By Judi Curry
Several months ago I wrote an article about the possibility of changing the name of the “La Jolla Christmas Parade” to something that did not connote a religious theme. I pointed out that almost every parade during the month of December had changed their title from a “Christmas theme” to a more generic one, thus entailing more enjoyment and enthusiasm for the total population rather than a select few.
One of the references I used was a three paragraph summary of the antisemitism that had existed in La Jolla for many years. I found that reference in the “La Jolla” section of Wikipedia .
I was very surprised when one of the readers of my original article called to inform me that those references no longer existed; and, in fact, there was only a small paragraph where the three used to be and it practically negated the original paragraphs.
As I talked to him a little longer, he said that he was going to copy my original references and put them back on the Wikipedia site. Which he did. And it was up for one half hour or so when it was removed and the one paragraph reference was back. It was time to do a little more research.
When I talked to my daughter about this, she was fully aware of something I was not aware of. Let me quote to you from the site itself:
“Wikipedia is an online free-content encyclopedia that you can edit and contribute to. Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales has described Wikipedia as “an effort to create and distribute a multilingual free encyclopedia of the highest quality to every single person on the planet in his or her own language.” Wikipedia exists to bring knowledge to everyone who seeks it.”
Isn’t that strange? Apparently ANYONE can write anything on this site, and it can be true – or not true – depending on the author’s creativity. One can take off anything that someone else has written with no explanation; and it can be fraught full of lies and misinformation.
In a Paragraph on the Wikipedia site that asks how one knows if the information is correct, this answer appears:
“Given that anyone can edit any article, it is, of course, possible for biased, out-of-date, or incorrect information to be posted. However, because there are so many other people reading the articles and monitoring contributions using the Recent Changes page, incorrect information is usually corrected quickly. Thus, the overall accuracy of the encyclopedia is improving all the time. You are encouraged to help by correcting articles, validating content, and providing useful references.”
And when asked how people are prevented from “ruining articles” the answer was “Software robots automatically reverse obvious defacement immediately. Moreover, there are hundreds of people who spend a little time each day watching the list of recent changes on Wikipedia”. Software robots? Correcting the information?
I know that I was discriminated against in 1965 when I tried to book a room at a hotel in La Jolla wearing a Jewish Star but how do I know if the original Wikipedia article was correct – or false. More research. And I found, through a variety of sources, that the original article is correct: (http://www.
(https://docs.google.com/
These are only three of many different articles talking about the anti-antisemitism in La Jolla, stemming back to the 1920’s.
The question that I now am asking is what good is “Wikipedia”? I will never quote them again; in fact, I probably will never use their site again. I can make up “facts” as well as the next guy – maybe even better. I suspect I touched on a nerve when we published my original article. One can change the paragraphs anyway they want on Wikipedia, but the facts remain. If there was not the thrust to have UCSD established in La Jolla, the town would probably still reject people of the Jewish faith, as well as those of other minorities.
Personally, I don’t give a damn about what the parade is called, but I will now look at it differently than I did originally. I can’t help but feel that the “anti-semites” are still residing in La Jolla, and until they are willing to encompass the entire community in their parade, I will not be attending. You will, however, find me at any and all of the other parades in San Diego.
Judi Curry
Latest posts by Judi Curry (see all)
- What the Heck? The Story of My Randomly Sounding Fire Alarms - June 1, 2017
- My April Fool’s Day Story for the Year – Looking for a Man - April 1, 2017
- Restaurant Review: Pepe’s in Ocean Beach - March 15, 2017
Yes, Wikipedia, like every other single source on planet Earth, contains biases. There is not one single source of absolute truth in all of humankind. Wikipedia has a vulnerability, being open to changes by anyone, yet this is also a strength. It’s said that, “History is written by the victors.” In this case the victors are the general public, and presumably this is for the best, as democracy represents the truth better than any other system we know. Wikipedia advises to take its information conditionally, and it also asks the world at large to provide accurate info. As there are, it’s said, hundreds of people who oversee changes on a daily basis, I believe we can be confident that, three steps forward and one step backward, Wikipedia is making progress.
Anyone who wants to deny La Jolla’s history is clearly one of the guilty. Hopefully those people will grow fewer as we move in the direction of celebrating diversity. The La Jolla Christmas Parade is a banner announcing that city’s commitment to resisting diversity. The truth is most often in plain sight. At some point, shame will overcome them, and then they will overcome their aversion to diversity.
I encourage support for Wikipedia as a history in the making involving reflection, new perspectives, and new interpretations, with an on-the-ground battle between reactionaries and reformers. I believe this battle is the plainest and most trenchant truth of all. Let the battle be waged, if we believe in the goodness of the common people. You are, Judi, a fighter in the fray, and the truth depends upon voices like yours. Please embrace Wikipedia as a testing ground for a world ever in the midst of awakening to itself.
Embracing Wikipedia is like taking the world on my shoulders. I fight for what I believe in; unfortunately I do not believe in Wikipedia. I think that is how misinformation gets into the main-stream. Can you imagine the “Tea Party” giving their perspective of women’s rights and people believing it as the “TRUTH”? No thanks. I have used Wikipedia for the last time. I don’t want to have to quote something and then go check it out to see if it is the truth. Too many other resources available. But, Zach, you are entitled to your opinion – even if it is wrong! – as I am mine. Just don’t quote the source as Wikipedia – it will make you suspect. Hugs.
Ask any reference librarian what they think of wikipedia as a reference tool, and probably the most polite answer you will get is that it is useful for “pre-search”, i.e. it might give you, in easy to understand English, enough of an idea of a topic that you can decide whether you want to continue researching it or not. It is far from being definitive or scholarly, and stories of significant factual errors are common. Wikipedia responds to this criticism by saying “other sources make mistakes, too” Of course, the more contentious a topic is, the more often it is changed. Apparently some of the busiest “contributors” to the site are congressional staff offices. I wouldn’t be surprised if the changes you discovered regarding La Jolla come from a local real estate office, although, of course, I have no facts to back me up on that.
One librarian says about wikipedia “I love Wikipedia, because it gives me a chance to talk about reliable sources” Another has published this guide: http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/education/2010/march/The-Top-10-Reasons-Students-Cannot-Cite-or-Rely-on-Wikipedia.html
Thanks, Peter. I bet we will be hearing from our own “Anna” within the next few hours. As a librarian – retired, of course – her take on Wikipedia will be of most interest. The article you cited is very interesting. Judi
Judi — you also might be interested in reading this piece by a librarian at Swarthmore, and the 2 linked to NY Times articles in the piece.
Are you still interested in trying Buona Forchetta on Beech St.?
Without question, Peter. I am always interested in trying new restaurants. I am not driving with this broken shoulder, but perhaps we can meet somewhere and give it a try. Sometime next week?
Thanks for the swarthmore article. Judi
Judi – what’s the best way of getting in touch with you directly? I live walking distance to the place – do you? If so, we could just meet there.
Judi and everyone concerned,
(Apologies for my verbosity. Please add the links to the articles listed below in your response when you re-write my response to reflect clarity and conciseness.)
This is precisely what happened after your article, “La Jolla’s Anti-Semitic Past Still Reflected in Community Christmas Parade” was published on March 7, 2013 in the OB Rag and San Diego Free Press.
In April 2013 an article was published in the La Jolla Light titled, “Addendum to
La Jolla’s early history exhibit at Historical Society explains the town’s once exclusionary housing policies” This article may be sourced by entering the above title followed by a hyphen and the words, La Jolla Light.
After this La Jolla Light article was published in April 2013, someone went to Wikipedia and entered the words La Jolla, California. After doing so, and based on your March 2013 OB Rag and San Diego Free Press article, along w the April 2013 La Jolla Light article, had the audacity to remove the three paragraphs devoted to anti-semitism, and after some “cleansing,” replaced the three paragraphs with their one “cleansed” paragraph.
Here is where this situation really becomes disturbing and pathetic. This is when this blatantly anti-semitic individual not only changed the three paragraphs to one paragraph, the entire text was completely altered.
Now, if you go to Wikipedia and enter La Jolla, California, this one paragraph devoted to anti-semitism begins with the two words, “Camp Matthews.” However, in the Contents block under History 1.5, there is another paragraph with the title “Camp Mathews.”
That should give everyone an idea what this anti-semitic individual has accomplished.
Under Contents and under History, 1.5 reflects the title, “Camp Matthews.”
Under Contents and under History, 1.7 reflects the title “Anti-semitism” and now the first two words in the anti-semitism paragraph reflect “Camp Matthews.”
To review the three previous Wikipedia paragraphs devoted to anti-semitism, please refer to the article written by Judi Curry titled “La Jolla’s Anti-semitic Past Still Reflected in Community Christmas Parade.”
It would be wonderful if an intelligent La Jollan reading this would have the courage and understanding of the plight of everyone who believes that the La Jolla Christmas Parade name be changed to reflect diversity and inclusiveness so that everyone would feel welcome regardless of ethnicity, race or religion.
Between 2005-2010, the weekly La Jolla Light newspaper published three editorials strongly recommending a name change from the La Jolla Christmas Parade to a name such as Community or Holiday reflecting diversity and inclusiveness.
The Balboa Park event was formerly Christmas on the Prado and is now December Nights. Encinitas, Ocean Beach and Pacific Beach formerly had Christmas parades and are have Holiday parades. The annual December college football bowl game played at Qualcomm Stadium has always been the Holiday Bowl.
Why are some still holding on to the discriminatory past of La Jolla? Why has it been so difficult for these people to enter the 20th and 21st centuries?
Your response is not rewritten. It appears just as you have typed it.
Peter- you beat me to the punch on this one! As you state, Wikipedia can be helpful as a pre-search tool but requires verification. The “verification” part should not be confused with simply finding a few other sources that repeat the same info. This of course is why information specialists (aka librarians) are so important.
I knew I could count on you, Anna. Thanks for the input.
While I agree with you and others regarding the flaws of Wikipedia, there are systems in place for dealing with disagreements like this – dispute the changes! When an article is in dispute, it plays by a different set of rules and the moderators evaluate changes, proposed changes, etc., hear each side of the argument, decide what to post, and then post dissenting opinions in the “disputed” section.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Accuracy_dispute
If we are vigilant with Wikipedia, we can and will win over the misinformers. …the fight for truth continues, just in new arenas.
With wikipedia it is not always that simple. For example
Kristoffer Newsom
Kristoffer,
Several of us have made numerous attempts to replace the current one “cleansed” paragraph with the previous three paragraphs reflected in the Judi Curry article of March 2013. Each and every attempt of ours has failed.
When we have inserted the three previous paragraphs, shortly thereafter the Wikipedia text reverts, perhaps automatically, to the current one “cleansed” paragraph.
If everyone on this blog makes a concerted effort to replace the three previous Wikipedia paragraphs devoted to anti-Semitism, it may take hold. Great thanks for giving it your best attempt at success.
I’m adding {{Disputed-section}} to the section now… Haven’t been able to find the exact original text to edit in.
Hopefully that will at least draw the attention of the administrators regarding the situation, and they’ll make the correct decision.
Mr. Kristoffer Newsom
Kristoffer,
Following are the exact three Wikipedia paragraphs devoted to anti-semitism which Ms. Judi Curry sourced from Wikipedia prior to her article of March 7, 2013.
Kris and others, thanks for all you have done and continue doing to right the wrong by one person that has difficulty dealing with La Jolla’s dark and virulent past. Sadly, it also appears that anti-semitism in la Jolla continues to flourish.
The three previous Wikipedia paragraphs follow Ms. Curry’s preface to them. Here is the link:
http://sandiegofreepress.org/2013/03/la-jollas-anti-semitic-past-still-reflected-in-community-christmas-parade/
This La Jolla Light article published April 7 must have been the straw that broke the back of that anti-semite. “After publication of “Addendum to La Jolla’s early history exhibit at Historical Society explains the town’s once exclusionary housing,” this person who refuses to acknowledge La Jolla’s” discriminatory and dark virulent past, began his caustic campaign by removing the three Wikipedia paragraphs devoted to Anti-semitism and “cleansed” them into one paragraph.
To those of you who understanding the editing process on Wikipedia, let’s make every effort to fight the good fight. Remember, there is strength in numbers. If only we are able to determine why the insertion of the original three paragraphs virtually defaults almost immediately to the current one paragraph, the truth will emerge. Once again, great thanks.
Here is the link to the April 2013 la Jolla Light article:
As the old saying in business (sales) goes: “It all works. And, … none of it works!” Like the bloggers in this article have said one way or t’other – Hang in there … and never let the bastards wear you down!
Being new to this site, I did not see the “Be notified of followup comments via e-mail” box. Hopefully this will do it!
It will indeed. I just got notified as you posted that.
Been a busy day. Just got ’round to copying and pasting in the original text. As an aside, someone had deleted my {{Disputed-section}} tag.
Mr. Kristoffer Newsom
Kristoffer and others,
The original 3 previous Wikipedia paragraphs follow the one paragraph written by Ms. Judi Curry’s explanation. Please be diligent and together we will succeed in returning these 3 Wikipedia paragraphs to the Wikipedia La Jolla, California page and keep them there.
Except in La Jolla. They have steadfastly refused to change the name of the “La Jolla Christmas Parade” to anything more acceptable to members of the community. In looking at Wikipedia for reference I was astonished to see the following:
From its beginnings through the early 1960s, La Jolla was marketed by developers as a bastion of isolation and exclusivity. Antisemitic housing practices began in 1926 with the development of La Jolla Shores.[21] In La Jolla Shores and La Jolla Hermosa, only people with “pure” European ancestry could own property (this excluded Jews, who were not considered white), and housing advertisements included prohibitions against Jews and other minority groups. Such “restrictive covenants” were once fairly common throughout the United States, although the 1948 Supreme Court case Shelley v. Kraemer ruled them to be unenforceable, and Congress outlawed them twenty years later.[22] After the Supreme Court ruling, real estate companies used less obvious tactics to keep Jewish people out of La Jolla. Real estate agents would be fired if they sold a house to Jewish clients. There were no for-sale signs put up on properties, requiring the prospective buyer to go to a real estate office to find out what was available. If an agent suspected that a potential home buyer was a Jew, they would demand higher down payments and display green cards on their dashboards marked with the Star of David to warn the seller. The sellers would also send codes to their real estate agents; if their porch lights were on during the day, they did not want Jewish buyers.[23]
In 2003 a writer for the San Diego Jewish Journal reported, “When world-renowned British mathematician/philosopher Jacob Bronowski was brought to the Salk Institute by Jonas Salk in 1963, he wanted to buy a piece of land on La Jolla Farms Road for the purpose of building a house for his family. But the land was part of William Black’s Beach and Bridle Club, and the Bronowskis were required to produce three written character references.” The family produced letters from members of Parliament.[23]
By 1962, La Jolla, and the non-restrictive La Jolla Scenic Heights in particular, had a substantial Jewish population due to talk of establishing UCSD in the area. The university would bring many Jewish professors, who would need to live in nearby areas such as La Jolla. In the words of UCSD patriarch Roger Revelle, “You can’t have a university without having Jewish professors. The Real Estate Broker’s Association and their supporters in La Jolla had to make up their minds whether they wanted a university or an anti-Semitic covenant. You couldn’t have both.”[24] La Jolla now boasts a large and thriving Jewish population,[25] and there are three large synagogues in La Jolla.
Mr. Kristoffer Newsom
Please be so kind to call me with regard to your posting of July 2, 2013 at 11:54pm
I am the gentleman who pointed out the change from 3 paragraphs to 1 INACCURATE and DECEPTIVE paragraph on the “Wikipedia: La Jolla, California” site following the publishing of the April 14 2013 article:
“Addendum to La Jolla’s early history exhibit at Historical Society explains the towns once exclusionary housing policies”
Your cooperation is most appreciated. Many thanks for everything. I am looking forward to receiving a telephone call from you. from you.
Pfaff
Mobile: 619-980-4586
A few terms from wiki language would be appropriate to mention here. I’m not as active there as I used to be but I have about 1000 edits in my contribution listings, including some bitter disputes, so I know my way around there.
1. Cabal: A set of editors, who likely regularly communicate discreetly, and enforce content together in certain articles. Often one or more have admin status.
They will be adept at:
2. Wikilawyering: If you do nothing else learn this fast. The ins and outs of dispute process, when to make threats, when to recognize one made against you or your edit that means something.
One form of this used by the cabals will be:
3. Consensus: majority views of the editors with previous editing in an article, and to enforce it they will bring their:
4. Meatpuppets: Other editors with little or no previous editing in an article but will appear out of nowhere to stack the consensus. And this is where you all will likely get nowhere by rallying readers of this blog to be a majority to enforce the edit, why?
You’ll be the meatpuppets. An RFC (request for comment) is one of the first processes used in disputes, and if you send in the meatpuppets reading this blog they’ll be instantly recognized because they’ll fail to even register, posting under ISPs, or be new registered accounts with no history of edits in a diverse number of issues which is a dead on requirement in the laughable world of wiki because:
5. NPOV: Neutral point of view is displayed by an editing history on a number of issues and POV pushing is strictly verboten. Which is a joke because who edits pages on issues they care nothing about or know nothing about?
It’s probably the most absurd thing about wiki, that all our edits are NPOV when almost everyone there is editing to enforce their POV.
So in conclusion look at the talk page on that article and see if there has already been a dispute over it. Look at the article history and see when it changed as well as who originally entered the content. Contact the editor who originally entered it and ask for his assistance, or any other previous editors of note. See what status in the wiki power scheme the editor whose edit you don’t like has by looking at his talk page and contributions – if you immediately challenge him and he’s part of a powerful cabal you’ll ensure his edit is written in stone. Don’t fool yourself into thinking a dozen noobs can pile in and enforce a consensus against a cabal, it just doesn’t happen. Get those dozen to start an editing history and be patient and you have a chance.
Work toward a compromise if possible and remember, verifiability, not truth, always prevails- and finally, it’s just the internet. If it drives ya nuts there’s an off button.
(some of you likely know all this)
I should have reread the article and talk page before I posted the above.
There was a recent discussion on it. and the original editor responsible for the 3 paragraph entry came to a consensus with the other editors. You know they have a point, and I don’t think the paragraph that exists is a glossing over of the matter. It’s a balance without undue weight being placed on the one issue- just consider it’s not as important to the other editors as it is to you. If push comes to shove they’ve got ammunition on the references issue.
In the end I’ve never understood anti semitism, a couple of Jewish guys I worked with years ago were some of the best guys I’ve known in my life, leaving an impression forever on me. I’d not been close to any Jews until then and it puzzled me why some people felt so strongly about them- until one day the rabbi of Chabad La Jolla came in to the store I worked with these two guys and purchased some furniture. Both in the store (where he directly referred to me as a “goya”) and the next day delivering it to his building he wouldn’t look me in the eye or even give me the human dignity of acknowledging my presence- barely expending the effort to grunt and wave dismissively when I asked him to sign for the delivery.
I didn’t even know what “goya” meant until I got back to the store and asked Julius about it. He explained in an apologetic way. almost embarrassed at the rabbi’s behavior to me. He said that’s just the way he is.
God’s chosen people. I, the goya, am not.
Thank goodness for the rabbi that there are a lot more guys like Julius out there than him, and Julius left a deeper impression than he ever could have.
Discrimination exists everywhere, in various forms. It should be mentioned and remembered, but not made the focus of everything if we want to leave it behind.