Slashdot Mirror
Japanese Bureaucrats Reprimanded for Wikipedia Editing
sufijazz writes "Six bureaucrats in the Japanese agricultural ministry have been reprimanded for working on the job ... for Wikipedia. The six officials were publicly chastised for editing hundreds of Wikipedia entries during work hours. These included over 250 entries about robots in anime. '"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam," said a ministry official, Tsutomu Shimomura ... The ministry's internal inquiry followed recent media allegations that a growing number of Japanese public servants were contributing to the internet encyclopaedia, which anyone can edit, often to reflect their personal views. The ministry verbally reprimanded each of the six officials, and slapped a ministry-wide order to prohibit access to Wikipedia at work, while disabling access to the site from the ministry, Mr Shimomura said. '"
Did you miss this part? for Wikipedia. The six officials were publicly chastised for editing hundreds of Wikipedia entries during work hours
If they had gotten in trouble for doing it not during work hours I could see it being censorship, but they were doing it during work hours.
...millions of years[1]. This is not new. If you plug up one outlet, they'll just find another.
[1] Thog, you to kill it, not fuck it. Eat first, fun later [Bonk!]
Table-ized A.I.
It's like blocking Slashdot because a bunch of people were commenting obsessively. Especially when you consider the fact that it is a bloody encyclopedia, not a porn site (it may amount to the same amount of time-wasted, but still, it would be of consequence to others in the ministry who may genuinely use Wikipedia as a resource).
Um... no? You're at work, do your job. Don't screw off editing Gundam articles on Wiki.
Man, with attitudes like this, no wonder the Japanese are overtaking Americans economically...
When each were informed of the reprimanded did they magically morph into giant robots and go Super Saiyan 5? Super mega kung-fu energy blasts must of been flying all over the place.
From TFA:
The ministry, however, did not object to their limited contributions on the World Trade Organisation and free trade agreements.
I was about to have a slashtantrum about this not being news. As everyone should be thinking "You can't be wasting your employers time working for anyone else like that, even if it is Wikipedia." That would have been 'nuff said.
However this above statement disturbs me. It's okay if they spend time updating WTO and free trade articles, but not anime pages? They shouldn't be updating either pages. Anime pages are one thing, and they can and should be reprimanded for that. But I shudder at the thought of governments paying employees to update Wikipedia. Why aren't the head bureaucrats getting reprimanded by someone!!! ugh.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
Eh?
OK, so the Agriculture Ministry is not in charge of Gundam. Which Ministry is in charge of Gundam?
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam."
srsly, what were they smoking, err thinking ?
Don't you see what is really going on here? The Japanese government is trying to stop leaks from the ministry about their top secret military research. This includes their top-secret giant robot research, and their genetic laboratory's efforts to create a race of super-soldiers with spiky blonde hair!
Um... no? You're at work, do your job. Don't screw off editing Gundam articles on Wiki.
:P
CmdrTaco said it best: Our uptime, your downtime
"It's like blocking Slashdot because a bunch of people were commenting obsessively."
Yeah, a lot of offices do that. Along with other potential time wasting web sites. Its not because of censorship, its because they want their employees doing their job instead of surfing the net. Plus it wastes network resources, which believe it or not are not free. Many employers ban employees from using their network for personal use.
And yes, surfing the Wikipedia is almost always personal use. It is not a legitimate resource that you would use while writing a proposal you intend to turn in to your boss. Yes it certainly has its uses, but that is not one of them.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
Which ministry IS responsible for Gundams? This new Zero jet I bought from Japan does *not* transform into a giant robot and I want lodge a formal complaint. There has to be a law saying all jets from Japan transform into robots somewhere.
"News for nerds." Not "technology-only news."
Yeah, I know: it really is that simple.
Each of the six gentleman must commit ritual Seppuku if there is any hope to restore personal honor.
But wait until they're done correcting the "Seppuku" entry in Wikipedia to remove the death requirement.
Table-ized A.I.
Not the famous hacker I take it?
I disagree with that assertion. I often use Wikipedia to look up terms that a client asks me about that I have never heard before, if only so that I can get someone more informed to contact them. For work use I find it invaluable.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Just in case anyone else wondered that too: this Tsutomu Shimomura has nothing to do with Kevin Mitnick (http://www.takedown.com/bio/tsutomu.html).
I code, therefore I am.
I purpose "[Blank] is not in charge of Gundam," be the 10 year anniversary slashdot meme...
Slashdot, for instance, is certainly *not* in charge of Gundam.
Tautologies, they are what they are.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam," said a ministry official
I lolled.. hard!
The supplied article only discusses edits by the Agriculture Ministry. Japanese reports, of course have more details.
Someone at the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare was busted for editing the Japanese Wiki entry for Nanatsuiro Drops, a pornographic video game.
I will also note that the Japanese media reported this over a month ago.
I use Wikipedia very often at work - for work related things. I consider it an excellent starting point for a general overview of a topic. I never expect it to be 100% accurate, and realise fully that it can be biased. But if there's a topic I've never even heard of, and want to get an idea of what it is at a fundamental level, Wikipedia provides me the information.
To use a real world example. I work in the business equipment industry (copiers/printers/scanners/MFPs). The only kinds of scanning I was familiar with were TWAIN and the various "send" methods such as FTP, Email, SMB and so on. Someone asked me a question about ISIS... Right, first step - check Wikipedia and figure out what on earth ISIS is, determine the basics of how it works, and then answer the question. Should further questions have come (they didn't), I would then have a good base of ideas in which direction I should extend my research. Without Wikipedia, yes, I could have just Googled it and found the information I needed, but the level of trust I could put in that information would be no greater or less than my results from Wikipedia.
(and before any scanner geeks come along and tell me that I should have known about ISIS considering what I do for a living - none of our products handle ISIS and I'd only been in the industry 3 years at the time, so could hardly be expected to know EVERY piece of technology associated with the field, especially when it's not something I've direct contact with)
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
I don't know how you came to this quite remarkable conclusion, but I think that there is a flaw in your thinking somewhere. Increasingly Wikipedia IS a legitimate resource for getting a first take on a subject that one is not familiar with. I wouldn't base an important decision entirely on what the Wikipedia says, but as a starting point, it is often (I'd say usually) a better starting point than a broadly focused Google search.
Just to make sure that I'm not fantasizing, I picked some subjects that I know enough about to judge the adequacy and where the knowledge was not gained through the Wikipedia. The articles on Black Hole Routing and Forland Basins (a geologic term) were perfectly OK. On the other hand, there wasn't anything on Python's for ... else construct. (Conventional for loop followed by a block to be executed it break is not used to exit the for loop).
Overall, I can't think why one wouldn't go to Wikipedia first. If you're doing serious research, you need to go further of course. But you need to do that with any encyclopedia -- including Britannica which is far from error/bias free and was (the last time I looked) weak on many fields like Information Technology where Wikipedia is pretty good.
The article deals with a different issue -- employees playing with Wikipedia when they are supposed to be doing what they are paid for. In fact, it specifically says that the objection wasn't to the Wikipedia per se and that there wouldn't have been a problem if the employees had been editing Wikipedia entries on subjects related to their work.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
Edit the uneditable, change the unchangeable, ROW ROW, FIGHT DAH POWAH