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."

Comments

It's about time...

[Erie Ed]

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.

Should the DOJ and Gov't Edit Wikipedia?

[iamhigh]

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.

Re:Should the DOJ and Gov't Edit Wikipedia?

[Telvin_3d]

The argument is only valid if you view 'the government' as a single faceless monolithic entity. I'll guarantee that 90% of edits coming from various government IP addresses are interns on their coffee breaks.

Re:Our long national nighmare is almost over

[ShieldW0lf]

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...

Re:Good for individuals, useless for organizations

[David Gerard]

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.)