Congress Made Wikipedia Changes 277
Dr Occult writes "BBC news is reporting misuse of Wikipedia by politicians for 'polishing' their images. The article on President Bush has been altered so many times - not just from within Congress - that Wikipedia's volunteer monitors have had to block further 'editing'." From the article: "Wikipedia says the controversy raises questions about whether it is ethical for those with a vested interest in the subject to edit entries about it. It said the Congressional computer network has been blocked from editing for brief periods on a number of occasions in the last six months due to the inappropriate contributions."
The Venn Diagram of Statements (Score:5, Interesting)
Wikipedia needs to decide whether it should accept those which fall in the middle overlapping area or reject them outright. It seems that for some issues Wikipedia allows the overlapping area (like String Theory [wikipedia.org]) to remain as long as there is a footnote or notation that this is opinion, theoretical or possibly untrue. So perhaps they should make it clear that if a piece of information lies in the overlap, you need to state so or it will be deleted.
Many people put fogs over their past and history is hard to verify. For these people, their biographical entries in Wikipedia may need to be covered with disclaimers saying that very little is verifiable about their background because of the individual's actions and unclear testimonials from people surrounding them. It's a shame that the majority of these people are politicians
Since our political system is divided in a very childish way (two parties), I have always dreamed to see the day that the GPO releases two volumes one year after each president has left office. Each volume would be an account from either side of congress commenting on the actions of the president. The preface could be all public documents proving actions taken by the president while in his presidency. These two books could be made available very cheaply (as a type of public service) and the public could enjoy that for free
Re:The Venn Diagram of Statements (Score:2)
But you're right... having only two doesn't help us in the least.
Re:The Venn Diagram of Statements (Score:5, Insightful)
I, for one, am interested in seeing the edit history of a political leader's entry. If it looks like the entry has had more plastic surgery than Liz Taylor, then that, itself, is an interesting data point.
Serve it up, and let the audience judge.
What about some kind of moderation, and a means of voluntarily selecting 'trusted' sources of moderation to apply? I might like a William F. Buckley, Jr. take on things one day, or CmdrTaco's take the next.
Half the time, 'who' is saying things is as important as 'what' was said.
Re:The Venn Diagram of Statements (Score:5, Interesting)
Entries could include an indication of the amount of "activity" that has occured, which will give the reader an instant idea if the text is controversial.
Re:The Venn Diagram of Statements (Score:2)
Since our political system is divided in a very childish way (two parties)
The two parties may act like children, but that's not the same thing as the system being childish. There are plenty of parliamentary systems you could live under if you like a government where every crackpot has a voice. Personally, I like how the major parties filter out the lunatics.
Re:The Venn Diagram of Statements (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, it also filters out voices of reason when it disagrees with both parties. There are a LOT of issues that the 2 parties agree on 99% of the time that are nevertheless wrong-headed and disagree with the opinions of most of their constituents. It means these issues are simply never discussed.
Re:The Venn Diagram of Statements (Score:2, Insightful)
That's part of the problem, no? One person's lunatic is another person's voice of reason.
Re:The Venn Diagram of Statements (Score:2)
Re:The Venn Diagram of Statements (Score:3, Informative)
Objective information? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Objective information? (Score:5, Funny)
Slashdot.
Re:Objective information? (Score:2)
Come to think of it, math is likewise objective. Everything else has to be subjective since it is almost works by man.
Re:Objective information? (Score:2)
Re:Objective information? (Score:2)
Re:Objective information? (Score:2)
Re:Objective information? (Score:4, Insightful)
"Wikipedia says the controversy raises questions about whether it is ethical for those with a vested interest in the subject to edit entries about it. "
My problem is with the term vested interest. The classification itself is pretty damn subjective.
How do you define the term? Are you ready to categorically conclude that someone editing a Congressman's bio page (for example) MUST be biased and incapable of objectivity if they work in a congressional office for one party or the other? Or (more shaky, in my opinion) are you simultaneously going to conclude that people WITHOUT formal affiliations are therefore entirely objective and editing altruistically? What if they actually donated $50 million to moveon.org or financed the publication of the Swift Boat book during the last campaign? Are they presumed to be objective? Or is objectivity defined in practical terms inveresely to how candid they are about their background?
Really, it becomes a "who watches the watchers" question, with infinite iterations.
Re:Objective information? (Score:3, Informative)
(n)
1. Law. A right or title, as to present or future possession of an estate, that can be conveyed to another.
2. A fixed right granted to an employee under a pension plan.
3. A special interest in protecting or promoting that which is to one's own personal advantage.
4. vested interests: Those groups that seek to maintain or control an existing system or activity from which they derive p
Re:Objective information? (Score:5, Insightful)
The dictionary definition is somewhat less useful than what one might wish it to be. I believe what people are reaching for when they use "information" in this kind of context is this: that which makes us better informed. By informed I mean prepared to make decisions.
Armed with this, I'd say that "Is there any genuinely objective information?" is not the right question. The question should be, "Is there complete data needed to answer this particular question?" Leaving aside attempts to present data in a biased way, which is a form of hiding data, for practical purposes objective information is simply complete data. However in many complex questions, like "Should I vote for Marty Meehan?", it's not possible to have all the data. Perfect information is like absolute zero -- a benchmark you can approach asymptotically and for practical purposes reach, but never truly reach.
What tends to be most helpful is to have data which throws light on the question from different angles. For example, if you know that Alice is twenty years old, and Bob is fifty years old, you have sufficient data to know who will collect social security first. But you don't have sufficient to know who you'd rather have driving your children's bus; in absence of further data you might tend to choose Bob because older people are more responsible. However, if you found out that Bob was a drunk who never held a job for more than six months, and Alice was a Mormon teetotaller on the Olympic ski team, you might revise your decision.
Attempts to misinform people fall into two cateogries: asserting false data, and hiding true data. Everyone understands asserting false data is a lie. What is less well understood is that hiding relevant data is a lie, and hiding relevant metadata is a lie as well.
Understanding context is critical in being informed, and sophisticated liars manipulate your perception of context by hiding relevant facts, then they cover their tracks by hiding metadata. The reason that politicians mucking with Wikipedia is unethical is not that they are necessarily telling falsehoods; it's that they're sanitizing the data of anything which puts them in a bad light, and hiding the metadata that what you are looking at was prepared by the person being described.
I love the Wikipedia: it's far more useful than we have any right to expect. However, I've often felt what was missing is a kind of Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval -- or rather, the ability for independent reviewers to create their own Seals of Approval. When you looked at an article, you'd see a list of review authorities who blessed this version, as well as a list of authorities that have blessed alternate versions. If this were available, there'd be no reason to stop the White House from editing the President Bush bio; however when looking at the edited version I could see that there alternative versions blessed by the League of Women Voters, the Democratic Party, and the Socialist Worker's Party. Or when looking at a different version, I could see the one blessed by the RNC.
This scheme would provide critical metadata when evaluating an article. Individual authorities could establish a brand based on the review process, whether it's a society of American Historical Seal of Approval on the Andrew Jackson article, or the Christian Coalition's Seal of Approval on an article about the Roman Catholic Church.
Re:Objective information? (Score:2)
Re:Objective information? (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly my point. You can give some true data but hide other true data which changes its meaning. You can also hide data "in plain sight" by arranging it so it's hard to perceive (e.g. non-zero based bar graphs to show a "trend").
all writing is... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:all writing is... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:all writing is... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Politicians (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Politicians (Score:2, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Block 'em all. (Score:2, Informative)
Keep in mind that Wiki has a policy against original research [wikipedia.org] that hasn't been published elsewhere. Which is not to say that they couldn't contribute, but just that it would have to be done carefully:
Re:Block 'em all. (Score:2, Interesting)
I personally think Wikipedia does accept that, and that's why it (more or less, with obvious noisily reported exceptions) works. Most people, most of the time,
Re:Block 'em all. (Score:2)
You strip the Wikipedia of authority excluding contributions from sources in the federal government. This is, after all, an arena in which decisions are made which affect the entire country.
implement a mod system (Score:3, Interesting)
The edit wont be added until some score is reached. If the edit is declined then you can extract keywords from that edit and use them to lower the score for future similar edits automaticly ala lame filter.
Re:implement a mod system (Score:2)
Mods will not prevent bias (Score:2)
Re:implement a mod system (Score:3, Insightful)
I am from Germany. I don't want to compare Bush to Hitler. They are both completely different and have nothing in common. Except that they were both elected in a popular vote.
Re:implement a mod system (Score:2)
To defend my people: Yes there was never a "majority" for the Nazi party as in only 43.9% voted for the Nazi party in the last German elections before WWII. However, historians view that election already as rigged for a number of reasons. The last "free" election was in 1932. The Nazi party gained about a third of the popular vote. Because the other parties thought they could "contain" Hitler they formed a coalition with the Nazi party and Hitlor became Ch
Re:implement a mod system (Score:3, Interesting)
I suggested here once before to make time the element of data integrity.
If a particular article is "hot", slow down the number of edits per day, week, month or whatever. Especially edits from the same person and/or IP address or subnet.
Slashdot has implemented things similar to this like taking 60 seconds between posts (Slow down cowboy!), and by punishing logged in users that have submitted posts anonymously. Its been a while si
Not just wikipedia (Score:4, Insightful)
We salute revisionist government and it's retro-active position on history.
Re:Not just wikipedia (Score:5, Funny)
What is the past? It does not exist, in any physical sense. It is only what people remember, and what the records show. But memories are pliable, people are prone to forgetfulness and false recollection, and of course the records show what we want them to show.
Really, it's quite a simple system. You don't seem to understand. History is never rewritten, because once rewritten it always was that way - unless you believe, rather unscientifically, in a past world that somehow exists in 'reality', independent of the evidence in the present.
Perhaps you could use a little time in the Ministry of Love? They're very good at educating people to understand this kind of thing.
What's this? (Score:2)
It seems that we have here people employed by the Party to edit articles about their masters. They are actually throwing inconvenient facts down the memory hole. It's pure 1984.
And somebody thinks it's funny. Christ. Perhaps Ingsoc could add a fourth slogan...
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
WAR IS PEACE
TOTALITARIANISM IS FUNNY
Re:Not just wikipedia (Score:5, Interesting)
The war in Iraq is a part of the global war against terror, it was never about WMD.
The war in Iraq is about liberating its people, it is about democracy and nothing to do with terrorism.
Actually that's a good example of a shallow understanding of a historical event, a politically biased statement. In other words something that would be worthy of an edit on the Wiki, and invariably such edits would be labeled as politically biased by those of the opposite political bias who preferred the original politically biased text. In reality the War in Iraq was about all of the above and more. The "WMD" angle was merely what was used to sell the war to the UN. That was an intense high profile effort and it's natural for people to focus on this one motivation even when they have no political bias. However when honest unbiased historian sit down some day to write the history of war the motivations will be far more complex.
Re:Complex reasons such as.....OIL! (Score:3, Interesting)
You could make the same statement about World War II in the Pacific. The US turned off Imperial Japan's oil, Imperial Japan pulled out a map to find the closest source, drew a line and noticed that it passed right between rather large US and British naval bases, and so decided to attack the US and the British. Of course saying that either war was all about oil is grossly simplistic and naive, but like WMD, oil is something simple to focus on.
Common Sense, please (Score:5, Interesting)
Additional resource (Score:3, Informative)
The Washington Post [washingtonpost.com] also has an article on this
Some day, I'll remember to put the break tags in my first posting of the day. /yawn
Re:Common Sense, please (Score:2)
Re:Common Sense, please (Score:3, Insightful)
WP is an overwhelmingly positive development on the internet, but it has many problems which must be addressed. Even though it seems to be getting an unfair amount of criticism at the moment, in the long term it will benefit from this scrutiny.
Re:Common Sense, please (Score:2)
Unfortunately, I think the opposite is more likely to be true. "12 year-olds getting giggles" ? Yes, you may have a point. But I think the opposite is true when comparing people who "care about Wikipedia" putting more effort into correcting what may be relatively obscure political subjects
Not just Congress (Score:2, Funny)
Effective Blocks and Countermeasures (Score:2)
The only thing this will change is whether or not they can do it from work. Why not just slap big warnings on the wiki pages that seem to be having this problem? So everyone surfing to that page to get info about their favorite cong
Re:Effective Blocks and Countermeasures (Score:2)
It's not misuse. (Score:2)
For any particular article, one hopes that there are a reasonable number of members of the Wikipedian community that have the article on their watchlist, and that genuinely agree with WIkipedia's policies on verifiability, source citation, and neutrality to keep things under control. One also hopes that the spinners have enough respect for Wikipedia's policy to understand that th
Block their IPs won't stop them. (Score:2)
(BTW that proxy system is now open-sourced as the 'tor' project.)
Warning signs: (Score:5, Funny)
Simple! Just use this handy checklist!
1.) Adjectives such as 'moderate', 'vocal', and 'punctual' are generally safe and objective. Adjectives such as 'mind-blowing', 'god-like', or 'sexilicious' probably deserve further research.
2.) Allegations of embezzlement or abuse of public trust are typically more credible than allegations of bestiality or autoerotic asphyxiation.
3.) You may safely ignore photographs which seem to depict interaction between the politician in question and any the following historical personas: Jesus, Mohammed, Abraham Lincoln, Hitler, or Charles Manson.
4.) Treat any debate over penis size with a healthy amount of skepticism.
Really. whats the big deal ??? (Score:4, Insightful)
Doesn't everyone who creates and edits articles have a vested interest ? Else why would they be spending time to do it ?
Lots of articles get "spinned" by non-politicians too, whether it is about politics or something else.
I wonder how many spins comes from
Re:Really. whats the big deal ??? (Score:3, Insightful)
Our political process relies on the percieved integrity of the individual in whom we place our confidence. There is a lot more at stake than a bad review or a misinterpretation of facts as these people are involved in the process of making and passing laws in the US.
And as for the big deal, well wikipedia is designed to handle these cases where differences of opinion on the facts show up. But with a p
Re:Really. whats the big deal ??? (Score:2)
Bush article isn't completely blocked (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Bush article isn't completely blocked (Score:2, Informative)
Why on Earth would they want to change it? (Score:2, Funny)
Opposing viewpoint (Score:2)
Take G.W. for instance:
Main entry
Name
Title
Education
Previous Political positions
Now the above are things that are simply fact. For a detailed bio section, link to two sub entries that considered "opinionated".
I just don't understand why people find it SO fucking hard to state things with an unbiased view. I understand the little word play that people try
Those with a vested interest (Score:4, Insightful)
Some WikiPedia proponents say that the strength of WikiPedia comes from those who are knowledgeable about a subject, editing and contributing to articles on that subject.
Where does "knowledgeable about" end, and "vested interest" begin?
Re:Those with a vested interest (Score:3, Informative)
T
An interesting experiement... (Score:4, Insightful)
Wikipedia is a fabulous experiment in humanity and social interaction. It is without a doubt one of the most interesting things I've come across since I began using the Internet. I like looking things up in Wikipedia for two distinct reasons: 1) There is a huge body of knowledge out there in the minds of the world; 2) I enjoy reading the history of the given bits of information I read. It is particularly telling when one reads topics that are controversial or contemporarily historic. Many people, many opinions, many slants/spins on what is real and what is not.
Throw into the mix a sprinkling of morons, vandals, gleeful miscreants, politicians, PR people, and the ignorant, and you get a fabulous view of the brilliantly bizarre view of the public itself.
Don't take Wikipedia (and its contents) as fact. Take it as a social experiment. The views on the Bush administration in the public forums is extremely similar to the view of the Bush administration in Wikipedia.
In the words of Ralph Waldo Emerson (Score:2, Insightful)
Sounds like a normal turn of events to me.
Freedom? (Score:2)
Read WikiNews for the rest of the story (Score:4, Informative)
Tim
Re:Read WikiNews for the rest of the story (Score:2)
Tim
Re:Read WikiNews for the rest of the story (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Read WikiNews for the rest of the story (Score:2)
Fair enough, but the discussion tab has the details of the relevant research. In short, if you aren't quite sure of the sources quoted, you can go back and "look over the shoulder" of the writer. Also, in this case, the bulk of the articles was by "wikinewsies," and not just your average Joe (Biden, or otherwise).
Tim
Jimmy Wales (Score:2)
Wide open content can never work (Score:2)
The only thing that will ever work is to have an "owner" of a wiki who gives access on a trust basis. The owner will decide who s/he trusts, and to what level.
I'm afraid that this is the only system that will ever work for collaborative content.
OT: great change, and a suggestion or two. (Score:2)
Tell me that the editors now have a system whereby that comes pre-filled with some results from rudimentary searching on key words, and I'll be amazed. If not, this should be considered.
In fact, to expand upon the suggestion, while at the same time making it easier to implement: add a tag field to story submissions. It would be awesome to have a userbox on the side doing the equivalent of smart folders, even better if it fed a custom
if (horse == dead) beat(horse); (Score:2, Funny)
At a guess that's the 5th time this appears on
For Sale (Score:5, Funny)
$1000 OBO.
Put the pitchforks down, fellas... (Score:2, Insightful)
Editing (Score:2)
Wikipedia's failure of philosophy... (Score:2)
It needs to go both ways. Blocking the Presidential staff or Congress from editing the bios and removing inflammatory content is only fair if they also block members of political groups such as MoveOn.org or New Republicans. Of course, it's near impossible to do so. But if they're not careful they may open themselves up for a libel lawsuit.
Block for all time (Score:2)
Imagine.... (Score:2, Insightful)
O
Re:Imagine.... (Score:3, Informative)
Wikipedia Wayback machine? (Score:2)
So not necessarily possible, but would be a cool feature anyway
Re:Wikipedia Wayback machine? (Score:2)
But yeah, it's a pretty cool feature
Bush's article wasn't locked for that reason (Score:2, Insightful)
Big deal? (Score:2, Insightful)
grow up... (Score:2)
Need accountability? Remove anonimity! (Score:4, Insightful)
This is the great challenge for Wiki now, as I see it, how to meld the internet's spirit of anonymity with the _direct_ responsibility to others.
p.s. Once again, we see the corruption of politics...
Re:duh (Score:5, Insightful)
Any liberal arts major can tell you that.
And that's why they're not scientists.
Re:duh (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Statistics (Score:2)
Struth .. the Kanagroos *are* bad (Score:2)
http://www.snopes.com/humor/nonsense/kangaroo.htm [snopes.com]
What more can you say?
Re:Entry on Bush (Score:2)
What is really interesting is the various survys where they asked the US population about it, the majority of people who do believe this do not classify themselves as Republicans. Also the surveys number of people that believed this increase as 'fahrenheit 911' gained in popularity, and it was not into Feb/Mar of 2005 when it decreased back to previous numbers.
Re:Entry on Bush (Score:2)
Re:Multiple versions? (Score:2)
It's actually pretty interesting to see the kinds of changes some people make, and how small changes really effect the meaning of the article.
=Smidge=
Re:No. (Score:2)
You must lead quite the boring life.
Re:No. (Score:2)
Re:No. (Score:2)
A man wiser than you or me disagrees:
"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it."
-- Winston Churchill
Re:No. (Score:2)
Re:No. (Score:2)
What if I was to describe you as some-one who eats babies ?
You, or someone who knows you (i.e. has a "vested interest"), would deserve the right to correct or at least address that statement.
Assuming, of course, that you don't actually eat babies...
Re:No. (Score:2)
Re:Don't act suprised. (Score:2)
"Federal auditors said Friday that the Bush administration had violated the law by purchasing favorable news coverage of President Bush's education policies, by making payments to the conservative commentator Armstrong Williams and by hiring a public relations company to analyze media perceptions of the Republican Party."
Last year, a FAKE news report was broadcast that
Re:I had first post, but it was edited! (Score:2)