Slashdot Mirror
Wikipedia vs Congressional Staffers [Update]
There has been quite a bit of recent reporting on the recent troubles between Wikipedia and certain Congressional staffers. In response, abdulzis mentions that "an RFC, Wikipedia's mediation method to deal with 'disharmonious users', has been opened to take action against US Congressional staffers who repeatedly blank content and engage in revert wars and slanderous or libelous behavior which violates Wikiepdia code. The IP ranges of US Congress have been currently blocked, but only for a week until the issue can be addressed more directly."
Well children if you cannot play nice we are just going to have to take this away
Congressional trolls. This idea amuses me deeply.
I wonder if any of the trolls we've got on here are working for Congress.
Perhaps, somehow, Natalie Portman is a matter of national security.
xkcd.com - a webcomic of mathematics, love, and language.
--[insert congresscritter's name here]
Just look at this past entry for "Beaver" (now corrected, but Wikipedia's history allows us to see it in the full glory)
Beaver
"Beavers explosively attack people with their menacing teeth. They are the most deadly animals alive."
Test your net with Netalyzr
I wonder if any of the trolls we've got on here are working for Congress.
That's a pretty outlandish theory you have there! We^H^HThey would never consider monitoring Slashdot, let alone posting comments to it.
In other news, it seems The White House I.P addresses will remain unblocked as users there are still struggling to find wiki. Allegedly there have been unconfirmed reports of a "white out" scandal, where public money has been frivolously spent on white out and computer screens. No one has yet named the culprit.
-- Cheer, Cheer, The Red and the White.
And the people who removed that line are trying to suppress the truth about beavers.
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
And now Congress will vote to make freely-editable online encyclopedias illegal. Freedom of speech loses in a landslide. :D
After their IPs posted on slashdot? They'll vote to make port scanning illegal...:p
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2005/12/16
I'm particularly amused by the note in subscript after that remarkable claim:
'Citation needed.'
Which gives me a mental image of a wikipedia editor like some genial dusty old university professor saying 'Not that we don't believe you about the deadly beavers, you understand, just that you haven't properly cited a source for this claim of yours...'
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
FTA: 156.33.*.*
Maybe this'll come in handy someday. Can't imagine what I'd use it for though.
Republican hatchetman Ken Mehlman's entry had a picture of a flaccid penis on it when I looked him up. Interestingly, the page was locked to edits. When I mentioned on the discussion page that it seemed to be a more figurative likeness than most Wikipedia readers were expecting, both the picture and my G-rated comment disappeared.
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
Google for "santorum" some time, and hit "I'm feeling lucky". Some people consider that a political statement, and some consider it a troll.
Someone thinks this is a political statement? Shocking!
Si vis pacem, para bellum
The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
I am obligated to point out that the character you are quoting to back up your argument is a lunatic.
;-)
That's just your opinion
There was some news story where the mainstream sources mostly had the wording of some critical quotation wrong in various ways (which is actually generally true of mainstream news quotations, since they come from reporters quickly writing something down when it's said, not recordings; they usually get the right meaning, but rarely the right words). Surprisingly, Wikinews almost alone had the quotation exactly right (i.e., perfectly matching the available audio recording of the event). But the weather map that day was a picture of some guy's butt, a mistake that none of the other media sources made.
And now Congress will vote to make freely-editable online encyclopedias illegal.
"We'd love to fight this blatantly un-Constitutional law," a spokesman for the ACLU said, "but we're all too busy defending child molesters' right to ban school prayer in the womb."
There, now we've got two ludicrious misrepresentations out of the way. Is that enough that we can move on to relevant discourse instead?
If they did, do you think they'd be working in Congress?
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
Wikipedia seems to bring out the worst in some people. My favourite example is this. Do these people have nothing better to do?
Wikipedia wars.
Your flippin tax dollars at work.
"Beavers explosively attack people with their menacing teeth. They are the most deadly animals alive."
That's the best kind of vandalism. The kind that doesn't actualy remove information or mislead. Take this entry on Paganini: He was widely considered a hardcore motherfucker, and probably the first musician to be a badass. Who cares if that's not true, or in proper encyclopdeaic form? It's fucking hilarious for the handful of people that might ever read it.
Does the uncyclopedia get vandalised by people correcting the jokes with facts?
Perhaps no citation because nobody who has been attacked by beavers has ever lived to tell the tale?
Blow up congress.
Wikipedia should just ban all content reguarding active politicians because they cant behave themselves.
Simple. Children should be spanked.
+1, Pink Floyd.
...or so I've been told.
It simply doesn't get more righteous than that.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
"Well, they DO sorta run the country and stuff."
Nope, they are public servants. The government is of, By, and for the people.
POLITICIAN: Hi, I'm running for office and I would like you to vote for me! I plan to lower taxes and reduce government spending. I'm a proactive envirmonmentalist, and I propose a well grounded national health care program.
VOTER: You're lying!
POLITICIAN: Why woudl you say that?
VOTER: Your lips are moving...