Slashdot Mirror


Wikipedia Edits Forecast Vice Presidential Picks

JimLane writes "The Washington Post reports on the findings of Cyveillance, a company that 'normally trawls the Internet for data on behalf of clients seeking open source information in advance of a corporate acquisition, an important executive hire, or brand awareness.' Cyveillance decided 'on a lark' to test its methods by monitoring the Wikipedia biographies of Vice-Presidential prospects. The conclusion? If you'd been watching Wikipedia you might have gotten an advance tipoff of Friday's announcement that McCain was selecting Sarah Palin. 'At approximately 5 p.m. ET (Thursday), the company's analysts noticed a spike in the editing traffic to Palin's Wiki page, and that some of the same Wiki users appeared to be making changes to McCain's page.'" The article goes on to say that watching Wikipedia pages for the Democratic VP hopefuls would have tipped Obama's choice of Biden, as well. NPR also has coverage (audio).

152 comments

  1. What's This? by iamwhoiamtoday · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Politicians (or their group) editing wiki pages in order to appear better to the public? (the same people who have the power to put them in office) Gasp. Shocked I am. I honestly am starting to expect this kind of thing. PS: I do think that it's rather interesting, looking for spikes in Wiki traffic to predict assorted events, perhaps we should start monitoring the "US invades the entire middle east" page

    1. Re:What's This? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It is called traffic analysis. An old trick of what used to be called trade craft and probably is by the spooks

    2. Re:What's This? by Z00L00K · · Score: 5, Interesting

      So if an event is expected it may pay off to monitor the Wikipedia traffic to the related pages and by that forgo the official announcement.

      This poses some interesting prospects. Like if it was possible for party A to beforehand predict that a certain alternative was going to be selected by party B and therefore making that selection problematic.

      Only way around this is of course to make sure that the inner circle doesn't use the web for a while before official announcements are done.

      And this does of not only apply to politics but also to a lot of other events. Like potential inside affairs when it comes to buying/selling on the stock market. Pattern analysis evolves, and it may not even be necessary to actually listen in to a certain message, just measure the amount of traffic to a certain node to make a statistically based deduction. So even if you encrypt your information it may be traced and therefore provide valuable information.

      At least we do live in interesting times!

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    3. Re:What's This? by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      Wikipedia has banned Senators from making edits in the past and while I know it's a futile attempt to stop them from doing it full stop. When found out they should lock those pages and revert it back to the pre-tweaking stage until the election is over.

    4. Re:What's This? by tubapro12 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wikipedia's edits forecast the future? Don't they say the same thing about Nostradamus' Les Propheties ?

      What's that? It's easy to see trends from nothing leading to something after the fact..?

    5. Re:What's This? by iamwhoiamtoday · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I do want to point out that because this article is being read by thousands and thousands of people, the assorted political groups are likely to not make the same mistake again. They will most likely compensate for this in the future.

    6. Re:What's This? by OpenSourced · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Only way around this is of course to make sure that the inner circle doesn't use the web for a while before official announcements are done.

      The problem is of course that they want the biographies "updated" for all the press and other interested parties that are going to hit Google in the first hour after the announcement.

      So much more likely will be that before such announcements, they will update like ten or twenty biographies, to mask which is the real one.

      That of course if they care enough.

      --
      Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
    7. Re:What's This? by Columcille · · Score: 1

      First, this wasn't some edit to make the politician look better but info to provide the running mate. Second, why wouldn't a candidate or his staff edit information about the candidate? Who better knows about that candidate? One might well question bias but it's easy enough to go in and tone things down if, say, one of Obama's supporters gets a little too exuberant on his Wikipedia page. It's wikipedia. That's the way it works.

      --
      I love my sig.
    8. Re:What's This? by smittyoneeach · · Score: 4, Funny

      Indeed. They'll just have the staff whip up edits to several other distractor pages.
      Think of the cable news effects.
      Olberman: This just in: Oh My God! Traffic analysis on Wikipedia seems to indicate that Michael Moore might pick me to be his Vice President! I'm going to need a private moment, folks. Excuse me.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    9. Re:What's This? by lazy_playboy · · Score: 2, Informative

      So much more likely will be that before such announcements, they will update like ten or twenty biographies, to mask which is the real one.

      Perhaps, although personally I would prepare any edits in advance and make them at exactly the same time as any announcement (/leak or whatever)

    10. Re:What's This? by Sj0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This story is completely meaningless.

      Anyone can stand up after the fact and say "Hey! I could've predicted this!"

      --
      It's been a long time.
    11. Re:What's This? by Fael · · Score: 2, Funny

      I knew someone would make that point sooner or later.

    12. Re:What's This? by Sj0 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I had a feeling someone would say that.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    13. Re:What's This? by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 4, Funny

      To commit suicide ?

    14. Re:What's This? by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 3, Informative

      Just one more example of wikipedia's "neutrality" NPOV policy being used to promote exactly 1 point of view, silencing all others.

      As has been the point of half the comments on this story ... I don't think anyone's surprised at all.

    15. Re:What's This? by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

      Obviously this information will be biased, and any inconveniences obscured.

      NPOV on wikipedia should be called MPOV (my point of view), because that's how everybody uses it.

    16. Re:What's This? by chunk08 · · Score: 3, Funny

      We can only hope...

      --
      Do away with our corrupt tax code. Support the Fair Tax
    17. Re:What's This? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone may find my comment completly offtopic, but I finally understood what the hell POV stands for. Seriously... I never had the trouble to google it.

      I think, in the end, all this time spent on slashdot finally paid off.

    18. Re:What's This? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2, Funny

      It is called traffic analysis. An old trick of what used to be called trade craft and probably is by the spooks

      They could have figured out the same thing if they had paid attention to the increase in pizza-deliveries to the alaska governor's mansion for the two days beforehand too.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    19. Re:What's This? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that really any different than people with political axes to grind editing the pages to make politicians appear worse to the public?

      They are using wiki the same way others do, so no bitching.

    20. Re:What's This? by Z34107 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It is called traffic analysis. An old trick of what used to be called trade craft and probably is by the spooks

      Except that they used to literally analyze traffic - if you see a lot of cars in a parking lot overnight, it means people are working late hours and that, presumably, something is happening. If you see triple the usual amount of cars parked outside the Department of Defense, it may be something to phone home about.

      --
      DATABASE WOW WOW
    21. Re:What's This? by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      perhaps we should start monitoring the "US invades the entire middle east" page

      Why bother, with 4 more years of mcsame being inevitable, the war with iran is inevitable and with 4 more years of labour/conservatives here, the uk being you bitch and going in with you is also inevitable.

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    22. Re:What's This? by Teancum · · Score: 1

      They didn't "ban Senators" from editing, but they did call into question edits that apparently came from congressional office IP address ranges that attempted to whitewash biographies on Wikipedia.

      People are generally discouraged from editing their own biographies on Wikipedia, although fixing factually inaccurate information is not explicitly prohibited. This certainly isn't a problem restricted to biographies of politicians either.

    23. Re:What's This? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All according to plan...

    24. Re:What's This? by xenocide2 · · Score: 1

      "They" didn't use it to analyze literal traffic. "They" used it to analyze the flow of communications, for things like who talks to who. If you have monitoring in place, you can uncover communication hubs that are a) critical to the flow of information and b) are likely command centers who's destruction would leave opposing military momentarily crippled.

      The wikipedia stuff is a bit stronger than mere traffic analysis. It is similar, though. We know the contents of edits, and which page they intend to edit. Rather than just noticing communication with wikipedia increasing for both McCain and Palin, we noice that offices were hitting both pages in greater frequency than others. Correlating edits requires a bit of a redefinition of "traffic" to make the connection.

      --
      I Browse at +4 Flamebait

      Open Source Sysadmin

  2. Leaks to Wikipedia by Apple+Acolyte · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's pretty cool that Wikipedia has become a de-facto official source of leaks for such information. Fox News was reporting that Palin had moved to the top of the list but had no confirmation of her selection about an hour before officials confirmed it, and at that time they reported that Wikipedia listed her as the pick. Someone within the campaign evidently leaked it to Wikipedia before leaking it to offline media.

    --
    Part of the hardcore faithful who believed in Apple long before it was cool again to do so
    1. Re:Leaks to Wikipedia by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But the problem with that is some random jackass could see "Oh, so-and-so is PROBABLY going to be picked, so I'll edit it to say they were picked, since it's going to happen anyway."

      And that edit could get picked up by tons of people and spread around, even if it's not accurate.

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    2. Re:Leaks to Wikipedia by djcapelis · · Score: 4, Funny

      And that edit could get picked up by tons of people and spread around, even if it's not accurate.[citation needed]

      --
      I touch computers in naughty places
    3. Re:Leaks to Wikipedia by fyoder · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But the problem with that is some random jackass could see "Oh, so-and-so is PROBABLY going to be picked, so I'll edit it to say they were picked, since it's going to happen anyway."

      Aye. Had wikipedia existed back in 1948 someone might have written "Dewey and Warren won a sweeping victory in the presidential election yesterday. The early returns showed the Republican ticket leading Truman and Barkley pretty consistently in the western and southern states."

      --
      Loose lips lose spit.
    4. Re:Leaks to Wikipedia by ericspinder · · Score: 3, Informative

      I was one of the people who viewed (didn't edit) her page that morning, I did so, because I had heard that there was a private jet that had just landed in Dayton, OH, apparently under a great deal of secrecy, which had a fight plan from Alaska. That fact was replicated at the bottom of her wikipedia page. Otherwise the page looked like a fair, short, biography of the Governor. It even included information about her Troopergate scandal, however, it was just a short blurb. I didn't check the history page, one should always check the history page for a fast moving story.

      --
      The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.
    5. Re:Leaks to Wikipedia by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      and WTF where you doing watching Fox 'News' may i ask?

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    6. Re:Leaks to Wikipedia by theMatrix777 · · Score: 1

      It's pretty cool that Wikipedia has become a de-facto official source of leaks for such information. Fox News was reporting that Palin had moved to the top of the list but had no confirmation of her selection about an hour before officials confirmed it, and at that time they reported that Wikipedia listed her as the pick. Someone within the campaign evidently leaked it to Wikipedia before leaking it to offline media.

      Fox would not report it because as a news organization they are under a moral obligation, if nothing else, to not release rumor as fact.

      They did the right thing. Wikipedia did not.

  3. Pre hoc, ergo propter hoc by Eudial · · Score: 1

    So basically, TFS says that wikipedia edits are made to a relevant article prior to an event, and therefore, these wikipedia articles were caused by the event.

    Come on! Some skepticism please. You need a lot bigger sample size than this to make any sort of statement in either direction.

    Oh, and yeah, cue jokes about wikipedia's supposed lack of skepticism.

    --
    GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
    1. Re:Pre hoc, ergo propter hoc by ptbarnett · · Score: 4, Informative

      So basically, TFS says that wikipedia edits are made to a relevant article prior to an event, and therefore, these wikipedia articles were caused by the event.

      The tip-off seems to be that the same people were editing both the Presidental and (eventual) Vice-Presidential candidate pages. The same pattern was observed with Obama/Biden.

    2. Re:Pre hoc, ergo propter hoc by MBCook · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So... people interested and informed in politics?

      --
      Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
    3. Re:Pre hoc, ergo propter hoc by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      The tip-off seems to be that the same people were editing both the Presidental and (eventual) Vice-Presidential candidate pages. The same pattern was observed with Obama/Biden.

      And now we need someone to whois all the IPs that were doing the editing so that we can see just who had advance notice.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    4. Re:Pre hoc, ergo propter hoc by Fred+Ferrigno · · Score: 1

      Biden was a much more predictable pick, so it's not surprising that his page got extra attention. He was one of three people commonly cited in the media as on being on Obama's shortlist. His trip to Georgia boosted his profile. Then the day before the announcement, it was leaked that neither Bayh nor Kaine were going to be the VP, leaving Biden as the obvious choice. (Chet Edwards not withstanding.)

    5. Re:Pre hoc, ergo propter hoc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      This whole thing is nonsensical. I did some research on this myself earlier in the day wading through hundreds of diffs.

      On the democrat side:
      We had a very good idea days before the official announcement it was Biden. Obamas people said their pick would be no surprise and it was common knowledge most of the other runner ups were not chosen essentially leading to Biden.

      On the republican side:
      There was a small edit war starting on the 28th for Palin someone kept writing it was her and other people changed it back to a less assertive statement. Other edits to Palins page said it was Tom Ridge and there were similiar edits to Tom Ridges page proclaiming he was the VP pick.

      There were no similiar edits asserting VP nomination (although there were "rumor" sections) on the Liberman or Romney pages.

      People noticing frequency of edits then using that as an indicator of prior knowledge is not a very convincing argument as increased interest would naturally follow increased edits as the expected announcement neared. Comments regarding Palin as a possible VP pick have been included on her page for many months.

      The only *intersting* thing I took away from this is how in the last two days the conterversy sections of Palins article which survived several months suddenly disappeared in a puff of smoke over the last two days?

  4. Subject intentionally left blank by jadin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hindsight is 20/20. Now try using this to _predict_ something correctly.

    1. Re:Subject intentionally left blank by RealGrouchy · · Score: 5, Funny

      I predict that people will interpret the findings of this article as meaning more than they do.

      - RG>

      --
      Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
    2. Re:Subject intentionally left blank by Snaller · · Score: 1

      The world will end within a year, i've seen it on wikipedia!

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  5. They should monitor my care levels by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

    I'm seeing a very steep downward trend.

    1. Re:They should monitor my care levels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still high enough for you to say something about it.

    2. Re:They should monitor my care levels by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      Obviously my care levels aren't at zero or they would not have a steep downward trend but don't worry it's almost there.

    3. Re:They should monitor my care levels by maxume · · Score: 1

      I am sorry to hear that your insurance has run out.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  6. Another indicator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It reminds me of one they figured out years ago that when there's a major military move about to happen there's a spike in Dominoes orders at the White House from everyone working late.

    1. Re:Another indicator by pcolaman · · Score: 1

      Or a really big pot party.

    2. Re:Another indicator by smittyoneeach · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, it was the Gulf War at the Pentagon with the 'za:
      http://tafkac.org/politics/pentagon_pizza.html

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
  7. Let me ask a question by dunezone · · Score: 0

    How many people do you think googled Sarah Palin after she was announced as McCains running mate? And how many of those people looked for a Wikipedia entry?

    Thats why it was edited. Cause no one knew who she was.

    1. Re:Let me ask a question by nickswitzer · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The only way to combat the editing (no one was going to google her before the announcement) would be to have people compile the information they want ahead of time, and then when the announcement is made, do a quick update on wikipedia.org. This would have completed what they wanted and also not provided a bread trail for these people to use for their "prediction".

    2. Re:Let me ask a question by brian_tanner · · Score: 1

      I think you're missing the implication of the article. The implication that I got was that people who already knew who the VP candidate would be were tasked with updating the article so that when the masses looked up her page, the information would be more accurate (or more appealing to potential voters).

      This strategy makes very good sense for the candidates, and so monitoring those pages seems like a quite natural predictor a few hours before an announcement is made.

    3. Re:Let me ask a question by Toonol · · Score: 1

      I looked up Sarah Palin on Wikipedia a week ago as I was researching VP potentials. I didn't make an edit, because I didn't see anything in error. But she was a known potential (although a long shot), and it's reasonable to think that traffic would surge as we got closer to McCain's announcement.

      And if traffic spikes, edits will naturally spike also.

  8. IP addresses for Biden's office and Alaska's gov. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    156.33.15.0 - 156.33-15.255 146.63.0.0 - 146.63.255.255 if you want to check. Wikiscanner is a year out of date, so don't bother with it, though.

  9. It's interesting, but not predictive. by Anik315 · · Score: 1

    It's somewhat interesting that there was a spike in editing for Sarah Palin's wiki, but that information is hardly predictive of McCain's decision. Regardless of what everyone thought about the kind of VP she would make, the pick itself was a genuine surprise just about everyone including Palin herself. Personally, I had my bets on Lieberman and I still think he would have been made McCain the most competitive against Obama and Biden given the Republican base consists mostly of men.

    1. Re:It's interesting, but not predictive. by gd2shoe · · Score: 1

      Ah, but it's not about the base. It's about the swing voters. In this case, stealing dissatisfied Clinton voters.

      You use scare tactics to get the base out to vote (convince them that they really don't want Obama) and you use appeasement to get the swing voters to vote for you (oh, a woman).

      I'm not saying she wont make a good candidate; we'll see when the dirt gets dug up. It would be fun for the Republicans to get a woman in the white house before the Democrats do. I think it's a nice touch, even if it is blatant political pandering.

      --
      I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    2. Re:It's interesting, but not predictive. by pcolaman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Even as a registered Republican, I think the world (mostly) of Lieberman (the only thing I dislike about him is his stance on censoring games, but then again most senators and representatives are for this) but think that his choice would've sealed the deal for Obama. Many of McCain's own constituents don't want to see a Pro-Choice ticket, and with Lieberman on the ticket they would be more likely to just stay at home on Nov. 4. It was a very smart strategic play by McCain to pick Palin for several reasons. She's not establishment, which is a stigma that I'm surprised the Obama camp hasn't tried to label McCain with more. She's a mother of 5, including a special needs child, so if Biden hammers her too hard in the VP debates it could appear to some that he's picking on a woman and therefore create an image of someone who's cold and hard. This is definitely not the image I'd want to paint if I was a Democratic candidate, since they are supposed to be the party of the common man (bullcrap IMO, I actually think the party system should be abolished, but that's just my view). She also gives McCain someone who is strong on reform issues and is a whistle blower, something that you can hardly say about Romney or Pawlenty. Personally I think it was a good choice, as all anyone was talking about yesterday was her, not Obama's speech. Stole some of his thunder. Whether it works for McCain in the end has yet to be seen, but it will be certainly interesting to watch the Biden Palin debate, whereas I think I would have just watched something else rather than Biden v. Romney or Biden v. Pawlenty. They both would've been boring choices indeed. Whatever happens, it's going to be a fairly close election, although not as close as 2000.

    3. Re:It's interesting, but not predictive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm curious, would you vote for Bush if he was allowed a third term? McCain voted with Bush 95% of the time in 2007, and 100% of the time so far this year. In terms of policy, voting for McCain is basically voting for a third term for Bush.

    4. Re:It's interesting, but not predictive. by ricegf · · Score: 1

      I think your analysis is spot on, even though I'm decidedly not a registered Republican. If only 5% of Hillary's supporters were so based primarily on her gender, McCain would still pull 2% from the Democratic base. That's could easily be enough to sway the election (they've been really close lately, if you haven't been watching). And yes, I just pulled those numbers out of my hat; it's political debate. :-)

      Palin has the "maverick" image that McCain has made central to his campaign, while simultaneously turning the openly hostile (to McCain) Republican base almost giddy overnight. And Obama's campaign has already signaled they won't touch a direct Palin attack line with a 10 foot pole - and attacking McCain for picking someone so inexperienced just begs for a comparison with Obama's short career (relative to McCain or Biden).

      The down side is that all of those previously disaffected Republicans won't be voting Libertarian this year. Drat it all.

    5. Re:It's interesting, but not predictive. by ricegf · · Score: 1

      given the Republican base consists mostly of men

      Cite, please? The current polls don't appear to back up your claim.

      Obama currently leads by thirteen points among women while McCain leads by six among men. Among white women, the candidates are essentially even while McCain holds a substantial lead among white men (see other recent demographic observations).

      Democrats are a bit stronger among women overall, and Republicans among men, but it sounds a lot more complex than your overly simplistic "mostly men" to me.

    6. Re:It's interesting, but not predictive. by flyingsquid · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Ah, but it's not about the base. It's about the swing voters. In this case, stealing dissatisfied Clinton voters.

      If that is the strategy, I don't think that it is going to work particularly well. Sure, Sarah Palin is a woman, but that's where the resemblance to Hillary Clinton starts and ends. She's an evangelical Christian who thinks that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the classroom. She says she's not convinced that global warming is the result of human activity. She opposes abortion even in the case of incest or rape. When the environment and industry are at odds, she's squarely on the side of industry. She does have good qualities, but she actually pushes the ticket to the right in terms of values and issues. As a centrist Democrat, the chances of me voting for McCain have just gone from slim to none.

      Of course, that may be intentional: McCain may be trying to shore up his support on the right. If so, then that's a bad sign. The Democrats are enthusiastic and Obama has built a powerful political machine; that McCain is still trying to figure out how to generate enthusiasm this late in the game is not a good sign.

    7. Re:It's interesting, but not predictive. by ricegf · · Score: 3, Interesting

      that McCain is still trying to figure out how to generate enthusiasm this late in the game is not a good sign.

      Perhaps, although his campaign raised $4 million over the Internet in the 24 hours after the announcement. Their previous single-day fund-raising record was under a million. So at least he seems to have figured it out. :-)

    8. Re:It's interesting, but not predictive. by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      Was that not the blatant plan?
      1) Hillary fails to sell Obama to her supporters (how hard would it have been to say "i did some silly things when i thought i was the best candidate, but now i realise...")
      2) McCain suddenly announces a female VP who he barely knows.

      had hillary sold obama to her supporters (or just been less of a bitch in her campaign trail) then there is no way McCain would have gone with palin.

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    9. Re:It's interesting, but not predictive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or he actually doesn't want to be President! Honestly.

    10. Re:It's interesting, but not predictive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She opposes abortion even in the case of incest or rape.

      That's a logical anti-abortion policy.

      It *is* about not murdering babies, right? Or are babies conceived by incest or rape somehow less worth protecting?

      (I'm pro choice, but I find the "except in cases of incest or rape" clause of most pro-lifers morally disgusting.)

    11. Re:It's interesting, but not predictive. by will_die · · Score: 1

      The election is not until November and most people are not even that much interested in it until a month or so out. That McCain is generating enthusiasm is the exact same thing the Democrats did with their convention and what the Republicans will be doing at their convention.
      As for Democrats voting for McCain because of the sex of his Vice it will happen and as evidence just look a the various Republicans the Obama camp has brought out who say they are voting for him because of his race. Also if you go by survies Republicans are more sure in their beliefs then most Democrats are so who cares what Palin believes in you can expect Democrats to vote for her because of her sex.

    12. Re:It's interesting, but not predictive. by ncc74656 · · Score: 1

      Personally, I had my bets on Lieberman and I still think he would have been made McCain the most competitive against Obama and Biden given the Republican base consists mostly of men.

      You must not be a Republican; if you were, you would've known better than to make that assertion. McCain was in the doghouse with the base over his "maverickyness" (for lack of a better word). If he'd picked a lib like Lieberman (or Tom Ridge, for that matter), he would only have driven more Republicans to stay home. Instead, with Sarah Palin on board, the base has been energized in a way it hasn't been in months. Instead of merely voting against Mr. Hopey Changitude, we now have a reason to vote for the McCain ticket.

      If you followed the conservative blogs, you would've known this. There was even plenty of chatter in recent weeks about how Palin would be a good pick. There was some hope that she might be picked, but there was also a fair bit of skepticism over whether Maverick would go there. Whether his staffers picked up blog chatter and passed it along or not, I can't say.

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
  10. why I don't believe in conspiracy by fermion · · Score: 5, Interesting
    When working at various companies, I always monitored the stock price. Invariably, the few days prior to major announcement the stock volumes would go crazy.

    Invariably someone will slip up and do something to give the game away and such traffic analysis will give the game away. All that is required is that someone look.

    This is especially true for government conspiracy. For the most part, too many people have to be involved, and too many people are looking.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    1. Re:why I don't believe in conspiracy by Jeff321 · · Score: 1

      The interesting thing is that someone with knowledge of the VP pick could have made big money on it, much like a stock. http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/common/c_cd.jsp?conDetailID=607621&z=1220132512721

    2. Re:why I don't believe in conspiracy by pcolaman · · Score: 1

      Which they better hope is not caught onto by the SEC, insider trading is a serious crime. When I worked for a major ISP, we were specifically barred from buying or selling stock shares within about a 3 day window before or after a major transaction or announcement.

    3. Re:why I don't believe in conspiracy by ddoz · · Score: 1

      and too many people are looking.

      At their television sets maybe.

  11. It just goes to show... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Funny

    campaign organizations, as a whole, are still idiots.

  12. Too late by Darkness404 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Too late, the elections are already decided http://www.theonion.com/content/video/diebold_accidentally_leaks

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    1. Re:Too late by pcolaman · · Score: 1

      Well perhaps we can finally start watching the news again.

    2. Re:Too late by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      Not lately. Besides the endless election coverage there is all this "OMG a hurricane!!!!11!1!!1" talk going on that anything dealing with it gets breaking news status.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  13. Text of NPR story by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

    If you don't want to put up with listening to audio:
    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94118849
    It's not as complete as the WP story though.

  14. Re:So sick of politics by pcolaman · · Score: 2, Funny

    So what are they missing now? What's the opportunity cost of all this insufferable coverage of minor insects like Joe Biden and this Alaskan twit? What's the big story of the decade that we're not hearing about?

    Your mom revealing that she really didn't mean to bring such an angry child into the world.

  15. Re:So sick of politics by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1
    --
    Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
  16. Re:Palin still a ReThuglican Jew Puppet c*nt by Maguscrowley · · Score: 1

    Wow, this is astounding.

    I've been so engulfed by Jewish culture here in Pikesville MD, and have been part of it for so ling that I sometimes forget that this sort of bigotry is actually still out there.I'm equally astounded that someone even considers a persons religious background as more than a biographical note when forming an opinion of them.

    I'm starting to remember why I don't bother with that outside world much.

    Anyway, the article doesn't really explain the mechanics of how this analysis works. Do they just run a program to fetch the page every n seconds, use a reg exp to find the area where the number of edits are, get the counter and repeat for some number of hours?

    I guess that this is possible but it seems a bit crude. Anyone know a more sophisticated method? err ... does anyone know a more sophisticated legal method?

  17. I wonder if this works for other events by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm going to start watching the page on Hurricane Gustav to see what buildings will get destroyed.
    I wonder how well that would with the pages for foreign nations.

  18. Biased Much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After reading Palin's page, it is very heavily biased against her.... Taking a lot of time/space to highlight various less than rosy portions of her Governorship. It is pretty sad, IMO, that wikipedia can't be more balanced. But obviously that is asking too much.

    1. Re:Biased Much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems fairly balanced, other than for the complete lack of any reference to the term MILF. She doesn't even show up on the first page of a google search on that term, though I suppose it's still early days.

    2. Re:Biased Much? by Miseph · · Score: 1

      Not saying this is the case, as I don't live in Alaska and don't care, but if she's a lousy governor than it would make perfect sense for her Wikipedia page to focus on things she screwed up.

      Honestly, if she is/was a good governor, then edit the page to reflect that, don't just bitch that the page is "unbalanced" because it doesn't spend an equal amount of words on her good points and bad points.

      --
      Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
  19. Re:Palin still a ReThuglican Jew Puppet c*nt by Giometrix · · Score: 1

    Palin is still a ReThuglican Jew Puppet cunt!

    Another 4 years of that Jew Puppet Bu$Hitler Chimpy McHaliburtin

    I am sure her down syndrome kid will make a good ReThuglican. It is already smaller than Chimpy the Jew Boy.

    Vote for Hope
    Vote for Change
    Vote for Obama.

    Just so you know.... this kind of talk actually hurts your cause... or did you really think someone would read your comment and say "oh wow, she really is a jew puppet cunt; I'm going to vote for Obama now!" ?.

    --
    Download free e-books, lectures, and tutorials at bookgoldmine.com
  20. Cyveillance are slimy by Bert64 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I get lots of hits from cyveillance addresses to my web servers, and the hits from the cyveilance robot are masquerading as IE users, and they don't even bother to try and retrieve robots.txt...

    If you contact them about it they will offer to remove your address range from the spider, but this is also a lie, after contacting them and supplying address ranges for them to stop spidering they simply started spidering from a different source address, this time the whois record for the ipblock shows nothing unless you directly query cogent's whois server which again reveals the ranges are registered to cyveillance. This looks like a very poor attempt to hide their actions. Their spider also has a very recognizable pattern, so it would be easy to pick up anyway.

    When i attempted to contact them again, they simply ignored all of my mails.
    Incidentally, after being explicitly told their company has no permission to access my web servers, their continued attempts amount to unauthorized access.

    --
    http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    1. Re:Cyveillance are slimy by droopycom · · Score: 1

      You have no persmission to read my comments.

      Since you are still reading this comment, this is unauthorized access! Sue You!!

    2. Re:Cyveillance are slimy by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 1

      So, firewall all traffic coming from their IP addresses, and publish your blacklist so that others may do the same.

      --
      You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
    3. Re:Cyveillance are slimy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and you cant block them at the firewall instead of whining about it here....why exactly ?
      its because of idiots like you that we live in a everything that moves is a terrorist society. solve your own problems, idiot.

    4. Re:Cyveillance are slimy by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Incidentally, after being explicitly told their company has no permission to access my web servers, their continued attempts amount to unauthorized access.

      Bullshit. If the web were to work that way, it would kill it.
      You don't want them spidering your public website, then don't make it public.

      If I were you, I would fuck with them. Pollute their data. You've obviously been able to figure out which accesses are there's - use that knowledge to feed them disinformation. If you are lucky, you might even able to manipulate their clients in a way that can end indirectly making you money.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    5. Re:Cyveillance are slimy by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      Hey, who gave you the permission to reply to that guy's comments? Back on topic, does the GP's robots.txt have a "User-agent: cyveillance" entry? Can Cyveillance expect anyone to have such an entry?

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    6. Re:Cyveillance are slimy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Incidentally, after being explicitly told their company has no permission to access my web servers, their continued attempts amount to unauthorized access.

      Sounds to me like your webserver was granting them permission and even giving them the webpage.

    7. Re:Cyveillance are slimy by isorox · · Score: 1

      They don't download robots.txt, so how would they know. A Robot should also pay attention to User-agent: * as well. Finally, the robot masquerades as Internet Explorer.

      Blocking the IP range would seem to be the best solution.

    8. Re:Cyveillance are slimy by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Because they keep acquiring new address ranges to spider from.
      I had already blocked their original ranges after the first time, where they agreed not to continue spidering my sites. Then they came back with a new address range.
      So how would you propose i keep track of their ever changing address ranges?

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    9. Re:Cyveillance are slimy by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Other people have already blacklisted cyveillance, and they know this, which is why they have connectivity through multiple ISPs and a number of different address ranges, which get changed on a regular basis.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    10. Re:Cyveillance are slimy by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Yes, masquerading as a legitimate client is completely underhanded... None of the big search engines do that, and they all honor robots.txt.

      I did block the ip range, but note the original post where they just came back from a new range some time later. I have no idea how many ranges they have, and they seem to change their spidering ranges all the time.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    11. Re:Cyveillance are slimy by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      The law doesn't work that way...
      An unlocked door is not an invitation to trespass.

      In this case, their original ranges were blocked, but they went to extra lengths (acquiring new addresses) to bypass this block.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    12. Re:Cyveillance are slimy by Snaller · · Score: 1

      If you don't block them they won't change address? Then start feeding false pages to those ip numbers ;)

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    13. Re:Cyveillance are slimy by Snaller · · Score: 1

      The net doesn't work that way. If you don't put a password on a website it is available to everybody.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    14. Re:Cyveillance are slimy by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      No, it doesn't...
      I am well within my rights to deny you access.
      However requiring a password would be an unreasonable burden assuming i wanted to allow everyone else. By telling you that you're not permitted access, and blocking the address you access it from should be enough. If you access it from a new address intentionally to evade the technical measure in place (the ban) while you have knowingly been denied access then it's illegal.

      It's all down to intent, if you intentionally access something which you know the owner does not permit you access to, then you are breaking the law.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    15. Re:Cyveillance are slimy by Snaller · · Score: 1

      Bla bla bla.

      I just knew you were going to answer the one where you could troll.

      Yes it does. Try and go to court and we'll see who loses.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    16. Re:Cyveillance are slimy by Snaller · · Score: 1

      Oh and: Game over.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  21. After the fact? by linhares · · Score: 1
    After the fact? Thanks for telling me what could have predicted it.

    I, for one, think that it was the precise temperature in Alaska, or that McCain has a crush on her, as he does on Paris Hilton. My after the fact explanations are just as good as these. Correlation and Causation are now officially equal, I guess.

    1. Re:After the fact? by aviators99 · · Score: 1

      Good point. The day before the announcement, I checked out the registrations of the combinations of mccainxyz.com, where xyz was all of the people on the reported "short list". xyz==romney was the only one that wasn't obviously a cybersquatter and was even registered in Arizona! If he had been the selection, I could have written the same article about how anyone could have figured it out by using my method.

  22. Re:Palin still a ReThuglican Jew Puppet c*nt by JerkBoB · · Score: 1, Troll

    YHBT. HAND.

    --
    A host is a host from coast to coast...
    Unless it's down, or slow, or fails to POST!
  23. Re:Palin still a ReThuglican Jew Puppet c*nt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I actually support McCain. reverse psychology.......

  24. Reverse Troll? by spineboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This may be an example of a reverse troll. By taking an extreme opposite position, it makes your position look more reasonable.

    Republicans did this about 10 years ago, by pretending to be really annoying Democrats, calling people at inopportune hours, etc.

    --
    ..........FULL STOP.
    1. Re:Reverse Troll? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      [CITATION NEEDED]

    2. Re:Reverse Troll? by Alsee · · Score: 5, Interesting

      >Republicans did this about 10 years ago, by pretending to be really annoying Democrats, calling people at inopportune hours, etc.

      [CITATION NEEDED]

      Searching republican "false flag" robocalls brings up hundreds of good hits on it.
      Here's the first hit describing a series of MORE THAN 20 harrassing calls, pretending to be from the Democratic candidate. The Republicans act like jackasses making harrassing robocalls, trying to trick people into thinking the Democrat is the evil jackass, so that people will get annoyed and vote Republican.

      Republicans have done it countless times across the country. Here's the Slashot story on it. It cites it happening in 53 Congressional districts in 2006. So these false flag tactics are a common Republican ploy. The only problem with the original post is that it said "Republicans did this about 10 years ago". Republicans still do it. I hardly expect them to stop just for the 2008 election.

      If you, or anyone you know, gets annoying robocalls "from Democrats", they are likely from Republicans. They also like to run bogus phone "polls". They will ask wildly biased questions like "Candidate X voted against a law to protect children from pedophiles, does this make you more or less likely to vote for candidate X?" Where of course candidate "X" is the democratic candidate. By inserting "facts" about their opponent into "questions", they make it sound like innocent neutral information from an innocent neutral source, to hide the fact that they are actually wildly biased and distorted accusations being flung by a Republican smear campaign.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    3. Re:Reverse Troll? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This may be an example of a reverse troll. By taking an extreme opposite position, it makes your position look more reasonable.

      By that logic, all of Daily Kos and Democratic Underground are "reverse trolls". Because this:

      Palin is still a ReThuglican Jew Puppet cunt!

      Another 4 years of that Jew Puppet Bu$Hitler Chimpy McHaliburtin

      I am sure her down syndrome kid will make a good ReThuglican. It is already smaller than Chimpy the Jew Boy.

      is par-for-the-course for those that call themselves "progressives".

      Ironically, they also like to pat themselves on the back for their "tolerance".

    4. Re:Reverse Troll? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I really hope dirty tactics like these come back to bite the Republicans. The Democrats used to be the lesser of two evils, but they're just not in the same class of evil as the Republicans anymore. With the nomination of a truly revolutionary candidate, they might not be evil at all.

    5. Re:Reverse Troll? by unitron · · Score: 1

      The Democrats used to be the lesser of two evils, but they're just not in the same class of evil as the Republicans anymore.

      As someone smarter, or at least wittier, than I said here on Slashdot a couple or three years ago, "The Republicans are the party of evil, and the Democrats are the party of stupid."

      I'm still willing to consider them the lesser of two weasels, however.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    6. Re:Reverse Troll? by dasunt · · Score: 1

      Searching republican "false flag" robocalls brings up hundreds of good hits on it. Here's the first hit describing a series of MORE THAN 20 harrassing calls, pretending to be from the Democratic candidate. The Republicans act like jackasses making harrassing robocalls, trying to trick people into thinking the Democrat is the evil jackass, so that people will get annoyed and vote Republican.

      Republicans have done it countless times across the country. Here's the Slashot story on it. It cites it happening in 53 Congressional districts in 2006. So these false flag tactics are a common Republican ploy. The only problem with the original post is that it said "Republicans did this about 10 years ago". Republicans still do it. I hardly expect them to stop just for the 2008 election.

      If you, or anyone you know, gets annoying robocalls "from Democrats", they are likely from Republicans. They also like to run bogus phone "polls". They will ask wildly biased questions like "Candidate X voted against a law to protect children from pedophiles, does this make you more or less likely to vote for candidate X?" Where of course candidate "X" is the democratic candidate. By inserting "facts" about their opponent into "questions", they make it sound like innocent neutral information from an innocent neutral source, to hide the fact that they are actually wildly biased and distorted accusations being flung by a Republican smear campaign.

      There's not one unified Republican body, nor one unified Democratic body. Nor are misdeeds limited to one political party.

      To imply otherwise polarizes the population and does a disservice to constructive dialog between people.

      Incidentally, why does it necessarily have to be one party attacking another party? It could be a faction of the party attacking another faction. For example, I keep a random collection of RSS feeds going, and in one of those feeds, someone who is quite unhappy with the outcome of her party's primary is prone to repeat any negative accusation she can find about her party's presidential candidate. Assuming that she believes her candidate has a chance in 2012, she has incentive to torpedo the 2008 candidate's run.

    7. Re:Reverse Troll? by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Nor are misdeeds limited to one political party.

      Completely agreed.
      Politics sucks. Both parties suck.

      However it would be a fallacy to suggest that makes them equal.
      Both parties can engage in misdeeds where the misdeeds of one party are comparatively rare and/or minor while the misdeeds of the other are comparatively common and/or more severe.

      There's not one unified Republican body, nor one unified Democratic body.

      Both parties do have a leadership and command structure, and both parties have state and local levels of leadership and control, and of course both parties are filled with volunteer workers and other individuals who can engage in individual rogue bad acts. So you are absolutely right that blame does not automatically go to the party as a whole. A party as a whole should not be condemned for the actions of a rogue individual, so long as it did not foster such behavior and it responds appropriately to condemn/terminate/prohibit such actions. The national level of a party should not be condemned for problems at the state or local level, and the state level should not be condemned for problems at the local level, if the higher level did not foster such actions by the lower level, and so long as the higher level responds appropriately to condemn/terminate/prohibit such actions by the lower levels.

      We are talking here about a behavior that occurred in at least 53 congressional districts in 2006. And while 53 districts is only about 12% of all districts, it in fact represents a national systematic policy targeting contested races. Most races are forgone conclusions. Most races are known to be landslides for one party or the other. This "mere 12%", these 53 districts, in fact represent a systematic party policy of using dirty tactics to dishonestly tilt any race that might be close. They simply don't bother with such tactics in races they already know they can't win or can't lose.

      We are talking here about behavior that has been going on for a decade or more.

      Yes, it is completely appropriate to tag "the Republican party as a whole" for this. The national party gets intimately involved in contested races. It is beyond reason to suggest they did nothing to command or foster such activities across all of these contested national races, it is beyond reason to suggest they were unaware of such activities before or during them, and it is imposible to suggest they were unaware of them after the fact. Even going beyond all reason and granting the national party the most extreme benefit of the doubt, they at minimum knew-after-the-fact of such activities going on for a decade or more, and did nothing. Even granting the most extreme benefit of the doubt, the national party passively accepted such activities spreading to become the de-facto policy of the party as a whole.

      And I assert that false-flag robocalls is merely one example of dishonest election tactics. Whether it comes down by command as Republican National Committee strategy, or if it is an endemic culture of dishonesty coming up from below and passively condoned by party leadership, the Republican party has a culture accepting dishonest win-by-any-means politics.

      For example one main Republican strategy is a huge get-out-the-vote push with evangelicals. Which is perfectly legitimate. And the Democratic response to that is, in general, an attempt to reach out and win over some of those voters.

      A main Democratic strategy is a huge drive to register and get out the minority and other disadvantaged vote. Which is perfectly legitimate. And the all-too-common Republican response to that is are malicious, dishonest, and often even outright illegal, voter suppression tactics. Yes, many of the most outrageous cases can be blamed on rogue individuals or the local level of the party, but it is way too common, and it is culturally tolerated or fostered, and yes, in some cases the National level gets directly involved instituting such activities or battling for them in cour

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  25. LOL +1 by spineboy · · Score: 0, Redundant

    +1
    You owe me new keyboard - thank you.

    --
    ..........FULL STOP.
  26. Re:Palin still a ReThuglican Jew Puppet c*nt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Don't forget, people. A reverse troll is still a troll. Don't take parent seriously. Anyone who appears to, may be considered to be reverse trolling themselves. Best not to even respond.

  27. prediction markets; race and polls by bcrowell · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They say prediction is difficult, especially about the future. Yahoo has a "political dashboard" (flash app) that tries various things to predict the outcome of the presidential race. One technique they use is prediction markets, which are sort of similar to this thing about the wikipedia edits: instead of asking people their opinions, you watch their actions. In the yahoo dashboard app, you can click to switch between a map based on opinion polls and one based on prediction markets. One interesting thing is that the polls show Ohio leaning to McCain, but the prediction markets show it going to Obama. One thing that's really tough about predicting this election is that historically, racist white people have often lied to pollsters about their race-related opinions. Even though Obama is ahead in the polls, I'm kind of expecting that McCain will win, simply because the polls are likely to have this systematic error in them. OTOH, some people say that this racism-hiding effect in polls is no longer as strong as it used to be. The February Scientific American had an article that treated prediction markets with skepticism. Some of the evidence that people have been quoting in favor of prediction markets is apparently bogus, and nobody has the faintest clue how they really work.

    1. Re:prediction markets; race and polls by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Wait.. what kind of F'd up white racism would lead you to *claim* you're voting for the white candidate, then actually vote for the non-white one?

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    2. Re:prediction markets; race and polls by 4D6963 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The February Scientific American had an article that treated prediction markets with skepticism. Some of the evidence that people have been quoting in favor of prediction markets is apparently bogus, and nobody has the faintest clue how they really work.

      Well the basic idea behind the Iowa Electronic Markets is that people, anyone, can bet money (a limited amount) on who they think will win an election. Basically, polls ask people who they want to vote for, but arguably you'd have a better idea of the outcome of an election if you ask people not who they want to vote for but who they think will win. It's called the wisdom of crowds. Show a certain amount of people a jar full of pickles and they'll tell you about how many pickles are in, the more people you ask the more precise the results get (if I'm not mistaken under ideal conditions with a lack of a bias in their judgment 100 times more people should get it 10 times more precisely, that's like coherent averaging).

      That's the idea behind the IEM. With a twist, instead of just asking people who they think is gonna win, they make them bet on it, as becoming more interested in it makes them be more serious about it. And in case you're wondering, Obama is so winning!

      --
      You just got troll'd!
  28. Works with sports too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just won 500$ betting on my team by checking Wikipedia on the final results at halftime.

  29. Re:Palin still a ReThuglican Jew Puppet c*nt by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 0

    He is a racist, and if by "jew puppet cunt" he means that she will support Israel (or America for that matter, or any minority in America) better than Biden and/or Obama, then he is right.

    So I guess his message is "if you're racist, vote democrat". For the black puppet.

    That brings the question ... is this true ?
    On the DNC's website, the entire period from 1848 to the end of the 19th century is conveniently missing. Perhaps they'd like to sanitize the fact that they were the Party of Slavery, secession, Jim Crow, lynching, Segregation, KKK terrorism, and opposition to 100 years of Republican civil rights legislation . . . but we do not forget.

  30. Brilliant Pick Indeed by ricegf · · Score: 2, Funny

    Looks like McCain just wrapped up the election this year. I mean, he has all of Alaska's electors in the bag!

    1. Re:Brilliant Pick Indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It perfectly counters the 3 electors Obama picked up from Biden's state of Delaware!

    2. Re:Brilliant Pick Indeed by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      It perfectly counters the 3 electors Obama picked up from Biden's state of Delaware!

      Yeah, not like Joe Biden would have any influence on Pennsylvania, being born therOH WAIT A MINUTE!!

      --
      You just got troll'd!
  31. Here's one for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That would be the global population reduction plan. It will be made to look like an accident and be "natural". Some bioweapon release of some kind is my best guess, but they will claim it was a natural mutation.

  32. Reality 2.0 by Adrian+Lopez · · Score: 1

    For some reason this kind of politically-motivated editing reminds me of the words "he who controls the past, controls the future".

    --
    "In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
  33. Shh, don't read the blogs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bloggers suggested Palin months ago. But that won't show up on Wikipedia.

    1. Re:Shh, don't read the blogs. by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      Bloggers suggested Palin months ago. But that won't show up on Wikipedia.

      A bunch of people in the "internet community" pushed to have the "Snakes On A Plane" made too since it would be better than everything else!
      We all saw just how god-awful that went.
       

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
  34. Re:Palin still a ReThuglican Jew Puppet c*nt by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

    I've been so engulfed by Jewish culture here in Pikesville MD, and have been part of it for so ling that I sometimes forget that this sort of bigotry is actually still out there.I'm equally astounded that someone even considers a persons religious background as more than a biographical note when forming an opinion of them.

    I'm starting to remember why I don't bother with that outside world much.

    I'm originally from Maryland, you need to get outside a little more. You'll see it as soon as you get out of the bubble your in.

    As far as how they do it, really just from how traffic analysis works. Take a database scan of page accesses at one time, then scan them at certain intervals and count the differences.
    It's perfectly legal... outside of Maryland. If you sneeze in the wrong accent your hounded by the troops there.

    --
    -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
  35. Re:Palin still a ReThuglican Jew Puppet c*nt by XchristX · · Score: 1

    More than likely he's an agent provocateur from the other side.
    Stranger things have been seen on /.

    --
    l'Homme n'est Rien l'Oeuvre Tout: Gustave Flaubert to George Sand
  36. Re:Palin still a ReThuglican Jew Puppet c*nt by XchristX · · Score: 1

    [quote]
    On the DNC's website, the entire period from 1848 to the end of the 19th century is conveniently missing. Perhaps they'd like to sanitize the fact that they were the Party of Slavery, secession, Jim Crow, lynching, Segregation, KKK terrorism, and opposition to 100 years of Republican civil rights legislation . . . but we do not forget.
    [/quote]

    Yes, it's true. American "democrats" (who are not really "democratic") conveniently rewrite history to make themselves look like the good guys.

    Completely forgetting that Abe Lincoln was a Republican and the southern Democrats were all pro slavery once...

    --
    l'Homme n'est Rien l'Oeuvre Tout: Gustave Flaubert to George Sand
  37. Re:Palin still a ReThuglican Jew Puppet c*nt by rtb61 · · Score: 1

    Which is likely why it was anonymous, as it's real intent was to damage the person it supposedly was promoting. In the political scene it has often proven advantageous to smear the person running for election based upon the fringe elements of their supporters and where that proves insufficient actually using agents provocateur. Pointless on slashdot as it was bound to get -1 troll.

    From a foreigners point of view it seems rather, well, bizarre to focus to much attention on who the running mate is, what, do Americans hope the person running for president drops dead so that the vice president will take over before the person they are actually voting for can do too much damage (of course at McCains age that is not all that unlikely)?

    The corporate mass media PR blitz I am sure is going to be huge and endlessly repetitive with it focus of the beauty pageant winning, sports woman running mate (they will pretend that McCain does not exist) but, it is interesting in that in affect it will be the exact opposite of the previous republican duo. Vote for the president but it is actually the vice president and his horde of lobbyists who are running the country and, now it will be vote the pretty running mate but it will be the president and his horde of lobbyists who will actually be running the country ;D.

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  38. Re:Palin still a ReThuglican Jew Puppet c*nt by cjb658 · · Score: 1

    Personally I think the Dems were the better party up until after JFK. (And after the whole slavery thing.)

    Lyndon Johnson created the big government programs and turned them into the welfare party.

  39. Interesting Thought by admi-systems · · Score: 1

    bork bork, mothership needs to rethink it's plans.

  40. Too funny... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Without having seen this slashdot article I was researching Palin and spied he wikipedia entry. There were over 500+ edits in the last two days. I thought something was going on....to bad I've never heard of her or I might have thought of it Thursday...haha

  41. Re:Palin still a ReThuglican Jew Puppet c*nt by Alsee · · Score: 1

    this kind of talk actually hurts your cause

    One possibility is that is someone deliberately playing troll and mixing random offensive stuff, or it was obviously a racist Republican. Republicans routinely hurt their own cause with racist comments.... those evil Democrats make Republicas "unfairly" lose votes whigning about Republican comments.... so that would be a clumsy attempt at "turnabout is fair play" trying to make Democrats lose votes by pretending to be a Democrat making racist comments.... so that those stupid Democrats would whigne about it and vote Republican.

    -

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  42. Les Winan by wrencherd · · Score: 1

    I also saw a spike at that same time on councilman Les Winan's wikipedia's entry, but--like Sen. McCain--I figured that either Palin, Gilliam or the dead one would have much more cachet.

  43. Oh, for... by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

    "Open source" is not a synonym for "public records!"

    WikiCourthouse, the public filings that anybody can edit!

  44. Re:Palin still a ReThuglican Jew Puppet c*nt by Teancum · · Score: 2, Informative

    Anyway, the article doesn't really explain the mechanics of how this analysis works. Do they just run a program to fetch the page every n seconds, use a reg exp to find the area where the number of edits are, get the counter and repeat for some number of hours?

    I guess that this is possible but it seems a bit crude. Anyone know a more sophisticated method? err ... does anyone know a more sophisticated legal method?

    The method of analysis is quite a bit more mundane than you seem to be implying here. Every Wikipedia page has a "history" log that shows every contributor, when the edit happen, and even what words were changed on each edit. All they did is take this page history and perform a modest analysis between each one of the VP candidates... and that was done more as a forensics review than anything when it was happening. The page history is public data, and you simply have to go to the Wikipedia article and click on the "history" tab to see the information.

    As far as monitoring changes in real-time, you can do that via RSS-feeds which you can get for each page individually or for Wikipedia as a whole (although the whole Wikipedia RSS-feed is a firehose of data). Basically, you can get notified when each page gets edited or modified. Usually this is used to catch trolls, but it could be used for this sort of analysis a well.

  45. Re:Palin still a ReThuglican Jew Puppet c*nt by DavidTC · · Score: 1

    Completely forgetting that Abe Lincoln was a Republican and the southern Democrats were all pro slavery once...

    And the Republican party completely forgets, even though it's within living memory, where those southern Democrats ended up.

    The Democrats used to be racist. They rejected that, and half the damn party left...for the Republicans. You still have currently elected officials who left the Democratic party for the Republicans because the Democrats stopped the racism.

    --
    If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  46. Re:Palin still a ReThuglican Jew Puppet c*nt by Alsee · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Yeah. It was originally a Republican president that freed the slaves and Democrats controlling the South and passing and defending racist laws. It's funny how the two parties can so completely reverse on things in a half century. Now nearly all blacks and an overwhelming majority of Jews and Asians and others are welcome in the Democratic party. And so the racist asshats have fled-from and are terrified-by the minority-loaded Democratic party. They fled to, and now infest, the Republican party.

    It's kinda sad really. I see many Republicans trying to court the black vote today, certainly many good non-racist Republicans trying to do good work and improve things, but the party is largely trapped by decades of the Southern Strategy pandering to and exploiting the white racist vote. Blacks are not prepared to switch over to The Racist Party, even when they more closely agree with many Republican positions. And with Republicans losing nearly 100% of the black vote, and losing most other groups by large margins, they would have no chance of reaching 50% of the general vote to win any elections if they were to publicly to condemn and alienate the racists in the party.

    Hell, look at McCain for a perfect example. There was a racism-related flap over the Confederate flag. McCain said he considers the Confederate flag "offensive" and a "symbol of slavery", but answering a question during the 2000 primary he instead called it "a symbol of heritage", which he later admitted was lying because "I feared that if I answered honestly, I could not win the South Carolina primary. So I chose to compromise my principles." Non racist Republicans are forced to pander to (or at least tolerate) racists in order to win nomination, and in the general election non-racist Republicans need the racist vote to break 50% and win. As I said, they have the black and other minority votes going against them. If good non-racist Republicans were to alienate the racist asshats they'd be sunk.

    They can't win over the minority vote that might be otherwise be inclined to the Republican platform until they boot out the racists, and they can't afford to boot out the fucking racists until they can win more of the minority vote. Catch-22.

    -

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  47. Kuwait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I looked at the page yesterday, there were about six in-line photographs from Palin's 2007 visit to Kuwait. At that time, the article body did not mention the trip at all, so the inclusion of six photographs from the trip smacked of bias. The message that the operative who edited the page wanted to send was clear: "Palin has foreign policy experience because she visited Kuwait one time last year."

    What silly games we play.

  48. My Choice.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    McCain and Cougar for president!

  49. Cold & hard? by bar-agent · · Score: 1

    if Biden hammers her too hard in the VP debates it could appear to some that he's picking on a woman and therefore create an image of someone who's cold and hard.

    I dunno. I don't think someone as chatty as Biden can seem cold and hard. Those two traits go along with aloofness, which he doesn't seem to have.

    --
    i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
  50. Re:Palin still a ReThuglican Jew Puppet c*nt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just so you know.... this kind of talk actually hurts your cause...

    Just so you know ... his cause is to damage Obama, this is a classic troll. Try to keep up to speed.

  51. works both ways by r00t · · Score: 1

    Racist black people can lie to pollsters
    about race-related opinions.

  52. how to monitor wikipedia traffic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How can one monitor wikipedia traffic in real time?
    i tried:
    http://stats.grok.se/
    but it seems 2 months behind atleast.