cotton,

How do you think Mr. Harris would react if the CPC logo was exchanged for, say, the copmmunist star or a swaztika or a picture of Nixon?

How would he react if this happened to the CPC at this point in the last campaign.

Outrage and moral indignation, that how.

SL’s point is that he is a hypocrite - its only brillant because its happening to the Liberals.

And that is pitiful.

Agreed, Warwick. Harris is a chameleon. He’s a fervent Bush-hater as well, and opposed regime change in Iraq. On the other side of the coin, he was an enthusiastic Chretien-basher, and is conservative on issues like crime (make that extremely conservative on crime).

>>”How do you think Mr. Harris would react if the CPC logo was exchanged for, say, the copmmunist star or a swaztika or a picture of Nixon?

How would he react if this happened to the CPC at this point in the last campaign.”

Big difference there, Mike (prime). The examples you raise all relate to ideology (the Commie one makes no sense as a label for us conservatives, though). People on both sides tend to get far more irate when the jibe is directed at what they believe in. The Hindenburg analogy is one that transcends ideology. It doesn’t trash Liberal policies or ideology, it makes fun of what has become commonly viewed as an inept, poorly run campaign. It could just as easily have been applied to Harper’s 2004 campaign, or Eves’ campaign in 2003. And it would be no less amusing, even if conservative supporters didn’t find it amusing.

>>”The potential consequences of this “brilliant” act are huge, a lot greater than the destruction of a bunch of CPoC lawn signs that the same host has complained about as despicable acts in the past.”

SL, you’re making too much of this. The political consequences of this are not ” huge.” I’ve never met anyone outside of the blogosphere who’s even heard of Wikipedia. Why would those who have, be inclined to change their vote over this?

Mike: I don’t know where your sense of humour resides, but comparing the Conservatives to Nazis isn’t nearly as funny as comparing the Liberal campaign to the crash of the Hindenburg.

Stageleft: I understand that Wikipedia and its sister projects are great resources, but this example of defacing Wikipedia is pretty minor in that it is a blatantly obvious example of defacing which nobody would likely confuse for truthful content. The scarier examples would be if somebody defaced it in a more subtle manner, by adding false legislative accomplishments, or policy statements that were different from their true policy. I just think it’s important to remember that you have to be wary of false information on Wikipedia, especially when the topic is potentially polarized like this one is.

“I just think it’s important to remember that you have to be wary of false information on Wikipedia, especially when the topic is potentially polarized like this one is.”

We are and were wary. If these kind of stunts continue Wikipedia will be threatened with obscurity.

SL:

>>”You misinterpret what I think is the overwhelming consideration in this… it’s not that people will change their vote, it’s that it is yet another senseless defacing of a major Internet resource for nothing more than political shits and giggles that raises debate about the value and accuracy of the Wikipedia as a whole…..

You’re absolutely right, SL. Let this go down as a tipping point for me; a tipping point for setting aside my stubbornness and finally giving in to the need to wear my reading glasses.

You may find this hard to believe (maybe not, given the fact that I said ” political consequences ” in my first post), but I read ” political consequences ” where you had typed ” potential consequences.” That’s why I thought you were getting a little hysterical over the impact this could have on the election. All makes sense now. Carry on….

It’s a JOKE not a very good one but a Joke nonetheless.

Here are my two cents worth.

1. Wikipedia is a resource of very dubious quality (sorry SL), because it is written by READERS not authorities in anyway. Academically it is considered junk, but every B student uses it.

2. Mike H., Just because you’ve “never met anyone outside of the blogosphere who’s even heard of Wikipedia” does not mean much. Academics, Government policy makers, Media types , and almost everyone I know, are all very familiar with Wikipedia. Dept’s of Government are using the format as an example of interactive content.

So in light of these two points, the defacing of the website is minor but it does allow the CPoC some extra media time, it may have an impact on those that have not followed the election, but at this point everyone can see the flames, even us liberals, but remember there are a few more days till the election, and given the Conservatives habit of tripping over their tongues anything can happen.

But Seriously it was a Joke.

>>”2. Mike H., Just because you’ve “never met anyone outside of the blogosphere who’s even heard of Wikipedia” does not mean much. Academics, Government policy makers, Media types , and almost everyone I know, are all very familiar with Wikipedia. Dept’s of Government are using the format as an example of interactive content.”

Bill, my point concerning Wikipedia was based largely on my misreading of SL’s post. I thought he was vastly over-reacting to the “political” consequences of the Hindenburg shenanigan. With that in mind, I made the observation that this wouldn’t have any effect on our election.

I’m sure you’re right, that there are plenty of geeks like us who’ve heard of Wikipedia. Fortunately, geeks like us are a tiny minority in our society. If you don’t believe me, go out and do a street poll, and see how many people out of say, 50, have heard of Wikipedia. I’m quite confident I can show up for work tomorrow, and bat 0 for 50 with the same question.

Candace made a good point whether or not people have been to wikipedia they have HEARD of it. One example is the Radio talk show in question, then there were the news articles in the Globe and Mail and Toronto Star (and presumably many US papers) before Christmas in regards to American journalist John Seigenthaler Sr. acused in Wikipedia of President Kennedy’s assasination, not to mention the CNN NBC and CBS coverage of that item.

Wikipedia is editable by just about anyone, This is not “defacement.”

Changing an image on wikipedia is not the same as what is commonly referred to as website “defacement,” where somone cracks into a site illegally, to change content.

Wikipedia allows for the change of content.

Mike asks: How do you think Mr. Harris would react if the CPC logo was exchanged for, say, the copmmunist star or a swaztika or a picture of Nixon?

Isn’t that precisely the mental image Paul Martin is trying to create? What’s pitiful Mike is how Fiberals get so outraged when someone uses the same tactics as they. Kind of like a bully you know, can dish it out but can’t take it.

>>”If not ask yourself, why would Candace be talking about bifocals in the middle of this post? (-: *cough*”

Why, Bill? I’ll summarize for you:

I said:

“”You’re absolutely right, SL. Let this go down as a tipping point for me; a tipping point for setting aside my stubbornness and finally giving in to the need to wear my reading glasses.”

Then SL said :

“As someone who only recently admitted that he needed to wear his reading glasses for more things than just the menu in dim resturant lighting I feel your pain :-)”

To which Candace replied:

“sort of but not really off-topic, you can get bifocal contacts. Of course, I just HEARD that, I don’t actually HAVE them *cough*” ;

causing you to conclude that ” Candace made a good point whether or not people have been to wikipedia they have HEARD of it.”

Bill, this is silly, you’re silly, and while we’re at it, I’m silly, for bothering to try to explain this to you. I can’t decide whether you were just looking to pick a fight, or you truly don’t understand what Candace was trying to say. Both, I suspect.

Anyway, I’m glad you had your “laugh for the day.” Judging by our exchange, I’d say the giggles come early and often, every day.

I suspect Bill understood Candace’s comment as a double entendre.

A double entendre is a figure of speech similar to the pun, in which a spoken phrase can be understood in either of two ways. The first, literal meaning is an innocent one, while the second meaning is often ironic or risqué and requires the hearer to have some additional knowledge. (wikipedia)

But it would be best if Candace replied to the intent of her comment.

so…

….nice place you’ve got here…

…seems you’re all having a linguistic discussion at this point….I’ll steer us back…

It’s not defacement given the fact that it is a resource that is submission-based, but it is a severe misuse (because it was conscious, fraudelent submission, and not a confused contributor with incorrect information).

In light of the LPC’s national campaign to date, it’s a fitting image, but the outrage from the right if the CPC image was replaced would have been far more palpable.

It’s not “brilliant” in any way, and Harris was an idiot far before his approval was noted.