Slashdot Mirror
Wikipedia Blocks Suspicious Edits From DoJ
kylehase writes "The release of Wikiscanner last year brought much attention to white-washing of controversial pages on the community-generated encyclopedia. Apparently Wikipedia is very serious in fighting such behavior as they've temporarily blocked the US Department of Justice from editing pages for suspicious edits."
Although I'm really not sure what the big deal is, except perhaps the fact that "suspicious" edits were occuring from the DOJ's networks.
Until Wikipedia is served a court order requiring them to remove or alter certain information, they can do whatever the hell they want with their own web site(s) so long as they are law abiding.
The big problem with the Wikipedia comes down to one of opinion.
As long as it is just facts then it seems too work pretty well. When it comes to opinion then things get into trouble.
One persons white washing is somebody elses setting the record straight.
What is funny is bias and opinion can creep into the strangest articles.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Should the government have the right to even be on Wikipedia making edits? Isn't that similar to them controling any other media outlet?
Or does the 'openness' of wiki mean that the government is justified in making changes to whatever articles they want?
I personally don't want them even touching it, or influencing any media outlet.
No comprende? Let me type that a little slower for you...
The problem is that 99% of people are idiots. Not only do very few people have the brains to actually understand what they're voting on, but the ones who do are generally too busy living their lives to read, say, 5,000 pages of a tax bill.
BTW, who is to write all this legislation? Certainly not Joe Sixpack. Lawyers write laws for a reason - it's a complicated undertaking, full of technical language which must be written to survive testing in courts. Letting the general public write laws would quickly swamp the country in unintended consequences.
Don't get me wrong - representative democracy sucks. The reality is that there is no good form of government where humans are involved.
As a way to deal with the information overload, after the baseline system has been established, citizens should be able to nominate a representative to cast their vote on their behalf. Not someone who has chosen to run, but anyone who they feel they trust most. This should be revocable at any time.
Baseline system: constitution in 1789. Representative to cast votes: congressman. Revocable: elections. Your proposal is a distinction from our modern system without much of a difference. If you think what you propose wouldn't quickly descend into a similar system of corruption, lobbying, and abuse, you don't know humans.
Advice: on VPS providers
You write source code in the way you do because it has a specific audience that is intended to be able to understand it and behave according to that understanding. That audience is a computer.
You write laws because there is a specific audience that is intended to be able to understand them and behave according to that understanding. That audience is a citizen.
These facts being true, which they are, I have two questions for you:
a) What makes you think it's impossible to craft laws in a way that the citizen can understand when it's possible to craft programs that a hunk of silicon can understand?
b) What makes you think it's important to dedicate such efforts to creating programs that a computer can understand, and yet not worth the trouble to make sure the laws that govern your behavior are understandable to you?
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
"I'm not an anti-semite, I'm just anti-Israel" ranks up with "I'm not a racist, some of my best friends are (black, hispanic, asian, etc)" on the bullshit-o-meter, buddy.
That's pretty unfair, and definitely doesn't fit the other poster's comments.
We can separate the actions of governments from the people they govern, and criticise them accordingly. That's normal, rational behaviour.
I look at the previous government of Australia (my country) and often criticised them for their policies. I'm not anti-Australian, I'm just not pro-Liberal (the local conservatives have an ironic name).
Similarly I can criticise the governments of the US, UK and Israel for various things without being anti-US, anti-UK and anti-Israeli (or anti-Semite) respectively.
For the record, I definitely do criticise the Israeli government for their lying about nuclear capability, for their often lethal attacks on civilians and for their habit of occasionally killing a foreign journalist in cold blood and then pretending they didn't spot the bright orange outfits or the camera crews. I also criticise the Palestinian government and Hamas for their insane campaign of terrorism, their willingness to kill and die rather than shut up until they get to the negotiating table and the atrocious tactic of using civilians as shields so that they can then paint Israel as evil for killing civilians.
Maybe you'll call me anti-Semite too, but it's bullshit and we both know it.
Lastly, it's entirely possible that Wikipedia has issues of bias. Just about every publication around the world seems to be biased for or against someone. Exposing it is a good thing, as is exposing any unwillingness to correct bias.