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.
They're not that stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
They'd probably at the very least get their 'operatives' to go home, get one of those free AOL CDs (etc), and do it from a public IP range.
What's more likely is that this is someone who got bored at work (at the Vatican etc), and decided to put their personal opinions in. The nature of their work usually implies their beliefs are coincident with that of their employers.
As for TFA, it states "One has to wonder how reliable an encyclopaedia is when it peddles government propaganda in an almost Orwellian manner"; Seems a bit like FUD to me. The whole point of wikipedia is that it is constantly peer reviewed. If things are incorrect, people will eventually correct them - I fail to see how that's Orwellian. If anything, changing pages in this manner actually brings MORE attention to the issue [wikipedia.org].
Re:They're not that stupid (Score:5, Funny)
This US government? Abso-fraking-lutely.
So you subscribe to the "stupidity" theory? (Score:4, Insightful)
Given the hundreds of millions required to be spent to gain the Whitehouse... We have the CEOs or other high ranking executive officers of various multi-nationals involved. I'm not convinced that incompetence is the explanation. For this or any of their other actions.
Re:So you subscribe to the "stupidity" theory? (Score:5, Insightful)
For instance, on the one hand, the CIA is supposedly torturing people. On the other hand, the CIA is leaking info that the CIA is torturing people. Retard conspiracy theorists probably make this work in their heads by fantaszing that by leaking about its own bad actions, the CIA is diverting attention from some other, worse thing, like a Bigfoot-Alien alliance. Normal people think some people in the CIA didn't approve of the torture and leaked word of it (possibly illegally, but that's another subject) to the press.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I've never heard wikipedia described so succinctly... I think I just found my new sig!
supposedly? (Score:5, Insightful)
If a pretty white woman were waterboarded by 2 black cops in Atlanta, and died during the "interrogation", and then they packed the body in ice and faked the death certificate to say "heart problems," there would be no question in anyone's mind, least of all of the Attorney General or Vice President, that this constituted torture.
Our uncertainty as to what torture means is a sham--it's only torture because it's brown people who worship Allah and look sort of like towelheads. And everyone damn well knows that.
Re:So you subscribe to the "stupidity" theory? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not convinced that incompetence is the explanation. For this or any of their other actions.
As is your right. As for me, yes I subscribe to the quote you've posted (which I understand to be Hanlon's Razor), but I also feel my observations bear this out. I've looked at the goals nominated by the current US government, and the only thing I see them good at doing is spreading confusion and fog. This has, at times, suited their interests, and by turns it has not...yet the confusion persists, and nothing else.
So, yes. Incompetence of the highest order. Delusions of Vader-ness, perhaps, but I t
Re: (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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why shouldn't he keep his job? Sure, the ambiance is lacking a certain je ne sais quois, but even the best potential sex partners have to use the john. If you could pick up a gorgeous, brilliant, geek-girl in the Men's room, wouldn't you?
Re:They're not that stupid (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"Series of tubes!" SNORT! That sound's like a congressman's view of his page staff.
Our business in life is not to succeed but to continue to fail in high spirits.
-- Robert Louis Stevenson
Use /. moderation on wikipedia (Score:3, Interesting)
I've had this happen so very rarely edit.
What is needed is a
Re:Use /. moderation on wikipedia (Score:5, Insightful)
What is needed is a /. style moderation and karma system so that any peer can review it without having to change it and indicate to other which are the best entries and editors.
And like here, it will help for egregious defacement, but will only ensure that the surviving articles match any communinty groupthink that may exist. Still better than a game of "who's the bigger asshole", but not an ultimate solution
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
and if the Wikipedia mods meta meta moderate
From what I've been hearing so far, they've been doing a bit too much of that already.
I agree in general though, it would be good to detect shenanigans and any sort of oscillatory flame war.
Re:They're not that stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
The government is vast and composed almost entirely of low-paid operatives. I have no problem believing they could try something like this and get caught. I have a hard time believing in the government as shadowy cabal that is capable of concealing vast conspiracies for years or decades at a time.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I think that's an extremely poor assumption to make.
I don't imagine your average bureaucrat has any concept of what an IP address is.
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.
Re:They're not that stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Unfortunately, Bill Clinton ensured that this phrase would never carry shock value ever again.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:They're not that stupid (Score:4, Informative)
Re:They're not that stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
No, all that shows it that you have no sense of perspective. Lying about a personal matter which a court has no business asking is an entirely different thing than intentionally and with malice aforethought lying on a massive scale in order to build support for robbing the American people blind to pay to murder a bunch of innocent people for the purpose of increasing profits for a few companies.
Your inability to understand the vast scale of difference between those things demonstrates you to be utterly lacking in anything even resembling morals, ethics, or even basic sanity.
Re: (Score:2)
The government is vast and composed almost entirely of low-paid operatives. I have no problem believing they could try something like this and get caught. I have a hard time believing in the government as shadowy cabal that is capable of concealing vast conspiracies for years or decades at a time.
Heck, al
Re:They're not that stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They're not that stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
This one person, and just a person who is using Wikipedia just like everyone else, is just a tiny cog in a little subassembly of a small piece of the "They" (meaning the US Government).
This whole damned thing is FUD. People in the US Government are allowed to edit Wikipedia, just like everyone else -- and the edits those people make are subject to the same peer review and revision, just like everyone else.
Just because one employee of the US Government made a bone-headed edit in Wikipedia does NOT make it "US Government Censors Wikipedia" (the 'article' title). It doesn't make it "backpeddling". It doesn't make it anything at all other than a bone-headed edit by someone who just happens to work for the US Government.
Re: (Score:2)
I know "US Government Caught Manipulating Wikipedia" is a cool title, but seriously, does anyone think the US government, the CIA or the Vatican would be stupid enough to get caught if they actually wanted to influence a wikipedia article?
More importantly, do any of them feel that threatened by Wikipedia that they have to try and manipulate it? Are they expecting Wikipedia to foment revolution or call into question their very existence? And do they realize that pages tend to be archived all over the place, so that even if they do manipulate entries, the original entries are no doubt floating around somewhere?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. You've seen too many movies.
No, there's no need for sources, you'll have to take my word for it.
(because I say so.)
Re: (Score:2)
yes, they are (Score:2)
neither will one or two members of the permanent staff, for that matter.
Yep (Score:2)
More to the point, someone with a "House of Representatives IP Address" does not represent the US Government in its entirety and could be anyone from the lowliest page of a pro-war Republican up to the House party leader. At this point it's just speculation and looking at the changes they are far from subversive.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Easy! The previous entry said "The U.S. has never been at war with Iraq."
The current entry says "The U.S. has always been at war with Iraq."
Re:They're not that stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
Al Qaeda did have connections to Iraq, though not strong. The invasion of Iraq was never sold as being because Iraq and Al Qaeda had strong connections, despite what the history revisionists say. At the time of the invasion, Most Dems, Reps, and governments of the world believed Iraq had WMDs. Even Iraqi leadership believed it. Saddam Hussein was perpetrating a fraud on everyone because the belief of him having WMD was almost as good as actually having them. It should also be noted that a grand jury bent on charging the administration concerning the Valerie Plame "revelation" wasn't able to come up with any charges whatsoever except for a single perjury.
The CIA itself admitted the intelligence failures [www.cbc.ca]. You can't say that they were just covering because they've also been critical of the administration. The intelligence agencies of a lot of other countries also failed as they believed the same thing. As for Cheney's Halliburton connection, It's been shown [factcheck.org] that Cheney doesn't gain anything from Halliburton and hasn't since he left the company.
There were some obvious mistakes made during the invasion and occupation. Most of those have been corrected. The fact remains that no war of this caliber has had as few American casualties as this one [blogspot.com]. No war plan is perfect but this one is far from a grossly incompetent mismanagement.
Uh, yeah. Right.
I hate to break it to you, but the War on Terror is in more places than Afghanistan. I have 2 cousins that just got back from the African "front" in the War on Terror [washingtonpost.com]. If you want to read about successes in the War on Terror, check out what we're doing in Africa.
Re:They're not that stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, there were allies in the Iraq invasion, we sent the majority of our people from their countries and we had a large open desert where we could see any threats coming from quite a distance away. The threat there isn't nearly as big as the threat in Korea and this is especially notable
A little late (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes. That's why so many countries jumped at the chance to join the "coalition of the willing."
Even Iraqi leadership believed it.
Only that one really cool minister of misinformation. "The infidels will die on their swords!" That was classic.
It should also be noted that a grand jury bent on charging the administration concerning the Valerie Plame "revelation" wasn't able to come up with any charges whatsoever exc
Re:They're not that stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's take this a piece at a time.
Yes, everyone....even Valeria Plame....even the French... thought Iraq had WMD. Hint: this is why they wanted the weapon inspectors to go into Iraq. And, unlike what the revisionists want us to believe, the weapon inspectors DID go into Iraq.
That doesn't discount the fact that Wilson's finding showed that Iraq COULDN'T and DIDN'T buy yellowcake. That also doesn't discount the fact that someone in the administration went after Wilson's wife as payback. (And let's face facts, that's about the lowest thing any President's admistration has ever done. Gone after someone's wife to get at someone...AND put the the lives of patriots at risk who were working in field ... no, not Plame, but all of the other people who used covers from the same companies.)
Alas, only a single charge of perjury was found on that. Damn, almost makes one wish we had independent investigators again.
That's true, we've never lost few casualities before for a war of this size.
Alas, that's not the war that was sold to us. That war would cost a mere $50 million and take under a week. The casualities we've had compared to a war of that size are astronomical (but I digress).
I'd hate to break it to you, but to any American (except those in Africa and other places) the War on Terror is Iraq. Look at the amounts we're spending in Iraq. Look at the numbers of troops in Iraq. Look at the number of causalities in Iraq. The less than 1% in Africa aren't the War on Terror. (I agree that progress is being made in places....I wish we'd spent more time/money/people/energy on those places than...but I'm not CIC).
I listened to a great number of people who had the irrational hatred of Clinton. All of them argued that it wasn't irrational...that they had specific reasons not to like the guy. (To paraphrase a Representative, who was on the floor of Congress at the time: that's not my President)
Shrug. People want to hate Clinton but demand me to respect Bush. Bite me. There are reasons (beyond what's posted here) to dislike Bush and the Republicans under Clinton made it socially acceptable.
Finally something I can agree with.
yes, YOU are revising history (Score:3, Insightful)
Many people thought that Iraq had WMD, as in they had a gut feeling. But you don't go to war based on a seat-of-your-pants gut feeling, unless you're a moron who considers yourself a "gut thinker."
I'm sure Clinton (either or both) and Gore
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Military Suicides
No I'm not counting that because it isn't true. Here are the most recent numbers I could find:
Whoa, whoa, whoa (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean individuals within the government can edit "the encyclopedia anyone can edit", too?
*Pause for stunned silence*
Or do we only let people not affiliated with governments edit Wikipedia? Or perhaps only from home?
Or perhaps we'd prefer that governments edit Wikipedia from unattributable IP addresses...?
Or could it be that a person with a "House of Representatives IP address" is actually acting of his or her own will, making what they feel are appropriate changes to a Wikipedia article, which can be vetted, reversed, modified, and discussed, as can any change on Wikipedia?
How does one person with a House IP equate to "US Government Caught Manipulating Wikipedia"? The biggest surprise about this story is that it didn't read "Posted by kdawson". Seriously, is this the kind of politically-charged meaningless garbage that passes for front-page material on slashdot now?
Oh, wait, I guess I must speaking for the government now, and not myself. Perhaps this post is even propaganda...after all, anyone who works for "the government" can't possibly have their own views and beliefs, some of which might even differ from others [weeklystandard.com]. Oh, it's the Weekly Standard, so it doesn't count? This whole article is couched in assertions such as it being "bizarre" to make a connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.Except that such a connection was explored in various ways for a decade, long before Bush was in office.Oops.
No link was ever really substantive, but there were links, and that shouldn't be surprising in the region. But that isn't even the point.
Those who want to paint all these issues as black and white, or say that some official or another "lied" about complex issues related to WMD in Iraq, OIF, etc., are the ones who are effectively the liars -- by ignoring everything that doesn't neatly support their own political positions. They lap up the new Iran NIE like it's gospel, while simultaneously writing off anything else that doesn't support their own views as lies. How convenient...and disgusting, for people who fancy themselves as enlightened intellectuals.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Whoa, whoa, whoa (Score:4, Insightful)
In fact, every single edit I see on that page, save for perhaps the one in the first paragraph which is a little over the top, makes the article more factually accurate, if that's what we're interested in.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The Fox News reporter might say something like this "Some say that Nancy Pelosi is sexually attracted to Laura Bush." The reporter didn't say it, a named source didn't say it, no SOME said it. Who's some? The trick here is that the reporter managed to get his own opinion into the story under the guise of journalism.
Journalists are journalists because they source the facts
Actually... (Score:3, Insightful)
Note also, the first edit, where the edit takes existing 'alleged' out of the picture.
Basically, the spin on the article pre-edit was things showing the invasion in a bad light were presented more like hard facts, while the elements
Re:Whoa, whoa, whoa (Score:5, Interesting)
Substantive links that would justify an invasion on their own with no other reason or purpose were disproved. But various links existed nonetheless.
I included a link that showed the government found Al Qaeda ties in Iraq years before Bush took office. Just because someone doesn't source and cite everything with endless streams of URLs from people who have nothing better to do than construct their own perfect view of the world on Wikipedia doesn't mean it's not still true. If there are no sources AND is not true, it will most certainly be reversed in short order.
Unfortunately, the simple fact is that most people who regularly edit Wikipedia are very likely to prefer the article's older form, which ignores the nuance and difficulties of acknowledging there actually were ties, since it doesn't fit into the neat little box of "everything the administration says or does is a lie". Don't get me wrong: I think Wikipedia does a fairly good job. Damned good, in fact. But there is a LOT of bias in a lot of articles, and it's no surprise that bias tilts toward the views of majority of the demographic doing most of the edits.
Just because a little number isn't floating in the air next to one of the edits doesn't make it untrue. The fact of the matter is that all of these edits were actually increasing the accuracy of the article, weasel words and all. Using weasel words is sometimes the only way to quickly update an article where people are making sweeping statements and conclusions that are, quite simply, incorrect. So yes, "some people" believe that any ties to Al Qaeda were disproved. But that's not correct. At all. By all rights, that entire section should be rewritten to accurately represent the situation.
I think the last edit sums it up:
Such a link was never suggested by President Bush or the Bush administration as a justification for the invasion [emphasis mine]; rather, that such a relationship existed at all is seen as compelling.
And indeed it was.
Re:Whoa, whoa, whoa (Score:4, Insightful)
Not the kind of fact that is required for an enyclopedia. If you can't give an actual quote rather than a paraphrase, let alone an attribution to who exactly is saying it, then is bafrely qualifies as heresay, let alone the level of fact required for an enclyclopedia.
As an earlier poster commented, "Some say" is a technique pioneered by Fox News to inject the partisan opinion of the reporter (or actually the reporters employers) into what is supposed to be news. It has no place in an encyclopedia.
If the original was wrong in some way, that is no excuse to flip the bias the opposite way. Rather the error should have been corrected.
And drop the paranoid persecution complex, it's not helping your argument.
I think the last edit sums it up:
The last edit is propaganda. It's not the kind of hard fact an Encyclopedia is about. Again UNLESS there is some evidence that that was always their position.
Re:Whoa, whoa, whoa (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably, you can logically argue the injection of 'alleged' phrasing in any controversial point as making a statement more universally true rather than presenting it as true. However, the edit clearly demonstrated they only wanted to put alleged around points they didn't like, *and* wanted to remove the weakening 'alleged' term from a point they did like. Both the article pre-edit and post-edit seemed to be using alleged to weaken points that the editor didn't like.
The last bits didn't remove data, but read more like a debate that should be in the Talk section as to why a paragraph or two is irrelevant to the article. The post-edit seems confusing 'here is data point A, with respect to the invasion of Iraq. However, it had nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq'.
Particularly the first edit, though, points to some right-wing nut who happens to be in government, and not a conspiracy. I would imagine a conspiracy would have written more clean, less bitter sounding stuff.
Re:Whoa, whoa, whoa (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually there is a wikipedia policy [wikipedia.org] against using the alleged modifier at all.
"alleged" is an editorial modifier; it renders the statement judgmental. In the first paragraph edit we go from "Alleged links... was mentioned..." to "Links were mentioned..."
The latter is literally correct. The media and the government mentioned links between Iraq and terrorism. An appropriate bit of balance would have been a citation to analysis of the recovered Iraqi government papers which showed, in retrospect, contacts but skepticism.
The edit also deleted a sentence quoting an editorial claiming that mentioning the links strained credulity. At the time that quote was written it was off the wall partisan. Only in retrospect is it clear how much the links were exaggerated. So the text sets a very biased tone.
Arguably the propaganda came not from the staffer's edits but from the original authors. Indeed now we have new propaganda being reported on slashdot about the evil congressional staffer. Hey wake up slashdot editors: the Inquirer is a left-wing publication and the article smears the right. Gee-wizz that can't be partisan spin in itself.
Bush et al were wrong but some people still need to get over their frenzied nonsense dogma about being lied into war. Being right was an accident.
Close (Score:2)
Actually, it's more like going into a library and stealing books you don't want anyone to read. Which I gather is a real problem at libraries.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Now I happen to think that some of the edits went a bit too far in that direction. But to call the edits partisan or manipulative just because they gave the benefit of the doubt to Bush is going too far. And comparing it to book burning
Re: (Score:2)
It might appear that the ip in question is an outgoing proxy or something. The ip address 143.231.249.141 [wikipedia.org] appears to have made thousands of contributions and the editing pattern looks as though it would be multiple persons editing. For example there is a case where the contributor from the IP in question admits he's a staffer in Albert Wynn's office [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Orwellian propaganda is in the eye of the beholder.
Really if the edits had been negative then a lot of people wouldn't have a problem with it.
I was right there with you up 'till the end (Score:2)
So kudos to you for pointing that out.
However, then you run off on a rambling and weird digression and into some random defense of the Iraq-war hawks.
You make a sound argument in trying to link Iraq and Al-Qaeda, except
[OT] DId the Bush Administration Lie on WMDs? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry to indulge the off-topic troll of the parent, but I'd like to state a common sense point lest other get sucked into this fallacious line of reasoning.
I agree that people have a tendency to accept things that con
You want a critique? Fine. (Score:3, Informative)
Oh, you wikiophiles (Score:3, Funny)
I don't understand... (Score:2, Insightful)
Wikipedia isn't just the article at any given point in time. It's the article throughout it's whole history, changes and differences intact. By it's very nature as a (mostly) amatuer-penned encylopedia, any given article is going to be filled with bias one way or another. Assuming that references exist throughout the history of the article, then you should be able to mostly eliminate
Any rationale is blowing smoke! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And you're surprised because...? (Score:3, Funny)
-mcgrew [slashdot.org] (latest blagh)
Why is it a bad thing? (Score:5, Insightful)
At least they realize (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
That just about sums about everything that the Register publishes. Which is exactly why I usually don't even bother with them. They're the National Enquirer of the tech world.
The Register? The Inquirer, surely? (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What I found more interesting is that apparently the Register doesn't like Wikipedia because they refer to it as "whackypedia",
It's the Inquirer, not the Register. The Inquirer was formed after the founder of the Register left/was-forced-out.
The Inq has a real stick up their ass about wikipedia. But they do have some justification for it, articles about the Inquirer have been subject to some rather arbitrary edits by prolific wikipedia editors over the years. As a result, they seem to have taken the tactic of throwing the baby out with the bathwater and every article they publish about wikipedia is guaranteed to be scare-monger
Re: (Score:2)
It's a wiki article... (Score:2, Insightful)
Sorry, as much as I'd like to scream Foul Play on this one; I can't.
Idiots still don't get how the internet works (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds like some one was cleaning up an article at work and improving the grammar/facts to it. Yeah, I can believe some people will go and massively screw the page up now just cause one individual from a US government IP made some really minor edits.
One consolation here.... (Score:4, Funny)
Other comments by the same IP (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mitt_Romney&diff=prev&oldid=165709470 [wikipedia.org]
"Clearly, Romney needs to be explained the doctrines of separation of powers, and judicial review."
I guess somebody wants to make sure Romney doesn't get the republican nomination.
So what? (Score:2)
Uh.... yes.... and your problem with that is....?
What part of "anyone can edit it" don't you understand?
New Slashdot Story Template (Score:3, Interesting)
[INSERT GROUP HERE] Caught Manipulating Wikipedia
This has now become so commonplace that it really shouldn't surprise anyone or even be considered news. Answer this question: they've been "caught" -- now what? Will Jimmy Wales declare war on the U.S. Government or the Catholic Religion? This isn't even going to generate enough interest in the mainstream media to become a blip on the national radar. I also imagine the average American or Catholic probably doesn't even know what Wikipedia is.
I don't get it (Score:4, Insightful)
"Visitors do not need specialised qualifications to contribute, since their primary role is to write articles that cover existing knowledge; this means that people of all ages and cultural and social background can write Wikipedia articles. With rare exceptions, articles can be edited by anyone with access to the Internet, simply by clicking the edit this page link. Anyone is welcome to add information, cross-references or citations, as long as they do so within Wikipedia's editing policies and to an appropriate standard. For example, if you add information to an article, be sure to include your references, as unreferenced facts are subject to removal."
I don't see any rules against government, people editing their own pages, etc. Only that facts be added, if they aren't they should be removed.
solution (Score:4, Funny)
Manipulating vs editing? (Score:3, Insightful)
Underwhelming (Score:3, Insightful)
And here I was expecting some Dan Brownesque intrigue of large-scale controversial religious/historical edits. Anyone consider these "manipulations" are just some random user who happens to be on the network owned by the "manipulating organization"?
Primary Source? (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe my understanding is off, but wouldn't the US government be the perfect entity to write encyclopedia article given that they are the primary source in the scope of their job? Would the US Forest Service agent who was present in the California Wildfires in 2007 be the perfect source to write (if he could be objective, and without bias) of the factual events of the fires, such as "At 8PM 27 fire engines from 6 counties began working on and achieved containment at 10PM". Or In a "perfect" system, would not an encyclopedia only contain factual data such as "On 12/12/2007, this person was quoted as saying
Even from elected officials, such as congressmen, I think it would be great to have themselves or staff or a Gov't official append their voting record to their wikipedia page. I think having a wikipedia page for every bill voted on in congress with a short summary, the bills sponsor, the committee's vote, and the houses of congresses voting record, along with any Congressional Record indexing information would be a very useful resource, and one that would give Wikipedia's flexibility and limitless nature (as opposed to a print encyclopedia) a real advantage.
Just having the data there is a valuable work as other contributors help grind the content down to a consensual view. Someone just has to get the ball rolling and if the original author does a great job, we'll get a solid article sooner than if we start with a crap one.
I'd say the only problem would be is that politicians and "neutral-point-of-view" don't usually go hand in hand, but you have a certain level of bias in any peice of writing.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
The Inquirer? (Score:2)
From my experience this "news source" creates many articles based upon speculation and rumors. Also, they "spin" the information to make it seem as if the article was entirely correct about the issue.
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...
The maliable nature of history (Score:2)
Sure, one can point to wikipedia being changed, but again, one *can* point to wikipedia being changed.
History has always been at the mercy of those in power. Sure you can argue abut the persistence of flattened dead trees and ink, but whole sale book burnings are the 3D equivalent of "rm -rf
The skeptical eye we hold for wikipedia is probably more healthy than a reverent eye for commercial encyclopedias. At least *we* a
This is a required Government Power (Score:3, Funny)
Summary is only partially true (Score:3, Informative)
Line 42 (Score:3, Funny)
There, the house of representatives fixed that for ya.
I would also like to point
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, that's exactly what I was going to say (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
$ host 209.174.104.2
2.104.174.209.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer host-209-174-104-2.kewanee.k12.il.us.