3 ms·

I think wikipedia is basically in a no-win situation on this. Is Harris' connections to Steve Mnuchin important? I don't know. I know a republican would tell yo

I think wikipedia is basically in a no-win situation on this. Is Harris' connections to Steve Mnuchin important? I don't know. I know a republican would tell you yes and a democrat would probably tell you no. Hell, a Republican might well tell you that it's an important fact about Harris' career whilst simultaneously not recognising that it's probably an important fact that should reflect very poorly on Steve Mnuchin who is currently serving a Republican president. I can see you could make an argument for either frankly - sweetheart deals are a problem and so is special treatment. Also she was a DA for 7 years and AG for 6 years and frankly it would be a miracle if she didn't have a few controversial decisions or dealt with some well known people. You could see a mirror of this article about her using her office to target a republican. I can certainly say the quote from the article seems to be leading - I know the article wants to imply that Harris' decision not to prosecute Mnuchin is linked to his donation to her campaign. I don't find that compelling and I certainly think its pushing a biased agenda. Personally I would like to see Wikipedia take a step back in these political situations, draw clear lines about what should be in articles and draw those lines in such a way as to minimise the pay off for editorialising. You could for example, minimise her CV to literally just which jobs she had and when, and then you could have a separate article for the Attorney General of California, where specific instances can be documented.

sukilot 6y ago
Aside from the specifics of the political squabble, an elected official (Harris) has far more to lose from "bad associations" than an appointed official (Mnuchin) who is accountable to no one except his boss.
clawedjird 6y ago
I agree that this is a difficult position for Wikipedia to be in, but I don’t think the solution is to simply scrub posts of most of their content. The reality is, for better or worse, that Wikipedia will be the first (or perhaps only) stop for many voters researching political candidates. If a voter can’t even determine the basic characteristics of a candidate’s political identity (there’s a pretty wide gulf between the profile of a “tough-on-crime” prosecutor or AG and a “progressive reformer,” for ex.) from Wikipedia’s entry on that candidate, Wikipedia will provide very limited utility to them.

sukilot 6y ago

Aside from the specifics of the political squabble, an elected official (Harris) has far more to lose from "bad associations" than an appointed official (Mnuchin) who is accountable to no one except his boss.

clawedjird 6y ago

I agree that this is a difficult position for Wikipedia to be in, but I don’t think the solution is to simply scrub posts of most of their content. The reality is, for better or worse, that Wikipedia will be the first (or perhaps only) stop for many voters researching political candidates. If a voter can’t even determine the basic characteristics of a candidate’s political identity (there’s a pretty wide gulf between the profile of a “tough-on-crime” prosecutor or AG and a “progressive reformer,” for ex.) from Wikipedia’s entry on that candidate, Wikipedia will provide very limited utility to them.