Posted on 03/13/2012 4:45:21 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
A Wikipedia article devoted to Critical Race Theory, a controversial legal theory crafted to respond to the alleged role of “white supremacy” in American law, was placed on a temporary editing lockdown over the weekend after bloggers determined that CNN anchor Soledad O’Brien had relied on Wikipedia’s introductory definition of the theory — verbatim — during on an-air debate. A second lock was placed on the article Monday to protect it from politically biased editors who adjusted it following O’Brien’s gaffe.
The flurry began after Breitbart.com editor Joel Pollak made a guest appearance on O’Brien’s show to explain a video clip depicting a close relationship during the 1990s between President Obama and the late Derrick Bell, the Harvard Law School professor credited with originating the theory.
During her show, Pollak repeatedly reminded O’Brien that Critical Race Theory was created as a backlash against perceived “white supremacy” in America. O’Brien denied this with equal force.
An editing war ensued almost immediately between pro- and anti-O’Brien partisans, alternatively removing and reinstating references to white supremacy from the Critical Race Theory article.
The article’s current lockdown, instituted by the same Wikipedia editor who froze it over the weekend — until “the media attention cools down,” he said — will last one week.
Daily Caller blogger Jim Treacher mentioned the online battle of definitions, which caught the attention of Wikipedia’s editors as well.
“Given the flurry of reverts by and of anons yesterday I’m semi-protecting the article for a week,” wrote a Wikipedia editor named WGFinley, referring to nameless amateur editors who had been making and un-making various edits in quick succession.
It seems at least one of the anons was trying to make meaningful contributions but given the blatant vandalism I’ve decided to semi-protect the article. If anyone disagrees feel free to chime in.”
Such a lock, Wikimedia Foundation spokesperson Matthew Roth told TheDC, is not uncommon when an article becomes the center of a political debate. The popular online encyclopedia is supported by the Foundation.
“That is often an approach when topical media reports turn an article into a contentious editing space,” Roth said in an email. ”In this case, he reverted to the form the article was in before the CNN story.”
That definition did, in fact, mention “white supremacy” in two specific places.
It cites a definition from the UCLA School of Public Affairs, saying Critical Race Theory holds that “existing power structures” are “based on white privilege and white supremacy, which perpetuates the marginalization of people of color.”
It also concludes that Critical Race Theory “asserts that white supremacy and racial power are reproduced over time, and in particular, that law plays a role in this process.”
Wikipedia has no editorial board and has no formal vetting process for editors. No specific editors are responsible for articles on any given page. Instead, editors are volunteers and editorial criteria are generated through consensus. Anonymous editors can easily “vandalize” articles, leaving only their computers’ IP addresses as fingerprints.
According to the edit history of the Critical Race Theory article, it has existed since 2006. The first critique of the article then called Critical Race Theory an “unencyclopedic pseudoscience.”
Wiki is generally worthless for topics involving controversies.
The essence of liberalism is to protect the lie.
Conservatives cannot win this one because Wiki editors are libtards themselves.
There, fixed it for you.
Wiki is fine if you want to read about Elvis.
Otherwise...
does Conservapedia have an entry about Derrick Bell and the CRT??
“but given the blatant vandalism “ -At Wikipedia, anything that paints Barry BigEars in a bad light is ‘vandalism.’
Oceania is at war with Eurasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.
Critical Race theory in 4 words:
I hate you, Whitey.
It figgers that a CNN talker would think of WIKIpedia as a solid source to quote from.
Lets see CRT at wok in Africa.....
There you have power echelons as well.
What did Socrates say? 15% of the population will be “adminstrators”.
You are absolutely right
Those black retards are FORTUNATE their forefathers were shitty athletes ~ thats what got them here! They could have been stuck in Africa!
Feature Bell as a tribal fisherman...Khalid as a money changer... obama pulping palm nuts.
But anything controversial, it is the lib line all the way.
FWIW, editing was locked down to prevent vandalism and revisionism that was intended to make Soledad O’Brien look better. The article did not (and does not) support what she said, it supported Pollock. O’Brien had relied only on the opening line, which she quoted out of context, rather than reading the whole article. Here is the entire opening section as it appears right now:
Critical race theory (CRT) is an academic discipline focused upon the application of critical theory, a neo-Marxist examination and critique of society and culture, to the intersection of race, law and power. According to the UCLA School of Public Affairs:
“CRT recognizes that racism is engrained in the fabric and system of the American society. The individual racist need not exist to note that institutional racism is pervasive in the dominant culture. This is the analytical lens that CRT uses in examining existing power structures. CRT identifies that these power structures are based on white privilege and white supremacy, which perpetuates the marginalization of people of color.”
Although no set of canonical doctrines or methodologies defines CRT, the movement is loosely unified by two common areas of inquiry. First, CRT proposes that white supremacy and racial power are maintained over time, and in particular, that the law may play a role in this process. Second, CRT work has investigated the possibility of transforming the relationship between law and racial power, and more broadly, pursues a project of achieving racial emancipation and anti-subordination.
Appearing in U.S. law schools in the mid- to late 1980s, critical race theory began as a reaction to critical legal studies. Scholars like Derrick Bell applauded the focus of civil rights scholarship on race, but were deeply critical of civil rights scholars’ commitment to colorblindness and their focus on intentional discrimination, rather than a broader focus on the conditions of racial inequality. Likewise, scholars like Patricia Williams, Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw and Mari Matsuda embraced the focus on the reproduction of hierarchy in Critical Legal Studies, but criticized CLS scholars for failing to focus on racial domination and on the particular sources of racial oppression.
Critical race theory has obvious political and legal ramifications and has thus triggered numerous legal and political controversies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.