The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> General Discussion? What's that all about?

This subforum is for general discussion of Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. For a glossary of terms frequently used in such discussions, please refer to Wikipedia:Glossary. For a glossary of musical terms, see here. Other useful links:

Akahele.orgWikipedia-WatchWikitruthWP:ANWikiEN-L/Foundation-L (mailing lists) • Citizendium forums

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Feds (US) now "correcting" Wikipedia articles, Agency wields "controversy eraser" with heavy hand
omobomo
post Mon 29th January 2007, 7:42pm
Post #1


Junior Member
**

Group: Contributors
Posts: 54
Joined: Sun 28th May 2006, 4:44am
Member No.: 219

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Extra! Extra! Read all about it!

As I told the person who forwarded this article to me, yet more reason, if any were needed, why Wikipedia should be dynamited with extreme prejudice.

Discuss amongst yourselves.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
LamontStormstar
post Mon 29th January 2007, 7:51pm
Post #2


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,360
Joined: Fri 18th Aug 2006, 7:25am
Member No.: 342

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



The feds should make a statement that their wikipedia article is wrong and then the wikipedia would reference that statement saying the feds dispute it.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
anon1234
post Mon 29th January 2007, 8:05pm
Post #3


Senior Member
****

Group: Inactive
Posts: 401
Joined: Sat 8th Apr 2006, 2:40am
Member No.: 111



QUOTE(omobomo @ Mon 29th January 2007, 7:42pm) *

Extra! Extra! Read all about it!

As I told the person who forwarded this article to me, yet more reason, if any were needed, why Wikipedia should be dynamited with extreme prejudice.

Discuss amongst yourselves.


This is sort of old news, just not discussed on this board. I read about it some time last week. Might have been from AN/I or the news feed on this board. Can't remember where exactly. The editing was pretty lame, amateurish and obvious.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
a view from the hive
post Thu 1st February 2007, 3:48pm
Post #4


Junior Member
**

Group: Contributors
Posts: 90
Joined: Sat 30th Dec 2006, 12:42am
From: Milky Way Galaxy
Member No.: 768

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(anon1234 @ Mon 29th January 2007, 12:05pm) *

QUOTE(omobomo @ Mon 29th January 2007, 7:42pm) *

Extra! Extra! Read all about it!

As I told the person who forwarded this article to me, yet more reason, if any were needed, why Wikipedia should be dynamited with extreme prejudice.

Discuss amongst yourselves.


This is sort of old news, just not discussed on this board. I read about it some time last week. Might have been from AN/I or the news feed on this board. Can't remember where exactly. The editing was pretty lame, amateurish and obvious.



Hmm, I wonder if Wikipedia should have an option where all "unchecked" edits by government IP's can be reviewed again.

Sadly I don't think this is a rare occurance, Wikipedia has become a bit overrun w/ PR agencies and officials trying to put their spin on articles. It's just too easy to hit that edit button.......
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
omobomo
post Thu 1st February 2007, 10:28pm
Post #5


Junior Member
**

Group: Contributors
Posts: 54
Joined: Sun 28th May 2006, 4:44am
Member No.: 219

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(a view from the hive @ Thu 1st February 2007, 3:48pm) *

QUOTE(anon1234 @ Mon 29th January 2007, 12:05pm) *

QUOTE(omobomo @ Mon 29th January 2007, 7:42pm) *

Extra! Extra! Read all about it!

As I told the person who forwarded this article to me, yet more reason, if any were needed, why Wikipedia should be dynamited with extreme prejudice.

Discuss amongst yourselves.


This is sort of old news, just not discussed on this board. I read about it some time last week. Might have been from AN/I or the news feed on this board. Can't remember where exactly. The editing was pretty lame, amateurish and obvious.


Hmm, I wonder if Wikipedia should have an option where all "unchecked" edits by government IP's can be reviewed again.


Well, Wikipedia probably should have a lot of things. But you know, instead of looking for technological fixes for what's broken about it, how about simply addressing its fundamental flaws? Chief among those being the fact that anyone can edit it. Simple. Period.

It simply should not be possible for any idiot to change the content of an "encyclopedia". Or, let me amend that: it shouldn't be possible, unless the "encyclopedia" is a modest little affair that doesn't threaten to become one of the largest—if not the largest—sources of information on the Internet.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Poetlister
post Thu 1st February 2007, 11:16pm
Post #6


Poetlister from Venus
******

Group: Inactive
Posts: 1,018
Joined: Fri 3rd Mar 2006, 12:17pm
Member No.: 50

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(a view from the hive @ Thu 1st February 2007, 3:48pm) *

Hmm, I wonder if Wikipedia should have an option where all "unchecked" edits by government IP's can be reviewed again.

I wonder if this is a particularly American thing. Heaven knows, the British Government likes to spin, but based on my two years at the Department for Transport I'd be surprised if British civil servants had time for such a thing, let alone inclination!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Somey
post Thu 1st February 2007, 11:51pm
Post #7


Can't actually moderate (or even post)
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,815
Joined: Sat 17th Jun 2006, 7:47pm
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275



Maybe it's just more of non-British thing...?

Personally, I think all of this "conflict of interest" stuff is ridiculous - just another example of Wikipedians trying to foist off the blame for their own systemic flaws on the rest of the world, who (assuming they aren't admins already) are referred to as "clueless," as in "they just don't seem to understand what we're trying to achieve here for some reason."

They actually do understand what they're trying to achieve, but being more realistic about things, they also can see what they're actually achieving - the creation of the world's largest free spam generator!

I mean, if someone's interest is purely in promoting their own company, government agency, or self, then where's the conflict? I don't see any conflict.

Wikipedia may not be giving these entities a free billboard, but that doesn't mean the billboard space isn't there for the taking. You just have to know how to keep it, that's all. dry.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
coriaceous
post Wed 7th February 2007, 10:10am
Post #8


Neophyte


Group: Contributors
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu 12th Oct 2006, 7:30pm
Member No.: 467

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(omobomo @ Thu 1st February 2007, 4:28pm) *


It simply should not be possible for any idiot to change the content of an "encyclopedia". Or, let me amend that: it shouldn't be possible, unless the "encyclopedia" is a modest little affair that doesn't threaten to become one of the largest—if not the largest—sources of information on the Internet.


I like the democracy of Wikipedia as much as I despise it. A modern encyclopedia, by definition, is under continuous revision (I grew up with a late fifties EB, all 24 volumes, plus the Junior EB, plus the Books of the Year). I also like the idea that very trivial subjects are given space (local knowledge is always good); a good article can be just one or two sentences.

Wikipedia is approaching its death-rattle, probably from litigation being encouraged here. Trouble is, Microsoft (why did Gates name his company after his penis?), Google, Yahoo, etc, will bring it back the day or so after W is shut down, as propriatary stuff, with ads.

As Quick Draw McGraw said, "I'll do the thinnin here." Wales is Quick Draw McGraw.

The collapse of Wikipedia will probably be in the way of search warrents, looking for IP addresses of admins, as well as editors.

It's interesting that libel is the most interesting subject in current media.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jonny Cache
post Wed 7th February 2007, 1:24pm
Post #9


τα δε μοι παθήματα μαθήματα γέγονε
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 5,100
Joined: Sat 9th Sep 2006, 1:52am
Member No.: 398

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(coriaceous @ Wed 7th February 2007, 5:10am) *

I like the democracy of Wikipedia as much as I despise it.


Wikipedia exhibits all the democracy of your average lynch mob.

Jonny cool.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Herschelkrustofsky
post Wed 7th February 2007, 3:50pm
Post #10


Member
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined: Tue 18th Apr 2006, 12:05pm
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(anon1234 @ Mon 29th January 2007, 12:05pm) *


This is sort of old news, just not discussed on this board.


Actually, in the past it has been discussed here, although in that thread we were examining something a bit more covert.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
JohnA
post Wed 7th February 2007, 7:54pm
Post #11


Looking over Winston Smith's shoulder
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,171
Joined: Sun 30th Jul 2006, 9:56pm
Member No.: 313



QUOTE(Poetlister @ Thu 1st February 2007, 11:16pm) *

QUOTE(a view from the hive @ Thu 1st February 2007, 3:48pm) *

Hmm, I wonder if Wikipedia should have an option where all "unchecked" edits by government IP's can be reviewed again.

I wonder if this is a particularly American thing. Heaven knows, the British Government likes to spin, but based on my two years at the Department for Transport I'd be surprised if British civil servants had time for such a thing, let alone inclination!


William Connelley is a minor civil servant, and that's what he spends most of his time on.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Herschelkrustofsky
post Sun 11th February 2007, 4:09pm
Post #12


Member
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined: Tue 18th Apr 2006, 12:05pm
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



I think it might also be interesting to discuss which editors may be on Federal PR patrol. MONGO's name has come up in this context before. I also have my suspicions about User:172.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 24th 2 18, 10:05pm