't spell (note "oposition").
Critics, including economists Ricardo Hausmann of Harvard and Roberto Rigobon of MIT, called the results fraudulent, alleging a "very clear trails of fraud in the statistical record", electronic voting machines whose results could be altered remotely, The Carter Center consulted with an independent statistician from Stanford University and an independent computer scientist at John Hopkins University which concluded that the actual results are within the predicted range and do not of themselves prove fraud. the oposition also cites an exit poll which implied the actual results were the opposite of the reported ones.
I want to be clear: I think that was a good thing to add, even if done ineptly. If true, that is. However, when I checked his sources, I discovered that the Carter Center subsequently admitted these cited results were in error, and were not within "the predicted range" but now only fell within the range of "statistical possibility." This was clearly stated on the very page "SuperFlanker" cited! He either didn't read the article carefully, or perhaps there was some bias involved.
So I simply added this omission so that readers could see it and decide for themselves -- and broke up the growing run-on sentence into two paragraphs, one for criticism, one for the defenses. In context:
The recall vote itself was held on August 15, 2004. A record number of voters turned out to defeat the recall attempt with a 59% "no" vote. The election was overseen by the Carter Center and the Organization of American States, and was certified by them as fair and open.
Yet some disagreed: European Union observers did not attend, saying too many restrictions had been placed on their participation by the government. Other critics, including economists Ricardo Hausmann of Harvard and Roberto Rigobon of MIT, called the results fraudulent, alleging a "very clear trails of fraud in the statistical record" and alleged electronic voting machines had been reconfigured to allow results to be altered remotely. The oposition also cited an exit poll which implied the actual results were the opposite of those reported. "Massive fraud" was alleged and the conclusions of former U.S. President Jimmy Carter were questioned.
In response, the Carter Center consulted with Professor Jonathan Taylor, an independent statistician from Stanford University and Professor Aviel Rubin, a Johns Hopkins University computer scientist who both initially concluded that the actual results are within the predicted range and do not of themselves prove fraud. Subsequently, however, the Carter Center admitted Taylor had "found a mistake in one of the models", but still asserted that the election results still "lie within statistical possibility." It should also be noted that five other opposition polls showed a Chávez victory.
As you can see, I actually strenghtened the criticism of the fraud I'd noted, actually noting the name of the critics, providing links to their universities, and clearly noting their "Professor" status, as well as improving the final sentence. In truth, I have no horse in this race: if the allegations of fraud are false, I'd be just as happy as anyone to see more evidence for that. I hate lies, and anti-Chavez lies are no better than pro-Chavez lies.
So we'll see happens next.
It seems many people are unhappy about the way contributions to this article have been handled. On the "Talk" page, one frustrated Wikipedia contributor, "Sandy", complained:
... we have an incomplete, outdated, bloated, and highly-biased article, with a Criticism POV fork, we quibble over minor sentences, grow the article further, but editors here refuse to allow for balance to be brought to the article, or for biased sources to be removed, or for it to be updated to reflect current events, or for the Criticism and main articles to be merged and summarized to attain NPOV. A major rewrite/update is needed, and instead the focus here is on deleting any content unfavorable to Chavez, sentence by sentence, using any and all excuses, while EB simply acknowledges the factual reality and deals with it briefly and succinctly. It is not surprising that all efforts to NPOV this article are blocked, since it is so highly biased in favor of Chavez - a status quo apparently preferred by some editors here.
A huge tip-off that the article is biased, besides the warning at the top, is the fact that they've shuffled all critical remarks off to a secondary article entitled "Criticism of Hugo Chavez" -- the link to which is buried in the sidebar. Gee, why isn't there another article entitled "Praise of Hugo Chavez"? That's because criticism is being removed from the main entry, while praise is apparently welcomed to remain there.
The "criticism" link was still in the main article when I checked. It looks like all the sections under Hugo Chavez have separate main articles elsewhere on wikipedia.
This seems to be fairly common for wikipedia, i.e. presenting the view of a person and then presenting a 'criticism of' link further down in the article.
I've never seen a "praise of x" link in Wikipedia but currently there seems to be criticism in the head. "Chávez's reforms have evoked exceptional controversy in Venezuela and abroad, receiving both criticism and praise. Venezuelans are split between those who say he has empowered the poor and stimulated economic growth, and those who say he is autocratic and has mismanaged the economy."
Granted, the article isn't perfect and some folks don't play by the rules at first. I've had factual information removed two or three times till I gave three sources and posted a note on the discussion page complaining. However it's the articles with nothing on the discussion page which I find most suspect. But in regards to current events, I still prefer a (highly edited) wikipedia article (with the corresponding discussion page) for balanced news as opposed to, say, a single article in a local newspaper.
Judged by that standard, I think even Wikipedia's current-events-related articles are generally of good quality.
Just as a litmus test, I compared several prominent figures from the political right and left.
First, the left:
Noam Chomsky - tiny criticism section; separate page for criticism.
FDR - separate article for all criticism. In fact, the word only occurs twice in the article text itself.
Bill Clinton - Each criticism is shuffled off to a separate article. (Often introduced with an understatement of the criticism.)
Jimmy Carter - Egads, the article is almost entirely lacking in any critical content at all! Not elsewhere, not here!
Inflation is mentioned, but not tied to Carter's economic policies. It's not mentioned that Carter provided support for the removal of the Shah. No link is suggested between Carter droping our policy Soviet containment and the Soviets moving into approximately a dozen new nations. Blame for North Korea getting nukes is placely squarely on "opposition from the Republican controlled Congress" who "failed to phase out economic sanctions"! Bizarre!
The word "controversy" doesn't even occur once in this article, and there are only two uses of the word "criticism", both uses relecting positively on Carter.
Teddy Kennedy - Criticized three times: for "big government" ideology, for driving drunk, and once for a rambling answer to why he wanted to be president.
Michael Moore - No content in internal "criticism" section -- most criticism shuffled off to a separate article. References to controvery are soft-pedaled and paraphrased. Example: Bowling for Columnbine "was attacked by others who claim it is inaccurate and misleading in its presentations", and the F9/11 paragraph suggests no controversy at all!
Now, the right:
James Dobson -- Favorite whipping-boy of the left. (I've chosen Dobson as the counterpart of Chomsky because they both marry an academic subject (linguistics/psychology) with religio-polical pronouncements and purportedly have a large following.)
No separate criticism section, and lots of cheap shots in the article. For example, "Dobson on marriage" alerts us that he "warns" us about "interracial marriage" (hint, hint: code for "racist"!) while ignoring Dobson's statements (at the same link) that he "disagrees with those who use the Bible to condemn it." In another section we learn: "Unlike many evangelicals, Dobson does not believe that homosexuals choose their orientation." Who, I wonder, are these "many" evangelicals offering this view? As usual on the "SpongeBob" controversy, we learn only that "Dobson stated that his words were misinterpreted" -- yet it's simply a fact that Dobson never alleged SpongeBob was gay.
George Bush - No external "criticism" article; extensive criticism located directly in main article, including in the introduction and it's own section.
Ronald Reagan - Large "criticism" section. Criticism are stated in the voice and phrasing of critics, not paraphrased as in the Clinton article. The seventh sentence of the article, in the introduction, is on Iran-Contra. The introduction is rife with criticism. (In contrast, the first critical word about Clinton -- and it is mild -- occurs in the 21st sentence, well into the article, with no mention at all of scandals, or even "controversy", in the introduction.)
Newt Gingrich - Starts with a neutrality disputation warning. Introduction reveals he had an affair and delves into his two divorces, as though that were key to understanding his life. (Again, no mention of Clinton's many infidelities in his introduction.)
Tony Blair - (Even though he's labor, I'm including him here because he's so hated by the left, and as a comparison to Chavez as an international leader who is friendly to the US.) Had an external "Criticism" article, but yet also included a lengthy "Criticism" section internal to the article!
Ann Coulter - Hmmm... it's pretty clear the entire argument is nothing but a long criticism. (Where her lefty counterpart Michael Moore is introduced as a "outspoken" "political humorist", Ann is "polemicist" who "makes no pretense at being 'impartial or balanced'".) Unlike Moore, no separate page for controversies. Lots of detailed complaints inside the article, stated in the voice of the critics, not paraphrases as in the Moore article.
Well, I guess that pretty much proves my point. The only "conservative" who got a separate page for controversies was Blair, whose article was still filled with them anyway. 5/7 lefty articles had "controversy" pages sucking away most of the bad bits, only 1/6 "conservative" profiles did -- but it didn't prevent an extensive "criticism" section in the main article.
I also noticed tone differences: Criticism in "lefty" profiles was generally parapharsed and stated neutrally and vaguely. ("Some unnamed people claim that X might be interepreted as being misleading in it's presentation.") Critics of conservatives are quoted directly, with their phrasing and specifics given. In contrast, lefties generally got a "just the fact, ma'am" treatment, about half of them had ways of shuffling controversy off the main page.
Reading, and doing comparisons of similar figures (Moore with Coulter, Reagan with Carter, Chavez with Blair) has truly been an eye-opening experience. I suspected some bias, but I had no idea it was quite that bad.
hmm... Yeah, They totally mischaracterized the criticism of the Faurrison affair in the lead-in to the Chomsky article, minimizing the criticism. Though it's accurately represented in the "criticism" article. I've just gotten into a little edit war with someone who tries to maintain that Chomsky's critics claim that Chomsky was just defending free speech when that's Chomsky's defense. His opponents actual accusation was that he gave Faurisson undeserved credibility.
I'm surprised that there isn't more of a criticsm section for Michael Moore with a proper lead-in. That article does seem extremely biased.
James Dobson; His comments regarding interracial marriages (that they're more difficult, but the couple's own choice) seem to be truthful, no? Should it have been excluded so that readers "didn't get the wrong idea?" Or did you want more care in discussing his condemnations of racism?
Ronald Reagan - Large "criticism" section.
It's almost the exact same size as Clinton's (Investigation and impeachment + Other controversies.) Though the article on Reagan seems to have a lot more up information about what he 'stood for' than Clinton does, both positive and negative.
Newt Gingrich is debatable - most article heads contain information on marriages and children. You could make an argument for excluding the reason for Gingrich's breakup, but Clinton's infidelities didn't lead to divorce or re-marriage with Lewinsky so I don't see how it's relevant to his family structure.
Tony Blair - Had an external "Criticism" article, but yet also included a lengthy "Criticism" section internal to the article!
The same is true for the Clinton article. Sections devoted to Criticism of Clinton are similar length as Blair's and also have off-site criticism.
Hmmm... it's pretty clear the entire argument is nothing but a long criticism.
Yeah.
George HW Bush's entry seems to be a little less accusatory since HW Bush was a little less controversial of a figure.
I guess the next question is; If you disagree with the state of wikipedia, why do you think it exists this way? I could sympathize with criticisms of the big bad liberal media. But Wikipedia seems to be about as flat as you can get, no?
[Regarding Dobson:] Or did you want more care in discussing his condemnations of racism?
Either that, or drop the topic altogether. There's nothing remarkable about Dobson's stance on this area -- most authorities on marriage would say the same. And it's a very tiny part of his site, so having an entire section about it seems a bit odd; as I said above, the focus and phrasing seems chosen to hint at a submerged racism.
Compare: Dr. Phil did a whole show on the topic, to the same effect. But no comment on his Wikipedia bio about the matter.
Reagan/Clinton: You're right concerning the comparative size of the "criticism" sections, IF you include the section on Clinton's impeachment as part of the "criticism" section -- but otherwise Reagan's "Criticism" section is much larger than Clinton's "Other controversies" section. (I also see "controversies" as a friendlier word.)
Also, I see I missed the external link on Reagan, updating my total to 2/6, not 1/6 as I originally said. Still quite a differential.
Newt Gingrich is debatable - most article heads contain information on marriages and children.
Not affairs and infidelities. Compare with Kennedy: divorce in small print, no messy details, nor mention of the babysitter incident. Compare with Clinton: no affairs mentioned at all in intro. Good heavens, even Gary Condit's bio doesn't mention his affairs in the introduction. And -- stunningly -- Gary Hart's bio also doesn't mention his career-ending affair in his intro (only vaguely referenced as "a scandal" of some unspecified nature).
In that respect, Gingrich's bio is truly unusual, as best as I can see -- and yet it's utterly irrelevant to the man and his career -- unlike, say, with Hart, Clinton or Condit, where affairs actually had a serious intersection with their public service.
George HW Bush's entry seems to be a little less accusatory since HW Bush was a little less controversial of a figure.
And served only one term. But I'd also point out that the fashionable criticism of W, for a while, was to say (usually falsely, to my recollection) how much XYZ admired his father, but thought the son was totally incompetent (etc.).
I didn't bother looking at bios of more mundane and uncontroversial figures like Gerald Ford, GHW Bush, Tip O'Neil, etc.
I guess the next question is; If you disagree with the state of wikipedia, why do you think it exists this way?
I honestly don't know, Ryan. To observe an effect is not to necessarily know the underlying cause yet. I have no idea of the political sympathies of the guy at the top. I have no idea how their meetings are run or how control is allocated.
If I had to speculate, I'd suggest a few possibilities by which bias could arise. I don't know if I believe any of these, but I'm just throwing them out as possibilities:
(1) Perhaps the people in control have a bias.
(2) Perhaps lefties have more time on their hands. (Being conservative strongly links to having kids and careers. Conversely, liberals are more likely single or involved in academia -- both which free up more time.)
(3) Perhaps lefties are more politically obsessive. (Example: I just modified Chavez's bio for a lark, to see what would happen. But within minutes, someone had inserted a left-leaning comment in the midst of my sentence.) As a conservative, I'm mostly into politics as a defensive measure.
Look at your battle with some guy over Chomsky's bio. I suspect if you track him, you'll find he has a number of other pet pages he's busy defending in a similar manner.
BTW, in addition to what you mention, Vidal-Naquet alleges:
1. Chomsky referred Faurisson's writings as "findings", which implies a set of factual discoveries. Later insisted he only meant "conclusions", in the sense of opinions.
2. Chomsky stated that all who disagreed with his actions must believe that "Faurisson should in fact be deprived of the normal right to self-expression, that he should be harassed and even subjected to acts of physical violence", though they were protesting Chomky's introduction, not Faurisson's text.
3. Chomsky falsely claimed Faurisson had been banned from accessing public libraries and archives.
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once.
« We Give You Thanks, Cuba |
Front Page |
Page Two
| Thoughts on the Winnability of Vietnam »
|
The "criticism" link was still in the main article when I checked. It looks like all the sections under Hugo Chavez have separate main articles elsewhere on wikipedia.
This seems to be fairly common for wikipedia, i.e. presenting the view of a person and then presenting a 'criticism of' link further down in the article.
I've never seen a "praise of x" link in Wikipedia but currently there seems to be criticism in the head. "Chávez's reforms have evoked exceptional controversy in Venezuela and abroad, receiving both criticism and praise. Venezuelans are split between those who say he has empowered the poor and stimulated economic growth, and those who say he is autocratic and has mismanaged the economy."
Granted, the article isn't perfect and some folks don't play by the rules at first. I've had factual information removed two or three times till I gave three sources and posted a note on the discussion page complaining. However it's the articles with nothing on the discussion page which I find most suspect. But in regards to current events, I still prefer a (highly edited) wikipedia article (with the corresponding discussion page) for balanced news as opposed to, say, a single article in a local newspaper.
Judged by that standard, I think even Wikipedia's current-events-related articles are generally of good quality.
Posted by: Ryan on September 29, 2006 01:29 PM