PDA

View Full Version : "out" the anti gunners on wikipedia and the media.


mag360
05-12-2012, 11:02 PM
What do you guys think, something we can do? Put some of our time to work while we wait for all these cases to be sorted out. We have 13 days til we hear back on Haynie aka AWB case.

In those 13 days, do you think we can figure out who every single anti gun local politician is and edit their wikipedia pages to show that? This means city council and county supervisors. Think back to Sunnyvale, think Pinole. We lost pinole, lets make it known we don't plan on losing another.

I'm not calling for making stuff up, just exposing their voting record for all to see.

Ideally this would be a project where we have a small team that actively updates it when someone makes a post in this thread that there is a new anti, or someone changed alliances. I think with 100,000 members on here we should be able to find a couple who are good wiki editors eh?

To start, just begin putting all the anti-gun local folks in this post and we will go from there. then we update the wiki pages, then we start hitting the papers with anti-freedom, anti-civil rights, anti gun type letters. then we make the big boys at the NRA and any other groups that can benefit from mutual participation to get good candidates elected.

I'll start, Kevin McCarty, sacramento District 6 city council.

Wish I was at the gym right now, way too much energy for 12am.

:36:

jdberger
05-12-2012, 11:04 PM
I'm in.

voiceofreason
05-13-2012, 12:17 AM
I'm not tech savvy enough to contribute, but I support and like this idea provided the FACTS are simply brought to light and not slanted or skewed.

There's enough foolish anti-gun rhetoric that we should be able to use direct quotes much of the time.

Somebody start with the jackass from La Canada, Portantino.

mud99
05-13-2012, 12:25 AM
Post instructions on what to do exactly along with all the facts to include and you are guaranteed to get a mob of Calgunners helping you...

Shiboleth
05-13-2012, 2:40 AM
I'm in.

wildhawker
05-13-2012, 3:11 AM
Love it!

-Brandon

SanPedroShooter
05-13-2012, 4:26 AM
Sure.

mag360
05-13-2012, 8:07 AM
What do you think of this as a template? The people at the state level are already well known, so I guess we could check and make sure there info is up to date as well. Maybe even a rating system? Example, if you were going to rate Mike Gatto(crpa gave him an F??), he voted against one or two anti gun bills last year, but then voted in favor of another. So i wouldn't really say he is super "anti".


1. Name:
2. Position: (city council/county supervisor/whatever)
3. Unofficial position if no record available, i.e. personal correspondence:
4. Voting record: concrete example of a vote
5. Public comments: any? could be from a city meeting, or in the press.

What do you think, anything we should do different?

Do you guys want to do this with all the state level politicians as well? That would be 80 assemblymen and 40 state senators.

They would be the fastest and easiest, but I do really want to get the local anti's out. Being anti gun needs to be seen as being pro Nazi/pro jim crow/etc.

jdberger
05-13-2012, 8:49 AM
So perhaps create a wikipedia topic? California Politicians Who Vote Anti-Gun (Anti-Rights)?

Then a line could be added to their bio in WIKI which was linked to the other page.

jdberger
05-13-2012, 8:51 AM
My pick is Tom Ammiano. Assembly from the 13th District.

mag360
05-13-2012, 11:15 AM
So perhaps create a wikipedia topic? California Politicians Who Vote Anti-Gun (Anti-Rights)?

Then a line could be added to their bio in WIKI which was linked to the other page.

Oh I like that one. By using wikipedia it keeps us from having to maintain a website for the database, several of us can keep excel spreadsheets in case the wiki is edited by an anti.

schneiderguy
05-13-2012, 11:56 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Buchanan#Political_Views

I fixed Joan Buchanan's (CA Assembly, 15th district) page :)

raycm2
05-13-2012, 12:24 PM
While we're at it, we need to edit the party alliance. These people are members of the Democrat party, not Democratic.

wjc
05-13-2012, 5:47 PM
While we're at it, we need to edit the party alliance. These people are members of the Democrat party, not Democratic.

yeah, I think we should add this as well. It would give us a good demographic if the anti position was related to the party or their personal beliefs.

Irish Gunner
05-13-2012, 5:53 PM
Here is a link with NRA grades for all CA elections in June.

http://www.nrapvf.org/grades-endorsements/2012/california.aspx

And CRPA

http://blog.crpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/May-2012-CRPA-Election-Guide-Voting-Recommendations-UPDATE-5-9.pdf

wjc
05-13-2012, 6:10 PM
Good intel, thanks Irish Gunner.

Mr Blu
05-13-2012, 6:49 PM
I think this is a great idea.

As other have stated, only recorded documents, direct quotes, and provable evidence should be put on the page. No guesses. No theories. No opinions. Only hard evidence of a persons record towards the 2nd Amendment.

stix213
05-13-2012, 8:45 PM
This is a good idea

nicki
05-13-2012, 9:50 PM
Gun rights appeal to gunnie, civil rights on the other hand have a muchbroader appeal.

While most gun issues tend to be at the state level, there are some notable areas where local government.

1. Gun Dealers
2. Ranges
3. CCW issuance
4. Prosectutions.

Thanks to term limits, the local politicians arenthenfarm teams for the state legislature.
Yes there is 100,000 members on the forum, but how many of us will get off our keyboards and active in real life.

We could be significant friends or deadly foes. Unlike the Brady bunch and their lemmings at the LCAV, we actually have the bodies across the state to make things happen.

Nicki

jdberger
05-13-2012, 10:53 PM
Anyone know how to start a Wikipedia page?

email
05-13-2012, 11:14 PM
Kevin de Leon needs special attention

Librarian
05-14-2012, 9:23 AM
Anyone know how to start a Wikipedia page?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to:create_a_new_wiki_page

PhalSe
05-14-2012, 9:54 AM
1. Name:
2. Position: (city council/county supervisor/whatever)
3. Unofficial position if no record available, i.e. personal correspondence:
4. Voting record: concrete example of a vote
5. Public comments: any? could be from a city meeting, or in the press.

What do you think, anything we should do different?


You should to add to this template a preferably linkable reference to the quote or vote so that the information is seen as facts vs. biased FUD. It would also be good to put in some standard language that describes the position as pro- or anti- civil rights.

mrrsquared79
05-14-2012, 10:33 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Buchanan#Political_Views

I fixed Joan Buchanan's (CA Assembly, 15th district) page :)

Can you change it to say 2nd Amendment CIVIL rights. Same for anyone/everyone else that points this issue out publicly. Make sure it states CIVIL rights(not in all capital letters just that the word civil is in there.)

loather
05-14-2012, 11:32 AM
The problem with this strategy is that as soon as the politician's PR staff sees any change that could paint that politician in a negative light, they'll either revert the change or re-word it to be more neutral. We don't want that. Gun rights are a hot-button issue right now; don't think that any edits we put in won't be challenged.

That's both the best thing and the worst thing about a wiki: anyone can edit it.

Additionally, the assertation on Joan Buchannan's page stating "... has had a record of voting against ..." needs to be cited, otherwise it can be challenged and removed. The citation for the Brady Campaign backing, on the other hand, is spot-on.

mag360
06-05-2012, 3:15 AM
Roger Dickinsons wikipedia has been updated.

under legislative issues, anti civil rights/anti law enforcement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Dickinson#Legislative_Priorities

in case it is removed from Wikipedia.

Anti Civil Rights/Anti Law Enforcement

AB 2460 Law Enforcement Officers may not sell off-Roster handguns - the bill would prevent law enforcement officers from selling or transferring guns they own which are not listed on the California "not-unsafe handgun" roster. The intent of the bill is to keep officers from selling popular handguns that are not on the handgun roster. Among the problems are that the bill will prevent LEO from selling any old handguns in their possession that were never on the list (i.e. classic), or handguns where the manufacturer stopped paying the bi-yearly renewal fee to keep their certified handgun on the roster.

CDFingers
06-05-2012, 5:56 AM
"Outing" anti gunners will create even more animosity, and I caution against it.

I think the better choice is to show that gun rights are civil rights, and standing up for one civil right is to stand up for all of them.

I find that a more positive approach which does not create any enemies. It does, however, create allies.

Oh, and raycm2, using "democrat" instead of "democratic" as an adjective merely shows the illiteracy of the writer. Don't be "that guy."

CDFingers

Carnivore
06-05-2012, 7:33 AM
"Outing" anti gunners will create even more animosity, and I caution against it.

I think the better choice is to show that gun rights are civil rights, and standing up for one civil right is to stand up for all of them.

I find that a more positive approach which does not create any enemies. It does, however, create allies.

Oh, and raycm2, using "democrat" instead of "democratic" as an adjective merely shows the illiteracy of the writer. Don't be "that guy."

CDFingers

X100 on it all and the bold is one of those "things" that to John "Q" public rates up there with the idiot (Dem or republican) that has the "He's not MY President" bumper sticker. Grammatically correct but still douchey to the general public not in the fight so to speak.

bpenn
06-05-2012, 8:10 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Buchanan#Political_Views

I fixed Joan Buchanan's (CA Assembly, 15th district) page :)

No longer there...

a1c
06-05-2012, 8:53 AM
I'd recommend anyone trying to do some serious work on Wikipedia to first become familiar with the process, the style and the criteria.

Otherwise, it sounds like some of you are going to be wasting a LOT of time and energy into something that won't last very long. Wikipedia editors very easily revert "activist" changes because most of the time those are done with little savviness with the way Wikipedia works.

So if you're serious about this, visit first the Community Portal, and always, always spend time in the "Talk" page (accessible through the tab in each article) before editing anything. Make sure you're a registered user with a decent user page as well.

Not trying to discourage anyone - but you need to know what you're doing before you waste your time.

Glock22Fan
06-05-2012, 9:13 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Buchanan#Political_Views

I fixed Joan Buchanan's (CA Assembly, 15th district) page :)


You either did it very subtly, or it has been unfixed again. :(

I think that is the problem with this initiative. Too many people willing to censor content they don't like.

Was it De Leon that we tried to do this with a couple of years back? We changed that page dozens of times, but it never stuck, even though we were scrupilous enough to make our comments completely factual and unemotional.

vantec08
06-05-2012, 9:14 AM
good to go

a1c
06-05-2012, 9:26 AM
You either did it very subtly, or it has been unfixed again. :(

I think that is the problem with this initiative. Too many people willing to censor content they don't like.

Was it De Leon that we tried to do this with a couple of years back? We changed that page dozens of times, but it never stuck, even though we were scrupilous enough to make our comments completely factual and unemotional.

No. There are plenty of pro-2A Wikipedia contributors, and the firearm-related categories and articles are a testament to that.

The problem here is that the edit was:

1. Done by a non-registered user. That automatically triggers red flags. If you're going to get serious about editing Wikipedia content, create a user account, have a decent user page, and build a record.

2. An obvious activist move. The "Political Views" paragraph was ONLY about her anti-2A views. If you're going to get serious about this, write a complete, documented and unbiased paragraph about ALL her political views, and not just her 2A record. Otherwise, the "Political Views" paragraph is worthless, and makes it sound like gun control is her only or main political focus.

Again, if you're going to do this, do it right. You can't just do drive-by edits and expect them to stick.

gunsmith
06-05-2012, 10:51 AM
Sounds to much like a forum war, lets just raise money instead & use it to win some lawsuits
Living well is the best revenge,

Glock22Fan
06-05-2012, 11:15 AM
No. There are plenty of pro-2A Wikipedia contributors, and the firearm-related categories and articles are a testament to that.

snip



Not saying there aren't. You can put as much stuff as you like on other pages, and it will quite probably get left there.

However, the teams of the anti-gun politicians know that being seen as too anti-gun can be a political loser. Those teams, both the official and unofficial members, will let your stuff exist on your page, probably because they don't know it is there, but if you put stuff they don't like on their beloved's campaign pages, it will get taken down within a few hours - if not faster.

Heck, their teams probably have designated volunteers to monitor their Wikipedia and Facebook pages, looking for ANY unauthorized alterations. They may even use Google and take stuff off your Wiki page if you mention their beloved by name. I know that's what I'd do if I was stupid enough to be a Dem campaign manager.

MaHoTex
06-05-2012, 11:39 AM
If these anti's believe and stand by their gun grabbing ways, I find it funny that the Wiki pages are edited back within hours (or less) of the updates. These people are pathetic.

a1c
06-05-2012, 11:51 AM
Not saying there aren't. You can put as much stuff as you like on other pages, and it will quite probably get left there.

However, the teams of the anti-gun politicians know that being seen as too anti-gun can be a political loser. Those teams, both the official and unofficial members, will let your stuff exist on your page, probably because they don't know it is there, but if you put stuff they don't like on their beloved's campaign pages, it will get taken down within a few hours - if not faster.

Heck, their teams probably have designated volunteers to monitor their Wikipedia and Facebook pages, looking for ANY unauthorized alterations. They may even use Google and take stuff off your Wiki page if you mention their beloved by name. I know that's what I'd do if I was stupid enough to be a Dem campaign manager.

Fine. Choose to paint yourself as a victim. Choose to believe you are persecuted by the antis, and that they're behind all those reverted changes.

The truth is that YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG. You guys are going around, drive-by-editing, sloppily and lazily, without any knowledge of how you're supposed to do things. You're amateurs and you refuse to dedicate the necessary time and knowledge to do this correctly. You act entitled and want instant gratification. It's not going to happen.

You can do anonymous changes that will stick if they're small or on some obscure pages. But when you do edits like these from a non-registered account, without taking the time to do the job the way it's supposed to be done (in this case, creating a whole section about a politician's view on the 2A without taking the time to write about their other political views as well), then your changes are legitimately reverted.

Yes, many politicians (on both sides of the aisle) often have personnel monitoring their own pages. But even those teams can't fight the Wikipedia editors when they make BS changes. If the content is legitimate, balanced and documented, it will stick.

This is not like commenting on some blog or newspaper's online article. If you want to get this done, take the time to learn how to do it. If some of you guys are legitimately interested in doing so, then take my advice. If you are serious about it, take the time to create an account, read the community area content, contribute to it, and read the Talk pages. Yes, it means dedicating several hours to it.

If you want to do this, do it right. Take it from someone who's contributed to Wikipedia and whose changes or articles are still there, years later.

mag360
06-05-2012, 12:03 PM
a how to wiki guide "write up" by A1C would be most appreciated.

I agree that an continualy updated page or wiki that we can have control over would be better but driving foot traffic to that would be difficult. At the least it would be a good resource for our cause as an information repository.

a1c
06-05-2012, 12:25 PM
a how to wiki guide "write up" by A1C would be most appreciated.

I agree that an continualy updated page or wiki that we can have control over would be better but driving foot traffic to that would be difficult. At the least it would be a good resource for our cause as an information repository.

I'm not going to do a write up as the resources are already available. I'd suggest starting here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tutorial
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Minor_edit

Yes, that's a lot of stuff to read up on. But it's also worth it. Not only will it explain to you how to proceed, but it will also give you an insight into Wikipedia's processes and philosophy.

Once you've read the pages above (which are the bare minimum to assimilate), check out the Community Portal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_portal

And the Village Pump:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump

And then, as I stated before, always read the "Talk" page for any article you intend on editing. And take the time to create an account. It's easy and you're never going to get any spam. Your user page can be very easily customized.

I'm sorry if I sounded harsh in previous posts, but there is a reason Wikipedia has become such a remarkable resource, as flawed as it can be. Its benefits definitely outweigh by far those flaws. And if you're a bit OCD or Asperger's like I am, it can be addicting. The good news is that your contributions actually matter and will benefit others.

Glock22Fan
06-05-2012, 1:35 PM
Fine. Choose to paint yourself as a victim. Choose to believe you are persecuted by the antis, and that they're behind all those reverted changes.

The truth is that YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG. You guys are going around, drive-by-editing, sloppily and lazily, without any knowledge of how you're supposed to do things. You're amateurs and you refuse to dedicate the necessary time and knowledge to do this correctly. You act entitled and want instant gratification. It's not going to happen.

You can do anonymous changes that will stick if they're small or on some obscure pages. But when you do edits like these from a non-registered account, without taking the time to do the job the way it's supposed to be done (in this case, creating a whole section about a politician's view on the 2A without taking the time to write about their other political views as well), then your changes are legitimately reverted.

Yes, many politicians (on both sides of the aisle) often have personnel monitoring their own pages. But even those teams can't fight the Wikipedia editors when they make BS changes. If the content is legitimate, balanced and documented, it will stick.

This is not like commenting on some blog or newspaper's online article. If you want to get this done, take the time to learn how to do it. If some of you guys are legitimately interested in doing so, then take my advice. If you are serious about it, take the time to create an account, read the community area content, contribute to it, and read the Talk pages. Yes, it means dedicating several hours to it.

If you want to do this, do it right. Take it from someone who's contributed to Wikipedia and whose changes or articles are still there, years later.

I don't paint myself as a victim whatsoever, and, if anything, I think my posts totally agree with yours, but from a different, perhaps less well informed, viewpoint.

How people have been doing it (not me) is indeed wrong, and that is what I said and what you've said, except that you have the greater expertise and have gone into details about how to do it right.

I don't expect instant gratification, so I suggest you tell people how to do it properly, instead of scolding people who agree with you, but who, perhaps, have less intimate knowledge of the required process.

a1c
06-05-2012, 1:48 PM
I don't paint myself as a victim whatsoever, and, if anything, I think my posts totally agree with yours, but from a different, perhaps less well informed, viewpoint.

How people have been doing it (not me) is indeed wrong, and that is what I said and what you've said, except that you have the greater expertise and have gone into details about how to do it right.

I don't expect instant gratification, so I suggest you tell people how to do it properly, instead of scolding people who agree with you, but who, perhaps, have less intimate knowledge of the required process.

I guess I get particularly annoyed when gun owners and 2A advocates systemically invoke persecution from the Brady camp and antis just because their efforts don't pan out as expected in the media or on the Web.

PR is an art. It takes skills and experience and patience. There are several posts in this thread who blame their failures on the other camp, when in fact their failure is only attributable to their lack of experience and understanding of how things work. Plenty of Calgunners are PR-savvy and have done a great job of getting our message across in the mainstream media. All it takes is some savviness and giving up on the "We're misunderstood and persecuted" mentality.

taperxz
06-05-2012, 1:54 PM
I guess I get particularly annoyed when gun owners and 2A advocates systemically invoke persecution from the Brady camp and antis just because their efforts don't pan out as expected in the media or on the Web.

PR is an art. It takes skills and experience and patience. There are several posts in this thread who blame their failures on the other camp, when in fact their failure is only attributable to their lack of experience and understanding of how things work. Plenty of Calgunners are PR-savvy and have done a great job of getting our message across in the mainstream media. All it takes is some savviness and giving up on the "We're misunderstood and persecuted" mentality.

+1. ;)

Glock22Fan
06-05-2012, 2:03 PM
I guess I get particularly annoyed when gun owners and 2A advocates systemically invoke persecution from the Brady camp and antis just because their efforts don't pan out as expected in the media or on the Web.

PR is an art. It takes skills and experience and patience. There are several posts in this thread who blame their failures on the other camp, when in fact their failure is only attributable to their lack of experience and understanding of how things work. Plenty of Calgunners are PR-savvy and have done a great job of getting our message across in the mainstream media. All it takes is some savviness and giving up on the "We're misunderstood and persecuted" mentality.

I agree with you, as long as you aren't including me in this class. I just factually stated what is happening to edits the way that they are currently being made. You have the expertise to recommend how to avoid that. Great.

wjc
06-05-2012, 2:06 PM
What's the link for this wiki? Kinda curious to see how it turned out.

Uxi
06-06-2012, 7:07 AM
The point of Wikipedia is aggregation of different sources. As long as it's properly sourced, it shouldn't be contingent on any individual editor to do a comprehensive overview of anyone's political views. Other people can/should fill in the rest of an individual politicians positions.

With a proper username and source citations, that SHOULD be enough.

Glock22Fan
06-06-2012, 9:15 AM
The point of Wikipedia is aggregation of different sources. As long as it's properly sourced, it shouldn't be contingent on any individual editor to do a comprehensive overview of anyone's political views. Other people can/should fill in the rest of an individual politicians positions.

With a proper username and source citations, that SHOULD be enough.

In an ideal world, yes. In the real world, it is easy for supporters of a politician to mob their guy's page and censor anything and everything they don't approve of. A1C claims that this can be minimised by going about things the right way. I'm dubious and I'd like to see concrete examples that work in the face of determined censorship. Otherwise, it is about as useful as trying to make negative comments on the Brady Facebook page.

oni.dori
06-06-2012, 12:33 PM
Would it perhaps be easier, more expedited, and more easily moderated by us if we created an "anti 2nd Ammendment politicians/organizations" wiki page of our own, which list the politicians, their stances, and citations (keeping factual and correct of course), and then add a small caveat to a section in their page (in accordance with the WIKI protocols), that reads something along the lines of "XXX has been known to have a history of being against Second Amendment Rights/has a history of being anti-Second Amendment Rights" which hot links to the wiki page we create? Seems like it could potentially be a way to circumvent all the BS we would have to deal with on EVERY single one of their pages, but also follow wiki SOP.

mag360
06-06-2012, 3:52 PM
Would it perhaps be easier, more expedited, and more easily moderated by us if we created an "anti 2nd Ammendment politicians/organizations" wiki page of our own, which list the politicians, their stances, and citations (keeping factual and correct of course), and then add a small caveat to a section in their page (in accordance with the WIKI protocols), that reads something along the lines of "XXX has been known to have a history of being against Second Amendment Rights/has a history of being anti-Second Amendment Rights" which hot links to the wiki page we create? Seems like it could potentially be a way to circumvent all the BS we would have to deal with on EVERY single one of their pages, but also follow wiki SOP.

that would be good. The only thing I worry about is other people will be able to edit it, so we will need to keep some type of offline "hard copy" of any edits so they can be put back if they are edited.

If we make citations and concrete examples, they won't be able to say we are lying or being libelous. i.e. explaining an anti-gun bill they supported.

Uxi
06-06-2012, 8:09 PM
Already have a CGF wiki, no?

oni.dori
06-06-2012, 10:18 PM
that would be good. The only thing I worry about is other people will be able to edit it, so we will need to keep some type of offline "hard copy" of any edits so they can be put back if they are edited.

If we make citations and concrete examples, they won't be able to say we are lying or being libelous. i.e. explaining an anti-gun bill they supported.

Yes, like any other article. However, with it being so concentrated and contained, it will be much easier for us to monitor what changes are made & their appropriateness/correctness.

Already have a CGF wiki, no?

Yes, but the Wikipedia wiki is FAR more reaching than our own. Also, it will help us garner wiki editor "street cred" if done proper.