Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Congress Made Wikipedia Changes

Posted by samzenpus on from the revisionist-history dept.

Dr Occult writes "BBC news is reporting misuse of Wikipedia by politicians for 'polishing' their images. The article on President Bush has been altered so many times - not just from within Congress - that Wikipedia's volunteer monitors have had to block further 'editing'." From the article: "Wikipedia says the controversy raises questions about whether it is ethical for those with a vested interest in the subject to edit entries about it. It said the Congressional computer network has been blocked from editing for brief periods on a number of occasions in the last six months due to the inappropriate contributions."

25 of 277 comments (clear)

  1. Objective information? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is there any genuinely objective information ANYWHERE in the world?

    1. Re:Objective information? by argStyopa · · Score: 3, Insightful

      BINGO.

      "Wikipedia says the controversy raises questions about whether it is ethical for those with a vested interest in the subject to edit entries about it. "

      My problem is with the term vested interest. The classification itself is pretty damn subjective.

      How do you define the term? Are you ready to categorically conclude that someone editing a Congressman's bio page (for example) MUST be biased and incapable of objectivity if they work in a congressional office for one party or the other? Or (more shaky, in my opinion) are you simultaneously going to conclude that people WITHOUT formal affiliations are therefore entirely objective and editing altruistically? What if they actually donated $50 million to moveon.org or financed the publication of the Swift Boat book during the last campaign? Are they presumed to be objective? Or is objectivity defined in practical terms inveresely to how candid they are about their background?

      Really, it becomes a "who watches the watchers" question, with infinite iterations.

      --
      -Styopa
    2. Re:Objective information? by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think this question, while not precisely answerable, is worth a bit of thought.

      The dictionary definition is somewhat less useful than what one might wish it to be. I believe what people are reaching for when they use "information" in this kind of context is this: that which makes us better informed. By informed I mean prepared to make decisions.

      Armed with this, I'd say that "Is there any genuinely objective information?" is not the right question. The question should be, "Is there complete data needed to answer this particular question?" Leaving aside attempts to present data in a biased way, which is a form of hiding data, for practical purposes objective information is simply complete data. However in many complex questions, like "Should I vote for Marty Meehan?", it's not possible to have all the data. Perfect information is like absolute zero -- a benchmark you can approach asymptotically and for practical purposes reach, but never truly reach.

      What tends to be most helpful is to have data which throws light on the question from different angles. For example, if you know that Alice is twenty years old, and Bob is fifty years old, you have sufficient data to know who will collect social security first. But you don't have sufficient to know who you'd rather have driving your children's bus; in absence of further data you might tend to choose Bob because older people are more responsible. However, if you found out that Bob was a drunk who never held a job for more than six months, and Alice was a Mormon teetotaller on the Olympic ski team, you might revise your decision.

      Attempts to misinform people fall into two cateogries: asserting false data, and hiding true data. Everyone understands asserting false data is a lie. What is less well understood is that hiding relevant data is a lie, and hiding relevant metadata is a lie as well.

      Understanding context is critical in being informed, and sophisticated liars manipulate your perception of context by hiding relevant facts, then they cover their tracks by hiding metadata. The reason that politicians mucking with Wikipedia is unethical is not that they are necessarily telling falsehoods; it's that they're sanitizing the data of anything which puts them in a bad light, and hiding the metadata that what you are looking at was prepared by the person being described.

      I love the Wikipedia: it's far more useful than we have any right to expect. However, I've often felt what was missing is a kind of Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval -- or rather, the ability for independent reviewers to create their own Seals of Approval. When you looked at an article, you'd see a list of review authorities who blessed this version, as well as a list of authorities that have blessed alternate versions. If this were available, there'd be no reason to stop the White House from editing the President Bush bio; however when looking at the edited version I could see that there alternative versions blessed by the League of Women Voters, the Democratic Party, and the Socialist Worker's Party. Or when looking at a different version, I could see the one blessed by the RNC.

      This scheme would provide critical metadata when evaluating an article. Individual authorities could establish a brand based on the review process, whether it's a society of American Historical Seal of Approval on the Andrew Jackson article, or the Christian Coalition's Seal of Approval on an article about the Roman Catholic Church.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    3. Re:Objective information? by hey! · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, most mis-information I've seen has been the mis-presentation of true data.

      Exactly my point. You can give some true data but hide other true data which changes its meaning. You can also hide data "in plain sight" by arranging it so it's hard to perceive (e.g. non-zero based bar graphs to show a "trend").

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  2. Re:duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There is no objective information.

    Any liberal arts major can tell you that.

    And that's why they're not scientists.

  3. Block 'em all. by Caspian · · Score: 4, Insightful
    "It said the Congressional computer network has been blocked from editing for brief periods on a number of occasions in the last six months due to the inappropriate contributions."

    Why not block ALL of *.gov, permanently? Perhaps with exceptions for certain scientific sites (e.g. nasa.gov, any "national laboratories", etc.)
    --
    With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
  4. Not just wikipedia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The war in Iraq is about WMD.
    The war in Iraq is a part of the global war against terror, it was never about WMD.
    The war in Iraq is about liberating its people, it is about democracy and nothing to do with terrorism.


    We salute revisionist government and it's retro-active position on history.
  5. Re:all writing is... by goldspider · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But in this case, history is being written by both victors and vanquished. As it turns out, both sides are just as likely to portray each other in a negative, less than truthful light.

    --
    "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
  6. Really. whats the big deal ??? by gorim · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I thought Wikipedia was designed to handle this sort of thing ?

    Doesn't everyone who creates and edits articles have a vested interest ? Else why would they be spending time to do it ?

    Lots of articles get "spinned" by non-politicians too, whether it is about politics or something else.

    I wonder how many spins comes from .edu addresses ? Probably way more than from .gov addresses.

    1. Re:Really. whats the big deal ??? by apt142 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The difference between spinning a non-political article and a political one is very significant.

      Our political process relies on the percieved integrity of the individual in whom we place our confidence. There is a lot more at stake than a bad review or a misinterpretation of facts as these people are involved in the process of making and passing laws in the US.

      And as for the big deal, well wikipedia is designed to handle these cases where differences of opinion on the facts show up. But with a political issue its much more likely that the differences will be exaggerated and fought over much like any other political issue out there. Wikipedia will be caught in the middle. How they react to it and handle it will be of strong interest to anyone who places any faith in their site.

      --
      Star Pirates
  7. Re:The Venn Diagram of Statements by smittyoneeach · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Wikipedia needs to decide whether it should accept those which fall in the middle overlapping area or reject them outright.
    What's the value in passing the judgement?
    I, for one, am interested in seeing the edit history of a political leader's entry. If it looks like the entry has had more plastic surgery than Liz Taylor, then that, itself, is an interesting data point.
    Serve it up, and let the audience judge.
    What about some kind of moderation, and a means of voluntarily selecting 'trusted' sources of moderation to apply? I might like a William F. Buckley, Jr. take on things one day, or CmdrTaco's take the next.
    Half the time, 'who' is saying things is as important as 'what' was said.
    --
    Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
  8. Those with a vested interest by QuietLagoon · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Wikipedia says the controversy raises questions about whether it is ethical for those with a vested interest in the subject to edit entries about it.

    Some WikiPedia proponents say that the strength of WikiPedia comes from those who are knowledgeable about a subject, editing and contributing to articles on that subject.

    Where does "knowledgeable about" end, and "vested interest" begin?

  9. An interesting experiement... by ursabear · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I believe that the Wikipedia is many things (most of them wonderful) - but is not a tome of absolute fact.

    Wikipedia is a fabulous experiment in humanity and social interaction. It is without a doubt one of the most interesting things I've come across since I began using the Internet. I like looking things up in Wikipedia for two distinct reasons: 1) There is a huge body of knowledge out there in the minds of the world; 2) I enjoy reading the history of the given bits of information I read. It is particularly telling when one reads topics that are controversial or contemporarily historic. Many people, many opinions, many slants/spins on what is real and what is not.

    Throw into the mix a sprinkling of morons, vandals, gleeful miscreants, politicians, PR people, and the ignorant, and you get a fabulous view of the brilliantly bizarre view of the public itself.

    Don't take Wikipedia (and its contents) as fact. Take it as a social experiment. The views on the Bush administration in the public forums is extremely similar to the view of the Bush administration in Wikipedia.

    --
    A Passionate Independent Musician
  10. No. by millennial · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ... The controversy raises questions about whether it is ethical for those with a vested interest in the subject to edit entries about it.

    Let me tell you: No, it is not. It is not ethical for people to censor and edit their lives. It is ethical for them to try to live a life that doesn't need censoring. It does nothing but further prove the serious ethical problems that permeate the Congress.

    Those who make history should not be the ones who write it, or they'll put themselves in a favorable light.

    --
    I am scientifically inaccurate.
  11. Re:Politicians by mmichaels · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Everyone complains about how the internet should be a place of freedom with little or no regulation. Everyone wants government to stay out of it and let people be free to publish and write what they want. Unless, I guess, the free person happens to be a member of the government you might despise. From what I can tell, the govt officials made no attempt to hide or mask their point of origin. Wiki puts out information about people's bios, and invites any old regular Joe to make changes to it. But we are outraged when the person himself or people who actually know the person are the ones making the changes. Their format also leaves them open for posters with limited knowledge or malicious intent. So should we have congress pass a law regulating who can go to sites like this and make changes? Is that what we want? I just went to Wikipedia. I brought up Apollo 13. I could have added myself to the backup crew for the mission. We are so quick to condemn government as the source of all that is wrong with everything. Wiki has chosen a format that allows information to be read and updated by just about anyone who visits. Maybe THEY should be blamed for the way they gather and publish research?

  12. In the words of Ralph Waldo Emerson by Toreo+asesino · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "All history becomes subjective; in other words there is properly no history, only biography."

    Sounds like a normal turn of events to me.

    --
    throw new NoSignatureException();
  13. Put the pitchforks down, fellas... by BecomingLumberg · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Let us not get carried away here. As much as I become furious with politicians, most of them still have best intentions. Pat Robertson actually thinks that homosexuals will be the undoing of the country. The 700 Club is filmed less than an hour away from me. Trust me, he may be loony, but a phony he is not. That said, I don't think its right to simply crucify them for wanting to edit their own bios. I would certainly want a say in what is the new ultimate source of information (think, in the stone age, we used to use Google and read up to five articles to learn all we needed to know about a subject). That said, changes to factual integrity (voting records, historical records, etc.) would be a immoral act. But if he is going to edit his purported 'political views' - those are naturally a PR item anyway, and his camp is more entitled than any other to state what his views or platform really are.

    --
    If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.-TJ
  14. Re:The Venn Diagram of Statements by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Personally, I like how the major parties filter out the lunatics.

    Unfortunately, it also filters out voices of reason when it disagrees with both parties. There are a LOT of issues that the 2 parties agree on 99% of the time that are nevertheless wrong-headed and disagree with the opinions of most of their constituents. It means these issues are simply never discussed.

    --
    "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
    --- Jerry Garcia
  15. Re:The Venn Diagram of Statements by NixLuver · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Personally, I like how the major parties filter out the lunatics."

    That's part of the problem, no? One person's lunatic is another person's voice of reason.

    --
    Thinking outside my Head
  16. Re:Common Sense, please by kaleco · · Score: 2, Insightful
    The problem is that while most people double-check WP articles before using information for a certain purpose, the vast majority don't double check the info when just using it to casually check up on something. This can propagate misconceptions in some obscure areas.

    WP is an overwhelmingly positive development on the internet, but it has many problems which must be addressed. Even though it seems to be getting an unfair amount of criticism at the moment, in the long term it will benefit from this scrutiny.

    I know I've deviated fromt the point I was making as a reply to your post now, sorry! I just think it's worth pointing out that the sort of critical attention WP is getting from the academic world just now is priceless.

    --
    Prosperity is only an instrument to be used, not a deity to be worshipped. Calvin Coolidge
  17. Re:implement a mod system by Britz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Bush was elected in a popular vote. Meanwhile many people more "informed" in politics would have voted for the alternative. Moderation only makes sense if it is done by the "right" people. But who are better "informed"? What is "right"? Is the majority always "right"? Or "left"?

    I am from Germany. I don't want to compare Bush to Hitler. They are both completely different and have nothing in common. Except that they were both elected in a popular vote.

  18. Imagine.... by t'mbert · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Imagine an article about your life appears on Wikipedia for millions to read, an article that will last forever and may very well shape opinions about you as a person. The author of this article in Wikipedia has never met you, and doesn't necessarily like you or what you've done with yourself. They author the article, you see errors or omissions, but aren't allowed to edit them. Worse, people who definitely don't like you try to chime in, those who definitely do like you fight back...but they're all wrong.

    Okay, so that's extreme, and we're not politicians. I don't know if the articles in question were negative or misleading, but how can someone sitting at a terminal in Nashville TN, like myself, possibly know what XYZ politician is really like, what they've really done, who they really are? I don't know these people, and my only contact with them is through a decidedly limited and biased media, soundbytes and highly-edited speaches.

    Of course the idea that politicians can edit their record is creepy and could lead to Orwelian misinformation, but put yourself in their shoes for a minute...it may not be all that difficult to understand.

    Timbert

  19. Bush's article wasn't locked for that reason by LearningHard · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As someone who was following the "action" so to speak on that article I can tell you that it wasn't locked because of gov't employees editing the data to make bush look good which is what the summary implies. The Bush43 article was locked because of all the loony lefties that kept vandalizing it and putting incredibly ridiculous statements in it.

  20. Big deal? by Second_Infinity · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Anyone can log into Wikipedia and change anything. You cannot put restrictions on any specific group if it's supposed to be truly open. This is what wikipedia is designed for. By them locking an entry, they have defouled their mission statement.

  21. Need accountability? Remove anonimity! by BAM0027 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Because Wiki is becoming more of an objective source of information, we need to hold those accountable who would distort or add subjectivity to it. That can't happen in an anonymous venue.

    This is the great challenge for Wiki now, as I see it, how to meld the internet's spirit of anonymity with the _direct_ responsibility to others.

    p.s. Once again, we see the corruption of politics...