Slashdot Mirror
British Politicians Delete Negative Wikipedia Descriptions Before Election
EwanPalmer writes: The Wikipedia pages of dozens of UK politicians had references to sex scandals, fraud and opposition to same sex marriage removed in the run up to the UK general election. Dozens of MPs had negative aspects of their online biographies removed or altered prior to the election in a bid to make them more electable. The changes include several instances of MPs' expense claim scandals being removed, as well as details of arrests and the use of 'chauffeur-driven cars.' The edits were made using computers with IP addresses registered from inside Parliament.
You assholes re-elected the torie menace David Cameron, and he is going to COMPLETELY destroy your country.
I've noticed in the past that most of those white-washing edits, especially when they're done by anonymous IPs, tend to get reverted by registered editors, so that the white-washing isn't that much of an issue.
I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
Better get Mark Bernstein
on the case! He'll White Knight any female politician and keep her page sparkly clean from "vandalism" and all those opposition "trolls".
Not my first source for information about a politician because of thee shape shifting nature of the pages.
Access to information is the greatest threat to rule of crooks and despots, which is why it is frowned upon in so many closed counties.
In the West? Chances are very few people will be reseacrhing online inside the voting booth. Do your homework before election day.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
What else would you expect from the corrupt British?
'There is a Party slogan dealing with the control of the past,' he said. 'Repeat it, if you please.'
'"Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past,"' repeated Winston obediently.
Note: The general people in the UK don't vote for the Prime Minister - they vote for their local Member of Parliament (MP).
The MPs collectively vote for the Prime Minister.
So 'You assholes' is presumably only referring to the 650 (minus the Sinn Fein folk) MPs?
And you think politicians from other countries will keep their "negative" details? Ah!
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
With all the talk going on around UK's adult content policies, it was only natural to remove some social-centric articles which directly impact on public opinion. It just doesn't seem like the British thing to do, does it?
Well, I guess the way they are heading, any censorship is good censorship. Might as well make it a totalitarian state sooner better than later. How anyone in there is outraged that the EU is eye-browing such policies, that is the actual surprise... But then again, who would want freedom of speech, when freedom of speech can have such influence on these fascists jobs? It's understandable that state entities such as the parliament are editing wikipedia. Wouldn't you do anything it takes to keep your salary? Especially if such censorship action happens to coincide with your political view? Man I know I would. If my first name was Adolf and my last name rimmed with shittler I definitely would.
The alternative being a weak Labour government with its balls firmly in the Nats hands.
If there was ever an election that was a choice of the lesser evil, the 2015 UK general election was it.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
n/t
The root of the problem is people using Wikipedia as a research resource in its own right. It's very helpful for uncontroversial facts but horrible for anything even slightly politically charged. Wikipedia is filled with power hungry POV pushing scum in denial. The solution isn't to fix Wikipedia, it's far beyond fixing. The solution is to take anything you read on Wikipedia with a whole shaker of salt. Do real research.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
The US voters have had the dilemma of having to pick the lesser of two evils for awhile now. It's all downhill from here. May God have mercy on you.
I'm not convinced we got the lesser evil though.
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
That should read "37% of you assholes re-elected the torie menace"
Hurrah for first past the post, truly the most democratic of systems.
This is hardly news, what makes people think that British politicians are any less corrupt and slimy than American politicians, or Russian ones, or ... (name any country in the world). Just like America, nothing will be done about it. People will wring their hands and say "Something must be done", and in a week forget all about it once the next scandal hits the press.
Politician is just another word for criminal.
that usally goes well for anyone using it.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
That's moot. They vote for the party, which is a vote for the leader of the party.
So you voted Palpatine because the Jedi are "weak". Bravo. Slow hand-claps all round.
Yes, of course! Having a wide range of choices worked out so well for Germany!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
Hint: think of the US primaries as the place where you have lots of choices, and the election itself as the runoff.
from these chaps.
(practicing my UK English)
No, the people of the UK do vote for their local MP, however the prime minister is not voted for by MPs. If a party has sufficint seats (i.e. MPs) for an absolute majority (more than half), then the prime ministerial candidate for that party automatically becomes prime minister. If he has the most seats but not an absolute majority, then he gets to try and form a coalition with other parties to achieve an absolute majority, or potentially a minority government (usually a bad idea).
First of all, I'm not British, so I only meant this as an outside observation. I'm Canadian, so certainly well versed in the realities of Westminster politics.
Second of all, as much as Cameron may be far from ideal, I don't think he's any kind of Palpatine. As much as anything, he's been delivered the fruits of the Labour meltdown in Scotland which began in 2010 and now appears to be permanent.
I do think that the specter of a Labour government reliant on the SNP disturbed a good many English, and I think there are reasonable grounds to argue that, for England, the idea of a Devo-maxed Scotland still able to push English MPs around on matters of largely English concern demonstrates fundamental inequities. And before we all forget, it is Labour, as much as anyone, who created this dilemma by dealing with the Scottish question, and going out of its way not to deal with English question.
At any rate, British voters had their chance to pick a new electoral system that would have made the ability of any party to form government with less than even a 40% share of the popular vote far less likely. They rejected that. Coupled with what looks to be a permanent break with Labour in Scotland, and the phenomena of UKIP actually stealing more Labour votes than Conservative votes in the North, the Tories probably have a good chance of repeating the 2015 election again, providing they don't go completely off the rails. And that will moderate them as much as anything. Their first majority in 23 years is not something they're going to be keen to throw away on a pack of Thatcheresque exploits.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
He's right. Fuck the bloody EU. Joining was the worst decision i've experienced in my lifetime.
This is why I dislike the concept of electronic books. The distributer having a way to edit all the books a la the Hitchhikers' Guide (or Wikipedia) will provide a perverse incentive to eventually edit history. The politicians have proved this time and again with written books.
If anyone can put anything in, then anyone can take anything out.
Deal With It.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Is anyone ever held accountable for libelous information in Wikipedia? Has there ever been any lawsuits over false information?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
The Wikipedia pages of dozens of UK politicians had references to sex scandals, fraud and opposition to same sex marriage removed in the run up to the UK general election.
Ok, I get why a politician would want the other things removed, but why remove your opposition to same sex marriage? While I personally support the idea of marriage equality, all of the politicians on this side of the pond that oppose it, do so openly and proudly. Are they trying to trick people into voting for them who would not otherwise because of the whole same sex marriage thing?
...Actually, that makes perfect sense. Nevermind, ignore me.
Oh please, by all means, go! And don't let the door hit your ass!
No, in the UK you vote for a candidate, not a party, and the candidate may be independent of parties.
A party candidate may choose to leave his party after the election and this does not trigger a by-election, he retains his seat.
blog.sam.liddicott.com
...you don't get blocked for edit-warring until there have been three successive reverts. If there's a handy list of the affected pages I'd be glad to hop in and revert a few of them, and then bow out and let someone else hop in if needed.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
So... fascism was caused by choice anxiety then? I'd never have guessed!
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
Except that only the Democrats have (theoretically) public primaries, the Republican candidate is selected entirely by the aristocracy.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
bunch of naggers
That's a strange accent. Do you mind if I ask where you are from?
The AC brings up a good point. You bastards never give us a break when we have to decide between a giant douche and a turd sandwich, so why should we give you one?
You assholes re-elected the torie menace David Cameron, and he is going to COMPLETELY destroy your country.
Scotland didn't vote for them...yet we have to suffer them.. in fact we firmly rejected the westminster parties... 56 seats to the Scottish National Party.. 1 seat labour, liberal and tory.....
The alternative being a weak Labour government with its balls firmly in the Nats hands.
If there was ever an election that was a choice of the lesser evil, the 2015 UK general election was it.
LOL.. said like a true daily fail reader!!!
That's moot. They vote for the party, which is a vote for the leader of the party.
There is no guarantee that the leader of the party will remain the same. In the past the prime minister has changed between elections e.g. Thatcher, Blair etc. In fact even during the election there is no guarantee that the party leader will actually be elected: it is theoretically possible for a party to win the election and then have to find a new leader because the one they had lost their local seat. This certainly happens with the smaller parties: UKIP's leader did not get elected in the recent election even though others of his party did.
According to bbc, only 37% of the votes cast were for the tories. Blame the British first-past-the-post system for giving absolute majority to a party supported by only 37% of the voters.
The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
Humans are the problem.
Knowledge sources can only be built through networking efforts which actively strive for truth at all cost, self-police of its membership, values multiple viewpoints in the understanding that one person is powerless to perceive reality in its totality, and is prepared to take ego hits as members put truth and knowledge ahead of personal whimsy.
The human world at large is a cauldron, or more accurately, a crucible evidently designed to purify human psyche and spirit. The action of heating and cooling through explosive action and reaction, serves to burn away the impurities over time and allow the desired qualities to slowly crystalize.
The world is a machine. A system. A soul mill.
As it happens, there is a regular and huge amount of low grade human "material" being poured in. Low grade human materials have yet to figure out the core challenge of apprehending and accepting objective reality as it stands, that there is a universe outside of and independent of the self, and that lying at the top of one's lungs, (and keyboards), is ultimately an act of nihilism.
Those that don't learn this, vanish, and those that do, eventually have it burned away.
Wikipedia is open to the whole of the the grist, so it cannot help but be a useless source of noise on any sensitive subject. Essentially, it allows the spiritual equivalent of tantrum-throwing children the same editorial power as wizened elders. How can that possibly become a reliable reservoir of pure knowledge?
This is self-evident and it is surprising that the project for an open encyclopedia was even attempted. It was doomed from the start to be exactly as we see it today.
Yet it serves an object purpose. It was and continues to be an amazing experiment which teaches people the necessity of being vigilant and focused and humble in their search for truth -if they at all want it.
Conversely, it also demonstrates the ultimate futility of trying to control the universe by lying; though this is a more selective lesson which is lost on the liars.
Except that by the time I get to vote in primaries, the nominees are often already chosen. The real way to have lots of choices is to live in New Hampshire and Iowa.
It is indeed like a runoff election that is executed very very poorly.
The winner take all system for awarding electoral votes has caused us to only have a few "swing states" that actually matter.
Not to mention the fact that the parties now control the debates (rather than a nonpartisan organization like the league of women voters). They get to decide who is allowed to participate in the debates. They often change the criteria in order to specifically exclude/include particular candidates.
If you are a 3rd party or an independent candidate, good luck getting anywhere near a debate run by democrats and republicans.
I still don't get the problem with the SNP, they are a leftwing progressive party and would be a good fit with labour (might even remind them that they are suposed to care about people who are worse off). They might also have made the UK less so utterly london centric.
If you think that a choice between Dems, who have shown themselves to be centrist, fiscally responsible and more likely to support the working class than not, and the gop, which has become a raft of radical nutjobs who want to waste the country's money on foreign wars while reducing taxes on the wealthy effectively bleeding the middle class to death... is the lesser of two evils, then you are just plain silly
Keep in mind, who put the right wingers on the Supreme Court which upheld corporate money as 'free speech' - The GOP
Who put us into two foreign wars with no long range plan resulting in trillions in debt and thousands of dead Americans - The GOP
Who left our guard down while ignoring repeated warnings and allowing the 9/11 attacks on their watch - The GOP
Who deregulated markets and created a boom/bust scenario resulting in the largest recession in 80 years - the GOP
Who reduced taxes on the wealthy resulting in deficits and long term problems like a rotting infrastructure - the GOP
And just to balance the scale, who recovered from the last two Bush-driven recessions - The Dems
If you think that is the choice between two evils, then you are drinking the gop cool-aid and need to wake the fuck up
Wherever You Go, There You Are
damn it get back to /pol/
Coming to a Clinton near you!
Life is in a state of dynamic equilibrium, it both blows and sucks
I think it was actually only 24% of those eligible to vote.
0.1% of voters actually voted for him directly (at his local election). At most, 36.8% of voters voted for David Cameron by proxy (36.9% of voters voted Conservative). I think most people voted for the party rather than their local representative.
New Zealand has an MMP system, and our ruling party (who are doing whatever the fuck they like without regard for what the people want) only got around 34% of the possible vote. They do like to present it as 48% of the population but really it's around 34%, as a large number of people didn't bother voting.
Oddly, a good number of the elderly were going out to vote for the opposition but found, when their local government-sponsored voting group showed them were to tick and where to sign, that they'd voted for the incumbent. Not only that, but supporters of the incumbent engaged in electoral fraud, publicly announcing (on social media) that they'd voted three or four times. Nothing has happened to them for doing so....
the opposition never had a chance.
I feel sorry for you if you actually believe this.
Don't just put me down, provide a logical counter argument
Wherever You Go, There You Are
Christ, I didn't realise it had got that bad in NZ under those tw^H^HNats. And there I was extolling the virtues of MMP ...
Possible solution; any edits to pages covering sensitive topics (maybe all of them) are not immediately removed from view, but rather highlighted on the page with boilerplate saying this text was removed as part of an edit and will no longer be shown in X days. So, if anyone tried to whitewash/spin a page in the lead up to an election it is glaringly obvious and utterly defeats the purpose of doing so. Any further out and I'd hope the editors can put the content back in in time.
spastics like you who think all problems stem from the EU are in for one hell of a fucking surprise should your electorate be stupid enough to leave it.
I think you'll find that he does not automatically become PM. Her Britannic Majesty Queen Elizabeth invites him to form a government and he must command the support of the house of commons in order to do so.
For example Rasmsay MacDonald remained PM after the 1931 general election despite the Conservatives being the largest party with >75% of the seats.
*mic drop*
The SNP are not a left-wing progressive party. The are a left-wing regressive party. Their primary point of view is that England and the English are to blame for all the problems of Scotland. They hate the English, you only have to look at how their activists react when faced with opposing views.
They are now whining about how they don't want anymore cuts and the want the english to pay for it, despite the fact that they have substantial tax raising powers themselves which they have never chosen to use.
I say as a Brit not an Englishman, since I am Northern Irish (Unionist side) and am grateful for all the support (i.e. money) we get over and above our contributions to Her Majesty's exchequer.
Given the left-wing, politically correct crowd that now controls Wikipedia, perhaps these politicians (humans) are trying to protect themselves just like you would want to do. It is quite tiring to have endless neutral facing negative descriptions for those that are deemed incorrect.
And all of them are selected based on their fealty to jews. Just search any recent american potential presidential candidate's name plus "wailing wall" and you'll see most of them kissing the "ring" so to speak.
http://i.cubeupload.com/T6cyLu.png