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."

Comments

Congress blocked :P

[the-amazing-blob]

And now Congress will vote to make freely-editable online encyclopedias illegal. Freedom of speech loses in a landslide. :D

Or perhaps we can come to an agreement where no one edits other entries for the purpose of skewing information. That would make me smile.

Re:Congress blocked :P

[Anonymous Coward]

Tis the season to reform i guess.

What might be more interesting to acknowledge is that Wikipedia is giving the public a glimpse at some of the ugliness of politics. Juvenille name calling, re-inventing the truth, hiding criticism, libel, slander, etc. Some may say that the majority is by junior staffers and even high school level pages and wash it under the rug. More than likely this is just a reflection of the atmosphere that exists in these offices. I say we consider wikipedia a honey pot for catching dishonorable officials :)

Re:Congress blocked :P

[plover]

Unfortunately, your second statment is the epitome of the "Tragedy of the Commons." There is ALWAYS another troll, someone who wants to maliciously sow dissent just to provoke a reaction. In some of these congressional cases it's a blatant attempt at a "revisionist history", while in others it's been purely "vandalism" -- the posting of the goatse trolls is a good example of that.

But the problem is that one man's troll is another man's political statement. Google for "santorum" some time, and hit "I'm feeling lucky". Some people consider that a political statement, and some consider it a troll. Both are right! So how do you include both points of view on a description of "santorum"? If you include the gross description, you've trolled Senator Santorum's supporters. If you censor the description, you're invalidating the political position of his opponents. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. And the third choice, eliminating mention of both santorum and Senator Santorum, does an even worse disservice to history by removing his legitimate accomplishments as well as the voice of his opposition.

While it would be nice to think otherwise, it's an impossible fantasy to hope that there will never be web vandals.

Re:Congress blocked :P

[Have Blue]

"There's no right, there's no wrong, there's only popular opinion."

-- Jeffrey Goines, 12 Monkeys

I am obligated to point out that the character you are quoting to back up your argument is a lunatic.

Re:Congress blocked :P

[geminidomino]

I disagree on "always" ... under our current society rules, yes, but humans will stop making trolls when the purpose for our lives is to create a good and happy life for all people, and not "get all we can for ourself" ruleset we follow now.

Right. Shortly after Doctor Donut perfects cold fusion in his Licorice Lab on Lollipop Lane.

Pardon me if I don't hold my breath waiting for the overthrowing of human nature.

Too much time on their hands.

[bigtallmofo]

Do we need any further evidence that congress people and their staff have too much time on their hands? I hope in the contentious atmosphere that plagues Washington these days that people from all sides of the political spectrum can agree that Congress is given too many resources to accomplish too little.

Next they'll be wasting all their time on Slashdot.

Re:Too much time on their hands.

[deanoaz]

>>> Do we need any further evidence that congress people and their staff have too much time on their hands?

Maybe not, but think of all the evil they could do if they really applied themselves all of the time. I sleep better at night knowing they waste a lot of their time fiddling Wikipedia entries and blogging, etc.

"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is to try to please everyone." - Bill Cosby

Re:Congressional Trolls

[alphamugwump]

Actually, when you think about it, a successful politician is not really that different from a successful troll. The idea with both is to somehow stir up an issue that people are rabid about. In the case of a troll, it is just for sheer fun or whatever, but when politicians do it, it gets them into office.

Re:Congressional Trolls

[rnpg1014]

What disturbs me more is the idea that the people we elect to Congress behave childishly enough to get Federal IP addresses blocked from a major website. Quite honestly, I move to give literacy tests before giving voting privelidges...

Evolution of a System

[j_f_chamblee]

Between this article and previous articles concerning the locking of Wikipedia pages, I can't help but wonder if what is happening amounts to some kind of evolution. Depending on how Wiki solves this, what we may see is the system evolving to include some form of the old fashioned, but sometimes maligned model of peer review. Maybe I'm wrong, but it is an interesting process to watch -- especially for somebody (like me) who thinks peer review is good thing.

Sad of Affairs

[Cal Paterson]

It's a sad state of affairs when we have to block our own goddamn house of government for vandalising public property.