Konop's Wikipedia page protected from the truth

Lucas County Commissioner and Mayoral candidate Ben Konop, who by running for mayor is warning us he is a liar, has his Wikipedia page protected from any truth. With his embarrassing video all over the internet, CNN, Comedy Central, and MSNBC, one would hope that a quick visit to Konop's Wiki page would provide some insight. The man has demonstrated a lack of character by breaking pledges. ( http://thetommorrissey.com/toledo-free-press/ben-konop-honor-your-word/ )

However, the Controversies page has been removed more than once by user "BKonop." The man is a LC Commissioner, running for Mayor, and is editing his Wikipedia page - talk about qualified.


"Just as bad is the fact the Wikipedia makes absolutely NO mention of the broken pledge that Konop signed twice. In fact, there isn't even mention of that broken pledge in the Discussion section. A clue as to who has been purging that section of unfavorable Konop material is given in this entry:"

"Checking the history, a user "BKonop" is repeatedly removing a "Controversies" section of the article. Someone keeps coming back to replace the section so the subject matter of the section is maintained in the article. It just seems a bit unseemly that the possible subject of the article is repeatedly removing a "Controversies" section, particularly because the reason that "BKonop" is giving to change the article is non-factual information, even though each item in the subsection is linked to sources."


Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)

Wikipedia is only as good as the users who edit it. Thomas: open a Wikipedia account and make this one of the articles you monitor and edit. Expect that partisans will edit your work, but if you find the page is losing a neutral point of view, you can ultimately call in admins to help straighten it out if it gets completely hijacked.

As I looked through the entries in the History section, I noticed that I also edited this page, adding the photo back in March when I covered a press conference he showed up for. I can't remember if the Controversies section was there or not at that time. You might also create a new subheading that seems more neutral, like "Konop in the News" or "Campaign Pledges" that will be more likely to survive.

Also: page-blanking or section-blanking is a no-no, though new Wiki users do not know the rules very well. However, there is no guarantee that "BKonop" is the real Ben Konop, and you would have to do an IP check of theaccount to get a clue as to the author. "BKonop" could be an aide of Konop, or even a disgruntled opponent who wants to make Konop look like a tool.

Anyways, the democritization of information cuts both ways on Wikipedia, so be bold and vigilant.

I added back the information about pledge-breaking with citations; I strived for neutrality and added his explanation from a TFP interview. Let's see how long it stays up.

From HistoryMike: Wikipedia is only as good as the users who edit it.

You mean Wikipedia isn't always the gospel truth? I'm amazed and somewhat incensed, and several other things that I can't think of.

Thomas, you really ought to give that statement a lot of thought before you hammer Wikipedia for inaccuracy. Wikipedia contributors are more likely to be the inbred gasbags and horn tooters that hijack SB threads than college professors with time on their hands and a yen to contribute to a work that they'll never be credited for. Think: Who is more likely to contribute to an article on Ben Konop: DBA, Gary the Drunk, Lime drops or some virtually unknown college professor with a degree in PolySci?

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

I thought it was interesting that the dirt had been erased from his page. Awhile ago, someone came out with the program to expose those who had edited wikipedia pages and where they were at, and a big stink was made about corporations editing their own.

Gary the Drunk does seem to have a lot of time on his hands... or Mr liberty or The last Mohican or whoever he is/...

Does anyone but me chuckle at the irony on this thread?

currently contains this sentence:

In June 2009, a press conference called by Konop was derailed by a heckler shouting 'Liar' in a video that got much attention nationally further solidifying Konop's status as a laughing stock of Lucas County.[7]

I don't claim to know just how Wiki works--how things are added, deleted, etc.--but whoever 'edited' this section clearly shows non-neutrality. Put a period after 'nationally' and end it there. The baloney that follows is someone's idea of editorial comment.

If 'BKonop', whoever that might actually be, is deleting junk like that, well, he should be.

And just who might have added the 'laughing stock' commentary? Any way of knowing or finding out?

Documents on a Wiki site are shared between contributors. Anyone can contribute to Wikipedia. If the comments are false, blatantly offensive or misleading, a Wikipedia authority deletes them.

The line about Ben being a laughing stock may have been contributed by Justin Billau, as his blog is used as the reference. Justin is the cameraman in the Ben Konop heckler fiasco. Here's a link to his blog:


Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.