Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Wikipedia vs Congressional Staffers [Update]

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the waiting-for-an-arbitrary-smackdown dept.

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."

19 of 433 comments (clear)

  1. Congress blocked :P by the-amazing-blob · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Congress blocked :P by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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 :)

    2. Re:Congress blocked :P by plover · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.

      --
      John
    3. Re:Congress blocked :P by Have+Blue · · Score: 5, Insightful
      "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.
    4. Re:Congress blocked :P by Shai-kun · · Score: 5, Funny

      +1, Pink Floyd.

      --
      ...or so I've been told.
    5. Re:Congress blocked :P by geminidomino · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  2. Too much time on their hands. by bigtallmofo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    I'm a big tall mofo.
    1. Re:Too much time on their hands. by deanoaz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >>> 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

      --
      If 'the people' in Amendment 2 are 'the state' then Amendments 1, 2, 4, 9, and 10 benefit the state, not you.
  3. I have no knowledge... by IAAP · · Score: 5, Funny
    nor do I condone such behavior from my staff, myself, or anyone. This was done by some rogue elements that were too aggressive in their desire to set the facts straight. There will be a thorough investigation into this matter and the appropriate action will be taken.

    --[insert congresscritter's name here]

  4. Beaverl Attack: Wikipedia has NEVER been great... by nweaver · · Score: 5, Funny

    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
  5. Re:Congressional Trolls by PFI_Optix · · Score: 5, Funny
    Perhaps, somehow, Natalie Portman is a matter of national security.

    "And in a recent Freedom of Information Act, these images of Natalie Portman were released..."

    Ahh crap they blacked out all the good parts...

    --
    120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
  6. Re:Congressional Trolls by alphamugwump · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  7. Re:Congressional Trolls by rnpg1014 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...

    --
    - Nick
  8. Re:Beaver Attack: Wikipedia has NEVER been great. by mooingyak · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
  9. Main IP offender no longer banned by P0ldy · · Score: 5, Informative
    TFS:
    The IP ranges of US Congress have been currently blocked, but only for a week until the issue can be addressed more directly.

    The main offending IP in question is no longer blocked as of 30 January, this morning:

    06:36, 30 January 2006 Michael Snow unblocked User:143.231.249.141 (Not consistently used by the same person; we shouldn't block people just because they work for Congress, and some people using this IP address are making commendable efforts at complying with our culture and policies)

  10. Re:Congressional Trolls by spungebob · · Score: 5, Funny

    Make that "Goverment Idiots Association of America". Then I can catch all of the morons with one single regex ("*IAA")

    --
    It takes an idiot to do cool things - that's why it's cool!
  11. Evolution of a System by j_f_chamblee · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool. -Richard Feynman
  12. Re:Is it just me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Am I the only person who avoids Wikipedia like the plague because of these skewed entries and slanderous edit wars? I know I'm missing out, but after an entry I collaborated was "attacked" by someone who held a different opinion (read: blanked the article until Wiki delete minions got at it) I lost faith in its general ability to harbor legitimate information. I know it's there, but I don't want to have to sift through it. That's what the internet is for.

    I added a contentious bit of information to an extremely contentious article once. It was outright deleted, reverted, spell checked, deleted, grammer fixed, reverted, opened up an enormous discussion with rabid opponents on both sides. Eventually it was split into a separate article that was renamed a few times, with the original article linking to it.

    The quality of the article improved quite dramatically over time, and the POV portions that I didn't even realize I was bringing to the table were quickly killed off. The facts were *heavily* cross-checked and what's left now, despite being nothing like what I originally posted, is a satisfying contribution, even though none of what I wrote exists today.

    Wikipedia rules.

  13. Sad of Affairs by Cal+Paterson · · Score: 5, Insightful

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