John Edwards Scandal: Wikipedia Editor Defends Policies

William Beutler, an editor at Wikipedia, gives a cool, calm defense of Wikipedia editorial policies and how they affect the "John Edwards" entry in John Edwards Among the Wikipedians.

Yesterday's John Edwards Love Child Scandal: Debate at Wikipedia Rages mentioned the sometimes-heated debate at the on-line reference source over whether to include any mention of the "Love Child Scandal" or "Rielle Hunter" on Edwards' Wikipedia page. The debate can be followed at Talk: John Edwards

Beutler sets up what's happened to this point.

More than 26,000 words (!)* have been expended on the discussion page associated with the John Edwards encyclopedia entry since the National Enquirer posted a story claiming he was seen leaving a hotel room rented for Rielle Hunter (last week), the woman with whom they have alleged he fathered a child out of wedlock (last year). So far, there is no mention of this story in the article — let alone the existence of Ms. Hunter — and because it has been temporarily locked (see above), it doesn’t appear that anyone will. Not just yet, anyway.

I’ve now read about half the debate, which is the whole extent of it before new people start showing up and re-arguing old points. Based on my own knowledge of how Wikipedia works and what I’ve seen in the press, I’ve come to the conclusion that, even though it sure looks like Edwards’ goose is cooked, Wikipedia’s editors are currently doing the responsible thing by keeping it out of the article.

Getting to the defense of what some--including DBKP--have characterized as foot-dragging, Beutler explains:
"There are two reasons to proceed with caution, in addition to the truth remaining at large. One is Wikipedia’s strict guidelines for biographies of living persons and the other is that Wikipedia is a reference site, not a news site."

Patrick Ruffini, among others, is unimpressed. In a comment on the Beutler post, he noted: "If Edwards were a Republican, the National Enquirer scandal would be the first line of his Wikipedia entry, and anyone attempting to take it down would be immediately edited out."

By far, the most valid point made here is that Wikipedia is not a news site. It has no deadline to meet when including updates to already-published information. As Beutler pointed out, there's no deadlines to meet.

If this same strict standard is applied to all Wikipedia entries, then “What’s the rush?” is a good defense to charges of editorial bias and selective foot-dragging.

It will be something for Wiki-watchers to look for in the future.

All-in-all, a good defense of one side in a heated on-line debate.

DBKP will continue to follow the debate.

by Mondoreb

Lori Drew, Megan Meier: Prosecutor Presents Points in Drew's Defense

Jack Banas, the St. Charles County prosecutor who announced that no charges would be filed over the Megan Meier Internet hoax, answered some questions yesterday about why no charges would be forthcoming.

But he did not put an end to all the questions in the public's mind. And he was not the only one who commented on the story yesterday.

---BREAKING: Drew's Lawyer: Drew Knew, Didn't Stop It VIDEO REPORT

A blogger claiming to be Lori Drew posted "I'm Lori Drew" yesterday and engaged, for several hours in a running argument with readers who commented.

Whether it was really Lori Drew or not, it was one of the only places that was arguing another side to the Megan Meier story--albeit, not very effectively.

After looking over press accounts of the report yesterday by the prosecutor, we picked out what might be some items for the defense of Lori Drew in the public's mind.

They were among the reasons that Banas stated no criminal behavior had taken place among the hoaxers that he could find.

We present some salient facts. Do they argue for or against the prosecutor's decision?

* A friend and employee of the Drews', Ashley Grills, who was 18 at the time, located Megan's MySpace page. The three [Lori Drew, Ashley Grills, and Drew's daughter] created Josh Evans to find out what Megan was saying about Drew's daughter.

* For six weeks, Josh and Megan traded "innocuous" messages, Banas said, with no sexual suggestion and no "demeaning or disrespectful" language sent by either.

* On Oct. 15, 2006, the day before Megan committed suicide, a friend of Drew's daughter was given the password to the Josh Evans account. The friend sent Megan a message as Josh saying he had heard Megan was mean to her friends.

Who gave the friend of Drew's daughter the password?

Is a supervising adult responsible for the behavior of minors in her care? Hopefully, someone with a law degree will care to leave a comment or drop us an email.

MORE:

* Banas said it's unclear who created the fake MySpace profile. Grills told lawyers that Drew wanted her to set up a fake profile.

* Drew, however, said her daughter and Grills came to her with the idea. Drew agreed but told the girls they should only speak to Megan "in polite terms and not say anything disrespectful," Banas said.

* Drew told the FBI she let her daughter write Megan when she was present — only once or twice.

* There is no evidence that Drew wrote a single message, Banas said.

* On the day Megan hanged herself, it was Grills who wrote the final message, Banas said.

* Until now, the story told was that Grills told a lawyer representing Megan's parents that Drew was present and that she was telling Drew what she was typing.

* But according to an FBI report, Drew said she wasn't even home when the "heated exchange" between Josh and Megan took place, Banas said.

* And that same report shows that Grills had changed her story: It wasn't Lori Drew at home, but her husband, Curt Drew.

* Curt Drew said he was home, Banas said, but unaware.

Since the Drews have remained tight-lipped on the subject--except for police and FBI reports--these are the points in their defense.

What's the verdict, dear readers? Can anyone be held responsible in no court, other than public opinion?

Should even the court of public opinion find Lori Drew innocent? Do these facts included above hold any water with the public?

Is shunning an effective tool today? Is the contempt and scorn of neighbors and business associates a form of punishment?

Or can someone just choose to ignore the icy stares and whispers that follow their daily movements? Does that make a difference? Is it a form of punishment when all else fails?

Now that the information on why the prosecutor declined to file any charges is out, did it change your minds?

by Mondoreb

Source:

St. Louis Post-Dispatch - "Neighbor's Side of the Story Emerges"
DBKP - "Blogger: Lori Drew or Internet Troll?"
DBKP - "A Conversation Between Lori Drew and Internet Readers?"
DBKP - Lori Drew Author of 'Megan Had it Coming' Blog?

COMPLETE MySpace Suicide, Megan Meier, Lori Drew Coverage:
DBKP MySpace Suicide Library
Complete coverage - stories and videos from the first to have it on the Internet.




Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.