Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Wikipedia Blocks 'Disruptive' Edits From US Congress

Posted by Soulskill on from the history-no-longer-written-by-the-victors dept.

alphatel writes: Wikipedia has blocked anonymous edits from a congressional IP address for 10 days because of "disruptive" behavior. These otherwise anonymous edits were brought to light recently by @Congressedits, a bot that automatically tweets Wikipedia changes that come from Congressional IP addresses. The biography of former U.S. defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld was edited to say that he was an "alien lizard who eats Mexican babies." Mediaite's Wikipedia page was modified to label the site as a "sexist transphobic" publication.

40 of 165 comments (clear)

  1. Yeah, "disruptive" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    The biography of former U.S. defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld was edited to say that he was an "alien lizard who eats Mexican babies."

    His unmasking isn't supposed to happen for another 20 years, now our plan is shot to hell.

    Damn meddling kids mumble mumble...

    1. Re:Yeah, "disruptive" by Ol+Biscuitbarrel · · Score: 4, Funny

      The biography of former U.S. defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld was edited to say that he was an "alien lizard who eats Mexican babies." [1]

    2. Re:Yeah, "disruptive" by Minwee · · Score: 3, Funny

      The biography of former U.S. defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld was edited to say that he was an "alien lizard who eats Mexican babies."

      Why won't Donald Rumsfeld deny these allegations? We're not saying he is an alien lizard who eats Mexican babies -- In fact, we think he isn't! But I can't help but wonder, since he has failed to deny these horrible allegations, why won't he deny that he is an alien lizard who eats Mexican babies?

      Hey, I'm just asking questions.

  2. I take offense! by timrod · · Score: 5, Funny

    I take offense to the idea that Donald Rumsfeld is some kind of racist who only eats Mexican babies. Donald Rumsfeld isn't a racist - he eats babies of all races equally, without taking the color of their skin or their nationality into consideration. Have a little respect for the man!

    1. Re:I take offense! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      But to be fair... the babies are skinned before they arrive on a golden platter for him to devour.

    2. Re:I take offense! by Calavar · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Sure, these edits were mostly harmless, but @CongressEdits is still a great idea because it dissuades politicians from ordering their staff to make edits that could be misleading. I, for one, would love to see an @HeartlandInstituteEdits.

    3. Re:I take offense! by Sockatume · · Score: 4, Funny

      I think that these stereotypes about alien lizards are getting out of hand. All we ever hear about is the baby-eating, and never the fine and nuanced cuisine that goes into it.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    4. Re:I take offense! by Charliemopps · · Score: 4, Insightful

      All joking aside... Donald Rumsfeld is 82.
      He's about as open minded as most other 82yr olds in this country.
      Our problem is that Donald Rumsfeld is a bad guy. Or problem is we put people into positions of power who developed their sense of morality at a time when "The Nazis" were still a valid political party and we didn't generally allow African Americans into the military yet.

    5. Re:I take offense! by operagost · · Score: 5, Informative

      Our second problem is that we have voters who never learned in school that there were plenty of African Americans in the military, but they were segregated thanks to progressive President Wilson. They also like to pretend that the Nazi party was ever a legitimate party in the USA, when it's the ever-enlightended Europeans and progressive darlings like George Bernard Shaw who liked both the Nazi party and Stalin.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    6. Re:I take offense! by blackraven14250 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Our second problem is that we have voters who never learned in school that there were plenty of African Americans in the military, but they were segregated thanks to progressive President Wilson.

      Our third problem is that plenty of people think it's cool to blame it all on a particular president of a political leaning they do not agree with, even though the US has had African Americans in the military in their own segregated units at least as early as the Revolutionary War.

    7. Re:I take offense! by plover · · Score: 3, Funny

      Have a little respect for the man!

      I already have about as little respect for the man as I possibly can! How much less do I need to qualify under your guidelines?

      Or is that an unknown unknown?

      --
      John
    8. Re:I take offense! by nospam007 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "That filter might be a little too restrictive; you'd only see your own edits."

      That's how Republicans like it.

    9. Re:I take offense! by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or problem is we put people into positions of power who developed their sense of morality at a time when "The Nazis" were still a valid political party and we didn't generally allow African Americans into the military yet.

      And in 50 years, we'll be putting people into positions of power who believe something that is a very fashionable idea in 2014. No idea what it will be, but since we pick our leadership from among the elderly, and develop our ideas of what's good, right and proper during our youth, it's inevitable.

      Note also, for reference, the "Buffalo Soldiers". They were around from the end of the Civil War (formed in 1866). There were Negro regiments during the Civil War as well.

      It should be noted also that the 9th and 10th Cavalry, as well as other Negro regiments existed through WW2 until the military was integrated during the Korean War (considerably before the rest of US society).

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    10. Re:I take offense! by digsbo · · Score: 4, Funny

      Because eventually it becomes self-correcting.

    11. Re:I take offense! by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

      WTF but the crispy skin is the best!
      What a waste!

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    12. Re:I take offense! by Rakarra · · Score: 2

      Look, no one said that Rumsfeld won't eat non-Mexican babies, but everyone knows that Mexican babies are the most delicious ones. That's not racist, that's just being a gourmand, and it's a taste he probably picked up eating at the finer restaurants on the beltway with lobbyists.

  3. I see the error by satan666 · · Score: 2

    In the case of Donald Rumsfeld, it should say: "Evil, alien lizard who eats Mexican babies and puppies."

  4. If anybody cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:143.231.249.138

  5. Citation needed? by aicrules · · Score: 4, Funny

    I assume this means they're certain he is NOT an alien lizard who eats Mexican babies? I mean, it does seem pretty unlikely, but we should at least check into it.

    1. Re: Citation needed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well Louis C.K. Asked him just that back in 2011, and instead of a simple yes or no answer he dodged the question. Now, I'm not saying he's not not a lizard person, but if he wasn't not not a lizard person I wouldn't think a simple not-yes wouldn't not suffice.

    2. Re:Citation needed? by fustakrakich · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well, if he is an alien, let's make sure he doesn't overstay his visa.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    3. Re: Citation needed? by jones_supa · · Score: 4, Funny

      The truth is the opposite of that it would be wrong to say that it isn't true that I'm not uncomfortable processing that sentence in my brain.

    4. Re:Citation needed? by msobkow · · Score: 2

      I suggest an autopsy to determine the truth. :P

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  6. Congress? Disruptive? by PvtVoid · · Score: 2

    Now if we could only block all of the other disruptive behavior from Congress.

    Fuck, with this bunch of chuckleheads, we can't even get roads and bridges maintained.

  7. Wikipedia Never Bans Vandals? by wisnoskij · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Looking into this, this ip address has been vandalising Wikipedia for over 4 years now...

    Wikipedia does not ban people who repeatedly vandalise their site, over a period of years?

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    1. Re:Wikipedia Never Bans Vandals? by wbr1 · · Score: 2

      That IP had been vandalizing for years. That IP is not a person. Period.

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
  8. Chris Hedges by ArcadeMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    “We now live in a nation where doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, governments destroy freedom, the press destroys information, religion destroys morals, and our banks destroy the economy.” - Chris Hedges

    --
    Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
  9. Re:I wonder who is doing the actual posting. by oodaloop · · Score: 2

    Surely the number of congressmen computer literate enough to edit Wikipedia unassisted would be small enough to check by name.

    --
    Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
  10. News source by OzPeter · · Score: 2

    I was amused to see that TFA was a front page BBC article. For comparison I went to CNN and FOX to see what was reported there. Didn't find anything on either of those 2 sites.

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
  11. Sad by JWW · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What is really sad is that these congressional staffers show suck a lack of professionalism and honor in doing their jobs.

    There used to be a time where you could politically disagree with some but still be great friends, or at the very least amicable colleagues. Nowadays, the other political side is just filled with inhuman enemies that need to be degraded and driven into oblivion.

    The concept of a government and laws derived from debate and compromise and consideration of different sides of an issue has been wiped out in favor of "I am right and you are wrong, and since you are wrong you can shut the hell up."

    So much of this shit looks like stuff a 3rd grader would come up with to insult their enemies.

    1. Re:Sad by dbc · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There used to be a time where you could politically disagree with some but still be great friends, or at the very least amicable colleagues. Nowadays, the other political side is just filled with inhuman enemies that need to be degraded and driven into oblivion.

      Indeed. I recall when Hubert Humphrey retuned to the Senate floor after months of cancer treatment. He was terminal, in the last weeks of his life, but he found the energy to return one last time. Barry Goldwater, a man he had run against during a presidential election, a man who was always on the opposite side of any debate, crossed the aisle and embraced Humphrey in a bear hug that lasted a least two minutes, Senate decorum be damned. On national television. These two men, decade after decade, made the case for their beliefs, debated vigorously, but never lost each other's respect. Where has that gone?

    2. Re:Sad by RabidReindeer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'd push it a lot farther back than that. More like when it became fashionable to hate Liberals. Not merely as individuals a la GWB, but as an entire group.

      To the point that Liberals, who - as any Conservative will happily point out - are too spineless to defend themselves, dodged the problem by renaming themselves "Progressives".

  12. Re:I wonder who is doing the actual posting. by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 2

    I hope this is coming from some over zealot unpaid interns, working for the congress. Not from the actual congressmen themselves.

    I hope this is coming from the congressmen themselves. They're much less likely to cause damage trolling Wikipedia rather than if they're attempting to pass legislation.

    --

    How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
  13. the actions of a few by Sleeping+Kirby · · Score: 2

    "Out of over 9,000 staffers in the House, should we really be banning this whole IP range based on the actions of two or three? " Tell that to voter fraud bills, the claim of "welfare queens" and not allowing female reproductive rights because "some use it to be promiscuous". Not so fun now that it's on the other foot, is it? However, unlike those claims, they do have control of AND responsibility over their entire network. This IP ban is standard practice for IT security. If they can't secure their network, then they don't deserve access to the server. Access to servers are a privilege, not a right.

    --
    please... let me sleep... a little more... yay, no longer annonmyous coward.
  14. Rewriting the history by jones_supa · · Score: 3, Interesting

    While Wikipedia is varying in quality, I'm actually glad that we have at least some kind of transparency to see who makes the various edits. I wonder what kind of manipulation or shilling has been going on with dead tree encyclopedias or history books?

  15. Unfair? Hardly. by Omega+Hacker · · Score: 2

    From the article, presumably from a staffer: "Out of over 9,000 staffers in the House, should we really be banning this whole IP range based on the actions of two or three? Some of us here are just making grammatical edits, adding information about birds in Omsk, or showing how one can patch KDE2 under FreeBSD."

    Sorry, but if you're a congressional staffer, using a computer in a congressional office, why are you making edits about birds in Omsk, or KDE? You want to make those edits, do them from your own home on your own time. There, I fixed it.

    --
    GStreamer - The only way to stream!
  16. Supervise Your Children by Toad-san · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ""Out of over 9,000 staffers in the House, should we really be banning this whole IP range based on the actions of two or three? "

    Yes. It may get the attention of the guilty parties. I, for one, want to see the exact identification of that House representative, the office guilty of this ongoing abuse. Name names, cowards!

  17. Misdirection and slight of hand (Wiki Style) by vovin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You should probably look at *all the other edits* to articles made around and during the vandalism spree.

  18. The CIA Or? by JimSadler · · Score: 2

    Things are out of balance. We have a Central Intelligence Agency but we do not have a Central Stupidity Agency. Until we do the House of representatives is taking the role and we have people or lizards like Donald Rumsfield and the right wing to help keep our nation well influenced by total stupidity.

  19. Re:I wonder who is doing the actual posting. by ganjadude · · Score: 2

    yeah, he must have been having flashbacks of being the grand wizard of the KKK, he wasnt about space lizards, but he did go by the name grand dragon!

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same