Congress Made Wikipedia Changes

The Venn Diagram of Statements by eldavojohn · 2006-02-09 01:10 · Score: 4, Interesting

Imagine a Venn Diagram with two overlapping circles. One circle is truth, the other is opinion and fiction. Now, any statement made by an individual fits in one of these two circles but is it in the overlapping area?

Wikipedia needs to decide whether it should accept those which fall in the middle overlapping area or reject them outright. It seems that for some issues Wikipedia allows the overlapping area (like String Theory) to remain as long as there is a footnote or notation that this is opinion, theoretical or possibly untrue. So perhaps they should make it clear that if a piece of information lies in the overlap, you need to state so or it will be deleted.

Many people put fogs over their past and history is hard to verify. For these people, their biographical entries in Wikipedia may need to be covered with disclaimers saying that very little is verifiable about their background because of the individual's actions and unclear testimonials from people surrounding them. It's a shame that the majority of these people are politicians ... but bad-mouthing politicians is all too easy so I'll leave that to someone else.

Since our political system is divided in a very childish way (two parties), I have always dreamed to see the day that the GPO releases two volumes one year after each president has left office. Each volume would be an account from either side of congress commenting on the actions of the president. The preface could be all public documents proving actions taken by the president while in his presidency. These two books could be made available very cheaply (as a type of public service) and the public could enjoy that for free ... say, why not do a webpage instead (even cheaper) and have Wikipedia send a liaison to Congress to record it?

--
My work here is dung.

Re:The Venn Diagram of Statements by smittyoneeach · 2006-02-09 01:36 · 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
Re:The Venn Diagram of Statements by Curunir_wolf · 2006-02-09 02:22 · 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
Re:The Venn Diagram of Statements by NixLuver · 2006-02-09 02:29 · 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
Re:The Venn Diagram of Statements by samotano · 2006-02-09 03:05 · Score: 2

Aren't {Truth} and {Opinio/Fiction} mutually exclusive?
Re:The Venn Diagram of Statements by tolkienfan · 2006-02-09 03:46 · Score: 4, Interesting

That's a really good idea.
Entries could include an indication of the amount of "activity" that has occured, which will give the reader an instant idea if the text is controversial.
Re:The Venn Diagram of Statements by David+Gerard · 2006-02-09 04:22 · Score: 2, Informative

We have a guideline on living people's articles. Basically, (1) every statement has to be utterly verifiable (2) every statement has to be relevant to why they have an article. This is followed very imperfectly, but when followed it saves greatly on crap.

--
http://rocknerd.co.uk

Objective information? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-09 01:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

Is there any genuinely objective information ANYWHERE in the world?

Re:Objective information? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-09 01:12 · Score: 5, Funny

Of course.
Slashdot.
Re:Objective information? by argStyopa · 2006-02-09 01:55 · 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
Re:Objective information? by hey! · 2006-02-09 02:03 · 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.
Re:Objective information? by millennial · 2006-02-09 02:04 · Score: 2, Informative

5 entries found for vested interest.
(n)
1. Law. A right or title, as to present or future possession of an estate, that can be conveyed to another.
2. A fixed right granted to an employee under a pension plan.
3. A special interest in protecting or promoting that which is to one's own personal advantage.
4. vested interests: Those groups that seek to maintain or control an existing system or activity from which they derive private benefit.

Anyways, regardless of whether or not information is as objective as humanly possible, we all have our own biases and prejudices that we will unconsciously apply to the message, thus subverting its objectivity. The best we can hope for is to maintain the illusion of objectivity.

--
I am scientifically inaccurate.
Re:Objective information? by hey! · 2006-02-09 03:00 · 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.

all writing is... by pvt_medic · 2006-02-09 01:12 · Score: 2, Interesting

politically motivated. History is written by the victors. Wikipedia just gets the scrutinization because it is in the spot light.

--
30% Troll, 50% Underrated, 10% Interesting
Score:5, Troll

Re:all writing is... by goldspider · 2006-02-09 01:24 · 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

Re:duh by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-09 01:13 · Score: 5, Insightful

There is no objective information.

Any liberal arts major can tell you that.

And that's why they're not scientists.

Politicians by antic · 2006-02-09 01:15 · Score: 4, Funny

Ahhh, politicians. Can't live with them, can't legally hack them apart with a cleaver and create interesting patterns with segments of their intestines...

--
'Thats they exact same thing a banana wrench monkey.'

Re:Politicians by mmichaels · 2006-02-09 01:57 · 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?

Block 'em all. by Caspian · 2006-02-09 01:15 · 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?

Re:Block 'em all. by AndroidCat · 2006-02-09 02:02 · Score: 2, Informative

Perhaps with exceptions for certain scientific sites (e.g. nasa.gov, any "national laboratories", etc.)
Keep in mind that Wiki has a policy against original research that hasn't been published elsewhere. Which is not to say that they couldn't contribute, but just that it would have to be done carefully:
The role of expert editors
"No original research" does not mean that experts on a specific topic cannot contribute to Wikipedia. On the contrary, Wikipedia welcomes experts. We assume, however, that someone is an expert not only because of their personal and direct knowledge of a topic, but because of their knowledge of published sources on a topic. This policy prohibits expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge if such knowledge is unverifiable. If an expert editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, the editor can cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy. They must cite publications, and may not use their unpublished knowledge as a source of information (which would be impossible to verify).
Otherwise, we hope expert editors will draw on their knowledge of other published sources to enrich our articles. However, such experts do not occupy a privileged position within Wikipedia.

--
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Re:Block 'em all. by BeardsmoreA · 2006-02-09 02:07 · Score: 2, Interesting

Because in the real world they could just go home and do it from there, or use their smartphone to make the edits, or... etc. Slashdotters are always flaming government for trying to apply legal band aids to technical problems (e.g. your quaint yankee DMCA), but sometimes you have to accept that there aren't technical solutions to social problems.
I personally think Wikipedia does accept that, and that's why it (more or less, with obvious noisily reported exceptions) works. Most people, most of the time, act pretty sensibly, and now and then when someone doesn't, you just have to hope that the rest of the population can outweigh them.

implement a mod system by brenddie · 2006-02-09 01:18 · Score: 3, Interesting

Maybe some kind of /. mod system can be used to aprove edits.
The edit wont be added until some score is reached. If the edit is declined then you can extract keywords from that edit and use them to lower the score for future similar edits automaticly ala lame filter.

--
The best test environment is production. - Me
chrome://browser/content/browser.xul

Re:implement a mod system by Britz · 2006-02-09 02:38 · 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.
Re:implement a mod system by hackstraw · 2006-02-09 03:06 · Score: 2, Interesting

Moderation works OK here, but I don't think it would work well for wikipedia.

I suggested here once before to make time the element of data integrity.

If a particular article is "hot", slow down the number of edits per day, week, month or whatever. Especially edits from the same person and/or IP address or subnet.

Slashdot has implemented things similar to this like taking 60 seconds between posts (Slow down cowboy!), and by punishing logged in users that have submitted posts anonymously. Its been a while since the latter has affected me, and I don't remember the details, but it sucked, and I wished that the slashcode was telling me what I was being punished for.

But its simple. If an article is modified X times in a certain period of time, then it is "hot". Just slow down the rate that people can make changes. The majority of the people out there are more OK than evil, so slowing down the evil people will allow more of the good guys to make the truth to be known.

Again, a good quote from a nice lunatic:

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

-- Jeffrey Goines, 12 Monkeys

Not just wikipedia by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-09 01:18 · 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.

Re:Not just wikipedia by meringuoid · 2006-02-09 01:27 · Score: 5, Funny

We salute revisionist government and it's retro-active position on history.
What is the past? It does not exist, in any physical sense. It is only what people remember, and what the records show. But memories are pliable, people are prone to forgetfulness and false recollection, and of course the records show what we want them to show.
Really, it's quite a simple system. You don't seem to understand. History is never rewritten, because once rewritten it always was that way - unless you believe, rather unscientifically, in a past world that somehow exists in 'reality', independent of the evidence in the present.
Perhaps you could use a little time in the Ministry of Love? They're very good at educating people to understand this kind of thing.

--
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Re:Not just wikipedia by AHumbleOpinion · 2006-02-09 02:42 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

Actually that's a good example of a shallow understanding of a historical event, a politically biased statement. In other words something that would be worthy of an edit on the Wiki, and invariably such edits would be labeled as politically biased by those of the opposite political bias who preferred the original politically biased text. In reality the War in Iraq was about all of the above and more. The "WMD" angle was merely what was used to sell the war to the UN. That was an intense high profile effort and it's natural for people to focus on this one motivation even when they have no political bias. However when honest unbiased historian sit down some day to write the history of war the motivations will be far more complex.

Common Sense, please by dlc3007 · 2006-02-09 01:18 · Score: 5, Interesting

1) always double-check everything. I know that this has been stated before in every discussion concerning Wikipedia, but it is worth repeating. 2) The formula for accuracy that has always existed for Wikipedia still applies. The more people looking at an entry, the better the chance for false statements to be identified as such and corrected. 3) Vandals will always exist -- whether they are 12 year-olds getting giggles or Congressional staffers applying spin. The difference is that they will get bored and leave while people who care about Wikipedia will stay. If anyone thinks that this is a Wikipedia issue, you should go back and read yesterday's story about censorship on NASA's website.

Re:Common Sense, please by kaleco · 2006-02-09 02:37 · 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

Additional resource by dlc3007 · 2006-02-09 01:24 · Score: 3, Informative

The Washington Post also has an article on this

Some day, I'll remember to put the break tags in my first posting of the day. /yawn

Not just Congress by cj7wilson · 2006-02-09 01:27 · Score: 2, Funny

Read on Wikipedia: CowboyNeal is the online nickname ("handle") on Slashdot and other websites of Slashdot editor Jon Pater. His handle was inspired by a Grateful Dead tribute to Neal Cassady in their song, That's It for The Other One, the lyrics of which run: Skippin' through the lily fields I came across an empty space, It trembled and exploded, left a bus stop in its place. The bus came by and I got on, that's when it all began, There was Cowboy Neal behind the wheel of a bus to never never land.

He is best known as the target of the usual comic option on Slashdot's poll.^H^H^H^H^H^H for his promise to serve only two terms as a Slashdot Editor ^H^H^H^H^H^H for his boyish good looks and many acts of selfless kindness to hungry children throughout the world.

Warning signs: by jettoki · 2006-02-09 01:30 · Score: 5, Funny

How do you tell the propaganda from the objective information?

Simple! Just use this handy checklist!

1.) Adjectives such as 'moderate', 'vocal', and 'punctual' are generally safe and objective. Adjectives such as 'mind-blowing', 'god-like', or 'sexilicious' probably deserve further research.
2.) Allegations of embezzlement or abuse of public trust are typically more credible than allegations of bestiality or autoerotic asphyxiation.
3.) You may safely ignore photographs which seem to depict interaction between the politician in question and any the following historical personas: Jesus, Mohammed, Abraham Lincoln, Hitler, or Charles Manson.
4.) Treat any debate over penis size with a healthy amount of skepticism.

Really. whats the big deal ??? by gorim · 2006-02-09 01:35 · 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.

Re:Really. whats the big deal ??? by apt142 · 2006-02-09 02:09 · 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

Bush article isn't completely blocked by brian0918 · 2006-02-09 01:35 · Score: 2, Informative

The Bush article isn't blocked from all editing, just that by anonymous and new users, due to the rampant anonymous vandalism and people with too much time on their hands who create dozens of accounts just to vandalize that article. For anonymous newbies, the Bush article is equivalent to Wikipedia's "Sandbox" for test editing.

Re:Bush article isn't completely blocked by wongn · 2006-02-09 01:51 · Score: 2, Informative

Yes, I thought that the article took the Bush article's Protection out of context here. It was protected because it gets vandalised lots, not necessarily because of POV attacks by congressional staffers.

Re:duh by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-09 01:39 · Score: 5, Funny

Any liberal arts major can tell you that.

Yep...just ask them when they're handing you the fries...

Those with a vested interest by QuietLagoon · 2006-02-09 01:51 · 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?

An interesting experiement... by ursabear · 2006-02-09 01:55 · 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

In the words of Ralph Waldo Emerson by Toreo+asesino · 2006-02-09 01:58 · 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();

Read WikiNews for the rest of the story by TimTheFoolMan · 2006-02-09 02:09 · Score: 3, Informative

It amazes me that the Islamic extremists aren't the only ones who don't bother to check the rest of the story before they start inflaming the masses. From WikiNews:

The investigation showed the vast majority of edits from Senate IPs were beneficial and helpful to Wikipedia. Examples include the creation of the articles on Click Back America, which organizes students to promote microfinance in the developing world, and Washington's Tomb, which was designed to hold the body of first U.S. President George Washington within the White House Capitol building; and significantly expanding the article on closed sessions of the United States Senate in November. Dozens of small corrections have been made to grammar, spelling, or small facts -- many of them related to the Senate.
Senators' staff members have sometimes had to fight to correct inaccuracies. An edit to Jay Rockefeller's article by his staff removed information which may have been biased or untrue. The staff member who edited said, "Apologies, I was new to using Wikipedia, and I didn't fully realize the workings of the website," after other users continuously reinserted the information. The staffer removed the suspect paragraphs 12 times until another Wikipedia user finally removed the information. Four days later, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales got involved.

In other words, the edits were SOMETIMES bad, but were generally helpful. The entire tone of this story suggests that they were all trying to line the pockets of their senators (no doubt a popular sentiment), but WikiNews itself suggests that this is true only in a small number of cases.

Tim

Re:Read WikiNews for the rest of the story by Supercrunch · 2006-02-09 02:31 · Score: 2, Funny

You're right, the politicians ARE doing a good job editing Wikipedia. I mean, it says it right there in WikiNews, the news source that anyone can edit...hey wait a minute!

if (horse == dead) beat(horse); by splutty · 2006-02-09 02:17 · Score: 2, Funny

...

At a guess that's the 5th time this appears on /.

--
Coz eternity my friend, is a long *ing time.

For Sale by MobyDisk · 2006-02-09 02:18 · Score: 4, Funny

For Sale: One Wikipedia account with excellent karma. This account is useful for editing articles on politicians, controversial "scientific" theories, or adding goatse entries. As a bonus I will throw in an anonymizer account to hide your IP address as well.

$1000 OBO.

Put the pitchforks down, fellas... by BecomingLumberg · 2006-02-09 02:22 · 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

Imagine.... by t'mbert · 2006-02-09 03:06 · 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

Re:Imagine.... by David+Gerard · 2006-02-09 05:01 · Score: 2, Informative

Hence the Biographies of living persons guideline.

--
http://rocknerd.co.uk

Bush's article wasn't locked for that reason by LearningHard · 2006-02-09 03:16 · 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.

Big deal? by Second_Infinity · 2006-02-09 04:11 · 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.

Need accountability? Remove anonimity! by BAM0027 · 2006-02-09 04:14 · 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...

Re:Those with a vested interest by slavemowgli · 2006-02-09 05:19 · Score: 2, Informative

There's nothing wrong with having a vested interest in the subject of an article. There *is* something wrong with letting that interest influence you - you are expected to abide by the NPOV principle etc., but as long as you do that, things are fine. Granted, you might sometimes accidentally write things in a way that's not entirely NPOV (and I really do mean accidentally, not "accidentally"), but that's something that will just be corrected later on by someone else (or even by yourself, if you notice it).

The real problem is those with an agenda who knowingly and deliberately push that agenda.

--
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.

Re:Complex reasons such as.....OIL! by AHumbleOpinion · 2006-02-09 07:20 · Score: 2, Interesting

But, of course, the war was always about controlling the oil.

You could make the same statement about World War II in the Pacific. The US turned off Imperial Japan's oil, Imperial Japan pulled out a map to find the closest source, drew a line and noticed that it passed right between rather large US and British naval bases, and so decided to attack the US and the British. Of course saying that either war was all about oil is grossly simplistic and naive, but like WMD, oil is something simple to focus on. A convenient catchword, allows use of large fonts so that a bumber sticker can be read at a distance, ...

The first gulf war was more about oil than the second. An invasion of Saudi Arabia would have had a dramatic effect. The second gulf war was pretty much about removing Saadam, securing the oil was important with respect to reconstruction not with respect to invading in the first place. And that is why disrupting oil is so important to the insurgents. They do not fear US corporations getting their hands on it, hell they'd probably partner with them as they did in the past. They fear the Iraqi government getting their hands on it, using it for reconstruction, establing physical and economic security, ... The insurgents need the instability, they need the US footing the bill for reconstruction, so that they can return to power.

Slashdot Mirror

Congress Made Wikipedia Changes

52 of 277 comments (clear)