Wikipedia on New York Times Co_m_nists

|The Volokh Conspiracy |

From John Berenberg, via Mark Liberman (Language Log):

I confirmed this (at least as of now). Note that there is no Wikipedia article for New York Times communists, either.

Advertisement

NEXT: May Legislature Restrict State Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms in the Legislative Building?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. When I first looked at your OP’s headline, I thought you had a typo, when trying to spell out “columnists.” Had to follow the link to get the humor (your embedded image was too small to read on my own particular device) . . . Google does do its best to guess at what you mean to type, and it does lead to some embarrassing or funny “…Did you mean ____?” moments.

    I suspect that Google does involve some machine learning, and this is associated with one’s own computer or device. At my usual courthouse, I’ve looked over people’s (peoples’ ???) shoulders as they do a Google search from their office desktop, and when I see Google’s helpful “Did you mean X?”, I wonder, “What the HELL were you searching for before, to make Google wonder if *that’s* what you really meant to type in!?!”

    1. Sorry for the image size problem, just fixed it.

      As to “people’s” vs. “peoples’,” I suppose it turns on whether you looked over, say, Jack’s and Jane’s shoulder or the shoulders of all Armenians and Thais. If the former, then “people’s”; if the latter, then “peoples’.”

      1. I couldn’t read it either (before) and though that there used to be a Wiki page on NYT Communists that someone deleted. Seemed plausible.

  2. Anything politically related in Wikipedia tends to be awful.

    A big problem is that editors, (many who apparently have nothing going on in their lives beyond the thrill of ruling over an HTML page) carve out fiefdoms where they control a subject matter and nobody is allowed to challenge them on their ‘turf’ in this ‘open’ encyclopedia. And the biggest of these ‘encyclopedia turf’ gangs runs the political articles.

    A favored tactic is to frontload articles of subjects they don’t like with negative information or descriptors. Compare the openings of the Breitbart, Conservapedia, One America News Network, and Fox News articles with Daily Kos, Rational Wiki, Democratic Underground, Huffington Post, MSNBC, and CNN articles which are generally missing any attacks or criticisms. The CNN article actually accuses them of being too nonpartisan.

    If you call them on it. Like for example asking why Fox is repeatedly attacked in its lead but MSNBC isn’t they throw up a google result from MSNBC or the NYT as proof of a ‘consensus’ and shutdown any further discussion.

    Nonpolitically its a mixed bag. The science articles tend to be okay in terms of accuracy but are often terribly written in terms of comprehensibility. Some of the bias you see in the politics sometimes mixes into the history articles. Sometimes you’ll get this weird obscure aspect or opinion of a subject elevated in an article. Like you’ll have an article about a famous movie or book and then out of nowhere an opinion by some Marxist-feminist blogger nobody’s ever heard of has a prominent place in it.

    My advice would be to keep your wallets closed when they come rattling the tincan and remind them until they make some progress fixing some of these problems.

    1. A few years back, a “labor relations” (IIRC) professor used the newly released transcript of the Haymarket trial to consider whether the trial had been as rigged as everyone said, where “everyone” turns out to have been almost entirely Marxists and pro-union professionals. He decided it was remarkably fair, including some of the first forensic science (comparing bomb fragments with bombs recovered from a defendant’s workshop) and selecting jurors from several hundred candidates. The forensic science wasn’t perfect, for instance it didn’t do any analysis of bullet hole angle sin telephone poles, buildings, and bodies, which might have said something about who fired first.

      Published a book which is pretty interesting and tells a lot about the judicial system of the times. Then edited the Wikipedia article on the Haymarket riots. And hoo boy, the editors freaked out! “No original research” as their big bugabear. So someone else could have edited the article and linked to his book, but he could not.

      I’ve crossed swords a couple of times. Humorless gats the lot.

    2. A big problem is that editors, (many who apparently have nothing going on in their lives beyond the thrill of ruling over an HTML page) carve out fiefdoms where they control a subject matter and nobody is allowed to challenge them on their ‘turf’ in this ‘open’ encyclopedia.

      Yeah. Even non-political topics have these folks. I once tried to insert a well documented scandal that a college coach was involved in. My additions got repeatedly deleted by the editor, who was obviously a fan of the school who didn’t want it in there.

      Another example involved a celebrity who was known by a stage name. But there’s a subculture that hated this particular celebrity and never called him by the stage name. (Similar to the way some racist sportswriters never stopped calling Muhammad Ali “Cassius Clay”.) So the Wikipedia page of this guy deadnames him, using a name that NOBODY used to refer to him other than a few people in the subculture who hated him.

      If you care enough and are willing to not have a life and just edit Wikipedia pages, you can control a little fiefdom.

  3. New York Times does not have any columnists. They transferred all their writers to the op-ed department years ago.

    As for New York Times communists, that is the entire bunch. No need for a separate article. Just all wrapped into the New York Times one.

    1. “New York Times does not have any columnists. They transferred all their writers to the op-ed department years ago.”

      Curious what you think the difference is between a columnist and a writer for an op-ed department.

  4. Look on infogalactic (the non-SJW fork of Wikipedia) and you’ll probably find it.

  5. At least there is a historical precedent for linking NY Times and communists. I recommend a recent movie, “Mr. Jones” which is based upon true events. The NYTimes “Man in Moscow” received Pulitzer prizes while covering up the famine in Ukraine and the atrocities of Stalin. The NYTimes Man in Moscow was an active Stalin collaborator.

    1. If conservatives hate our mainstream institutions to this degree, and perceive glaring inadequacies in them (often related to not enough conservatism), why do they not apply their ostensible principles to the ostensible market opportunities and build strong conservative schools, strong conservative newspapers, and the like?

      The sentient among us know the answer — and the record of attempts and failure. But the Conspirators and their followers don’t like the answer or the record, so they disregard the record and instead (1) encourage our strongest schools to emulate the worst by hiring more conservatives and (2) bash the strong journalists just for partisan purpose and sport.

      How you guys want to spend your time while awaiting replacement and continuing to lose the American culture war is your call. But there would be more promising routes toward a longshot victory, and more dignified routes toward your likely destiny of defeat.

      1. That why you spend so much time and spleen commenting here at Reason, a libertarian site, Rev?

      2. You’re not aware the US has a strong private school system already? Too bad most people have a hard time paying for it since all their money is wasted on a corrupt, inefficient public system.

        A strong conservative media exists, but it’s not desirable, any more than a strong liberal media is desirable. Media should endeavor to be neutral reporters of the facts, not narrative designers.

        The amount of time you waste banging the gong that conservative irrelevancy is right around the corner is belied by your years of activism here. I agree with this blog a hundred times more than you and read it ten times less; at this point it is obvious that you have far less faith in your own claims than perhaps even I do.

      3. “why do they not apply their ostensible principles to the ostensible market opportunities and build strong conservative schools,”

        You mean like school choice? Well, a big obstacle to that are teachers’ unions, you know, the sister entities to the police unions, who protect cops’ right to kneel on the necks of black people. Why does your side fear freedom so much, Arthur?

Please to post comments