Glenn Beck Page

There a numerous problems with the Glenn Beck page on Wikipedia. Those unfamiliar with the page can view it here:

GLENN BECK WIKIPEDIA ENTRY

The first problem is the Glenn Beck entry, like many, is the product of consensus building. This means editors on the left and on the right, routinely object to the other side’s changes, resulting in an article that offends neither, but doesn’t reflect the subject truthfully. In logic this is called the Golden Mean Fallacy, the notion that the truth must be somewhere in the middle. In fact, the truth is the truth, regardless of the range of the political spectrum involved.

The other problem largely stems from the first, and that is omissions of key controversies and statements. There are two other reasons for omissions: editor bullying (editors using the letter of the Wikipedia policy as a bludgeon to keep other editors from making reasonable contributions—for example, siting the prohibition against original research, which is a bad policy on its own as any real-world editor knows), and the lack of a controversies category.

Controversy sections are “frowned upon” in Wikipedia, mostly because it get’s partisan editors panties in a bundle. So in place of “Controversies” the Glenn Beck entry has disputes. The problem with disputes is any unusual position or statement made or held by a figure, doesn’t make the cut or is presented as part of an equally weighted dispute.

As an example of this, Glenn Beck recently stated that he believes the number of Muslims who are terrorists, isn’t 1% (as he asserts liberals believe) but closer to 10%. This was then challenged by Fareed Zakaria on CNN. For it to be included it must be framed as a “Dispute” between the two figures. But it isn’t a dispute, it was an inaccurate, offensive and prejudicial statement. Period.

The other problem with the Glenn Beck page, is it is primarily edited by Beck’s supporters. They watch the page to make sure no one says anything they deem hurtful of Beck. They masquerade as neutral editors, and use Wikipedia Editorial Policy Guidelines as a weapon against anyone who tries to insert a bit of truth into the article.

Many other issues exist on the Glenn Beck page. For instance there is no mention of his factually incorrect statement that the Serpent Mound Tablets (which historians have proven were hoaxes) are evidence that ancient Hebrews lived in America before European settlers. This boils down to a question of truth. He said something untruthful, but it can’t be mentioned on the wikipedia article, because that would constitute original research. Apparently facts and common knowledge are Original Research these days.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Glenn Beck Page

  1. Pingback: Beck II | wikipediawatch

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s