More Stace Nelson silliness. If you don’t like the narrative, rewrite your wikipedia page.

Pat Powers

Just had an e-mail from a reader pointing out to me: “Have you seen this? Nelson completely re-wrote his Wikipedia page.”   Okay. Call me the curious cat. I had to go look.

In looking at recent revisions, it appears that Senator Nelson, or at least someone using the prefix of his personal e-mail address of [email protected] has been actively editing his wiikipedia profile. And so have people using a form of racial epithet about the former president, as well as IP addresses originating in Mitchell… which also match up to an IP address known to lavish slobbering praise on the Senator via this web site:

Any editing of Wikipedia by the person the article is about would appear to be contrary to the guidelines of wikipedia, who lays out guidelines about conflict of interest,  noting specifically:

  • Be transparent about your conflict of interest.
  • Do not edit articles about yourself, your family or friends, your organization, your clients, or your competitors.
  • Post suggestions and sources on the article’s talk page, or in your user space.
  • The role of editors is to summarize, inform, and reference, not promote, whitewash, or sell.

Read that here.

In fact, Wikipedia’s advice if a person notices inaccurate advice about themselves on the website?

One of the most frowned upon things in Wikipedia etiquette, however, is to edit one’s own page. When Microsoft offered to hire people to do so, they were greeted with great disapproval by the community.

Read that here.

Which appears to be exactly what Senator Nelson (or someone using a form of his e-mail address) appears to have done.

What do you think? Should South Dakota politicians be editing their own wikipedia entries? For that matter, how many have their own entries?

Or should we just accept whatever we read as edited (because we read it on the Internet)?

11 thoughts on “More Stace Nelson silliness. If you don’t like the narrative, rewrite your wikipedia page.”

  1. With all these comments, seems that nobody really cares what Stace does. It’s almost like he’s not as important as he thinks he is.

    1. Or, maybe we’re tired of hearing so much about Stace and would prefer to move on to other Republican issues. I for one would like to learn more about other legislators that are running campaigns on the GOP platform just to be elected. This is a Republican/Conservative blog, right?

      Just so you know, there were two comments posted that have been removed:(

      Charles Cooke has a debate posted on National Review about censoring speech, I highly recommend a listen.

      1. When comments are posted that are off topic, as disclosed in the rules, I may exercise my discretion to remove them. Otherwise, things tend to go too far down the rabbit hole.

        1. PP, I know. The 2nd one could have easily done just that.

          *Charlie Cooke addresses respect given to one’s audience that they’re able to develop educated conclusions based on life experiences and prior knowledge. Which can lead to significant debate. With all the censoring taking place (Rep Blackburn, conservative videos on YouTube/FB and campus speakers) I just don’t want us go down that rabbit hole.

          We want to know what’s happening in Pierre and often I’ve shared info, taken from SDWC, with family & friends whom are scattered throughout SD. I respect the rules and your choices, this is by far one of the best & most informative SD blogs, we especially like the comment section;)

  2. “slanderous” “false” intentionally false” “fraudulent” “potential vandalism” “fictitious” . . . .

    Who uses an entire thesaurus of angst to document page edits? He even whines to the Wiki bot-algorithms how aggrieved and victimized he is.

    1. A disinterested person would not have used the “entire thesaurus of angst” to document edits to a wiki page. Somebody ought to revise the page to restore the accuracy that the large sergeant objects to.

  4. Jensen,

    Sour tart? Actually pretty happy, easy going and soft spoken in person but what I desire is a healthy competitive political system in South Dakota that brings out the best candidates, legislation, oversight, transparency and checks in balances in which guess who ultimately wins? The citizens of South Dakota!

    Instead we have what was supposed to be the main opposition party that has been broken, taken advantage of by self serving interests with drug culture enthusiasts and extremists that lack basic people skills that drive even more good and reasonable people away. It is quickly self destructing into fringe status and new options need to be explored as to starting a new political party that can be focused and actually get things done.

    The current Brown County District 3 SDDP candidate for state senate recently described outgoing South Dakota regent Harvey Jewett as “old and hoary”. I am very grateful for Harvey and Cynthia Jewett’s contributions in time and money to South Dakota and especially the Aberdeen area. They have given quite a bit much of which goes under the radar and are good people! Petty attacks against the Novstrups, attacking people based on their religion, ethnic origin, generalizing and demonizing all Republicans and others who do not agree with them.

    Lastly while I was helping two conservative to moderate DFL legislative candidates in rural Minnesota by door knocking and visiting with folks from May till November last year I wrote a letter to the Aberdeen American News supporting Al Novstrup in his race against Cory Heidelberger.

Comments are closed.