Consultant Case Study
Wikipedia editor (most are) made a single edit to the Wiki- pedia article of Karen Handel, former Secretary of State of Georgia and current Republican candidate for governor. This editor, one RomneyGingrich12, made a subtle edit—not identifiably vandalism—which falsified Handel’s education history to make her appear less accomplished than she was.
There are a number of lessons that can be drawn from
this because it created situations that would make a consci- entious Wikipedia editor uncomfortable. First, if we assume that RomneyGingrich was out to score points for Oxen- dine, he or she made a mistake in editing both Handel and Oxendine’s pages from the same account, thereby tying those edits together. Another mistake was that Romney- Gingrich12’s edits to Oxendine’s page were so transparent- ly self-serving that they too drew attention from skeptical Wikipedia editors.
How To Engage To be clear, there is never a place for adding false informa- tion to Wikipedia; campaigns that do it are playing with fire. But there are ways to engage Wikipedia safely and even openly. Even in Karen Handel’s case, there are numerous chances
If you’re a campaign consultant and you’re not following your client’s Wikipedia entry, you’re not doing your job.
More than 1,000 people visited the article in the 20 days
before the incorrect change came to light, which only hap- pened because Washington handicapper Stu Rothenberg cited the “fact” in a column (putting to rest any notions that smart people don’t trust Wikipedia to tell them the truth). Scrutiny quickly fell upon the account in question, one RomneyGingrich12, who had curiously made edits favorable to Handel’s chief rival, Insurance Commissioner John Oxendine. By the time the story hit the local news, she was forced to say: “For the record, yes, I have a high school diploma.” Ouch. The entry was quickly changed, but the damage was
done. Accusations were made, although not by Handel, that the anonymous Wikipedia editor was affiliated with Oxendine’s campaign. While it’s entirely possible there was no coordination, we’ll never know. Just like that, Romney- Gingrich12 disappeared, never to be heard from again. Unfortunately for Handel, her Wikipedia article has not
yet recovered from the incident. As of early 2010, there are warning tags across the top of the page warning readers that the article’s “neutrality” is to be doubted, and a sec- tion titled “Edits to Wikipedia Page” recounts part of the story above. Oxendine’s page, meanwhile is in far better shape, detailing both his political biography as well as the platform on which he is running. The entry is a bit too enamored with Oxendine but it is far more informative.
12 Campaigns & Elections | Canadian Edition
to work constructively. For one thing, the sidebar “Info- box” has no image of her. As a former officeholder, Han- del’s official government headshot is in the public domain and therefore appropriate for adding here. One probably exists: based on the exposed code (“File:
KarenHandel.gif ”) the image is likely still there, it just needs to be formatted. Throughout the page are familiar “[Citation needed]” tags in-line with text; these are annoying when the material in question is true, but they are there for your protection. Handel’s staff should be able to locate these sources, and this one they could do themselves. Although Oxendine’s article is a bit over-written, they should look to emulate certain aspects, especially the list of political positions. Last- ly, that section about Wikipedia edits to her page simply does not belong there: in most cases, Wikipedia prefers to avoid self-referentiality, and in this case it has nothing to do with Handel’s career in office. (If it hasn’t happened by the time this article comes out, I
might just do it myself. After all, there’s no use complaining about bad Wikipedia articles: everyone has the power to fix them, provided they know the rules.) There is a place for campaigns to suggest such edits
called the ‘Discussion’ page or the ‘Talk’ page—Wikipedia confusingly labels it both, in different circumstances. Here anyone is invited to make suggestions about what should or should not be included in an article. Every encyclope- dia article you see on Wikipedia has an associated ‘Talk’ page, accessible via a tab at the top of every page labeled ‘Discussion.’ This is where arguments over the content of articles are supposed to occur and where consensus among editors is formed. Does the article have a good photograph of your can-
didate? If not, on the ‘Talk’ page an editor can explain to you the (fairly complicated) process of getting a photo- graph approved and posted. Is the article missing signifi- cant chunks of your candidate’s biography? Some of this may be filled in with campaign literature, but most of it should come from news reporting that you can make avail- able. Don’t think a particular criticism of your candidate’s
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80