Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Wikipedia Entries 'Cleaned' By Political Staffers

Posted by Zonk on from the don't-they-have-better-things-to-do? dept.

worb writes "According to the Lowell Sun, U.S. Rep Marty Meehan's staff has been heavily editing his Wikipedia bio, among other things removing criticisms. In total, more than one thousand Wikipedia edits in various articles have been traced back to congressional staffers at the U.S. House of Representatives in the past six months."

9 of 720 comments (clear)

  1. Waiting for the outrage by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 1, Troll

    According to the Lowell Sun, U.S. Rep Marty Meehan's staff has been heavily editing his Wikipedia bio...

    But, since Meehan is a Democrat, expect this to get absolutely no mention in any news outlet. Nor will there be any huge outrage on Daily Kos, Slashdot, or any other website with a decidedly large portion of liberal-leaning (and thus Democrat-leaning) users. On the other hand, had Meehan been a Republican, there would be no end to diatribes condemning this as an assault against Free Speech, a symptom of the corruption of the Republican Nazis, part of the grand imperial planning of Emperor Bush, usual liberal ranting, etc. etc.

    Go ahead and mod me down for saying this, but everyone knows this is the is the absolute truth. Democrats get a free pass for this kind of behavior, but Republicans get called everything but a child of God for the same kind of actions.

    Disclaimer: I'm a card-carrying Libertarian, not a Republican, so take your conspiracy theories elsewhere. I call 'em as I see 'em.

    --
    In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    1. Re:Waiting for the outrage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

      And if you check on Google News, you'll discover that, not surprisingly, the very liberal Boston Globe neglected to cover the story. You'd think they'd want to report on what representatives from their own state are doing.

      The Lowell Sun is a much more unbiased newspaper, one of very few in Massachusetts (the liberal nutcase capital of the east coast), so it's not surprising that they'd cover it. However expect it to be dismissed as "Republican mudslinging" by the other liberal newspapers.

      Of course, this will have no lasting effect on his political career, since Massachuestts competes with California for the "bluest state" award each election.

  2. Big deal! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    Wikipedia is not a public record. It's worse that people use it as one.

    I think this is the issue Sigenthaler was most worried about when his wiki-bio was in the news, but it got ignored in the defense of the internet commune's favorite way to kill free time in the name of the public good.

  3. Its not surprising by Archbob · · Score: -1, Troll

    Its not all that surprising if you think about it. Wiki's never been a reliable resource for much. People use it out of convenience. I douobt anyone would actually quote it in a serious essay. its expected to be open to these sorts of abuses.

  4. Orwell's 1984, anyone? by reaktor · · Score: 1, Troll

    This wikipedia news, along with the PATRIOT ACT makes Orwell's 1984 a reality, unfortunately.

  5. Re:Who said getting reliable information was easy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    Wow, you must write WikiPedia articles. You spread a lot of bullshit with a slated point of view and there isn't a grain of truth to it.

    This is why Wikipedia is not and never will be a realistic and trusted resource. It's Fanboy's like you that ruin it for the rest of us.

  6. Re:It's easy to see the edits. by zotz · · Score: 0, Troll

    "So rather than suggesting it's a flaw that anyone can change the most recent copy of the information, we need to realize that it's beneficial that we can see past edits, and who performed them."

    Indeed. In fact, you might learn more from the histoty of editing than from the article itself. (On "hot" topics.)

    "Indeed, if we see a trend of certain information being edited out of articles about Republicans, it could be quite safe to assume the information that was removed is completely valid, and is being removed because it is the unfortunate truth."

    This assertion makes no sense. It is just as reasonable to assume that there would be continuous efforts to fix blatant errors.

    For instance, if I were to go here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon

    and constantly make edits explaining that the moon was made of green cheese, do you not think that they would be removed over and over?

    all the best,

    drew
    -----
    http://www.ourmedia.org/node/145261
    Record a "copyleft" song and you could win a $1,000.00

    --
    FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
  7. Re:Wickipedia Edits by drgonzo59 · · Score: 0, Troll

    I can make my IP change every hour, by changing the MAC address.

  8. Re:More Information Wikipedia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    "The entry for Ralph Neas (Director of a the liberal People for the American Way) was edited to say he was a Socialist, and the more subtle but equally effective changing the description of MoveOn (a progressive political organization) to be categorized as "left-wing."

    Ralph Nader believed in punishing people for their success. He IS a socialist and MoveOn.org is simply a front for the socialist Democratic party. You might as well say Michael Moore is a conservative Republican or that Bill Oreilly is a liberal Democrat. It wouldn't be any less asinine.