Poor, Edmund W wrote:
To make it worse, 10 minutes after I corrected the liberal bias in the
Quite frankly, your edit referring to "The New York Times and other liberal media" was more biased than the original entry, which at least reflected what was being widely reported elsewhere, so forgive me if I don't feel too much sympathy.
Missing Explosives story some anonymous IP user deleted the entire day -- wiping out 1/2 hour of my work.
This is simple vandalism from some random anon user, and there is no evidence whatsoever of any particular motive behind it; they appear to have just hit the "edit" link by the October 25 header and overwritten the content with gibberish. This happens all the time on Wikipedia on many articles, and it could have been reverted in less time than it took you to write indignant complaints about it.
How can we be accurate or neutral, with this sort of thing going on?
WHAT sort of thing? We have random vandals all the time on Wikipedia, have since the site launched. I don't understand why you're making such a big deal out of it. Shit happens, it gets reverted.
I think the news sidebar needs a manager, just like our Featured Article sidebar has a manager.
This isn't a bad idea, though perhaps more than one manager, due to the higher volume and 24-hour nature.