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."
Someone stands up to them. Now I think if the RIAA ever comes after me I will overrule them...I guess what I'm trying to say is I for one welcome our Self overruling overlords.
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.
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
Meet stone.
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...
It's consistent. The Department of Defense is responsible for attacking other countries. The Fire Department is responsible for extinguishing fires. Clearly, the Department of justice is responsible for preventing any justice from happening.
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
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>"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
"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.