The other day I discovered the debate raging on about Tom Palmer’s Wikipedia entry (you can see my contributions to the discussion page beginning with an October 3 entry). Wikipedia is, of course, an online encyclopedia that anybody can edit; its open nature allows for a conglomeration of distributed expertise, but it also provides a mechanism for those of ill intent to cause trouble. It seems that some of the Wikipedia users who edited Palmer’s entry decided it was too promotional, and that Palmer’s views on Iraq, and criticism of those views, needed to be added. This is hardly objectionable; as Wikipedia is an impartial source of information, criticism of a subject should appear alongside the subject’s own views. But the debate on this entry has raged for months over whether Palmer’s critics were describing his views correctly.

When I entered the fray, here’s how the paragraph in question appeared:

Controversy Over Iraq War

Palmer’s stance on the Iraq war contradicts the platform of the U.S. Libertarian Party, which calls for nonintervention. Although he opposed the decision to go to war with Iraq, his most visible role has been in denouncing the antiwar movement [5], calling for the U.S. to stay[6] until the insurgents are militarily defeated [7], and advocating that U.S. war policy toward the insurgents must be to “find and kill all of them before they kill all the rest of us, Muslim and non-Muslim alike.” [8] Palmer opposes immediate withdrawal.[9]

This seemed pretty obviously inaccurate and biased to me, and apparently other editors agreed — a few had previously deleted this paragraph entirely. But the subject matter was worth inclusion, as long as it actually stated the facts correctly, so I undertook a series of revisions, resulting in this paragraph:

Controversy Over Iraq War

Palmer’s stance on the Iraq war contradicts the platform of the U.S. Libertarian Party, which calls for nonintervention; it should be noted, however, that Palmer is not affiliated with the U.S. Libertarian Party. The extent to which his position differs from the stated position of the Cato Institute is less clear; although he calls for an eventual end to the occupation, Cato has argued for an expedited timetable.[5] Apart from his opposition to the decision to go to war with Iraq, and his current efforts to spread libertarian ideas in Iraq, Palmer has made waves by denouncing specific factions within the antiwar movement that he sees as pro-insurgent [6], calling for the U.S. to stay until the insurgents are militarily defeated [7], and advocating that U.S. war policy toward those insurgents who are guilty of specifically terrorist actions must be to “find and kill all of them before they kill all the rest of us, Muslim and non-Muslim alike.” [8] Palmer opposes withdrawal any time soon, based on his views that anything short of a careful, long-term strategy for withdrawal would bring about an even greater loss of both Iraqi and American life than would be the case through continuing occupation.[9]

An editor who identifies himself as “Rothbard” protested, opining that these changes “were designed to put Palmer in the best possible light.” Screw accuracy, I guess, so long as Tom Palmer looks bad?

At any rate, the debate continued, and some anonymous editor stepped up to the plate with a paragraph designed to appease everyone:

Palmer’s views on Iraq policy have proven controversial among antiwar activists. Although he opposed the decision to go to war with Iraq, he has been highly critical of some within the antiwar movement [7], and has been criticized in turn.[8] [9] After the invasion of Iraq, in April of 2004 Palmer argued that “Withdrawal is surely a proper goal. But only after something acceptable has been put in place of occupation.” [10] That stance also occasioned some controversy [11] and he has been criticized for going to Iraq to lecture and to advise Iraqis on constitutionalism and public policy. [12]

A few edits from both sides resulted in the paragraph as it stands today:

Palmer’s views on Iraq policy have proven controversial among libertarians. Although he opposed the decision to go to war with Iraq, he has been highly critical of some in the antiwar movement [7], and has been criticized in turn.[8] [9] After the invasion of Iraq, in April of 2004 Palmer argued that “Withdrawal is surely a proper goal. But only after something acceptable has been put in place of occupation.” [10] That stance also occasioned some controversy [11] and he has been criticized for going to Iraq to lecture and to advise members of the Iraqi parliament. [12] [13]

“Rothbard” continued trying to revert a couple of phrases — for some reason still insisting on removing the words “some in” before “the antiwar movement,” on the theory that since Palmer has criticized Justin Raimondo and antiwar.com, as well as Jane Fonda, that he has denounced the entire antiwar movement. Never mind that he’s on record as praising others in the antiwar movement, or that Palmer’s own rationale for the criticism is that he sees them as being for the other side, rather than simply for peace. And this rationale doesn’t seem to be much of a stretch in the case of antiwar.com, since one of its senior editors said: “I will stand up proudly for it. I have cheered on men attacking US troops. I will continue to cheer any defeat US troops meet.”

Palmer’s Wikipedia entry is currently being “protected” from further edits, while a moderator tries to convince everyone to submit to mediation. It’s telling that so far, all the editors who have tried to protect the entry from inaccurate defacing have agreed to mediation; “Rothbard” has not. Presumably, he realizes his distortions will be obvious with any kind of impartial scrutiny.

A few contributors to the ongoing discussion seem sure that “Rothbard” is, in fact, Justin Raimondo. It’s impossible to be sure, of course, since “Rothbard” hasn’t identified himself as any particular real-life person. As I pointed out on the discussion page, though:

His edit history is filled with tending to the entries of Justin Raimondo and antiwar.com (including correcting the year of Raimondo’s birth), and even in some of the other entries to which “Rothbard” has contributed, his edits have involved adding bibliographical references to Justin Raimondo books, or adding Murray Rothbard’s critique of Objectivism to the Objectivism entry. There’s nothing necessarily wrong with any of these edits, except that together they demonstrate that “Rothbard” brings a single point of view to Wikipedia, spreading it to every entry he touches — however much he might try to claim neutrality for himself. It hardly matters that “Rothbard” claims not to be Justin Raimondo, if he has so thoroughly devoted himself to Raimondo’s cause.

Indeed, the IP address used by the “Rothbard” account traces to a DSL provider in Santa Clara, California — the Bay Area that Raimondo also calls home. It’s entirely possible that there’s a Justin Raimondo clone living in such close proximity to the real Raimondo . . . but it doesn’t seem likely.