Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

British Politicians Delete Negative Wikipedia Descriptions Before Election

Posted by timothy on from the war-on-the-ground dept.

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.

11 of 121 comments (clear)

  1. Surprised those edits weren't reverted by rockout · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:Surprised those edits weren't reverted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Even if they were immediately reverted, that the edits were done is a cause for concern on its own basis.

      Me, if I were a politician, I'd tell my staff to have NOTHING to do with any Wikipedia pages on me EXCEPT post comments to the talk page clearly established as being from them, and requesting any errors or clarifications be made. Well, I suppose commenting to BLP or other places would be ok too.

      But that's why I'd never be a politician, I'm too honest and earnest.

    2. Re:Surprised those edits weren't reverted by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Politicians are in such a bubble these days and are so self-righteous and self-involved I wonder if the actual office holder even has Wikipedia on their map. Here in the US we have politicians that proudly say they don't use email or have never used the web. It wouldn't surprise me if many staffers receive no guidelines at all about their online usage, and if they do it might come ignorance of how the Internet works.

    3. Re:Surprised those edits weren't reverted by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think there's a sense of defeat amongst most Wikipedia editors right now, that if they revert the removal of sourced, no-BLP-problems, negative information from Wikipedia, they're going to end up in a fight that leaves them banned for "edit warring" or "incivility" by admins and arbs more keen on the appearance of dealing with conflict than on resolving real issues with off-site organizing of vandalism and harassment.

      I wouldn't recommend anyone get involved in that hole for a while, and as such I reluctantly discourage anyone from reading Wikipedia for anything but the least controversial articles - unless they're also willing to put the work in and examine page histories, checking references, etc.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    4. Re:Surprised those edits weren't reverted by mwvdlee · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's an issue in that these politicians are wasting the precious time of honest, taxpaying volunteers.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    5. Re:Surprised those edits weren't reverted by RDW · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Me, if I were a politician, I'd tell my staff to have NOTHING to do with any Wikipedia pages

      Personally, I'd have my staff whitewash my opponent's page, then leak that somebody had done this...

    6. Re:Surprised those edits weren't reverted by rockout · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well, that may be true if an editor gets involved in a protracted edit war with another editor. For anon IPs, such as the ones doing the edits described in the summary, it's trivial to revert the edit, and if anon IPs continue to remove sourced material, the IP addresses tend to get blocked for a few days, or a week, or a month, depending on the individual circumstances surrounding the edit war. An administrator is going to back a registered editor over an anon IP pretty much every time, so there's no danger of getting banned.

      --
      I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
  2. Last minute voting researchers? by rmdingler · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Sure it's scandalous, but mostly because candidates with this many flaws are still running at all.

    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

  3. Obilg Orwell by seven+of+five · · Score: 5, Informative

    '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.

  4. Re:bunch of naggers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    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?

  5. Re:bunch of naggers by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.