Sarah Palin’s interview last night with Charlie Gibson on ABC (video here ) has prompted a furious debate about the definition of the   “Bush Doctrine.” (See, for example, here . Or here . Or here .) Some of the most ferocious back-and-forth, as usual, could be found on Wikipedia, which is written and edited (and abused) by its users. After the interview aired, an edit war broke out over the online encyclopedia’s entry on the “Bush Doctrine.” Since her interview aired, the entry has been changed hundreds of times. Here are a few highlights:

  • Editors bicker over the difference between “preventive” and “preemptive” war in the Bush Doctrine. They agree that “preventive” is more accurate. Typical liberal wiki-media.
  • The first Palin addition: “As of 10 September 2008, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska had no idea that such a doctrine was ever articulated by the Bush Administration.” Nine minutes later, another user deletes the sentence, citing ” unnecessary and irrelevant editorialism.”
  • A user tries again: “In an interview with ABC’s Charlie Gibson, GOP Vice-Presidential pick Sarah Palin (Governor of Alaska) was unable to define the Bush Doctrine for the nation, despite the fact that her son shipped out to Iraq on the same day of the interview.” Four minutes later, another user adds that her son is “ostensibly one more serviceman deploying because of our government’s adherence to the Bush Doctrine. Irony, thy name is Palin.”
  • A user deletes a line that cites the Huffington Post . Among his reasons: ” huffpo is not a rs [reliable source].” Coming from Wikipedia, that hurts.
  • A fight breaks out between “Jere7my” and ” EHSFFL2010.” The latter objects to any Palin references. ” This has nothing to do with the definition of Bush Doctrine and has nothing to do with any current event pertaining to the doctrine,” he writes. “It should not be placed here.” Jere7my pulls rank: “Note that the EHSFFL2010 account was created 45 minutes ago.”
  • User “Sun Dang” calls the Bush Doctrine ” a misnomer. It does not exist. There is no such doctrine if we stick to the real definition of ‘doctrine’ like the Christian Doctrines that are on paper not imagined.” He argues that Gibson got it wrong and “should have read wikipedia first.”
  • Jere7my takes matters into his own hands and deletes the entire “controversy” section, calling it “a blatant attempt to muddy the waters after the Palin interview.” As of posting time, all Palin references have been scrubbed.