Considering the Wikipedia editing scandal that's erupted lately, I don't know whether this is the right time for me to be raising questions which go to Wikipedia's "integrity," so perhaps I should hold off on publishing this post; perhaps not.

Much as I'm tempted to dive into the Wiki fun roundup that Glenn Reynolds posted yesterday, this involves history more than comedy. What happened might be laughable, but I'd like to get it properly corrected. The truth is, despite my penchant for citing Wikipedia (a source I really want to respect), I still don't have a clue about how to get errors corrected, and there are glaring errors in the Wiki writeup on John Dean, which frankly make Wikipedia look like a crummy, fickle, very partisan source.

For years, this was part of the Wiki entry for John Dean:

Dean chronicled his White House experiences, with a focus on Watergate, in the memoirs Blind Ambition and Lost Honor. In 1995 he admitted Blind Ambition was ghostwritten by Taylor Branch, that he never reviewed the book "cover to cover" and that portions of the book were fabricated by "out of whole cloth" by Branch. Branch has denied claims of fabrication.

In 1992 he brought the first in a series of defamation suits against G. Gordon Liddy for claims in his book Will and St. Martin's Press for its publication of the book Silent Coup by Len Colodny. Silent Coup alleged Dean was the mastermind of the Watergate burglaries and the true target of the burglaries was to seize information implicating Dean and his wife in a prostitution ring. After hearing of Colodny's work Liddy issued a revised paperback version of Will supporting Colodny's theory. This theory was subsequently the subject of an A&E Network Investigative Reports series program entitled The Key to Watergate in 1992. The suit was dismissed although Dean has threatened to renew it given Liddy's victory in another defamation case.

And here's how the same passage in the Wiki entry reads today:

Dean chronicled his White House experiences, with a focus on Watergate, in the memoirs Blind Ambition and Lost Honor. Blind Ambition would become the point of controversy many years after its publication.

In 1992, he hired famed attorney Neil Papiano and brought the first in a series of defamation suits against G. Gordon Liddy for claims in his book Will and St. Martin's Press for its publication of the book Silent Coup by Len Colodny and Robert Gettlin. Silent Coup alleged Dean was the mastermind of the Watergate burglaries and the true target of the burglaries was to seize information implicating Dean and Maureen Biner (his then-fiancée) in a prostitution ring. After hearing of Colodny's work, Liddy issued a revised paperback version of Will supporting Colodny's theory.^[4] This theory was subsequently the subject of an A&E Network Investigative Reports series program entitled The Key to Watergate in 1992. Liddy's defense team focused on allegations that Blind Ambition was ghost written by Taylor Branch, a charge that Dean denies to this day.^[5] In the preface to his 2006 book, Conservatives Without Conscience, Dean strongly denied Colodny's theory, pointing out that the Colodny's chief source (Phillip Mackin Bailley) had been in and out of mental institutions. Dean settled the defamation suit against Colodny and his publisher, St. Martin's Press, on terms which Dean stated in the book's preface he could not divulge under the terms of the settlement other than stating that "the Deans were satisfied." In the footnote to this portion of the preface, Dean stated that the federal judge handling the case forced a settlement with Liddy.^[6]

Anyway, the above was a dramatic change, which removed from Wikipedia a long settled point which had been clearly established by the evidence, and substituted naked and false assertions by John Dean. The removal generated a huge debate among the Wiki editors:

First, let me say, I'm a little disappointed that a referenced piece of material was removed just because John Dean did an article saying he never said that. I took that line directly from a copy of his deposition that I found when originally doing the revision. I can't find this copy now so I am not going to revert it's removal, I will try to locate this again and will post it here. As I've said, it's in his deposition, he denies he said that but hasn't provided any proof from the deposition as cited nor did he even mention in the article that his deposition was cited as the source. Instead he said he would "watch and wait" to see if it would be corrected. He also stated he can't correct it himself which is complete hogwash.

Actually, no, he said that while he could, he chose not to -- as his own little experiment on the reliability of on-line information. (And on that score, I think we did pretty well -- his article is datelined September 9, and before the day was out, a note had appeared on the Reference Desk and the edits to the article had begun.) --Steve Summit (talk) 18:10, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Whatever the case, I will locate the PDF I had on this, will provide it for others to review and look forward to seeing that passage returned to the article.

Again, I don't think that cited material should be removed from an article just because someone says it's not true, you should demonstrate the cited material doesn't reflect that fact, especially something that's been there for a substantial amount of time without challenge. --Wgfinley 17:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Does deposition testimony count?

If John Dean said what he said at his deposition, why can't that be relied on in a Wikipedia entry in support of the claim that he said that in his deposition? Dean can issue qualifications or explanations if he wants, but to remove any reference to sworn deposition testimony is in my opinion the height of dishonesty.

What Dean said at his deposition has been commented upon numerous times, analyzed by historians, written up in newspaper and magazine articles, and unless I'd stumbled across the Wiki entry, it would never have occurred to me that Dean (or whoever is assisting him) would be so brazen as to attempt to remove references to a deposition.

Once again, here's what Dean said under oath:

WILLIAMS: [Quotes to Dean from his book "Blind Ambition"] "This was the worst blow since Magruder's call. I felt queasy. I really didn't want to know more because I had to assume that if Strachan knew, Haldeman knew, and if Haldeman knew, the President knew. It made sickening sense. Now I understand why Strachan had called earlier." Do you see that?

DEAN: I do.

WILLIAMS: Is that an accurate description of your reaction upon absorbing Strachan's name?

DEAN: No. Pure Taylor Branch.

WILLIAMS: He just made that up?

DEAN: Absolutely made it up out of whole cloth.

WILLIAMS: Didn't you read this? You said you read this after Taylor Branch got through with it.

DEAN: Not with this kind of detail.

There's video of a portion of the deposition here, and I am sure that an original certified copy of the deposition could be obtained somewhere, but I have to ask:

Is this normal procedure for Wikipedia? Has anyone out there had any experience with things like this? Should I set up an account and edit the post myself, or would some pro-Dean activist just erase it, and make me have to put it back again and again? My understanding is that if that keeps happening, eventually the entry might be closed because of what they call "vandalism."

Any insight or advice greatly appreciated.

*For more background on Silent Coup (and the nature of the settlement) see below.

** John Dean's case against Liddy was dismissed by the court. How that "forced a settlement on Liddy," I'm not quite sure.

MORE: Die-hard Watergate fans might enjoy this excerpt from Tom Clancy's "Eye of the Storm" video, which includes interviews with Ehrlichman and Liddy, as well as a portion of video from John Dean's deposition in which Dean makes the startling admission that he kept Ehrlichman in the dark about Strachan.

Click To Play

UPDATE: Viewers who are having trouble might find this version easier to stream: