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."
Which will then prove malicious intent; they are government employees but still are lawyers and could risk their careers with such a move.
This kind of activity is carried in the shadows, as soon as you shine a bright light, they disappear into the bushes..
Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never, ever get it out. - Cardinal Wolsey
That's all well and good, but honestly, how would you propose we stop government from editing wikipedia. Wikipedia is what it is. An open community inviting everyone to the table. Do you think Google has any less at stake than the Department of Justice? Maybe, I'm sure they are happily moderating their wikipedia pages. Would THEY be justified in changing articles? I doubt it, but everyone has a stake in information. Wikipedia is information, everyone has a stake in wikipedia. As much as I hate to say it, shutting off any one side of the argument throws off the balance that a site like wikipedia should create naturally.
I've always thought that a direct democracy, in which everyone has the right to vote on every issue, would be a good base.
It's historically been determined to be impractical because most of the population works at labour and doesn't have access to information, and because the capacity to communicate your vote in a timely fashion was too impractical.
However, with the current state of technology being what it is, these issues are no longer the barriers that they once were.
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.
If we did this, during times of crisis, the natural pack tendencies of humans will cause them to self-organize into something resembling the modern political structure because it is efficient and a powerful tool to deal with problems.
However, there would be a built in mechanism in the system to allow that consolidation of power to cease when the threat is gone, allowing greater autonomy.
Basically, a new constitution is needed that lays all this out, and supporting infrastructure needs to be built.
This is a practical solution to the problems of corruption. It won't, of course, protect people from their own stupidity, but then, nothing ever does...
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
Entirely correct. The DoJ IPs are blocked for a certain length of time; the DoJ has not been banned, i.e. told to bugger off and not come back for x amount of time.
This sort of thing happens all the time, when a company or government department has an employee being dickish on Wikipedia from their work address; it's generally sorted out quietly and without a fuss, because the company/dept is understandably embarrassed by it. And the company BOFH can be trusted to deal with the offender in future.
(Then, of course, there's Overstock.com.)
http://rocknerd.co.uk
>i>"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.
First, never said I was 100% anti-anything. I disagree with some of Israels actions, and current ideologies. This doesn't even make me anti-Israel (much less antisemitic), I acknowledge that the Israeli state has the right to exist, and disaprove of ANY violence (from any side). Your argument is thus; "My child misbehaves, I dislike this, therefore I dislike my child", which is obviously silly.
Second, your argument doesn't make sense. Israel is a country, not the sum total of the Jewish experience. They are separate entities, I can like one of them, but not the other with no paradox. I also disapprove of many of the US's actions, but obviously don't dislike Americans (being one). The people ARE NOT the country.
This flaw in reasoning has tainted the whole middle eastern debate.
As for the rest - really, why is Wikipedia so worried about people trying to improve their articles with sourced information? Why are they so worried that systemic bias in the Israel-related articles might be (gasp!) removed?
As you stated, Wikipedia isn't the most... unbiased... of entities itself. This probably plays a role. Also, to be generous, this topic is MASSIVELY contested, therefore all edits should be suspect, and held to higher standards than on non-controversial topics. Everyone has an agenda, everyone thinks that is represents the truth. This may be what they are doing. I honestly have no idea.
For that matter, why is "Electronic Intifada" a source to be trusted in this regard? It's just as likely that there are already organized Muslim/anti-semitic groups on wikipedia messing with these pages; they used to operate openly (Wikiproject Islam: The Muslim Guild/The Sunni Guild/The Shia Guild/etc) until they decided they'd work better hiding their affiliation, and there are users to this day running around with pro-Hezbollah buttons prominent on their pages.
Why is any source to be trusted? Yes, it seems a flippant question, but the truth is that EVERYONE has an agenda on this issue. The only trusted source would be a pure, uninterested, 3rd party. I don't know if any of those exist anymore.
In fact, one of the users with a pro-Hezbollah button (User Tiamut) is one of the ones who was working so hard to get the complainant above banned from wikipedia. Think about it; since under real application of wikipedia policy their bias-pushing edits wouldn't hold, the next best thing is to try to get the opposition banned from wikipedia.
This is one of my largest complaints about how Wikipedia works. This happens all the time, and not just on this topic. Go read the talk pages on Ayn Rand for example. Wikipedia is too political (in the social sense, and the public sense) to be a valid reference on any issue that holds any psychological weight.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey