Slashdot Mirror
US Government Caught Manipulating Wikipedia
surfi writes "As The Inquirer points out, someone with a House of Representatives IP address has been feeding propaganda into the 'invasion of Iraq' article on Wikipedia."
Well at least they are in good company with trustworthy institutions like
the CIA and the Vatican.
I know "US Government Caught Manipulating Wikipedia" is a cool title, but seriously, does anyone think the US government, the CIA or the Vatican would be stupid enough to get caught if they actually wanted to influence a wikipedia article?
They'd probably at the very least get their 'operatives' to go home, get one of those free AOL CDs (etc), and do it from a public IP range.
What's more likely is that this is someone who got bored at work (at the Vatican etc), and decided to put their personal opinions in. The nature of their work usually implies their beliefs are coincident with that of their employers.
As for TFA, it states "One has to wonder how reliable an encyclopaedia is when it peddles government propaganda in an almost Orwellian manner"; Seems a bit like FUD to me. The whole point of wikipedia is that it is constantly peer reviewed. If things are incorrect, people will eventually correct them - I fail to see how that's Orwellian. If anything, changing pages in this manner actually brings MORE attention to the issue.
Windows in 6 Bytes (IA-32) : 90 90 90 90 CD 19
You mean individuals within the government can edit "the encyclopedia anyone can edit", too?
*Pause for stunned silence*
Or do we only let people not affiliated with governments edit Wikipedia? Or perhaps only from home?
Or perhaps we'd prefer that governments edit Wikipedia from unattributable IP addresses...?
Or could it be that a person with a "House of Representatives IP address" is actually acting of his or her own will, making what they feel are appropriate changes to a Wikipedia article, which can be vetted, reversed, modified, and discussed, as can any change on Wikipedia?
How does one person with a House IP equate to "US Government Caught Manipulating Wikipedia"? The biggest surprise about this story is that it didn't read "Posted by kdawson". Seriously, is this the kind of politically-charged meaningless garbage that passes for front-page material on slashdot now?
Oh, wait, I guess I must speaking for the government now, and not myself. Perhaps this post is even propaganda...after all, anyone who works for "the government" can't possibly have their own views and beliefs, some of which might even differ from others. Oh, it's the Weekly Standard, so it doesn't count? This whole article is couched in assertions such as it being "bizarre" to make a connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.Except that such a connection was explored in various ways for a decade, long before Bush was in office.Oops.
No link was ever really substantive, but there were links, and that shouldn't be surprising in the region. But that isn't even the point.
Those who want to paint all these issues as black and white, or say that some official or another "lied" about complex issues related to WMD in Iraq, OIF, etc., are the ones who are effectively the liars -- by ignoring everything that doesn't neatly support their own political positions. They lap up the new Iran NIE like it's gospel, while simultaneously writing off anything else that doesn't support their own views as lies. How convenient...and disgusting, for people who fancy themselves as enlightened intellectuals.
There is no evidence that there is a government policy to screw with Wikipedia. Claiming that the US government is manipulating Wikipedia due to some IP numbers matching vandals is like claiming that the University of Washington is manipulating Wikipedia for the same reason.
You and your precious online encyclopedia. The one that can be edited by anyone. The one that contains absolutely no bias. It's so cute.
Why aren't we embracing their changes and using the fact that they've changed it as a historical fact in and of itself?
Wikipedia isn't just the article at any given point in time. It's the article throughout it's whole history, changes and differences intact. By it's very nature as a (mostly) amatuer-penned encylopedia, any given article is going to be filled with bias one way or another. Assuming that references exist throughout the history of the article, then you should be able to mostly eliminate bias by reading through the whole thing, changes by both sides and all.
You think the U.S. Government will openly admit that the Middle East conflicts are all about a resource war? Throughout the last 2000 years, wars are usually fought over land and resources. Things are no different today, except that we will not admit it and instead cook up reasons (i.e., WMD).
about the sheer idiocy of people in government.
Never ceases to amaze me.
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
-mcgrew (latest blagh)
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Why is it a bad thing if our government representatives, staff and employees are contributing to Wikipedia? Its no worst than yellow journalism or biased professors at a university. For that matter can't Saddam supporters contribute also? Biased information is great for historical reasons, all we really need is attribution so we can judge the bias ourselves.
At least the House of Representatives realizes they aren't in charge of Gundam.
What I found more interesting is that apparently the Register doesn't like Wikipedia because they refer to it as "whackypedia", and the statement that the edits were made by a "Bush friendly" source inside the House. Maybe the Bush friendly angle is true -- the Register article asserts it to be so without quoting the edits or commenting, but there is no way to tell by an IP address.
Which tells me that the Register article is basically shoddy journalism. No fact digging, no fact checking, polemics instead of the who what when why where that journalism is supposed to accomplish. So -- with all due respect to GOOD journalism, and while not a Bushie or US Govt. fan, I have to say that this tidbit is yellow all under.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
And even if it was the House (big "if") that made the changes; it's not propoganda. If anything, most of the changes seem grammatical in nature. The changes to the context only made them seem more speculatory (which is exactly what they need to be when no citation is given).
Sorry, as much as I'd like to scream Foul Play on this one; I can't.
Except that 'constant peer review' means that if two people disagree on which facts are pertinent to an entry. The last person to get bored gets their version to stand. /. style moderation and karma system so that any peer can review it without having to change it and indicate to other which are the best entries and editors.
I've had this happen so very rarely edit.
What is needed is a
They don't realize that you can't hide stuff like this on the internet. Did it not even occur to them that it would be changed back five minutes later?
Technoli
The edits were spelled correctly and the grammar was tolerable... I guess the culprit is not from the Oval Office.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Most of the other comments are pretty mundane - name corrections and such. But some of them are golden.
:-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mitt_Romney&diff=prev&oldid=165709470
"Clearly, Romney needs to be explained the doctrines of separation of powers, and judicial review."
I guess somebody wants to make sure Romney doesn't get the republican nomination.
I'm sorry. The number you have reached is imaginary. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try again.
Okay, so certain institutions are editing Wikipedia.
Uh.... yes.... and your problem with that is....?
What part of "anyone can edit it" don't you understand?
It is alledged by some that there is no evidence that there is a government policy to screw with Wikipedia. Claiming that the US government is manipulating Wikipedia due to some IP numbers matching vandals is believed by some to be like claiming that the University of Washington is manipulating Wikipedia for the same reason. This of course does not disprove a relationship aimed at bringing harm to the United States.
There, the house of representatives fixed that for ya.
I would also like to point out the date on the edit linked in the article:
Revision as of 17:49, 12 August 2005
FairTax baby!
So "someone with a House of Representatives IP address" made a change in 2005 which favors the Bush administration. BFD - revert it. The "article" makes it sound as if GWB personally spends his time toying with "whackypedia" (term used in the article), trying to rescue his legacy.
Make up your minds folks - is Bush a borderline retard who can't pronounce nuclear without Cheney's hand up his ass, or is he a machiavellian mastermind with tendrils throughout all aspects of government and our lives? Bubba or black helicopters - can't be both.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
If he's a troll Stephen Colbert, the person not the character, is a Right-Wing Republican.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
[INSERT GROUP HERE] Caught Manipulating Wikipedia
This has now become so commonplace that it really shouldn't surprise anyone or even be considered news. Answer this question: they've been "caught" -- now what? Will Jimmy Wales declare war on the U.S. Government or the Catholic Religion? This isn't even going to generate enough interest in the mainstream media to become a blip on the national radar. I also imagine the average American or Catholic probably doesn't even know what Wikipedia is.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
Actually, it's more like going into a library and stealing books you don't want anyone to read. Which I gather is a real problem at libraries.
"Visitors do not need specialised qualifications to contribute, since their primary role is to write articles that cover existing knowledge; this means that people of all ages and cultural and social background can write Wikipedia articles. With rare exceptions, articles can be edited by anyone with access to the Internet, simply by clicking the edit this page link. Anyone is welcome to add information, cross-references or citations, as long as they do so within Wikipedia's editing policies and to an appropriate standard. For example, if you add information to an article, be sure to include your references, as unreferenced facts are subject to removal."
I don't see any rules against government, people editing their own pages, etc. Only that facts be added, if they aren't they should be removed.
Laboratree - Scientific collaboration based on OpenSocial.
only unbiased contributions should be allowed to edit Wikipedia. That's a simple rule to implement, right?
stuff |
Congresscritter says "jump," an intern doesn't ask "how high."
neither will one or two members of the permanent staff, for that matter.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
What's the difference? Wikipedia is supposedly self-editing, and self-correcting so what exactly do you mean by "manipulating." Every Wikipedia user "manipulates" content don't they?
Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
You mean USA invaded Iraq when there is no connection between Sadam and Al Qaida ? It's only on wikipedia you can find this. A such unreliable source of information. Everybody knows Alqaida gave Sadam invisible arms of massive destruction to destroy disneyland.
Er. Isn't the link to a publication called "The Inquirer", not the Register. Great fact checking, there...
Wikiscanner's roster indicates a Vatican computer was used to remove references to evidence linking Ireland's Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams to a decades-old double murder.
And here I was expecting some Dan Brownesque intrigue of large-scale controversial religious/historical edits. Anyone consider these "manipulations" are just some random user who happens to be on the network owned by the "manipulating organization"?
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
I know that this insertion of propoganda was not appropriate but hypothetically speaking on the idea of US Government representatives writing in wikipedia, I'd argue this is a good thing (if they can follow the guidelines).
..." or "The current cost of the war according to the GAO is ". I'd rather hear it from "the horses mouth" than the condensed version from news organizations who report the news as it meets an agenda.
Maybe my understanding is off, but wouldn't the US government be the perfect entity to write encyclopedia article given that they are the primary source in the scope of their job? Would the US Forest Service agent who was present in the California Wildfires in 2007 be the perfect source to write (if he could be objective, and without bias) of the factual events of the fires, such as "At 8PM 27 fire engines from 6 counties began working on and achieved containment at 10PM". Or In a "perfect" system, would not an encyclopedia only contain factual data such as "On 12/12/2007, this person was quoted as saying
Even from elected officials, such as congressmen, I think it would be great to have themselves or staff or a Gov't official append their voting record to their wikipedia page. I think having a wikipedia page for every bill voted on in congress with a short summary, the bills sponsor, the committee's vote, and the houses of congresses voting record, along with any Congressional Record indexing information would be a very useful resource, and one that would give Wikipedia's flexibility and limitless nature (as opposed to a print encyclopedia) a real advantage.
Just having the data there is a valuable work as other contributors help grind the content down to a consensual view. Someone just has to get the ball rolling and if the original author does a great job, we'll get a solid article sooner than if we start with a crap one.
I'd say the only problem would be is that politicians and "neutral-point-of-view" don't usually go hand in hand, but you have a certain level of bias in any peice of writing.
Forgive my spelling from time to time. I'm often posting during short breaks.
Since when did articles from The Inquirer become a trusted source?
From my experience this "news source" creates many articles based upon speculation and rumors. Also, they "spin" the information to make it seem as if the article was entirely correct about the issue.
----- You know you have ego issues when you register a domain in your name.
The changes that insert some also tend to put alleged on it. The edit linked took some data that was written that could be considered putting the invasion of Iraq in a bad light and softening it up with 'somes' and 'alleged', to make it seem like less strong/credible statements.
Note also, the first edit, where the edit takes existing 'alleged' out of the picture.
Basically, the spin on the article pre-edit was things showing the invasion in a bad light were presented more like hard facts, while the elements that were put forth as justifications were relegated to mere allegations. The edit reversed the situation to make the anti-war points allegations and the supporting points factual.
The last bit of substantial edit looks like arguing in the body of the article. Nothing was removed, but what was added looked more appropriate for the Talk section rather than to end up with a paragraph that states something followed by a statement essentially declaring that paragraph to be irrelevant to the article subject.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
The alarmist bent is high with this one. First of all, Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia designed to be edited by people. If you don't want that to happen come up with a different model...
More to the point, someone with a "House of Representatives IP Address" does not represent the US Government in its entirety and could be anyone from the lowliest page of a pro-war Republican up to the House party leader. At this point it's just speculation and looking at the changes they are far from subversive.
Poor Bush supporters, crying and sulking and yelling, "No fair!" It must be like being the spouse of an abusive alcoholic. You secretly hate them, but if anyone else criticizes them, you have to lash out to protect them.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
not to worry, Durova will take care of them.
Taking a look at the Wiki page on Adams, I see that not only the reference to evidence is gone, but also, any reference to the murder as well. Gee... a change that has stood up to public scrutiny within Wiki... hmm -- think that means that there was some basis to the edit?
Meantime, the edit is placed aside others which change W's name to "Wanker", a description of Rush Limbaugh and his audience to insults, and other juvenile character attacks.
Nice anti-Catholic hatchet job, there, dude...
mmm... yeah... You see, we're putting the cover sheets on all TPS reports now before they go out...
This is definitely old news. The edits happened in 2005, the article completely blows it out of proportion (the URL is "bush censors wikipedia" which is pretty ridiculous), and anyone who's been paying attention already knows that Congress-critters and their staffers love to edit wikipedia.
So kudos to you for pointing that out.
However, then you run off on a rambling and weird digression and into some random defense of the Iraq-war hawks.
You make a sound argument in trying to link Iraq and Al-Qaeda, except that you overlook the fact that outside of the western world, Al Qaeda is (and has long been) quite popular. So, yes, there may have been some limited contacts between the Iraqi government and Al Qaeda, but as far as anyone can tell they were never substantial. Nor were they ever of the same scale as support from other countries that we currently count as allies in the Farce on Terror.
As far as the cruise-missile attack you referenced, I don't things are as cut-and-dry as you present them. Here's the wikipedia article on the bombing of al-Shifa. (I know the wikipedia isn't the strongest source ever, but this pretty much jives with what I remember from the news at the time.) There may have been some Al-Qaeda influence, and they may have been using the plant as cover for a nerve gas experiment, but almost 10 years later there's no evidence for either of those things. And there's absolutely zero evidence that Iraq was in any way involved.
So, yes. The intelligence services were concerned about Al Qaeda even before Bush took office. They thought there may be a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. But saying that without also saying that we had far more intelligence linking Al-Qaeda to countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt is disingenuous. It's a lie by omission. Especially in the case of elected officials using classified information to build public support for a war of aggression.
Now, let's address this NIE thing. The reason why the new NIE on Iran has been so well received is that it fits well with what the rest of the world has been saying about Iran. You may remember the run-up to the Iraq war, the Bushies were saying that Iraq was "this close" to a nuclear bomb and that they had vast stockpiles of chemical weapons (WMDs! WMDs!) Meanwhile, everyone else (including people who would know) was saying the exact opposite. We ignored the nay-sayers (that is, pretty much the whole world) and trusted our intelligence services and our leaders and we got exactly what we deserved (an unending war of occupation, costing countless Iraqi, American, and "coalition" lives, not to mention mortgaging the USA to the hilt).
Is a nuclear Iran a threat? Maybe. But it's a huge leap of faith to go from "we have no evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program" to "If Iran had nuclear weapons they could be dangerous" to "we need to start a preemptive war with Iran". Which is exactly what the Bush administration did in the case of Iraq. The difference in this new NIE, as far as I can tell, is that the people who put it together took explicit measures to prevent the administration from making that cognitive leap again.
It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
I'm on the fence here. Does technology make rewriting history easier or more difficult?
/"
Sure, one can point to wikipedia being changed, but again, one *can* point to wikipedia being changed.
History has always been at the mercy of those in power. Sure you can argue abut the persistence of flattened dead trees and ink, but whole sale book burnings are the 3D equivalent of "rm -rf
The skeptical eye we hold for wikipedia is probably more healthy than a reverent eye for commercial encyclopedias. At least *we* all have a chance of correcting and detecting propaganda *and* we all respect and understand that wikipedia is always from a point of view. Like it or not, Britanica and others also have a point of view, and while they try to hide it, none the less it exists.
Statistically, wikipedia is just as accurate as the likes of Britanica, but wiki being what it is, we know not to trust it 100% without some verification.
I guess, the age old problem of "truth" being hard to find continues in the 21st century because the age old problem of people wanting to bend truth to their ideology continues into the 21st century.
It would be *really* cool to save whole copies of wikipedia every year and track the changes over time.
Anyone with any agenda can manipulate Wikipedia. There are no real credentials, just a few rules. I'm surprised that there hasn't been more argumentative revising of various entries. The medium is rife with contentious possibilities. That one political school of thoughts and its agents would manipulate content is no surprise at all.
Seeking justice implies injury (we probably have that, and you cite several likely cases) and the need to remedy that injury.
Doing that, getting justice, means removing anonymity for the full editing process-- which can be done with lots of software. Then we can pick, perhaps by color or another annotation, which version we want to see; left wing, right wing, centrist, socialist, green, and so on. We'll know the content by its source and judge from there. Until then, please don't be surprised by media content swaying on public forums.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
I'm not sure why I'm even responding to you given the tone you've taken with me lately.
1. My views are my own.
2. I am not paid, by anyone, for any reason, at any time, to post comments on slashdot on articles such as this.
3. The fact that I am actually open about my identity, interests, and affiliations is seen by you as an indictment of anything I say, whereas somehow your thoughts are inexplicably pure with you being completely anonymous. Curious. By your logic, you could just as easily be running an information campaign for Leftist causes, or possibly even for a US adversary. I mean, after all, anyone could just look at your prior posts, to confirm that, right?
I find it funny - perhaps "telling" would be a more accurate word - that you don't seem to address the actual content of my comments here any longer. Instead, you just accuse me of spewing propaganda and direct people to my home page to somehow "prove" that anything I say can't be trusted. The other thing I find amusing is that you feel that somehow invalidates anything I say. How is any correct statement or compelling argument any less respectively correct or compelling on that basis?
Would it make you feel better if I was completely anonymous? Or is your sense of balance in the universe preserved by the belief that I must be a paid propaganda mouthpiece on slashdot, instead of a living, breathing, thinking person with views that differ from your own?
It's pretty sad, spun. From our previous conversations, you seem like a pretty nice person. But the fact that you are behaving the way you have been toward me recently makes me reconsider that assumption.
"bizarre claim that there was a link between the terrorist organisation al Qaeda and the Iraq government"
Pot calling kettle black? It's not a bizarre claim. It's a fact that there was a link between bin Laden and Saddam. They both acknowledged it. I'm tired of people being so anti-Bush that they ignore the words of our enemies and try to rewrite history. Jihadists wanted to kill us long before Bush was ever in the picture. They will never go away as long as the U.S exists...period. Maybe if Clinton had done something while terrorists were killing us and blowing us up, Bush wouldn't have been left in a shitty position. Clinton spent two terms with blinders on to what was going on in the rest of the world.
Bush's big mistake was trying to come up with all these secondary reasons to go into Iraq. He didn't need any of that. We were still in a state of war with Iraq and had 10 years of him shooting at our aircraft. We also had his violation of 14 U.N resolutions, which allowed for us to take him out. Just because the rest of the U.N didn't support us, didn't mean we didn't have to right to act. There was nothing illegal about our action. Bush got Congressional approval even though it wasn't required since we were still at war.
It fine to disagree with it, but there was nothing illegal or unjust about it. What was unjust is that daddy Bush didn't finish the job the first time and let that tyrant stay in power.
Hell, the only thing Bush has gotten right was taking Saddam out. The rest of his presidency has been as bad as Clinton's.
If the Government cannot edit Wikipedia as it sees fit, then the terrorists have already won!!!
The contest for ages has been to rescue liberty from the grasp of executive power. -- Daniel Webster
Trust me, the government has bigger fish to fry than trying to get on Wikipedia and influence some would-be info searchers. Nobody cites Wikipedia as a viable resource for news and information regarding partisan issues, precisely because everyone knows whoever writes the article is going to be biased one way or the other. Whoever called this a resource war is off their rocker. If all the government was interested in were oil, we wouldn't stage a multi-billion dollar war and strain our relationship with allies in the process, we'd drill in Anwar and be done with it. Besides which we only get about 8% of our oil from the area in question. AND it doesn't help anyone's oil buddies as evidenced by the Gulf War when all the blood for oil chronies were proved wrong in the wake of oil companies losing profits because of the whole situation. That being said, since we're there, of course it would be naive to assume that didn't factor into the plans; anyone in the same situation would do the same.
"the first casualty of war is............"
This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
Yeah, people attribute all of these crazy things to "the government", when in reality its just a job for an ASSLOAD of people, just like any other job. People sit around and edit wikipedia or surf the web just like they do here at my workplace and probably at your job and anyone else's job. I also think its a bit of a stretch to attribute any sort of ideological homogeneity to "the government", especially "staffers" and career bureaucrats.
Either way, the Enquirer headline about the government "censoring" wikipedia is bizarre and sensationally alarmist at best, and outright irresponsible at worst.
Defending ones country is defending for land and resources. France on the defense would never have been a war were it not for a foreign entity trying to invade to acquire land/resources. The crusades for the most part was using religious reasons to motivate people to fight to give those in power land. The crusades that weren't about invading were carried out without government/church leadership because the commoners had bought hard into the propaganda used for the other crusades. Note the crusades that were about ideology were rather pathetic and stomped out by the defenders, as the invaders had no power.
Terrorism is a complex issue, but however that debate would go, the fact remains that *usually* at the root of a significant conflict there is an issue of land/resources that is secular in nature.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Sorry to indulge the off-topic troll of the parent, but I'd like to state a common sense point lest other get sucked into this fallacious line of reasoning.
I agree that people have a tendency to accept things that confirm what they'd like (or have already chosen) to believe and ignore or doubt those that do not. This is a ubiquitous natural psychological phenomenon called confirmation bias, and it is not limited to any particular political group (though you might like to believe so). I further agree that like almost any matter of intelligence, the question of whether or not Iraq had WMDs was murky, and I believe many people with knowledge of intelligence believed in good faith that they did. The people selling the Iraq war didn't not lie about the existence of WMDs, but they did make false statements.
There were basically two sorts of falsehoods that were told in the run-up to the war. The first were specific pieces of evidence that were repeated to the public after it was widely known within the government that those pieces had been discredited (or cast into very serious doubt). These include statements about aluminum tubes, yellowcake uranium, and others. The second set of falsehoods were statements not about the evidence but about the level of certainty. When Bush administration officials said they believed Iraq had WMDs or that they had evidence of an Iraqi WMD program they were likely telling the truth. However, when, for example, Dick Cheney said, "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction," or President Bush said, "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised," or when Donald Rumsfeld said, "We know where the weapons are..." those were false statements. There remained doubt. There remained a lack of direct, verifiable, incontravertible evidence of the WMDs (e.g. pictures of the weapons, as in the Cuban Missile Crisis). As a result, those statements were simply and manifestly false.
Now, you can get into a whole semantic argument over whether they were lies or just false statements, based on whether they just misunderstood what they got from the intelligence community and so on. I think it's hard to make that argument given that in some instances (on the specific pieces of intel) people like Cheney were corrected by intelligence officials but continued to make the statements. In any case, from my perspective it's a moot point. Whether they made the false statements due to duplicity or just incompetence, the effect is the same, and it still marks them as unfit for their respective positions. There is no sufficient excuse for making false statements, that are either patently false or easily can be verified to be false, to the nation on a subject so dire as whether to go to war.
If the Bush administration had simply said, "we have intelligence that makes of believe Iraq has WMDs" and put forward what was, as far as they knew at the time, fairly reliable intelligence, then I would say they did not lie. They made a mistake, but, when it comes to intelligence, mistakes happen. But they did not do merely that; they included highly dubious or discredited evidence and stated that there was "no doubt". They made false statements to the nation, and I would say they lied.
"You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
A lot of people seem to be debating whether the changes were truly partisan, but I think that's beside the point. I personally don't think the changes add anything of value except for softening the tone to make it more passive or bend factual information into expressing an opinion via language.
Hang on... I just found the wikipedia standard about it: Avoid weasel words.
Partisan or not, I think the standards pretty much clear up whether this was adequate. But given this standard I'd say that the original article before the edits was less partisan as it appears to just be following the guidelines.
Given the hundreds of millions required to be spent to gain the Whitehouse... We have the CEOs or other high ranking executive officers of various multi-nationals involved. I'm not convinced that incompetence is the explanation. For this or any of their other actions.
Deleted
I don't know who the Dave guy is, but your post sounds conspiratorial and, generally speaking, pretty stupid. I highly doubt that the guy is "paid to try to make the populace think a certain way", and I think such a statement makes you sound juvenile and lacking in credibility.
Don't worry, you can clean the spittle off your keyboard with a j-cloth.
'The government'?
Perhaps individuals at the House of representatives would be more accurate?
Lumping the organizational structure of the nation as 'The Government' is not helpful.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Is that what we've come to? Wake me up when people from the left, right, and center re-learn the art of debate and are no longer afraid of different points-of-view.
"I imagine the recent stories about Iraq being significantly calmer on the whole, with progress being made in formerly-troubled areas, and a marked uptick in indicators of progress really get under your skin. That's the really disturbing part: you'd probably prefer that Iraq completely collapse on itself, with no care or regard for the Iraqi people, just so you can feel comfortable in your smug and arrogant beliefs, in which you selectively pick anything that supports your view and discount anything that doesn't as lies, instead of realizing the world is a hell of a lot more complex."
Really, can we sound more shrill? About 50% of your post(s) are informative, and the other chunk is just doing what you accuse the other side of doing. Sad.
For the record, as an anti-war type of dude - I'm glad we're showing signs of stability in Iraq. I also feel like we need to finish the job that this colossal fuck-wit war criminal president got us into. Not because I want to be there, but because the destabilization we brought to the Middle East is, sadly, our fault. We need to fix the shit El Presidente's daddy complex got us into.
Both sides are full of fucking assholes. You don't help by being an apologetic for "your team" and building straw-men of what you think a liberal is in your pre-demonized brain.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
Life would be easier if I had the source code.
People in the employee of the governemt, elected or otherwise, always need to be under more scrutiny. Regardless of party.
", there's little doubt Team USA w"
Only an ignorant foo believes that. Hint: Look at how will Iran is defended compared to Iraq.
"There's been no attack against the domestic USA,"
Deal lord, could you find an even more species argument?
We also hadn't been attack by terrorist during the prohibition, perhaps we should outlaw alcohol to prevent terrorism?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Considering I know my mother has the skill to register on Wikipedia and edit an entry but I'm absolutely certain she has no idea what an IP is. The point is, there are these types of people everywhere and this happening is totally conceivable.
You only ever comment on certain types of stories, and only to defend the US government or the status quo. Can you point me to a post where you've done anything else? And the way that you argue is a prime example of sophistry: truth and consistency mean nothing, winning the argument by convincing enough people you are right means everything. Maybe you aren't paid for what you do, which would be a pity because you do it well. If your opinions are your own, it says a lot about the type of people that are drawn to your profession.
In this case, it may be that the staffer was voicing his own opinions. But he used weasel words where none were needed. And he did it from a government IP address. That makes it our business: he used OUR TAXPAYER FUNDED EQUIPMENT to make VERY PARTISAN and VERY MISLEADING changes. Let's analyze the changes, then we're going to analyze your post, m'kay?
1.) Alleged link/link: There was no viable link between Al Qaeda and Iraq, they were not working together, Saddam hated religion in general and Osama in particular. This has been proven again and again, yet this guy has to make it seem an open question.
2.) Evidence/Claims of evidence: Again, the original was sourced. The evidence of a connection was manufactured, and it came from questionable sources. This isn't opinion, it's fact. Changing that to the weaker "some claim that..." is disingenuous. Sure, people claim the evidence was manufactured, because it was. That's fact.
3.) Not credible/Some claim that: Come on, who claims he is credible? Anyone? You? Look at the quote, look at what he said, is this man credible by any stretch of the imagination?
4.) Eventually shown/Alleged by some: They source where this was shown, a British intelligence report. Who is now claiming there was a viable working relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda? Are you? Just admit it, don't weasel around or try to dodge the damn question.
Now, your original post.
First, you try to set up a straw man. There is no question that people in government can and should edit wikipedia. You bring it up like its some kind of shocker. The question is, are the edits rational, unbiased, and accurate; and, is it okay for public officials to edit wikipedia using taxpayer funded equipment? If a public official or an employee of a public official does something using taxpayer funded equipment, it is completely fair to say, "The government did it." Can you refute that?
Next, you do the same thing I do to you. You insinuate that kdawson is a political ideologue and his ideas should be dismissed out of hand. Hypocrite.
It is bizarre to make a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. No, not bizarre. Completely understandable given the stated aims of neo-cons to create a new enemy for the US to rally around. Ever read the manifesto by Project for a New American Century which came out before 9/11 and basically said, "We need to manufacture a big scary enemy to keep the populace from questioning our actions?"
You are such a sophist. We are the ones who are ignoring evidence that contradicts our position? That's rich. You are considering all sides and taking the reasoned, logical path, I suppose, while your opponents simply aren't looking at the big picture. Guess what, we HAVE considered both sides. One of them is just full of shit. That is our logical, reasoned conclusion based on all available evidence. You are the one sticking to an unreasonable position despite all evidence. You are the one setting up straw men to win arguments. You are the one making subtle ad hominem attacks to discredit your opponents. You do everything you accuse your opponents of, you hypocrite.
You want to know why I don't bother to argue with you point by point and just point out who and what you are? You aren't in this to debate a position. You are not capable of changing your mind or admitting wrong for yourself or your country. You argue only to win people over to your way of thinking, and you will use any tactic to do so. Debating with you is pointless.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
At least here on Slashdot we can all easily tag him as a foe for future reference.
You might want to read that again until you realize it doesn't say anything about said "link".
And it's fantastic that you called him a liar when you openly and demonstrably lied about the contents of your link.
Nice job liar.
I looked over the CIA edits and they were actually adding some good content to the articles. Probably just staffers, many of whom are certainly experts in their fields, just editing Wikipedia like everyone else. The real irony of people complaining about the CIA editing stuff on Wikipedia is that most of the country articles started out (back when Wikipedia still had to seed articles) as just copy and paste jobs from the CIA World Fact Book since its public domain.
And MoveOn.org and other liberal media outlets don't use propaganda? Of course their motives are 100% pure. Right...
I've never heard of Dave, and I've never been to his site and probably never will, but wise up man. Media is a huge business for both sides, and nobody is free from propaganda. If you want to argue your side based on rational points, then feel free and please do. But if you're going to start attacking someone's character, you've drawn up a straw man and you yourself are trying to influence others with propaganda without making a positive argument for your side.
This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
Did I say anything about liberal media? Why do you put words in my mouth, and then accuse me of making a straw man? I don't read moveon.org, never have. Funny how you and the other Dave defender claim right in the opening "not to know Dave." Weird, that's not something I would even think to point out. Why is it important that we know that you both don't know Dave?
As you've never been to his site, I will just say that Dave is studying to be a spook. His site used to say he was a spook, now that he's a spook in training. Of course, if he were being really nefarious he would hide that fact, but I think it is a useful fact to point out. And anyone who has been here long knows that he never, ever posts anything except impassioned defenses of the status quo. Never.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Yes, folks it's fundraising time in wikiality. So the goal is to get the wikipedia name out there, hence this somewhat old news being dragged out and paraded again.
Have you not noticed the number of wikipedia articles has tripled in the past 6 weeks?
This, despite there not being any actual significant changes or news. Do you really think that's coincidence? There's ALWAYS more wikipedia articles during their fundraising drives -- ALWAYS.
"Wondering why I talk to Dave like this? Read his home page. You don't even have to read between the lines."
Because ad hominem attacks are suddenly justified if the target is associated with the US government? Prove his statement wrong; that would impress me more.
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
sorry to bother the conspiracy theorists out there - but the US government wasn't "caught." The "US government" openly (i.e IP address was visible) chose to edit wikipedia.
/. here is the what's in big, bold type on the front page of that sire
Now, there is a 'simple English' version of wikipedia (presumably to help people learn English) but for the benefit of
"Welcome to Wikipedia - the free encyclopedia that anyone can change." (http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page)
echo $SIGNATURE
Paranoid much? See a shrink.
everything in moderation
The US House of Representatives is not in charge of Gundam.
If you had super powers, would you use them for good, or for awesome?
nonplussed
Seriously, what is up with all the wiki bashing on Reg? I mean, it's not like they're known as the paragon of accurate reportage or open discussion! They continue to spin their SV conspiracy theory over multiple articles, and then censor comments that suggest they might have got something wrong.
For instance, consider their recent article: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/ Here they describe this poor guy, Judd Bagley, who was hounded down by the evil wiki-conspiracy even though "he hadn't edited Wikipedia in over a year". And they state "It would seem that the address was banned because Judd Bagley has accused Wikipedia's uber-administrators of skewing the contents of four online articles."
Uhhh, no. As anyone with mousing skills could easily find out, Bagley's "hadn't edited Wikipedia" because he was _banned_. Why was he banned? Because he appeared on the wiki with a series of edits that inserted libelous information into the article in question, and surreptitiously re-directed links from existing major sources to his own web page! Now that's not bannable, that's simply revertable, and when other editors did so he started a shitstorm of abuse on everyone involved. This escalated to the point where he attempted to "out" another editor, a serious no-no even when you get it right (which he didn't), and thats when the admins arrived, who he then yelled at, and eventually got himself blocked.
After the initial block went down for "outing", he immediately reappeared as a variety of new accounts over a range of IPs in order to continue the abuse, and in the end the entire range had to be blocked. Contrary to the article, which claims he was recently banned for making edits on his own page, all of this happened over a one-month period over a year ago. And then to top it all off, Bagley admits to putting "spyware" in an e-mail to SV. The seeming illegality of this activity is ignored, but "According to Bagley" he got some sort of ping from Weiss. No evidence is offered. Nice!
I built up a lengthy rebuttal, pointing out links to edits that countered every one of their "claims". I attempted to post it in their forum, but it was censored.
This is a perfect example of why the wiki is so important.
Maury
He's part of the BMW Car Club of America. That evil bastard.
- Vincit qui patitur.
Windows in 6 Bytes (IA-32) : 90 90 90 90 CD 19
... but not as funny as watching random people claim they founded Popeye's Chicken, like here and here.
Never allow somebody who works for the government to edit "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit"? Nothing about "democracy" prevents that.
Err, umm, that's sort of what the Wikipedia is all about - people can edit the content directly. Take that into account when reading it.
Note that we really don't yet have any idea who made the edits (not that that stops The Inquirer from declaring j'accuse with aplomb). It could be a Republican staffer wanting to bolster his or her boss, or it could be a Democratic staffer wanting to manufacture a fiasco. It could be done with or without approval from one's boss. For that matter, it could be done through a zombified machine in a Capitol building office with a proxy server surreptitiously installed. Who knows? And in the end, does it really matter?
While it is very easy to spot abuse and propaganda on Wikipedia one thing is for sure, wikipedia is only one of the many places this happens on. Im much more concerned with how governments abuse and plant stuff in mainstream media where i cant see who/when/what someone changes. If you can see what has changed you can build your own opinion and investigate further, something not so easy with daily papers or tv.
HTTP/1.1 400
A user at that same IP seems to have added spoiler tags to an article about Portal. So they can't be all bad eh?
Is better than refusing to answer because they have no business asking?
Like I said, you'll do anything, say anything to minimize your own transgressions. You just did.
He could have said "in the interests of good taste, I will not answer that" or even taken the fifth. Instead he LIED. And you justified it. And the best part is you're not smart enough to realize it.
Save your breath, you proved my point better than I possibly could have. Thanks for being exactly what I said you were.
I'll admit, you bring out the worst in me. You know why? Because you are very good at redefining the parameters of the debate. The question is not "Was there a link between Iraq and AL Qaeda?" The question is, "Was there enough of a link to justify war?" and also "Was the link bolstered with false intelligence to justify the war?" But you redefine the debate, changing it into something you can win. Of course there was a link. I could probably find a link between you and Al Qaeda, the way you define "link." Does that mean we should go to war with you?
All you and the erstwhile wikipedia editor are trying to do is raise a reasonable doubt about whether your side lied and committed treason to get us into a war. Most people don't want to believe that, because it is frightening in the extreme. So you give them a reasonable doubt, and they don't have to think about the implications, or do anything. You know you don't even have to win the "Enough of a link to justify war?" debate. You know you'd never convince me or people like me anyway, so you go after the low hanging fruit with an easy straw man argument.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Maybe its corrections? Or factual changes? Really, I doubt the Inquirer has the intel capabilities of the CIA or MI6...or France...etc. I love how they refer to the President as "Mr. Bush" LOL Hmmm, wonder where their political views lie... :-p
Hey, that's funny, considering you're too stupid to realize I never claimed that. A liar defending a liar, how surprising.
I said "THEY WERE BOTH REPREHENSIBLE". It is actually possible for them BOTH TO BE REPREHENSIBLE without them BEING EQUIVALENT.
Perhaps you'll learn that when by the time you finish 5th grade.
In the future, respond to what I SAY, you're not smart enough to interpret anything, as you've proven with your previous post.
You have to remember that Government agencies, while potentially clever as a whole, are still made up of government workers.
If the CIA had a program outlined to manipulate Wikipedia (without getting caught) They probably wouldn't get caught. If a handful of Public Information goons within the agency take it upon themselves to manipulate what is out there, I would not be the least bit surprised to see them behave completely ignorant of the IP trail they are leaving. I would actually expect a PI goon to think it wasn't traceable.
... news at 11.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
The truth is brutal. It's more comforting to believe in the official myths of the bogeyman, and the all-protecting momma state that envelopes you in love. I'm sorry, but that's a very short-sighted folly. Those who will not deal with reality will be dealt with by reality.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
Are you sure that's the correct IP address? When I do a reverse DNS lookup on it, I get what appears to be a grammar school in Illinois:
$ host 209.174.104.2
2.104.174.209.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer host-209-174-104-2.kewanee.k12.il.us.
> Did I say anything about liberal media? Why do you put words in my mouth, and then accuse me of
> making a straw man? I don't read moveon.org, never have. Funny how you and the other Dave defender
> claim right in the opening "not to know Dave." Weird, that's not something I would even think to point
> out. Why is it important that we know that you both don't know Dave?
I don't know about the "other" guy, but mentioning that I don't know Dave is a natural response to your post which directly addressed Dave, suggesting that his identity is irrelevant to the point I went on to make. I'm sorry you somehow missed that... Also, if you'll reread what I wrote, you'll find that I never said you wrote anything about liberal media, so your accusation of me putting words in your mouth is false. I myself brought up the liberal media outlets as examples supporting the point I made that.
> And anyone who has been here long knows that he never, ever posts anything except impassioned
> defenses of the status quo. Never.
Great. Your point was already taken. Again, I don't know the guy so I don't know what he writes. But, since you felt the need to reiterate your point, I might as well reiterate mine. So Dave always defends the status quo. Great... who cares? Again returning to the liberal media outlet example, MoveOn.org (I never said you read it nor do I care either way) never posts anything that isn't pure liberal propaganda either, so who cares? Propaganda exists everywhere. The point is, you drew up a straw man by writing about the identities of other people (Dave) rather than making some sort of rational point regarding the issue at hand, and I called you on it. No need to get upset at me, just try to avoid fallacies in your future arguments. That's all. Enjoy.
This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
Yes, someone at that IP address made some ideologically slanted edits. However, if you go and look at the talk page for that IP address, you will note that there are *many* warnings which have been issued to that user. If you go further, and take a second to look at the pages it was being warned about vandalizing, several of the 'bad' edits are things like "Tom Sucks!" and other edits which were almost certainly made by interns, not at the behest of some nefarious Representative but out of mundane immaturity. So, while a serious, ideologically slanted edit like the one highlighted in the summary may well be the result of government misdeeds, it is clear that there are plenty of people who are capable of editing from that location, and that it is not provable that the edits were...'government' sanctioned.
Somehow I doubt CmdrTaco is being sincere when he says 'trustworthy.'
Everyone's allowed to criticize their government. But what if the comment had been anti-Muslim or antisemitic? I imagine there'd be far more dissent in the comments.
Wonder why? Check out Philip Jenkins' The New Anti-Catholicism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice. And for you conspiracy theorists out there, the author is Episcopalian.
Are you saying that some random editor knows more about the Iraq invasion, or is less likely to lie about it or change things to suit a political end, than the US Government?
The whole point of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it. And of course, that includes members of the US Government, the Chinese government, The Russian government, the Iranian government, the North Korean government, the Venezuelan government, the Brazilian government, the UK government, the Latvian government, the Jamaican government...
If you have a problem with that, then you have a problem with the basic philosophy of Wikipedia.
Honestly, I've gotten completely sick of the whole concept of "debate" -- and I used to be a competitive debater. The problem is that it's inherently adversarial. It is not that both parties walk on stage with different viewpoints but a determination to uncover the single truth; no, each side simply wants "to win." So "debate" becomes just one more variety of pissing contest.
This is the problem with party politics: competition is king. Defining the other party as "the enemy" becomes the imperative.
Finding common ground, working out cooperative solutions, is deliberately avoided and prevented -- even where common ground and cooperative solutions might reasonably be found.
-kgj
that taking action, in this context *specifically* action against Iraq, was 'consistent' with necessary actions against terrorists/terrorist organizations, specifically referencing those responsible for 9/11. Government speak doesn't get much more blatant than that. It's clearly *strongly* suggesting that action against Iraq is justified in *part* because of 9/11 (in such a relationship, that's only possible *if* the Iraq government colluded with Al Queda specifically with respect to 9/11, and that just simply has not been shown to be a claim based on any real evidence). At least, the links are no more substantive than Bush's links to Osama bin Laden, or to Saddam's regime for that matter. Should we revolt against George W. because he associates with bin Laden family members? Should we execute Rumsfield for shaking Saddam's hand?
I'm not saying Saddam was an innocent guy or that Iraq was particularly good on the whole human rights thing, and therefore deserved to be left alone. However, you don't take a country to war and get the soldiers killed for unsubstantiated claims of WMD and terrorism, that the UN *was* investigating. Before the war, WMD was declared the reason, with mumblings of Al-Queda. When those claims eroded under scrutiny when the effort was underway, they said 'oh, we are freeing the Iraqis then!'. Great, how about those many other nations that have genocide/ethnic cleansings that are ignored? When you take away the terrorist link (they *knew* there wasn't a strong case there), the WMD (they also knew they had insufficient evidence), the only thing separating Iraq from a half-dozen other similarly screwed countries is that Iraq had oil to exploit and maybe made our buddies in Saudi Arabia a tad nervous.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
At the time of the invasion, Most Dems, Reps, and governments of the world believed Iraq had WMDs.
Yes. That's why so many countries jumped at the chance to join the "coalition of the willing."
Even Iraqi leadership believed it.
Only that one really cool minister of misinformation. "The infidels will die on their swords!" That was classic.
It should also be noted that a grand jury bent on charging the administration concerning the Valerie Plame "revelation" wasn't able to come up with any charges whatsoever except for a single perjury.
First, this is an interesting aside, which has nothing at all to do with the lead-up to war, except that it was a leak concerning the wife of the guy who *told the US government the yellowcake documents were fake.* He did this before the war. He did this before President Bush cited those documents as an excuse to go to war.
The government had no excuse to continue to push those documents as evidence, yet they did. This, along with the revelation that the "foreign government intelligence" (intelligence documents from Britain) were also faked, indicate the President and his cabinet had every intention of misleading the population into war, no matter the cost, and without probable reason.
Your post makes me wonder: are you even from this universe? Have you stepped in through some portal from a strange alternate universe in which the President actually had a case for war? Or were you merely ignoring outside news sources during the lead-up to war?
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
rtfa, or rather, the other link, the edit history on wikipedia. He's not fixing typos, and there really are grounds for NPOV accusations.
sorry if this offends anyone.. but i freakin love this quote.. "Those who will not deal with reality will be dealt with by reality." ohh jesus help me lord, help me in this time of need, stop that bullet from entering thy body grant me thy blessed miracle .... oh crap im dead
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:New_York_City_Police_Department#Censorship
Dave, I have no opinion on subject matter of the exchange between Spun and yourself, but I would like to point out that I found this reply of yours very interesting reading. I feel that you handled things extremely well, showing great restraint and maturity in dealing with what I thought was a fairly stinging personal attack. Your measured response was a breath of fresh air.
As I say, I have no ax to grind or point to make, although I would suggest there may be other slashdot readers out there (besides myself) who might find their arguments are held in higher regard if they were to practice a little of the civility found in your post.
I'm not often found blowing sunshine up anyone's arse and I apologise if this leaves you scratching your head, but I had to say something in this case.
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
If a pretty white woman were waterboarded by 2 black cops in Atlanta, and died during the "interrogation", and then they packed the body in ice and faked the death certificate to say "heart problems," there would be no question in anyone's mind, least of all of the Attorney General or Vice President, that this constituted torture.
Our uncertainty as to what torture means is a sham--it's only torture because it's brown people who worship Allah and look sort of like towelheads. And everyone damn well knows that.
We are capable of good, yes, but no one is immune to the pull of self-interest, convenience, vanity, and so on. The more secrecy your activities are cloaked in, the less accountability you have, the more likely you are to indulge the less pretty side of your nature. To me, all of society is one large Zimbardo prison experiment, with the authority roles intact but without the prison (for most of us).
Well, not exactly, but it is an unwritten WP policy that info about countries comes from their governments (mostly via the US CIA "Fact"book).
Attempt to question these "facts" and you will be told "that's how we've always done it for all the other countries".
My only regret is that i'm reading and responding to this 400+ comments down the line...
.gov address not infrequently, and it would take a special kind of head-up-the-ass fucktard shit-for-brains idiot to think that i'm speaking on behalf of the Department of Guess Who. In fact, in my 20 (!?) years of usenet/web posting, noone has ever been that Goddamned stupid. Yes, i'm specifically choosing earthy language as i want to express a deep and abiding contempt for this kind of censorous complaint that someone posting from .gov is "the government".
Calling the editors "the government" is simply paranoid or asshole behavior. I post to here from a
The worst that can *maybe* be said is that these people are posting on the taxpayer dime; even that is not a guarenteed-valid complaint, as many agencies acceptable use policy allows personal use of govt computers on a limited/reasonable basis. Surprise surprise.
And it is remotely possible, in some microscopic bubble of the Multiverse, that a Congressional staffer might possibly have a valid, legitimate perspective on these issues that is closer to "the truth" than some nimrod politically-correct just-read-his-first-Chomsky-book college sophmore editing from a dorm at Kansas State or some stoner from the mailroom at Iomega. We all have our own special perspectives on the world, and frankly, sometimes, they _are_ worth more than everyone elses.
So,bereft of factual content and perspective, as the original slugline post to Slashdot was, calling it "wikipedia editing by the government" and trying to paint it as propaganda or big-lie/Big Brother information control is censorous and morally wrong.
I will forebear to pontificate on how "people in 'the government'" can be good, decent, hardworking, intelligent honest people who sincerely believe in the value of the work they do, still, I think i'm a little offended by the implications made.
The Clinton impeachment fiasco was just politics. I too am sorry that oral sex was discussed so frankly on the news, making it a normal topic of conversation even for kids. But that wasn't Clinton's fault--that was the fault of those who made a huge national scandal out of a private matter between two consenting adults. What's more, their moral outrage was transparently fake. Delay and Gingrich both had affairs while the Monica witch-hunt was afoot, and conservatives still respect those two. So don't blame Clinton--that public spectacle was orchestrated by the Republican party.
Even if I thought a President was as dumb as a bag of hammers, had lied us into an unnecessary war, had gutted habeus corpus and legitimized torture, I still wouldn't want him impeached over a blowjob. No matter how much I detested a sitting President (a hypothetical President, mind you), oral sex with a consenting adult is still a private matter.
When you are part of an organization that makes policy and starts wars, editing a public encyclopedia to revise the historical record to a more flattering view of what your organization did and why it did it...that is just suspicious.
Lying to make yourself look better isn't the same thing as J. Random Person making edits on the Wikipedia entry on apples.
Is it policy? No. We aren't going to find a signed, fingerprint-laden order by the VP ordering mass Wiki edits. So no, we have no sinister conspiracy. But neither is it benign.
Many people thought that Iraq had WMD, as in they had a gut feeling. But you don't go to war based on a seat-of-your-pants gut feeling, unless you're a moron who considers yourself a "gut thinker."
I'm sure Clinton (either or both) and Gore both thought he did, but the fact remains that I was reading articles well before we invaded/liberated Iraq saying that high-level State Dept and CIA officials were saying that there was no evidence that Iraq had an active program.
UN weapons inspectors found nothing, even when they followed up on every lead the US Govt fed to them. Inspectors were looking for weapons, and found none. Blix had access to the disputed sites, and found nothing, even when the US "helped" with their wild-goose-chase hints. Blix was still inspecting when the USA threw the weapons inspectors out so they could start the war.
So who is revising history again?
How dare they? Contributing their own interpretation of the facts to the wikipedia... Fashists!
The fundraiser encourages people with time on their hands to look at Wikipedia, which leads to more edits and articles, and more people noticing things in Wikipedia they are interested in or concerned about, which leads to more articles and blogs about and referring to Wikipedia, which leads to more bored blog readers, people with time on their hands, looking at Wikipedia...
It's wot you call a positive feedback loop. Like when the lead guitarist sticks his pickup in front of a speaker to make the PA system screech.
I guess that makes Slashdot the overdriven amp behind the drummer that's just starting to smoke.
Anybody who knows me, knows that I am usually the first to criticise the US government. But I think people should take the time and make the effort to distinguish between 'Government' as an institution and the bunch of idiots that somehow seems to be the only kind of people that make it into government in the US. It seems very much to be part of American culture today to be anti-government; if one were thus inclined, one could make up a conspiracy theory about that: 'They' (this most notorious group of evil people) make sure that only idiots get into government in order to discredit the institution as a whole, so that they can minimize the influence of government on society.
However, there is such a thing as a good government - one that takes care of the whole of the people rather than just business interests.
Oh hey, someone else has already posted this -- that Napoleon uttered that quotation is likely apocryphal, the phrase is usually referred to as Hanlon's Razor and is more likely sourced as follows:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Robert_J._Hanlon
For the reason there are many people willing to post about this one line on Slashdot, see here:
http://www.ccil.org/jargon/jargon_23.html#TAG856
I.e., we're all nerds.
Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
And besides ... if a husband has sex with another man it's not adultery, right? Further, does infidelity in marriage even say anything about a man's fidelity in regards to his employment? I agree with you -- morality has no bearing on one's ability to do their job, especially if their job is representing a constituency in government.
On the other hand, if being a man of one's word without apparent conflicts of interest is a requirement to faithfully represent a constituency, maybe he shouldn't keep his job. I know that if I managed a bank, and one of my employees plead guilty to robbery I would probably fire him. If I was elected to legislate against gay people, i.e., represent my [nominally Republican] constituency, I would try very hard not to plead guilty to propositioning other men for sex.
In Craig's case, I imagine his employer-constituents would 'fire' him if they could have a special election for his seat. He's fortunate that he has the option to serve out his term.
Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.