Congress Made Wikipedia Changes

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."

Comments

The Venn Diagram of Statements

[eldavojohn]

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?

Re:The Venn Diagram of Statements

[smittyoneeach]

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.

Re:The Venn Diagram of Statements

[Curunir_wolf]

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.

Re:The Venn Diagram of Statements

[tolkienfan]

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.

Objective information?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there any genuinely objective information ANYWHERE in the world?

Re:Objective information?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course.
Slashdot.

Re:Objective information?

[hey!]

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.

Re:duh

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no objective information.

Any liberal arts major can tell you that.

And that's why they're not scientists.

Politicians

[antic]

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...

Block 'em all.

[Caspian]

"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.)

Not just wikipedia

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[meringuoid]

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.

Re:Not just wikipedia

[AHumbleOpinion]

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

[dlc3007]

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.

Warning signs:

[jettoki]

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.

Re:duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Any liberal arts major can tell you that.

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

An interesting experiement...

[ursabear]

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.

For Sale

[MobyDisk]

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.