Wikipedia Versus the Prime Ministers of France

or

Which is a better source- Wikipedia or The New York Times?

I sometimes blog about heads of state around the world. Whenever possible, I try to avoid consulting Wikipedia for my research.

I have been a fully-registered Wikipedia user for many years and contributed a vast number of articles. However, over time I have become quite disillusioned with the the website, particularly the quality and reliability of the information it provides. I've always found its articles on politicians to be especially problematic for a number of reasons. Wiki biographies in general are usually poorly written, ignore vast swatches of relevant information, and tend to be biased in favor of whoever was the most obsessive editor. And even though Wikipedians deny this up and down, it is still very easy for people to slip lies into articles, which can remain unchecked for ages. I know, because I've often done it myself.

But am I just being unfair to poor Wikipedia? One often reads high-profile stories that declare Wikipedia to be no worse than your average mainstream media source. I decided to do a case study of my own.

The Honorable Raymond Barre

Raymond Barre was a prominent French professor of economics in the post-WWII era. Well-known, respected, and conservative, his ideas earned him admiration in some sectors of the French political establishment. Leaving his teaching job, he worked briefly in the French bureaucracy until General DeGaulle appointed him as a French economic representative to the EU. He was later appointed as a cabinet minister under President Giscard d'Estaing, who then promoted him to Prime Minister in 1976. He lost that job following a socialist sweep of parliament in 1981 and became a much more minor politician during the 1990's. In recent years he has earned a reputation for being something of an anti-Semite, due to some infamous public comments he's made. He passed away on August 27, 2007.

It's unfortunate, but often good biographies are only written once the subject dies. Newspapers in particular usually churn out pretty high-quality biographies of political leaders when they pass on, especially the New York Times.

For the purposes of my investigation I decided to compare the Wikipedia page on Raymond Barre with his obituary biography in the New York Times, written by Ariane Bernard, the paper's Paris correspondent. I figured Barre would be a good test subject because he is fairly obscure, but still important enough to deserve ample coverage. Similarly, his life was an interesting story filled with lots of specific details to record.

Surprisingly, Barre's Wikipedia entry was only edited once on his day of death, for trivial reasons. This is unusual, as Wikipedia articles usually undergo a flurry of edits the moment someone dies or is in the news. But more on this later. I decided to compare the Times article with Barre's Wiki entry as it appeared on the day of his death.

THE COMPARISON

SIZE

Wiki- approx 800 words

NYT- approx 500 words

FACTS NOTED IN BOTH

* NTY only notes that he was 83 at time of death.

Early Career

Unlike the Wikipedia piece, the NYT article does not explicitly mention that Barre was a professor of economics, nor does it note what school he taught at. It does, however note that he "wrote a textbook in the 1950s, 'Political Economy,' which is still widely used today" which the Wikipedia article does not mention at all.

The Wiki article notes Barre's early EU career in more specific detail, naming the Commissioners he served under and naming his exact title in the European Commission ("vice-president of the European Commission for Economic & Financial Affairs"), while the NYT wrongly describes him as "the vice president" of the EC (there are actually multiple VPs in the EC). However Wiki does not discuss in any detail what he actually accomplished during his time at the EC, while the NYT notes that he "work[ed] on establishing a common economic policy and currency" for Europe.

The Wikipedia article is also significant for repeatedly failing to give context to the events that shaped Barre's burgeoning political career. For example, both articles note that in 1959 Barre accepted his first government job, working for DeGaulle's Minister of Industry. Though the name of the minister is not mentioned, the NYT article notes that the minister was an academic college who had "had overseen some of Mr. Barre’s university work" and thus was presumably familiar enough with Barre's work to recognize his talents for the appointment. Similarly, the Wikipedia article does not note the context of President d'Estaing's 1976 decision to appoint Barre as Prime Minister, while the NYT notes that Barre's appointment came "after an economic downturn had ended 30 years of prosperity after World War II." The Wikipedia article notes that Barre was "mostly unknown" at the time of his appointment, however this information is useless without further elaboration on why the president would have chosen to appoint an "unknown" individual as Prime Minister at that particular time.

Political career

The NYT article glosses over many of the deeper details of Barre's political career. Most significantly, it does not note that Barre held the office of Prime Minister and Finance Minister at the same time, which, as Wikipedia notes, was a historic first for France. Unlike the NYT Wiki also notes that Barre's time in government was characterized by a divided right-wing majority in parliament, with d'Estaing's faction facing opposition from Chirac's faction, with Chirac proceeding to run against Barre in the 1988 presidential race. Considering how high-profile and important Chirac is to modern French politics, the absence of any mention of the man in the NYT article is a definite mark against. Lastly, the NYT article provides no mention of how Barre lost the office of Prime Minister, while the Wiki article mentions that he "stayed as Prime minister until the defeat of Giscard d'Estaing at the 1981 presidential election."

Though Wiki offers a more detailed description of Barre's economic policies compared to the NYT ("Mr. Barre instituted austere economic policies" versus "He advocated a strict policy to cut inflation and public spending, and the industrial 'restructuring'") only the NYT makes mention of the significant fact that his policies were unpopular. The NYT notes that his reforms "were met with dissent and disagreement" and quotes d'Estaing noting the same. Wikipedia mentions that Barre faced union opposition, which although relevant, should be presented in the larger context. In the end, however, much of Barre's reputation is tied to his economic policies, which are now widely considered to have been ahead of their time, and a precursor to the Reaganite/Thatcherism that swept the world during the 1980's. Both articles do a poor job at presenting this very important component of the Barre story.

Personal life / Personality

The NYT article notes the names of his wife and two sons, while the Wiki article only notes their existence. NYT also offers a brief physical description, noting that he was "a portly man" and observes that he generally had a stubborn, dull personality and was prone to napping in parliament.

Controversies

At first glance Wikipedia appears to offer a more balanced look at the accusations of anti-Semitism. It notes Barre's responses to the charges, while the NYT article does not. However upon closer investigation Wiki's attempt at inserting "balance" is merely the sloppy work of an apologetic pro-Barre editor.

Compare the two accounts of Barre's response to the 1980 synagogue bombing:

NYT version:

But he was also accused of anti-Semitism, because of a comment he made in 1980 after a bomb killed four people outside a synagogue in Paris. He spoke of “a despicable attack that sought to target Jews who were in this synagogue and that struck innocent Frenchmen who were crossing the Rue Copernic.”

Wiki version (emphasis added):

Raymond Barre ... famously denounced "A hateful attack which wanted to strike at the Jews who were in that synagogue, and which [instead] struck innocent French people who were crossing the street." A controversy erupted because Raymond Barre's sentence seemed to imply that the Jews inside the synagogue were guilty of something, or were not French. However, Raymond Barre had pointed out that the act was hateful and that such acts could not be tolerated in France.

The second sentence is written defensively and does not fit the Wikipedia standard of "a neutral point of view" (NPOV). It seeks to lead the reader to the conclusion of the writer, namely that the controversy about Barre's comments is overblown.

As a second example of anti-Semitic behavior, the NYT writes that on a 2007 episode of a talk radio show Barre "described Maurice Papon, a high-ranking civil servant convicted as a Nazi collaborator, as 'a scapegoat.'"

Yet Wiki makes a rather different, muddled, and apparently contradictory claim that "Raymond Barre will not hesitate to remind those who accused him of anti-Semitism that he was a witness against Maurice Papon during his trial."

The Wiki statement is false and misleading. When Barre was Prime Minister, he appointed Papon as his Minister of Budgets. In the late 1990's Papon was arrested and put on trial for the deeds he committed while working as a civil servant for France's pro-Nazi Vichy regime during World War II. During the trial, Barre was a witness for the defense, and testified that Papon was a man of great integrity and character. Papon was ultimately found guilty of having organized the shipment of French Jews to Nazi death camps and was sentenced to 10 years in prison. The Wikipedia editor is presenting false information in an attempt to salvage Barre's reputation.

The Wiki article also closes with this biased and badly-written statement:

Sadly, his accomplishments has one of the most brilliant economist of his generation have been overshadowed by accusations that to date have never been substantiated or followed by a lawsuit from his accusers

CONCLUSION

There used to be this great anti-Wikipedia blog called Wiki-watch, which has sadly since shutdown. One of the many wise observations that guy made was that Wikipedia is a source that is generally most valuable for undeniable facts, such as dates, locations, measurements, colors, and so on. This is because such data has a level of absolute truth that is very difficult to screw up.

As it stands now, the Wikipedia page on Barre excels at providing detailed statistics about his political career. His entry contains a chart of all of his cabinet ministers, the exact dates of his term as prime minister, and the names of the individuals who succeeded and preceded him as mayor, prime minister, finance minister, and UFD presidential candidate. It also provides significant factual details regarding his jobs at the EU and the DeGaulle-d'Estaing administrations which the New York Times article only deals with superficially.

Overall, the Wiki and NYT article are more similar than different. They both provide a generally accurate and comprehensive study of Barre, and list the majority of his accomplishments and fames. Along with the lack to substantive details about his economic policies, both articles likewise fail to mention some other relevant details about the Prime Minister's life- such as the fact that his father was a white-collar criminal who abandoned his family, or the Barre served in the French artillery during World War II.

In the end, I believe the Wikipedia article is a poorer source, as its article suffers from a lack of analysis, which makes the piece less useful in understanding the relevance of Mr. Barre and his political career. Complete statistics are all well and good, but what is ultimately more useful to the average reader- the exact day of the week Barre became Prime Minister, or the knowledge that his economic writings from the 1950's are still considered influential today?

Wikipedia's dogmatic embrace of the NPOV principle generally makes its writers shy away from writing anything that even resembles an opinion- even factually accurate statements on things such as popularity, failures, and victories. The false, poorly written statements about Barre's relationship with Maurice Papon likewise illustrate the all-too-infamous manner in which Wiki articles can be easily ruined by jerks with agendas.

Epilogue

I was all ready to upload this when suddenly Pierre Messmer, another former French Prime Minister, unexpectedly died on August 29- less than a week after Barre.

Pierre Messmer was Prime Minister from 1972 to 1974. That was before Chirac's first term, and thus two spots before Barre.

Despite his short stint as PM, Messmer was an enormously important figure in French politics and French history. A decorated soldier of the Second World War and a close ally of General DeGaulle, Messer served as governor of a large number of French African colonies in the immediate post-war era. When DeGaulle became president Messmer became defense minister for nine years (1960 - 1969), a French record. As minister, his term overlapped with one of the most controversial eras of French foreign policy, presiding over the end of the war in Algeria and France's emergence as a nuclear power. His story goes on and on, really.

But what is interesting, for the purposes of my investigation, is that his death was largely sudden and unexpected, in contrast to Barre, who had been hospitalized for many months.

Wikipedia articles generally "become good" when one of two things happens:

1- an interested, obsessive, knowledgeable person thoroughly re-writes the article, pouring as much of his accumulated knowledge into the piece as possible,

2- the subject of the article is thrust into the center of some sort of big news story, drawing increased page visits and thus increased edits, some of which will be from the kind of person described above, who had never thought to edit the thing prior to now.

Barre's article was pretty weak until he was hospitalized, at which point people suddenly got interested in him and began adding bits and pieces to his bio. My above analysis thus creates the illusion that Barre's Wikipedia article was somehow typical of the type of quality one may expect from Wikipedia, when in fact it is clearly not. It was an above-average article created through unique circumstances. My analysis and conclusions are thus less about the reliability of Wikipedia as a reference source, and more about whether or not a "good" Wiki article is as useful for research as a more established source from the mainstream media.

I have no doubt that Pierre Messmer's article will improve quite a bit in the coming days, but as it stands now, on the day of his death, it really sucks. The biography of this eminent European statesman consists of a measly 200 words, far less than, oh, I don't know, the biographies of Cranky Kong (700 words), Radioactive Man (1,000), and of course Voldemort (4,000).

Email me- jjmccullough@gmail.com