US Government Caught Manipulating Wikipedia 471
surfi writes "As The Inquirer points out, someone with a House of Representatives IP address has been feeding propaganda into the 'invasion of Iraq' article on Wikipedia."
Well at least they are in good company with trustworthy institutions like
the CIA and the Vatican.
Wrong (Score:1, Informative)
Except that this is old news (Score:5, Informative)
What I found more interesting is that apparently the Register doesn't like Wikipedia because they refer to it as "whackypedia", and the statement that the edits were made by a "Bush friendly" source inside the House. Maybe the Bush friendly angle is true -- the Register article asserts it to be so without quoting the edits or commenting, but there is no way to tell by an IP address.
Which tells me that the Register article is basically shoddy journalism. No fact digging, no fact checking, polemics instead of the who what when why where that journalism is supposed to accomplish. So -- with all due respect to GOOD journalism, and while not a Bushie or US Govt. fan, I have to say that this tidbit is yellow all under.
Re:Except that this is old news (Score:1, Informative)
There's a little more background to this. The Register has had several dust-ups with Wikipedia in the past, culminating with Wiki deleting all references to "The Everywhere Girl", a meme which the Register was pushing.
Since then, each side loses no opportunity to insult the other. Fun, really...
The Register? The Inquirer, surely? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Primary Source? (Score:3, Informative)
What's with the anti-Vatican swipe? (Score:3, Informative)
Taking a look at the Wiki page on Adams, I see that not only the reference to evidence is gone, but also, any reference to the murder as well. Gee... a change that has stood up to public scrutiny within Wiki... hmm -- think that means that there was some basis to the edit?
Meantime, the edit is placed aside others which change W's name to "Wanker", a description of Rush Limbaugh and his audience to insults, and other juvenile character attacks.
Nice anti-Catholic hatchet job, there, dude...
Re:They're not that stupid (Score:4, Informative)
Re:They're not that stupid (Score:4, Informative)
Those that do not learn the mistakes in File ---> Versions history are doomed to repeat them.
You want a critique? Fine. (Score:3, Informative)
In this case, it may be that the staffer was voicing his own opinions. But he used weasel words where none were needed. And he did it from a government IP address. That makes it our business: he used OUR TAXPAYER FUNDED EQUIPMENT to make VERY PARTISAN and VERY MISLEADING changes. Let's analyze the changes, then we're going to analyze your post, m'kay?
1.) Alleged link/link: There was no viable link between Al Qaeda and Iraq, they were not working together, Saddam hated religion in general and Osama in particular. This has been proven again and again, yet this guy has to make it seem an open question.
2.) Evidence/Claims of evidence: Again, the original was sourced. The evidence of a connection was manufactured, and it came from questionable sources. This isn't opinion, it's fact. Changing that to the weaker "some claim that..." is disingenuous. Sure, people claim the evidence was manufactured, because it was. That's fact.
3.) Not credible/Some claim that: Come on, who claims he is credible? Anyone? You? Look at the quote, look at what he said, is this man credible by any stretch of the imagination?
4.) Eventually shown/Alleged by some: They source where this was shown, a British intelligence report. Who is now claiming there was a viable working relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda? Are you? Just admit it, don't weasel around or try to dodge the damn question.
Now, your original post.
First, you try to set up a straw man. There is no question that people in government can and should edit wikipedia. You bring it up like its some kind of shocker. The question is, are the edits rational, unbiased, and accurate; and, is it okay for public officials to edit wikipedia using taxpayer funded equipment? If a public official or an employee of a public official does something using taxpayer funded equipment, it is completely fair to say, "The government did it." Can you refute that?
Next, you do the same thing I do to you. You insinuate that kdawson is a political ideologue and his ideas should be dismissed out of hand. Hypocrite.
It is bizarre to make a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. No, not bizarre. Completely understandable given the stated aims of neo-cons to create a new enemy for the US to rally around. Ever read the manifesto by Project for a New American Century [wikipedia.org] which came out before 9/11 and basically said, "We need to manufacture a big scary enemy to keep the populace from questioning our actions?"
You are such a sophist. We are the ones who are ignoring evidence that contradicts our position? That's rich. You are considering all sides and taking the reasoned, logical path, I suppose, while your opponents simply aren't looking at the big picture. Guess what, we HAVE considered both sides. One of them is just full of shit. That is our logical, reasoned conclusion based on all available evidence. You are the one sticking to an unreasonable position despite all evidence. You are the one setting up straw men to win arguments. You are the one making subtle ad hominem attacks to discredit your opponents. You do everything you accuse your opponents of, you hypocrite.
You want to know why I don't bother to argue with you point by point and just point out who and what you are? You aren't in this to debate a position. You are not capable of changing your mind or admitting wrong for yourself or your country. You argue only to win people over to your way of thinking, and you will use any tactic to do so. Debating with you is pointless.
Re:Primary Source? (Score:4, Informative)
Well, you would think so, but you'd be wrong. Wikipedia does not allow original research [wikipedia.org], so if you are the source, you can't add the info. You have to get the info from some other notable source, and cite it. Also, if you're calling those edits "propaganda" I have to wonder if you looked at the changes at all.
Re:So you subscribe to the "stupidity" theory? (Score:1, Informative)
Oh get off it. If you have a couple of CIA workers (government workers) planning on torturing other humans illegally, would not that be a government conspiracy And would not it be tasty? mmmmmmm cake.
-Anonymous Coward #1
Summary is only partially true (Score:3, Informative)
Re:So you subscribe to the "stupidity" theory? (Score:3, Informative)
I can't believe for a second that someone in the government is so powerful and prescient that they never screw up. Do you think we're the first government to ever have such infallibility? Or did all the empires that crumbled before ours were because "whoever was truly calling the shots" wanted them to?
A much more likely explanation is that lots of people with different motivations run things, and sometimes they work against each other and sometimes they screw up. In fact, anyone who has worked managing large groups has probably seen this happen.
Cheers.