I'm torn. A new contributor is adding material to the
Wikipedia 2004 election timeline. It looks like the contributor is sincere but horribly, horribly misguided. He's proposing to document a lot of the back and forth of the campaign, which
would be a good thing, except he's clearly getting his news from Fox, Drudge, etc.
So, there seems to be several options:
- Recommend removal of the material.
- Document the material in a neutral way, pointing out the blatent inaccuracies
- Let someone else deal with it.
The thing is, he suggests something that intrigues me:
I've been posting the news I read, but I read mostly conservative sources so I am missing allegations against the Republicans and support for the Democrats. Are there any readers who would like to add events that cast Kerry in favorable light and Bush in a negative one? Could you also spot check my additions so that I am being factual about the events and avoiding biased comments? I think as we get near to elections that there is going to be a lot of exciting things happening and I want to detail them carefully, including all the back-and-forth on the voter fraud issues. Thanks.
So, he recognizes that his sources are biased, and is looking for someone to balance out the coverage. It would be very interesting to have a really detailed log of everything that's been happening, including the slime. It would also be good to make sure that things like the Bush earpiece, voter disenfranchisement, etc.
So, should I be frantically adding stuff, or frantically removing stuff? For now, I'm just going to go to bed ;-)