Wikipedia Flubbed “Nixonian” entry

I find the wikipedia article on the term “Nixonian” very weird.  It has a strong Conservative Republican slant in its focus, stating that the term is primarily used in the way Conservative Republican use it — “akin to Rockefellar Republican, but more of a perjorative” — in advancing bigger regulation and the gummint and the like.  But line up 100 people on the street, making sure the street you are standing at is not across from a Convention Center where a CPAC Conference is occuring — and ask for a definition of “Nixonian” and I am pretty sure the definition will slide into the supposed “Democratic Party used” one of Corruption (not necessarily “Republican Corruption”) and the tangled issues with dirty electioneering.  Looking at the discussion page, the bias appears to be simply a product of having been written by… a Conservative Republican who uses it in that manner.  Mind you, his is a valid definition, but its placement shows that his vision is askew.

Curious to see if “Consevapedia” had anything on the phrase, I see that they don’t.  The most popular pages at Conservapedia, the wiki set up to combat the mighty Liberal biases of Wikipedia, focus on the rightness of Creationism and the theoretical problems of Evolution (note that this is the Daily Featured Article) and the Evils of Homosexual.  The “Atheism” page is entertaining in its list of explanations of why people become such things.  Also of some perplexity is the back and forth on what appears to be a “Silly Season” discussion where Conservapedia users bat around the question: Are Cats Just Useless Dogs?, which elicits the question “Where did that question come from?”

Leave a Reply