Slashdot Mirror
Wikipedia Entries 'Cleaned' By Political Staffers
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."
"These edits range from benificial and informative to libelous and childish."
This isn't as bad as some profane articles I found some congressional aides/staffers writing about each other... which was confirmed by their senate IP addresses...
Wikipedia is open for potential abuses like these, but then again Wiki has always been a good reflection of society, and this is precisely what political agents do with the rest of society/PR outlets.
In short, this is another example of the old saw: ``Wikipedia is like a public toilet -- when you need it, you're sure glad it's there, but you never know who used it last.''
they've been busy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:143.231.249.141
this is what you have to accept with a democratic ideal like Wikipedia. Much like a real democracy, you might not like what you see, but you have to live with it. Wikipedia is a similar process, except that individuals get a WHOLE LOT more say in the process. And if you bring in guards, who will guard the guards? (and don't say meta-guards, PLEASE!) If this bothers you, do some research, edit the article yourself and play the editing war with that politician's staff.
An old-timer with old-timey ideas.
Coming up after the break, we'll have the weather, and Tom will present his special report, "Are All Politicians Scumbags?" The answer may surprise you. But first, is your computer rotting your brain? You may be dead and not even know it yet.
--------- (I apologize if this is too high concept. I sick, and my head is floaty. It feels right, but right now I have terrible judgement.)
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
It can be edited by everybody. Including the "Congressional staffers". Why is it "censorship"?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Well. I'm not suprised. But really if you found a page about yourself in the wikipedia full of critisisms you would think about changing them. Really with a world where comments can be changed they probably will be.
Although having people doing this for seems a bit of misuse of resourses.
Could you honsitly say you wouldn't be tempted to change things critisising about you if you could.
With the power to change things to the way one would want them one would.
With Members of Congress like this about information on themselves, is it any wonder nobody there disclosed information on the warrantless wiretaps?
I give up, really I do. But it was only a matter of time before political machines corrupted Wikipedia I guess. How long before it starts being less true than is true? Good idea, ruined by humanity once again.
Help me, help you. - Jerry McGuire
As flawed as the Wikipedia system might be, at least it is known to all what sort of errors are being made.
Anyone with an ounce of intelligence could use the list you posted a link to to their advantage. Chances are that if Republicans are adding material to an article, such information is likely a lie. Likewise, if they're removing information, it is probably truthful information they wish to hide from the public. Likewise for the Democrats.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
I realize some information is a lot more sensitive than others, but exactly, then, WHO is supposed to edit this information? Isn't this the point of the whole wikipedia excercise? I mean, it is hardly a headline when musicians edit entries about musical intruments, even when a violinist edits an entry adding a comment about the 'harsh tone' of brass instruments. The brass players need to come in and correct their own entries.
By the same model, politicians are probably going to be the ones editing the entries about politics. If a politician doesn't like his own entry, he should get in there and fix it (or tell his staffers to). If entries become too volitile, they will trigger other wikipedia policies.
Frankly, I think the 'meta moderation' of these entries is interesting political infotmation itself. I think the article itself should have some header or hilighting ranking its volatility - I would be more likely to 'trust' stable entries.
Actually, for technical issues Wikipedia articles seem to be ok -- people who write articles are people who care, and thus they usually have reasonable expertise. As a mathematician I can say that the Math articles are quite reasonable. Still can replace MathWorld, but if you need a definition you can look it up. Physics articles are not quite as good, mostly because of popular influences (tend to discuss popular controversies), but are rather reliable. Politics is a different kettle of fish -- because people have a stake and are rather more biased.
(Edited Sunday January 29, 03:26PM by RonPaul)
The opinions stated herein do not necessarily represent those of anybody at all. Deal with it.
But you do know who used it last, and what specifically they changed. It's extremely easy to compare different versions of the same article. You can even be shown exactly what text differs between the two, for instance.
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, 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. The same would go for the Democrats, or basically any other group, for instance. At least, however, we can see what was changed, and what it was changed from. That's just as beneficial as the information itself.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
If it can be done, do it. No, really. Wikipedia's content (ALL OF IT) is under a license that lets you use it as long as you still retain the attribution to wikipedia.
The software it runs on is free, the content is free, all you have to do it duplicate it and then apply whatever silly editing rules you think will fix the problems with wikipedia.
Hell, someone has even written a tutorial on setting up your own copy of wikipedia.
Do that, and you can edit it however you want, with whatever rules you want. It'll be just like wikipedia, but you can change the rules!
Oh, but you won't have wikipedia's legion of editors! Your copy won't really as good as wikipedia without that, will it?
Oh, wait. Maybe that's why wikipedia is as big as it is... because of the editing rules! Many other rules have been tried. Wikipedia is as big as it is because THESE RULES WORK. But go ahead and set up a copy with your rules. If it's better than wikipedia, people will use it as much as they use wikipedia now.
But I rather doubt you'll be able to convince the wikipedia community to change the very things that make wikipedia wikipedia, but you're welcome to try. Anyone can edit, after all.
For now, at least. We'll see if that's still true after you explain your amazing scheme to fix wikipedia.
I respond to your sigs
...when directly interested parties are involved. This is the problem with Wikipedia. In a jury trial, great pains are taken to assure that the juries consist only of people without any personal interest or attachment to the outcome; this seems to be an inherently time-consuming and expensive process.
/., Wiki, and all the other attempts at what ruleset allows a productive, participatory, democratic system that results in the best knowledge interesting - nobody has hit upon the right answer yet, but we are learning and getting better by watching what does and doesn't work. If only we could apply this to something like voting! Unfortunately, WAY too many overinterested parties are already assuring that almost any change to the voting system that gets implemented will make it worse from the voter's point of view.
Up until recently, Wikipedia has relied on the fact that it was relatively unknown outside the geek population, and so the odds were that highly agendized individuals were not drawn to it as a priority. This, unfortunately, has changed with Wikipedia's popularity.
This is what makes
I know you're joking, but you should go look into what Ron Paul has written, especially if you are an American. Notice how vastly different his thoughts are compared with those of the other politicians in the US today. It'd be a good exercise for any American to do. It's the closest you'll get to what America truly stands for.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
Many people say things like "well, people shouldn't be allowed to put crap like this on Wikipedia. We should do something about it". What nobody has done is advance a clear picture of how this can be done, aside from "put a cabal in charge", which raises the question of "who keeps the cabal from putting crap in?"
Wikipedia accepts that problems will arise, and it has mechanisms in place (like the edit history) to mitigate the effects. When a slashdot story goes up saying "House staffers screw around with articles", that's a victory for the Wikipedia system.
Nothing worth doing is worth doing today.
http://milkshake.dexy.org
> As flawed as the Wikipedia system might be...
I don't see the the rationale for being critical
of Wikipedia due to this political manipulation.
In fact, I think it's a strong feature of
Wikipedia that the changelog is stored, and
provides some kind of papertrail, providing
far more transparency and accountability than
other forms of media/information.
In a sense, nothing can ever be deleted from
Wikipedia, merely removed from the main branch.
Who ever said that getting the whole picture was easy or quick? It's your whole attitude of consulting some other "trusted" source, rather than investigating the matter on your own, which leads to people being easily manipulated.
Unfortunately, that happened to many Americans during the run-up to the ongoing war in Iraq. Most Americans didn't investigate the claims made by politicians and the media, and thus were ignorant to the fact that they were being seriously mislead.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
About half of the pages look like press releases. On the other hand, a lot of the pages acquire a lot of unsubstantiated rumor mongering, and I don't have a problem with the Rep's staffs keeping an eye on people making false or unsubstantiated claims on the site.
What's so awesome about wikipedia is that even after editing, the original information is still available. That being the case, part of one's research (especially when dealing with people of the political persuasion), should include past versions. At least this way, those seeking information can get the whole story, regardless of any sanitizing efforts by those in office.
Here is the talkpage of the article.
I usually check the discusion of a wikipedia article to check if it biased. Usually there is a group of editors dedicated to the subject who pay a lot of attention to the article, along with vandals and stray people who just felt like adding some of their knowledge. Pretty interesting to have people with opposing views edit an article. I am not saying they are all like this, just the good ones. When they disagree enough a flag will go up. When there isn't an opposing view there is a problem, no one would question what goes in.
Something interesting, the wikipedia article on google is way more critical of google than the microsoft article is of microsoft.
What really gets me is that they're apparently as dumb as they are immoral. They weren't even bright enough to use a proxy to mask their IP address, leaving their greasy fingerprints all over wikipedia for the world to see. Aside from this, I wonder how many other astroturfing operations have gone completely unnoticed by the public.
Working in a DevOps shop is like playing in a band made up entirely of keytarists.
Hell, the government shouldn't even be printing money, whether backed by precious metals or not, since the Constitution allows it to coin money:
Keep your eyes to the sky.
He supports the reintroduction of the gold standard for christ sake.
And the financial system based on usury we have today is better?
Most Americans, if they had any clue how the federal reserve works, would be absolutely horrified. That the value of their money is not decided by Congress, even though the constitution explicitly grants them that right, is even more outrageous.
I don't read or respond to AC posts
From the article:
...I cannot tell you that". I'm just waiting to see George Bush in February state that he cannot tell people the US budget (or deficit to be accurate) "for security reasons".
"For security reasons, Brandt declined to say to whom the address is assigned."
It must be great being the US government in this day and age, any question which they do not want to answer they simply cite "For security reasons
Yet Wikipedia is seriously flawed! I really wish Wikipedia could be used as an academic reference. I really wish the edit wars would stop. I really wish I could truly trust the information posted there. I really wish the POV could be fixed so that various viewpoints could be accurately and fairly be included.
Wikipedia is not a source of truth, it is an index of information, statements, and beliefs, with references to further information. This means it is about as authoritative about truth as searching through Google, but reorganized by topic, and thus providing a different means of accessing information.
The problems with Wikipedia begin with people believing it is accurate, simply because much of it is written in a style that makes it "feel" accurate.
That may be true, but the Lowell Sun has just called attention how widespread this problem could be. This article has now been posted on both Slashdot and Digg. All the House and Senate pages will likely get a good looking over by many members of the net-savvy public with particular attention paid to IP addresses from house/senate staffers. It will backfire from a rabid right-wing point of view, if it turns out that lots of Republicans are also engaged in this practice.
it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
The system seems to be working: PR inappropriately inserted gets news headline exposing it and more attention directed at the subject being concealed.
I'm sure you're aware that Ron Paul was a Libertarian. He jumped to the Republican Party because he felt he could accomplish more change within the party than from an external third party. Which tells you a sad state of affairs in the US when someone simply changes their label to a major party and has magically gets elected.
Can't say I blame him for trying really.
"The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble. I like my coffee black, just like my metal" - Mindless Self Indulgence
Its kind of funny, if you look up the admin's page, one of the people who is putting temp bans on the IP is a 15yr old. Its nice to see that the house has been stopped by him. And they say youths can't do anything right.
SimonTek
See, way back when I first heard of Wiki, I knew better than to look to it for these things. I grew up in South LA; I know all about graffiti. Blocks of useless stupid tagging punctuated by the occasional breathtaking work of art. If you closely examine a tagged-up wall, you'll notice half the paint is there to scratch out a rival faction's tag. In other words, every wall has an "edit war" going on. Same with any surface that anybody and everybody can write whatever they want on. Only the best art or most profound words stay untouched - tribal respect.
We have the rest of the internet for accredited news and information sources. The Wiki is just one more place to read and write.
Granted, the Republicans were still pretending to be fiscally conservative at that point, so they claimed some credit, but the second they didn't have to get it past a Democratic president, suddenly balancing the budget went out the window, and it was unneed tax cuts for upper incomes at the same time as a war they decided we needed, something we've never tried in history.
And, no, I'm not just looking at this in hindsight. The second Bush started handing out 'future tax rebates' or whatever that shit was in 2001 at the start of his first term, I said 'What the hell? How about we use the extra money to reduce the deficit? Like the 'tax-and-spend' liberal was doing with his surpluses.'.
I used to be like some people, thinking both parties were equally bad. My opinion of the Democratic party has not gone up any, and in fact has slightly dipped with their inability to get on message and take as stand.
My option of the Republicans, however, is slightly below...I actually have no political comparisons that can go that low. They consist of the most incompetant, greedy, vicious, petty, amoral bastards in the history of politics.
That said...editing Wikipedia to remove bad facts about yourself is just incredibly stupid behavior, no matter who does it, because if you knew anything about Wikipedia that is a good way to get your ass kicked, PR-wise. However, the staff of politicians is large and often does PR stuff without their knowledge, and many of them are young idiots.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
All .gov addresses should be banned from editing in Wikipedia. The US Government has no mandate to update public Web sites, and should be banned by their internal IT staff. Gov computers are banned from accessing such things as Gmail, game sites, bulletin boards and many other things deemed inappropriate use of government resources, in an effort to ensure that government property is only being used to conduct government work. As such, Wikipedia would be doing us all a favour by banning any gov addresses from editing, thereby reminding government employees that they should stop editing wikis and get back to spending our hard-earned money running the country.
-- Religion is not an exact science
Of all the things the Libertarians wring their hands over, the gold standard is the only one that seems the most misunderstood and overrated. Gold (or silver, or *insert precious metal here* standards come with their own host of problems. Here is the short, short, abbreviated case on the worst aspect of a metal standard:
Metal standards tie international currency exchange and therefore to the most desirable country's interest rates. So let's say everyone wants to trade with the USA. A dollar equals an X of gold. So if the British pound is nominally worth two dollars then a BP is also equal to X/2 of gold. Now if the US economy is doing well and interest rates are 6%, then interest rates must be 6% in England as well. If the economy is doing poorly in England then to make capital more affordable interest rates CANNOT be lowered by the Bank of England. If they did lower the rates, arbitrage trading would take place on the BP, effectively borrowing up all the pounds, converting them to dollars for short term, higher interest loans, and then converting back and paying off the pound denominated loan. This would steal away all the capital from England. So world interest rates get locked. Fiddling with interest rates is one of the strongest tools available to central banks for ameliorating business cycle swings. Take this away and you can get terrible bouts of depressions and/or stagflation that can take decades to get out of.
I really wish Wikipedia could be used as an academic reference.
Why would you want to do that?! Encyclopedias in general are not good academic references becuase they don't represent original work, but rather a collection and summary of information from other sources. If you find yourself citing Encyclopedia Britannica frequently in academic papers, you might want to consider improving your research methods.
It could be done. The current system is just too open for the kind of abuse described in the article.
Sure, it could be made more reliable, but you'd have to make some fundamental changes. First, you could only accept writing by experts who can prove their credentials. Second, you'd have to have a formalized peer review and editing process. This would cause a big delay between writing and publishing the articles. It would also limit the scope of the encyclopedia, and would greatly increase its cost. In other words, it would become a traditional encyclopedia. That niche has already been filled.
The strengths of Wikipedia are that it is more complete, it is up to date, and it represents a wide variety of viewpoints of many subjects. It's a great way to find a review of some subject and find references on that subject. Sure, it's not authoratative, but who really expects it to be? In my opinion, the best thing that could be done for it is to put a disclaimer prominantly displayed at the top of each page saying that it can be edited by anybody, changes are not reviewed before becoming visible, and no garauntee is made on the accuracy of the content. In other words, things you and I already know, but which the average joe might not. I don't think this will happen, because the people who control it seem to be too proud to admit that it might be inferior in any way to other encyclopedias.
If you can read this sig, you're too close.
After seeing the article running in The Lowell Sun, I was the one who combed through the entire history of wikipedia contributions. I was surprised to see that there were hundreds (pretty close to 1000 entries).
Though I was pleased to see that there were a fair amount of edits updating dates and facts to be current (everyone switching from the 108th to the 109th Congress), I was shocked to see that there was a large propaganda and misinformation campaign as well.
Some were personal attacks saying things like "He is generally not a good person," and childish things like adding Scott Mclellan (Bush's press secretary) to the entry for Douche; other were of a much more serious nature. 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."
Many Congressional offices were removing any negative inormation or simply replacing the entire article with their official House bio. Emily Lawrimore (Communications Director Congressman Joe Wilson, emily.lawrimore@mail.house.gov) posted, on the discussion page for her boss "I work for Congressman Joe Wilson (listed as Addison Graves Wilson). Could you update his bio with information from the following official bio too?"
Some political officials like Congressman Jim Ramstad (R-MN 3rd) just wanted to remove any references to the word "liberal". The articles for Congressman Trent Franks (R-AZ 2nd), and Rick Renzi (R-AZ 1st) were completely erased and replaced with official House biographies.
Getting even worse Congressman Richard Pombo (R-CA 11th) and Governor Bob Taft (R-OH) removed references to their ties with Jack Abramoff (who in a recent Washington scandal pled guilty to three felony counts, conspiracy, fraud, and tax evasion). Congressman Mark Green (R-WI 8th) removed any mention of his ties with the recently indicted Tom DeLay and generally removed any unflattering or scandal related information. A full list of the effected articles is available.
The possible most egregious entry was editing the article "2003 Invasion of Iraq." Erasing legitimate information, adding knowingly false information and generally purporting that there were links between Iraq and al Qaeda.
This appears to be a somewhat serious problem as this is one IP address of who knows how many. See the discussion page for this IP address at Wikipedia to see some of the known staffers who have been editing articles.
I am a Wikipedia editor and am personally going through all edits that have come through the U.S. Congress IP range. It's mildly entertaining, like a made-for-TV horror comedy, as I look through these. The government is spreading propaganda into Wikipedia. There are edits that seem to be useful, and true, but there is a majority of vandalism that disturbs me. Edits range from articles to articles like the ones on the Superfriends and the Pope, to inserting the name of the White House press secretary in odd places, and what appears to be an extremely puerile form of libel against certain senators.
You misspelled "causing."
Many people think that Wikipedia is freely open for editing, this is not the case.
Wikipedia is meant to be a Encyclopedia in eternal progress of completion. Every entry needs to have the bias and unfactual points shaved out to a NPOV as well as adding additional factual support.
As Wikipedia exists on the web more and more it's catalogue of articles becomes increasingly more full and any POV or bias is shaved down slowly with an effective moderation team.
People think that wikipedia is free for editing and unreliable, however this is not the case.
Wikipedia needs moderation. Perhaps Slashdot-like moderation. I am all for having a freely edited encyclopedia; I am even all for contributions being shown immediately without editorial oversight, but it's just downright ridiculous that their Anonymous Cowards have just as much power as their excelent-karma'ed, long-time contributors/editors.
Well, at least it'll get the sheep to support the war.
The real justification for that war is far too complex for the average person, never mind a 5-second sound bite.
I don't think the explanation would fit in a few Slashdot posts either, even assuming you are smart enough to follow it. I'll give you a few hints though. It has to do with very long-term world strategy and stability. It has to do with much more than oil or terrorism.
Completely open systems vulnerable to abuse. News at eleven!
Didn't the wikipedia guys ever have a subscription to "Duh!" magazine?
This is exactly what philosopher Harry Fankfurt fretted about in his short book "On Bullshit." The problem with political discourse today is not that we have liars, it's that we have bullshitters--people that don't care about the truth at all. You can see that dangerous thinking with Meehan's chief of staff admitting that he had no objection to deleting facts for PR purposes; Vogel essentially valued Meehan's image over the truth.
Wikipedia is a project that presumes that all parties care about the truth. Sure, people will disagree about the implications of and inferences from the facts, and that can lead to back-and-forth editing. That's good, because multiple editors are more likely to arrive, via peer-review, at a neutral point of view. But editing out known facts is recklessly disregarding the truth, and that goes against the spirit of Wikipedia. Again, the point of allowing anyone to edit is not to allow revisionist history, but to allow neutral interpretation of facts.
PR should never conflict with the truth. You can spin facts, explain them away, downplay them--that's acceptable PR. But you have to acknowledge them. I'm even willing to say that lying about them is better than pretending they don't exist: at least the liar acknowledges there is an objective truth and has the same understanding of facts as the rest of us, even if he chooses to manipulate the game. Vogel didn't even care to acknowledge the facts and that makes his actions quite dangerous to public discourse.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Transparency is ambiguity.
Or you really believe there is an entity called Truth?
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
That's what happens when anyone can edit anything. At least they didn't edit his article to try to implicate him in the Kennedy assassination.
Anything I ever do in wikipedia gets a POV or NPOV attack from someone with opposite views. So to me, this is not news. Everyone has its own facts about what's going on (even about optical vs old school mice). POV/NPOV flames are the reason why wikipedia can't go beyond being a quick-check-reference-point.
That illustrates the problem with any cooperative system in which the entire world's population is explicitly trusted.
The unfortunate truth is that there always has been and always will be a percentage of the worlds population who are assholes. It's just a fact that anything given to the world, no matter how good, will be ruined by these assholes unless measures are taken to protect it.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
wikipedia does have ip blocking and it is possible to get the ip for registered although that access to that feature is somewhat restricted for obvious reasons.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
But that's precisely what Wikipedia is, the "discussion" tab is adjacent to the "article" and "history" tabs. The real battle consists of convincing the general public to understand that you can't always believe everything you read on the Internet at face value; you have to dig deeper.
I second what another poster here said about always checking the discussion page associated with an article if the information one is seeking is of more than trivial importance.
The Internet enables the general public to do this fact-checking easily and repeatedly, and makes errors and misinformation easy to expose. This practice is contagious; earlier today I checked a questionable fact which I read in a New York Times article by spending 5-10 minutes digging up multiple original sources. The fact turned out to be true (at least as far as I could ascertain). Had it been incorrent, there would have been hell to pay for that reporter as the fraud would have been exposed.
Of course with the Times, you have a handful of editors and a reputation based upon good fact-checking which allows you to put some confidence in believing what you read without further research. With wikipedia, it's different, not better, not worse, but different, and it should be regarded as such.
it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
When certain viewpoints get consistenly modded down is that part of a conspiracy or just a few folks in the herd acting on their own? Hard to tell sometimes. Metamoderate regularly and a pattern starts to emerge. But each side can be equally oppresive against the other. No one really wants to hear anyone else's opinion no matter how well reasoned their argument is.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
You can do that, just link to an old page in the history: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prostate _cancer&oldid=6782986
The three-revert rule will get the host that's doing the reverting banned. You'd probably have to do it from a botnet, and even then the page is likely to get protected.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
The moonies, rajneeshis, and the scientologits also put some serious effort into whitewashing the entries on their cults and leaders. They usually win, since they can assign a full-time zombie to each page, just about.
The quacks who push "Therapeutic Touch", "Psychic Surgery", and Chiropractic aren't quite as diligent, but you still need to take those entries with a grain of salt, too.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
We should be equally outraged when an elected representative does this, regardless of what party they're in. Excusing it now just means it's that much easier for them to excuse it when/if they ever regain power.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
My TAX dollars are going to political staffers to mess up a wiki system that is supposed to be as unbiased as possible due to a check and balance. A source of information that should be at the very least, semi-credible. If he wants to spread lies and cover his ass, that's fine. Don't go F**king up wikipedia with my tax dollars. It's a waste of time #1, and it's a slap in the face to plenty of citizens who have worked their asses off to build that site. Anyone that edits a wiki with malicious intent, whether childish or politically motivated, needs the crap slapped out of them.
I can make my IP change every very often by changing the MAC address and getting a new lease from my ISP's DHCP server.
Yeah, and then the page gets protected, as I mentioned above. Wikipedia has dealt with this issue before, you know.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Humans don't even express our world in mutually exclusive pure truth/falsity, except in the most abstract discussions of philosophers like Aristotle and Boole. When we started making machines to operate according to those kinds of expressions, we found they only roughly corresponded to our world except in cases of extreme simplicity and wide error tolerance. And even our most precise and accurate descriptions of our world are statistical: ambiguous, uncertain. Binary depictions of our world don't survive beyond the ideal confines of our minds.
--
make install -not war
The "Powers That Be" are reverting the entries back to what they should be and blocking the IPs of those who are carrying out the action.
all the people that want to keep some money at home can do that witout the money value rising
First, you seem to think inflation only happens as a side effect of non-metallic currencies; this is not the case at all. A useful website is Economic History and on this page you can find historic inflation rates. Put in a year during the time after WWII and before the US went off the silver standard. Amazingly, there is inflation in every year. How is that possible when a metal standard magically waves away inflation? Because metal standards DO NOT wave away inflation. The US went off the gold standard because our major trading allies were begging for it; their economies were in desperate need of interest rates differing from the US's (see my prior post).
Second, you seem to think that inflation and/or the money supply is influenced heavily by the printing of paper notes. This is not the case in a modern economy. The money supply is much more influenced by interest rates, government spending and taxation rates, and even foreign trade balances a long time before the actual printed money has an effect.
And on that note, the money supply in terms of cash in circulation is miniscule compared to the amount of money at work in the ecomony. Look up 'the money multiplier' for more info. The amount printed or coined in a modern ecomomy isn't nearly as big a concern as you seem to think except in extreme cases. And since the Federal Reserve is a private bank, not a government agency, it has the luxury of not letting the cash run amok to the point of Bad Things happening. All the Fed notes would have to be recalled or disavowed and a new government-issued money created. Tell me you think that's realistic for any elected office holder to propose.
Money is created by the government printing up treasury bills. They then sell these to the Federal Reserve, who is a captive buyer and must buy them. But the Fed is then free to either hold or sell the things on the market. The Fed holds the staggering sums in TBills in reserve, to the tune of hundreds of billions of $$. The 'poison pill' that keeps the government in line is that if they dump excessive TBills, the Fed will then dump those same TBills on the open market, ruining the value of the dollars the government wants.
But let me guess, you stop the whole IP block, buy why hot the whole ISP, then another ISP and keep blocking ISPs, well why stop there, block the whole internet.
Oh, but you can protect the pages. How many? How about all of them?.
The point here is that if people are allowed to do whatever they want to an encyclopedia, it might end up being a very inaccurate source. I wouldn't reference it in a paper to be published, that's for sure.
Oh, don't worry. You won't have to worry about the value of your dollar increasing if they print more of them. Quite the opposite occurs. Simple supply and demand there. That's the real problem with any monetary system not based on a relatively fixed supply of something like gold. Central bankers can just print to their hearts delight and make your savings worthless. When the US dropped the gold standard in 1971, gold was worth $40/oz. Now, it's worth $550/oz. If you had $10000 in the bank then, it was worth 250 oz. of gold. Now it's only worth about 18 oz. Needless to say, 250 oz of gold then is still worth 250 oz of gold today. Why would anyone save in greenbacks? They just keep printing more, making your savings worthless. So much so, that they are going to stop printing the M3 report. Can we say "Print money day and night, as fast as you can." Good... I thought you could.
Did you actually RTFA? Really? You couldn't have.
a) You are not supposed to write about yourself on Wikipedia, except to correct factual information such as birth date.
b) They clearly were not doing anything constructive, unless you define constructive in such a way that linking a senator's name in the "douche" article is acceptable.
c) They did not go through the proper channels, that is, after a dispute, work it out on the talk page. Instead they kept reverting, and kept making FALSE and in many cases, childish, edits.
d) Crticism != political smearing. If a Senator or Representative had connections to Abramoff, it is in the public's interest to know that, and definitely encyclopedic. Therefore, these employees were unequivocally wrong in removing the information.
"Wikipedia operates on the principle that the 'truth' is whatever most people agree it is."
:-)
Finally, a testable hypothesis!
Let's charter a plane, fly a dozen Wikipedians up to about 12000 ft sans parachutes, and see if they can all agree that they can float gently to earth once they are prematurely deplaned
who the hell would reference ANY encyclopedia in a paper to be published??
This space available.
Ugh, From a pleasantly idealistic viewpoint, this is really quite depressing. The fact that the 'Wikipedia Experiment' has been greatly successful, with the vast majority of authors doing their honest best to add valid information... And then the politicians that represent us are the ones that so publicly reveal the negative aspects of the system.
That's a bummer.
On a side note, two things that have occured to me recently regarding wikipedia:
1. I've never seen/felt that any wikipedia articles had a 'slant' to them, and I think this is because I almost entirely utilize articles regarding technical subjects, such as explanations of technical terms or scientific theories. It seems these subjects in wikipedia are usually prefectly objective and wonderfully helpful.
2. I've recently started contributing to wikipedia myself, mostly regarding local subjects or descriptions of towns near my home, and started to realize that properly creating/editing a wikipedia page requires quite a bit of learning and time. Maybe this is a major factor to reducing spam/crap edits.... It might just not be worth the effort for most people if they are only trying to cause trouble. Perhaps this is a valid argument against wikipedia trying to simplify any of the editing/markup systems.
Big ones, small ones, some as big as yer 'ead!
Give 'em a twist, a flick o' the wrist...
I don't think 3RR is automatic, though. If it's obvious that the person doing the edits is the one causing the problem, rather than the one doing the reverts, for example, then the appropriate person gets banned.
The only reference I can find to multiple grand juries is in the Wikipedia entry on Tom DeLay. There it says there were three grand juries - the first, which indicted. Then Tom moves to dismiss the indictment, and Earle asks a second grand jury to indict. They refuse. Then Earle asks a third grand jury to indict, which they do.
I don't know the legality of all of this... I'm not sure why you would get a second grand jury before the motion to dismiss has been accepted, or whether it's OK to get a third GJ if the second one doesn't do what you want (when the first did). But at least according to Wikipedia (the only resource I can find with any details), your facts are dead wrong. There were three grand juries, two of which indicted.
What I found was interesting is that it appears the only reason DeLay is prosecutable is that he waived his right to be excused due to the statute of limitations. I don't know if that applies to all charges or just some subset.
Oh yeah, and I wasn't entirely accurate above... I did see one quote about there being four grand juries, from one of DeLay's spokesman. The spokesman did *not* say that three of them failed to indict. He just left you to assume that.
I know as soon as that I read this article, I went onto Wikipedia to correct what the staff had changed, only to find other people had already done the same. Cool.
:)
It's articles like this that keep the integrity of Wikipedia intact. Time and time again I see something on Wikipedia that just makes me wonder about people sometimes. Although knowing that people care enough to go and fix it removes all doubt. And you have to give credit where credit is due. Slashdot helped it out too.
But, since Meehan is a Democrat, expect this to get absolutely no mention in any news outlet.
Right, like the way they raked Colin Powell over the coals for presenting false and plagiarised information to the U.N.? Oh wait, that's right. There was a total media blackout about that incident.
You really need to pay more attention. The media is not "liberally biased." It is biased towards its own ends, which means selling high-end advertising, toadying up to the corporate elites, and fomenting fake controversies whenever possible to stir ratings. The big corporate outlets very infrequently deal with anything of substance.
If the media appears to you to be giving the Dems a free pass, more likely it's because they rarely cover anything the left wing does, unless it's particularly showy or the right wing makes noise about it in their thousands of media outlets, consummate showmen that they are.
Put down your Ayn Rand novel and visit Media Matters on a daily basis to get a deeper picture of what's going on.
-- thinkyhead software and media
Not a good analogy. Meehan is a public figure whose election to Congress was expedited by a public vow to stick to term limits. Not only that, he excoriated on the floor of the House those members who did not stick by their vows, before he himself decided to renege too.
Private hypocrisy of the type you are describing is a different matter. It's nobody's business but my own, as long as I am breaking no laws. Politicians and other public figures have to play by a different set of rules, though. If I were a politician who loudly demanded a tightening of welfare eligibility, and it should be found that I was collecting welfare despite being ineligible under the rules I had been promoting, I'd probably lose my next election.
The much more common flip side of this is the limousine liberal who loudly demands higher taxes on "the rich", but pays only the minimum required by law-- e.g. Warren Buffet and Bill Gates. It's their business and theirs alone -- again, except while running for office.
I think that it cost John Kerry a lot of votes when it was discovered that he and his idle billionaire wife were paying taxes at a rate of 15%, thanks to clever lawyering, while calling for higher taxes on hard-working dentists and doctors and small businessmen who were already paying 30% or more marginal tax rates. It certainly confirmed my own poor opinion of him when I found that I paid more taxes than he did.
-ccm
Too much Law; not enough Order.
It's no surprise that this sort of thing is going on. Wikipedia is an open forum, not an authoritative source. So long as it's public access, it will never become one either. Whether it's one person defending themself from attacks, be they true or untrue, or a legion of minions carefully grooming their overlord's public profile, it's still just an online source, with nothing but the public at large (gossip queens) as a reference.
This will hopefully remind people of the value of real research with an honest, earnest intention of discovering the whole story, and from there determining what the "truth" of the situation really is.
That's my point. Where does inflation come from? Why, when we create more money, that's where. You can't dilute the value of gold by printing more of it. You have to work hard to dig it out of the ground and purify it. Unless you've got some magic way to siphon off the micro amounts of it in sea water, the value of gold will stay relatively fixed. Sure, there's periods of high and low demand in any commodity, but paper money isn't a commodity. The value of a dollar is easy to play with. The actual cost to the US Treasury to print a sheet of $100 bills is a tiny fraction of what that sheet is "worth" but only so long as they print very few of them and they are extremely difficult to counterfeit. The government is what creates the inflation, because the government prints the money. I'm not blind. I see a population living beyond its means (massive trade imbalance, a real estate bubble about to burst) and a government that can't pay its bills (8.2 trillion dollar national debt). We are a consumer, debtor nation. We are a net negative on this Earth. That won't last forever. When it comes time to pay the piper, the government is going to crank up the presses and print day and night to do it. Greenbacks will be worthless.
Consider a workflow-type approach, like what exists in Plone. Changes go through an approval process by one or more people. You could sophisticate it, make the waiting-for-approval changes visible so that people can comment, help with citing sources, refute false claims, etc.
I think it might work for wikipedia. It does mean, however, that each article would have one or more people that "own" it and are responsible for keeping up with submitted changes.
I pity the foo that isn't metasyntactic
Wikipedia has so far been used as a source in about 100 peer-reviewed published articles.
You can make your IP address change every hour, but you can't spell "wikipedia" correctly? Somehow, I'm underwhelmed...