« MN GOP SCORES DIRECT HIT ON FRANKEN FRONT GROUP #2 | Home | LIBERAL BLOG UPSET AT FACTS AND ACCURATE QUOTES BEING ADDED TO FRANKEN’S WIKIPEDIA PAGE; SAME LIBERAL BLOG BUSTED FOR LEAVING UNSIGNED ATTACK COMMENTS ON FRANKEN’S WIKIPEDIA PAGE #2 »
LIBERAL BLOG UPSET AT FACTS AND ACCURATE QUOTES BEING ADDED TO FRANKEN’S WIKIPEDIA PAGE; SAME LIBERAL BLOG BUSTED FOR LEAVING UNSIGNED ATTACK COMMENTS ON FRANKEN’S WIKIPEDIA PAGE
By Michael B. Brodkorb | July 2, 2008
One of the liberal bloggers behind the blog MN Campaign Report is complaining about facts and accurate quotes being added to Al Franken’s Wikipedia page. Last year, I proudly made these additions to Al Franken’s Wikipedia page:
- Added references to Al Franken’s documented use of illegal drugs.
- Added references to Al Franken’s documented support for the war in Iraq
- Added references to Mike Ciresi’s document complaint that Franken flip-flopped on support for the war in Iraq.
- Added information about Al Franken’s quote where he said Democrats should “…cut off funding for the troops.”
All of the additions I made to Franken’s Wikipedia page were documented and truthful. Most of my additions are still on Franken’s Wikipedia page in some form.
While I proudly signed my name after adding additions to Al Franken’s Wikipedia page, someone using the login name “MNCampaignReport” added numerous paragraphs about me to the discussion section of Franken’s Wikipedia page without leaving a signature:
The small text in the picture above reads “Preceding unsigned comment added by MNCampaignReport…” Here’s my question: Why didn’t the person logging on as “MNCampaignReport” sign their comments?
As a former anonymous blogger, I support the right of people to leave anonymous comments. I allow anonymous comments on Minnesota Democrats Exposed. But the person using the handle “MNCampaignReport” was caught leaving unsigned attack comments.
Due to the fact that I proudly signed my name to my additions, the person using the handle “MNCampaignReport” was able to leave their unsigned attack comments about me. They knew who I was, because I wasn’t hiding from my additions.
In fact, the discussion page of Franken’s Wikipedia page is still riddled with unsigned comments from someone using the handle “MNCampaignReport”.
Wikipedia’s software is able to catch people, like the person using the handle “MNCampaignReport” who don’t sign their comments. The software automatically adds the language “Preceding unsigned comment added by…” when ever an editor comments on a Wikipedia discussion page without signing their comment.
Wikipedia strongly encourages people to sign posts on discussion pages because it “facilitates discussion by helping other uses to identify the author of a particular comment:
“Signing your posts on talk pages and other Wikipedia discourse (but not on articles) is not only good etiquette, but also facilitates discussion by helping other users to identify the author of a particular comment, to navigate talk pages, and to address specific comments to the relevant user(s), among other things. Discussion is an important part of collaborative editing as it helps other users to understand the progress and evolution of a work.” Source: Wikipedia
I think their policy makes sense, that is why I proudly signed my additions and comments to Franken’s Wikipedia page with my name. It would appear that the person logging in as “MNCampaignReport” failed to follow Wikipedia’s advice by not signing their additions to the discussion section of Franken’s Wikipedia page.
The person leaving the comment “MNCampaignReport” did write that “…the facts and quotes MBrodkorb asserts may, in their own right, be true…” Source: Discussion section of Al Franken’s Wikipedia page.
“MNCampaignReport” is name of a liberal Minnesota blog maintained by Joe Bodell, who previously worked on John Kerry’s presidential campaign and Steve Kelley’s campaign for governor. MN Campaign Report also raises money for variety of DFL campaigns, including Al Franken’s U.S. Senate campaign.
To this day, the blog MN Campaign Report has not disclosed who repeatedly left unsigned comments on the discussion section of Franken’s Wikipedia page. Also, the person using the handle “MNCampaignReport” never disclosed their identity on the discussion section of Franken’s Wikipedia page.
I’m looking for people to help monitor Franken’s Wikipedia page to make sure truthful and accurate material, consistent with the content that appears on comparable Wikipedia pages, remains on Franken’s page.
I will also need help monitoring the discussion page, specifically looking out for unsigned attack comments and unsigned edits left by liberal bloggers using handles like “MNCampaignReport.” If you’re interested in helping, please use my contact page to send me an e-mail.
Topics: Uncategorized | 35 Comments »
July 2nd, 2008 at 10:03 am
You must have a lot of time on your hands to spend your days playing with Wikipedia
July 2nd, 2008 at 10:08 am
As noted in my post, my additions were made last year. I’ll be making more additions when my schedule allows.
July 2nd, 2008 at 10:15 am
Remember when your entire blog was anonymous? I do. http://tinyurl.com/5945c
I’m not condoning putting up unsigned comments. But you making this criticism is like Norm Coleman calling people a “flip-flopper”!
July 2nd, 2008 at 10:17 am
Well, a better analogy is “..like republiCon Ron accusin’ someone of ‘hypcorisy’…”
July 2nd, 2008 at 10:20 am
Great job Michael.
It’s nice that you have the integrity to sign your posts on Wikipedia while Bodell trying to leave anonymous posts attacking you without knowing that they’re in fact NOT ANONYMOUS!
Again, great job having the integrity to sign your posts and great job exposing Bodell for the idiot hack he is.
July 2nd, 2008 at 10:27 am
Jeff: As I wrote in this post, I am a former anonymous blogger and I support the right of people to leave anonymous comments. I allow anonymous comments on Minnesota Democrats Exposed. But the person using the handle “MNCampaignReport” was caught leaving unsigned attack comments. They didn’t sign their comments.
When I was an anonymous blogger, I signed my comments. Again, someone using the handle “MNCampaignReport” was caught leaving unsigned comments. There is a big difference between signed comments and unsigned comments. As one of the bloggers behind MN Campaign Report, did you leave the unsigned comments? Do you know who did leave the unsigned comments?
July 2nd, 2008 at 10:32 am
I like how it took 16 paragraphs to describe this little civil war in the leper colony.
But, I guess if this is what it takes to remove the focus from Norm Coleman’s ethical lapses, so be it.
July 2nd, 2008 at 10:44 am
Jeff: I’ll repeat my question: as one of the bloggers behind MN Campaign Report, did you leave the unsigned comments on the discussion section of Franken’s Wikipedia page? Do you know who did leave the unsigned comments on the discussion section of Franken’s Wikipedia page?
July 2nd, 2008 at 10:47 am
Gld: Thanks for the comment, but we don’t know for sure that the owner of the blog, MN Campaign Report, left the unsigned comments as “MNCampaignReport” on the discussion section of Franken’s Wikipedia page. I’ve asked Jeff Rosenberg, who blogs at MN Campaign Report, if he left the comments or of he knows who did. We’ll see if he answers the question or if somebody from MN Campaign Report takes responsibility.
July 2nd, 2008 at 11:01 am
Whether or not Bodell left the comments is somewhat irrelevant. He is the owner of the blog and responsible for all content under the name of MN Campaign Report.
I’m sure he’ll blame Franken’s accountant.
July 2nd, 2008 at 11:04 am
Anonymity gives liberal fascists an easier means to attack. They’re cowards.
July 2nd, 2008 at 11:12 am
Go with that, Kyle – it makes reality that much easier for you to ignore.
July 2nd, 2008 at 11:29 am
I’ve read your stuff Tommy. You’re definitely a fascist, but you’re not a coward about it.
July 2nd, 2008 at 11:43 am
Is it not also possible that the person posting anonymously ALSO made up the fact about being MN Campaign Report?
Seems like you have to have a very malicious mind to think that a person would go so far as to post as MN Campaign Report, but then assume they are being anonymous.
Strikes me as the sort of thing a republican would do to draw the dogs off the trail of an ethics complaint filed against Norm Coleman.
July 2nd, 2008 at 11:52 am
God I’m tired of only getting half the story. Michael, if you have a legitimate criticism, go for it. But you missed (that’s me being charitable) an important part.
From the discussion section:
Apologies for not signing my edits — all edits related to this page have, in fact, been me, and not someone else logging in as me. MNCampaignReport 19:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for siging your posts “MNCampaignReport” as this will help with communication between contributors. While I may privately disagree with some small minor aspects of the edits on Franken’s page regarding the troop funding issue, dramatic improvements have been made and I’m proud of the edits and suggestions that I made that ended up in the final version. I fully support the community aspect of Wikipedia…. –MBrodkorb 20:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:13 pm
[...] LIBERAL BLOG UPSET AT FACTS AND ACCURATE QUOTES BEING ADDED TO FRANKEN’S WIKIPEDIA PAGE; SAME … | [...]
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Leave it to Michael to blame other editors new to wikipedia for not knowing how to add their signature to their comments (for the record, I think it’s something like ~~~~). It is incredibly easy and fast to create a Wikipedia account named anything, and every edit is tracked by the username. For all we know, anyone could be the owner/operator of the MNCampaignReport account, but here at MDE, everyone is guilty until they can prove they aren’t…
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Michael,
if you aren’t getting paid for all of this, you’ve gotta pretty sick obsession on your hands my friend.
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Jeff: As I noted on the discussion page of Al Franken’s Wikipedia page and on the Pioneer Press’ blog Political Animal, the owner of MN Campaign Report has never publically disclosed on their blog or on Franken’s Wikipedia page who left the the unsigned comment. Since multiple people blog at MN Campaign Report, it could be the owner of the blog or another blogger who blogs at MN Campaign Report that left the unsigned comments on Al Franken’s Wikipedia page.
I’m sorry you are confused Jeff, but who signed the comments?
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Kyle, do you know what fascism means? could you give us your definition?
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Yoni,
If you aren’t getting paid for all of the comments you leave on this site, you’ve gotta pretty sick obsession on your hands my friend.
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Fascism being defined as a political ideology obsessed with establishing an authoritarian or totalitarian state.
Fascism is a perfectly apt description for the level of economic, though and behavioral control liberals opt to replace American freedom with.
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Here, since discussion of Wikipedia is all the rage today. Here’s are some excellent descriptors, which if you didn’t know it came from an entry on Fascism, sounds like a synopsis on the Democrat party:
“Fascism is typified by totalitarian attempts to impose state control over all aspects of life: political, social, cultural, and economic, by way of a strong, single-party government for enacting laws…”
“Fascism exalts the nation, state, or group of people as superior to the individuals composing it…. ”
“Fascism uses explicit populist rhetoric…”
“… and demands loyalty to a single leader, leading to a cult of personality and unquestioned obedience to orders.”
“Fascism is also considered to be a form of collectivism….”
Obama, anyone?
July 2nd, 2008 at 1:04 pm
This is fun: More on the Democrat Party of Facsists:
“Fascist governments nationalized some key industries, managed their currencies and made some massive state investments. They also introduced price controls, wage controls and other types of economic planning measures. Fascist governments instituted state-regulated allocation of resources, especially in the financial and raw materials sectors.”
Anyone heard Nancy Pelosi or the Democrats in Washington discuss the energy sector recently? They’re a bunch of damned Fascits… I believe they even called on the nationalization of oil refining, and they’re HUGE on wage controls, price controls, etc….
July 2nd, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Kyle, by the definitions you supplied, I cannot be a “fascist”, as not only do I firmly believe this American Expirament needs a viable and vibrant third major party, I’m a firm proponent of IRV.
Sorry to disappoint you, but this just goes to show, once again, the basic tenent of GOPer bootlickers:
“Facts are stupid things.”
Uncle Ronnie said it; bootlickers live it.
July 2nd, 2008 at 1:14 pm
You’re probably right about a third party, Tommy. Afterall, the Democrat and Republican parties are pretty much the same organ, both racing wildly to see who can sell out the future fastest.
The Republican Party went wrong when it tried to start giving more “handouts” than the Democrats did. Bush’s Medicaid Drug benefit is probably the worst public policy since Johnson’s “Great Society,” if not since FDR’s “New Deal.”
All three have the promise of destroying the principles on which this nation was founded.
July 2nd, 2008 at 1:16 pm
The problem with “third parties” is that they’re all jokes. The Green Party is just the ultra-radical end of the Democrat party. We used to call them “Reds”… because they’re communist as hell. The Libertarians tend to fall for retards like Ron Paul.
The only third-party candidate I ever respected was Tim Penny. The rest is just to fractured to matter.
July 2nd, 2008 at 2:23 pm
In comment #25, Tommy Johnson writes about “this American Expirament”.
So…
Tommy Johnson is either A) a poster child for public education or B) hopeful that America will “expire”.
Or C) both A) and B).
July 2nd, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Good etiquette and collaborative editing? Surely you jest when asking this of libs Michael. Also, why is it, that seemingly half of the comments are you repeating what you’ve already written in your post? Could it be that some commenters only see what they want to see? hmmm Nevermind, I’ve answered my own questions.
July 2nd, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Say, “johnson”?
When Angry Al gets his ass handed to him in November, whose “johnson” will you be? With the economy sagging, I’m guessing the market for an out of work butt boy is going to be pretty slim.
Better polish that resume, boy.
July 2nd, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Swiftee
you are just obsessed with male genitalia aren’t you? its kind of disturbing, do your neighbors know about this obsession? if i looked online would you be listed as a sexual predator?
July 2nd, 2008 at 5:55 pm
[...] Report has finally admitted that he was the author. Bodell’s public admission comes eight hours after I wrote a post exposing that someone using the username “MNCampaignReport… was leaving the unsigned attack comments on Franken’s Wikipedia’s page, a practice [...]
July 2nd, 2008 at 9:00 pm
TommyJohnson said:
“Kyle, by the definitions you supplied, I cannot be a “fascist””
TommyJohnson, I think you did not read them all, or don’t understand what the words mean. This:
“not only do I firmly believe this American Expirament needs a viable and vibrant third major party”
doesn’t address half of the definitions, and this:
“I’m a firm proponent of IRV”
makes me think you want more radicals in office, or you just don’t understand IRV. :-/
July 3rd, 2008 at 1:43 pm
[...] pissing contest between paid political operative Michael Brodkorb and Joe at MNCampaignReport over the editing of Al Franken’s Wikipedia entry , and todays SHOCKING! OMG! WOW! SHOCKING!!!@#$!@##ROFLCOPTERS ‘video’ of Steve Sarvi I [...]
October 1st, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Did you hear? Russian agressor attacks USA…
More info here: hotusanewx.blogspot.com
SHOKED!!