On October 11th, I posted a story here about the probationary status of 3rd District Republican candidate Erik Paulsen’s Wikipedia entry.
Three days later, Emily Kaiser wrote the same story for CityPages, used my screenshot, and did not cite or link to the source of her story. UPDATE: Emily added a link an hour after I originally posted this. She included the following line in her story:
We decided to check out the page for ourselves. Frankly, nothing on it is obviously political or factually incorrect. While it does read like a terrible resume, it doesn’t make any obscene claims.
To which I say, “Well duh, Emily.” Doncha think someone may have gotten around to editing it during those three days?
Here is a screenshot of the edits to Paulsen’s Wikipedia entry that happened between when I broke this story and when Emily Kaiser did a horrible job of stealing it:
See the stuff in red? Those are changes. That’s what you should have written about, Emily. Here’s what would have been a good story: Write about what I found (with a citation and link) and then build upon that by taking a look at what’s changed.
Had you done that, you may have avoided this idiotic comment by W00t:
Get a clue citypages. Wikipedia didn’t shake its finger at Paulsen, some partisan hack opposing him did. Apparently they didn’t deem it “advertising” because the warning has since been removed and only the “this person is running for office” notice is still up.
Posted by: W00t at October 14, 2008 4:50 PM
You see, W00t is coming to the wrong conclusion – based on poor reporting – about why Wikipedia no longer considers Paulsen’s entry to be a blatant advertisement.
For further ranting about this marginal effort by Emily, check out this thread on MNspeak.