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.

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.

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.......

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.

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!

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.

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.

Wikipedia exhibits all the democracy of your average lynch mob.

Jonny

Actually, in the past it has been discussed here, although in that thread we were examining something a bit more covert.

William Connelley is a minor civil servant, and that's what he spends most of his time on.

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.