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."

3 of 277 comments (clear)

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

    Is there any genuinely objective information ANYWHERE in the world?

  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. 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