Newt Gingrich’s PR director makes over 60 changes to candidate’s Wikipedia page: Reports

The Star (Canada) ^ | 6 February 2012 | Talia Ralph

[Fractal Trader]

Joe DeSantis, Newt Gingrich’s communications director, has come under fire for making significant changes to Gingrich’s Wikipedia page, CNN Political Ticker reported Monday.

According to Wikipedia records, DeSantis has made or requested over 60 alterations to Wikipedia’s biographical entry on Gingrich.

The communications director has also made changes to Gingrich’s wife Callista’s page on the online crowd-sourced encyclopedia, adjusting her entry at least 23 times since 2008, according to BuzzFeed.

DeSantis has requested changes to the GOP presidential candidate’s page through a feature on the site called “Talk” since May 2011, most recently asking for adjustments in mid-December.

DeSantis has drawn criticism from some Wikipedia editors.

“I’ll raise the question in the appropriate place, but I have to say this micro-managing by a Gingrich campaign director is a matter of concern to me even though you now are identifying yourself. Pointing out factual errors is one thing, but your input should not go beyond that, even here on Talk,” an editor known as Tvoz wrote on a page devoted discussing edits, according to CNN.

Wikipedia warns against conflicts of interest on the site, which it defines as “an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor.”

[Fractal Trader]

Not exactly hiding what he was doing but, I think any candidate should stay away from pissing wars on Wikipedia. Only makes them look bad.

[Red6]

You nearly have too go in and repair the crap that others do in order to make you look bad. Think Bush and Rumsfeld years past. Unfortunately, many go to Wikipedia and actually use it as a source to construct their ideas or opinions on things political or religious, and in those two area's Wikipedia is unreliable.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Just try posting some truths about the Saudis funding terrorism on Wikipedia and see how long it lasts.

Funding Evil

[dayglored]

It's not surprising that a PR guy (-any- PR guy) would try to spin a politician's Wiki entry to the positive. That's what they do for a living.

Wikipedia has its pros and cons. In my personal opinion, it's a great place to seek and find facts, and a terrible place to seek and find points of view.

In other words, the more it sticks to being just an encyclopedia, and presenting facts, the better it is. I get my points of view from FreeRepublic, thank you. [snort!]