Politicos Edit Out Criticism From Wikipedia

Just curious what the Orgiasts would think of this. This lemur thinks it's always a good time to shoot politicians, but can we get them on this one? Probably not. I suppose a better question would be how do we protect a common resource like Wikipedia from self-serving pinheads who have staffers with too much time on their hands? There's more of the article where this snippet came from ...

Rewriting history under the dome

Online 'encyclopedia' allows anyone to edit entries, and congressional staffers do just that to bosses' bios
By EVAN LEHMANN, Sun Washington Bureau
Lowell Sun

WASHINGTON -- The staff of U.S. Rep Marty Meehan wiped out references to his broken term-limits pledge as well as information about his huge campaign war chest in an independent biography of the Lowell Democrat on a Web site that bills itself as the "world's largest encyclopedia," The Sun has learned.

The Meehan alterations on Wikipedia.com represent just two of more than 1,000 changes made by congressional staffers at the U.S. House of Representatives in the past six month. Wikipedia is a global reference that relies on its Internet users to add credible information to entries on millions of topics.

Matt Vogel, Meehan's chief of staff, said he authorized an intern in July to replace existing Wikipedia content with a staff-written biography of the lawmaker.

The change deleted a reference to Meehan's campaign promise to surrender his seat after serving eight years, a pledge Meehan later eschewed. It also deleted a reference to the size of Meehan's campaign account, the largest of any House member at $4.8 million, according to the latest data available from the Federal Election Commission.

"Meehan first ran for Congress in 1992 on a platform of reform," the pre-edited entry said. "As part of that platform Meehan made a pledge to not serve more than four terms, a central part of his campaign. This breaking of the pledge has been a controversial issue in the 5th Congressional District of Massachusetts."

The new entry reads in part: "Meehan was elected to Congress in 1992 on a plan to eliminate the deficit. His fiscally responsible voting record since then has earned him praise from citizen watchdog groups. He was re-elected by a large margin in 2004."

Vogel said, "It makes sense to me the biography we submit would be the biography we write."

Wiki Marty Meehan looks like someone has restored it to its former values.

Staffers should have to write that they are doing so. It is supposed to be a neutral site. Are we going to allow Chinese politicians to rewrite the content? OBL? Kermit?

It's not like Wikipedia has much credibility to begin with. It can be useful at times, but it shouldnt be relied on to establishing facts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I suppose a better question would be how do we protect a common resource like Wikipedia from self-serving pinheads who have staffers with too much time on their hands?

---

We don't. That is because there are too many self-serving pinheads out there, and when push comes to shove I guess you and I qualify for the epithet just like everyone else.

I put most trust in sources with (1) an identifiable individual or legal status, and (2) an established record. Scientific or (independent) newspaper websites qualify, government-run papers or paid activists do not. Your Auntie's blog does not, James Randi with his terrific track record does. Etcetera. Good records are notoriously hard to establish, it takes years and years to build one, and it takes only one day to destroy it. Tough luck on the also-rans. Wikipedia will never be more than an also-ran in my book.

I always thought that no-one took wiki seriously.

I know that Wikipedia can't be trusted, but sometimes when I want to know something quickly I look it up at wikipedia...but afterwards I know that I have sinned ~:mecry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

I know that Wikipedia can't be trusted, but sometimes when I want to know something quickly I look it up at wikipedia...but afterwards I know that I have sinned ~:mecry:

---

Meh. Wikipedia is actually quite accurate, and misinformation is usually quickly edited out. The information you are most likely looking for, is the hardest one to 'highjack' since it`s most viewed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Chris

Meh. Wikipedia is actually quite accurate, and misinformation is usually quickly edited out. The information you are most likely looking for, is the hardest one to 'highjack' since it`s most viewed.

---

I think a recent study showed it was as accurate as any other encyclopedia.

You're probably thinking of this.

The amount of inaccuracies is the smallest when it comes to physics and math entries. So if you're going to use Wiki, better hope it's physics or math. Furthermore a problem is that if a proffesional source like Encyclopaedia Britannica makes a mistake, it's most likely harmless. With Wikipedia such mistakes are often made with malicious intent or the result of very poor research.

Wikipedia is fun but you will never get serious credit for it in a real discussion.

The editing policy of Wikipedia has recently been changed.

In what way have they been changed?

Wiki is the only place where you find geekish information about Urban Dead or Travian or any other cryptic online trend, a place that has them all. I like it, not for factual research (at my University, I prefer old books for that) but for the very irrelevant and fun surfing wiki rocks.

Never knew there was a Wikipedia After hearing about Wikipedia I dont think i care that i never knew,

Seems a silly idea,

Like any organism, it seems that Wikipedia is taking steps to protect itself. Some of it is rather clever, I think.

Wikipedia is just perfect for quickly retrieving brief, non-controversial, basic knowledge.

For example, if you don't know what a 'Lemur' is, it'll take you five seconds to find yourself a handful of pictures and a good, consice description:
'Lemurs are part of a class of primates known as prosimians, and make up the infraorder Lemuriformes. This type of primate was the evolutionary predecessor of monkeys and apes (simians). [...]Lemurs are found naturally only on the island of Madagascar, and some smaller surrounding islands, including the Comoros (where it is likely they were introduced by humans) etc'.

If this is all the information you seek, it's just so much faster than a google. Google will make you wade through countless links to
- Lemur the JazzMutants,
or to
- a site ofA group of artists, programmers, engineers, and musicians building performing electronic musical robots
or to the
- Temple ov thee Lemur postcards! Why should prostitutes get all the fun?

Yeah, but Wikipedia doesn't tell the Chinese government that you've been visiting banned websites.

Bad Google :whip:, bad!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Wikipedia is just perfect for quickly retrieving brief, non-controversial, basic knowledge.

---

Touche :2thumbsup:.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

You're probably thinking of this.

The amount of inaccuracies is the smallest when it comes to physics and math entries. So if you're going to use Wiki, better hope it's physics or math. Furthermore a problem is that if a proffesional source like Encyclopaedia Britannica makes a mistake, it's most likely harmless. With Wikipedia such mistakes are often made with malicious intent or the result of very poor research.

Wikipedia is fun but you will never get serious credit for it in a real discussion.

---

That is more a reflection of things outside physics and maths... the rest is just stamp collecting after all :D... I just love that Rutherford who said that got a Noble Prize in chemistry not physics.

Wiki is a primer for a few things, as is most of google.

With the internet in general you have to cross reference and sift the junk... I suppose it is a bit like doing history and sorting out what is real and what is propaganda.