Slashdot Log In
Wikipedia Blocks Suspicious Edits From DoJ
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Wed Apr 30, 2008 09:00 AM
from the watching-the-watchers dept.
from the watching-the-watchers dept.
kylehase writes "The release of Wikiscanner last year brought much attention to white-washing of controversial pages on the community-generated encyclopedia. Apparently Wikipedia is very serious in fighting such behavior as they've temporarily blocked the US Department of Justice from editing pages for suspicious edits."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
It's about time... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Our long national nighmare is almost over (Score:5, Interesting)
It's historically been determined to be impractical because most of the population works at labour and doesn't have access to information, and because the capacity to communicate your vote in a timely fashion was too impractical.
However, with the current state of technology being what it is, these issues are no longer the barriers that they once were.
As a way to deal with the information overload, after the baseline system has been established, citizens should be able to nominate a representative to cast their vote on their behalf. Not someone who has chosen to run, but anyone who they feel they trust most.
This should be revocable at any time.
If we did this, during times of crisis, the natural pack tendencies of humans will cause them to self-organize into something resembling the modern political structure because it is efficient and a powerful tool to deal with problems.
However, there would be a built in mechanism in the system to allow that consolidation of power to cease when the threat is gone, allowing greater autonomy.
Basically, a new constitution is needed that lays all this out, and supporting infrastructure needs to be built.
This is a practical solution to the problems of corruption. It won't, of course, protect people from their own stupidity, but then, nothing ever does...
Parent
Re:Our long national nighmare is almost over (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that 99% of people are idiots. Not only do very few people have the brains to actually understand what they're voting on, but the ones who do are generally too busy living their lives to read, say, 5,000 pages of a tax bill.
BTW, who is to write all this legislation? Certainly not Joe Sixpack. Lawyers write laws for a reason - it's a complicated undertaking, full of technical language which must be written to survive testing in courts. Letting the general public write laws would quickly swamp the country in unintended consequences.
Don't get me wrong - representative democracy sucks. The reality is that there is no good form of government where humans are involved.
As a way to deal with the information overload, after the baseline system has been established, citizens should be able to nominate a representative to cast their vote on their behalf. Not someone who has chosen to run, but anyone who they feel they trust most. This should be revocable at any time.
Baseline system: constitution in 1789. Representative to cast votes: congressman. Revocable: elections. Your proposal is a distinction from our modern system without much of a difference. If you think what you propose wouldn't quickly descend into a similar system of corruption, lobbying, and abuse, you don't know humans.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I consider the fact that laws are written in language that only the lawyers can understand to be one of the fundamental problems that needs to be put a stop to.
Why do you think legislation is less complicated than, say, source code? Joe Sixpack should be able to tell his computer what to do and it just does it without all the need for this fancy programming, right?
Re:Our long national nighmare is almost over (Score:4, Insightful)
You write laws because there is a specific audience that is intended to be able to understand them and behave according to that understanding. That audience is a citizen.
These facts being true, which they are, I have two questions for you:
a) What makes you think it's impossible to craft laws in a way that the citizen can understand when it's possible to craft programs that a hunk of silicon can understand?
b) What makes you think it's important to dedicate such efforts to creating programs that a computer can understand, and yet not worth the trouble to make sure the laws that govern your behavior are understandable to you?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What makes you think it's impossible to craft laws in a way that the citizen can understand when it's possible to craft programs that a hunk of silicon can understand?
I understand that it's illegal to murder someone. But the law regarding murder in my state runs to many pages, and necessarily so...what kind of murder? What are allowed defenses? Circumstances, penalties, etc. It all has to be spelled out in precise detail. And murder is a simple case. Now apply that process to something like rules o
Didn't work in California, won't work elsewhere (Score:3, Insightful)
No. Simply allowing people to propose and vote on legislation won't work because people will then push through all sorts of unfunded mandates. We've seen this in California, where the initiative system was gamed by special interests who pushed through mandates forcing the government to provide all kinds of services. At the same time, though, none of the voters acted to support the tax increases needed to fund the initiatives. The state was then faced with the double bind of being legally required to pro
brave move that. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
DOJ: But...they blocked me on wikipedia....I have to hack around it!
President: Rattle your sabre tomorrow! You're mine now! Grrrrrroowl!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why? I can't see the DOJ filing suit because a site is refusing input from them based on previous (perceived) abuses.
It's not like the DOJ has some inherent right to access Wiki any more than anyone else. They're free to have their own policies, and if they include blocking certain contributors, tough.
As has been pointed out, it is unlikely this is an official DOJ campaign to modify this page, just an indiv
Re: (Score:2)
It's not like the DOJ has some inherent right to access Wiki any more than anyone else. They're free to have their own policies, and if they include blocking certain contributors, tough.
*grumbly-pedantic-mode on*
Don't call Wikipedia 'Wiki'. Call it WP if you're looking for something short, or maybe "the wiki" (since we have some context). There is more than one wiki out there, and Wikipedia isn't even the most wiki-ish site out there.
It's roughly equivalent to calling Slashdot "Blog". Wow, Blog sure has a bunch of dupes! The editors of Blog keep letting Blog-vertisements through, it's stupid! Look at all those anonymous cowards trolling Blog with Frirst Psoststs. (See? It sounds stupid.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So.. you must be new here?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
1) Respect other's rights.
Good for individuals, useless for organizations (Score:2)
Because, y'know, the DOJ only has a single point of entry to the internet, and couldn't possibly get around this block by, say, having people doing it from their home PCs...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Which will then prove malicious intent; they are government employees but still are lawyers and could risk their careers with such a move.
This kind of activity is carried in the shadows, as soon as you shine a bright light, they disappear into the bushes..
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"This kind of activity is carried in the shadows, as soon as you shine a bright light, they disappear into the bushes..."
Does anyone else find that sentence to be hilarious? Truly, there is no light of righteous freedom like that of blocking an IP address to drive the shadowy evils of government into the scratchy bushes of ignominy. Truth is on the march!
Re: (Score:2)
That was funny.
Are you sure? (Score:2)
I really don't see any point in an organization getting someone to push views similar to the ones that caused an IP ban in the first place.
Re:Good for individuals, useless for organizations (Score:5, Interesting)
Entirely correct. The DoJ IPs are blocked for a certain length of time; the DoJ has not been banned, i.e. told to bugger off and not come back for x amount of time.
This sort of thing happens all the time, when a company or government department has an employee being dickish on Wikipedia from their work address; it's generally sorted out quietly and without a fuss, because the company/dept is understandably embarrassed by it. And the company BOFH can be trusted to deal with the offender in future.
(Then, of course, there's Overstock.com.)
Parent
Good for them (Score:4, Insightful)
Until Wikipedia is served a court order requiring them to remove or alter certain information, they can do whatever the hell they want with their own web site(s) so long as they are law abiding.
The problem is one of opinon. (Score:4, Insightful)
As long as it is just facts then it seems too work pretty well. When it comes to opinion then things get into trouble.
One persons white washing is somebody elses setting the record straight.
What is funny is bias and opinion can creep into the strangest articles.
International differences (Score:3, Insightful)
Japan: "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam"
USA: "The defense department is in charge of Gitmo"
Why? (Score:2)
Glass House (Score:4, Funny)
Should the DOJ and Gov't Edit Wikipedia? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or does the 'openness' of wiki mean that the government is justified in making changes to whatever articles they want?
I personally don't want them even touching it, or influencing any media outlet.
Re:Should the DOJ and Gov't Edit Wikipedia? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think blocking the gov't is an option... I just want to know if we think they should be on wikipedia changing what millions of people read? We must remember the government is supposed to work for us, not against us. The gov't, its entities, ag
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Should the government have the right to even be on Wikipedia making edits? Isn't that similar to them controling any other media outlet?
Or does the 'openness' of wiki mean that the government is justified in making changes to whatever articles they want?
I personally don't want them even touching it, or influencing any media outlet.
With this deal [salon.com] in place, government officials and their contractors began approving, and in some cases altering, the scripts of shows before they were aired to conform with the government's anti-drug messages. "Script changes would be discussed between ONDCP and the show -- negotiated," says one participant.
Rick Mater, the WB network's senior vice president for broadcast standards, acknowledges: "The White House did view scripts. They did sign off on them -- they read scripts, yes."
Summary has the wrong emphasis (Score:3, Insightful)
This needs to be the straw that breaks the PNAC's and neo-conservatism's back, and we can only hope that the Republican party rises from the ashes better and more rational for having done so. They're already making solid progress by picking the McCain horse, if only he would stop selling himself out to the fundies and stick to his old center-right positions. The time of the Religious Right's domination of American politics needs to come to an end, and if we can show their more moderate colleagues just how bad they really are I think there's a solid chance that they'll kick the monkey off of their back for good.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the real story here isn't that Wikipedia has temporarily suspended the DOJ from article edits. The real story, at least to me, is that the DOJ has demonstrably been involved in a systematic effort to rewrite history. Many of us have been suspecting that the administration was doing that, but this is the kind of damning evidence that we've been looking for.
I don't see these attacks being "systematic" in nature. If they really wanted to "rewrite history" they'd do a much better job of things; they have vast resources and could easily access any one of thousands of IP ranges worldwide. Furthermore, such a campaign presupposes that Wikipedia is some sort of authoritative place for recording History, which it's not. This is just some random partisan hacks in the DoJ goofing off (whether during work hours or over lunch or after-hours has not been established, th
DoJ's authority to edit? (Score:2)
The DoJ (and all govt entities) are creations of law,NOT any sort of corporation or moral person and are not entitled to any sort of opinion. Any expression of opinion seriously undermines the democratic process since it generally favors incumbents.
There is a clear line between answering
Carrying this to its logical conclusion (Score:2)
I would have thought that technically, the DOJ can kick Wikipedia's ass on this one, if they were serious enough about it. Are we going to reach the stage where Wikipedia has to roll over or find some kind of safe haven for its servers, a la Pirate Bay?
Maybe there's a market for some small country to become a haven for unpopular websites - I kind of internet equivalent of the Cayman Islands or Monte Carlo.
Of course, if Wikipedia did have to do that, the first amendment is basically busted.
Government's place in public discussions (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Only in the math world can information be unbiased. In any other area, the information is going to be discolored with bias, even if it is not intended and worse when it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Think of the recent upset when it was discovered that the "military analyst" on most news shows was just a Pentagon mouthpiece.
Sand in my vagina? It's more likely than you think.
Seriously. The story there is not the analysts were biased, but that the bias was explicitly directed from the inside. Think of the former-military "experts" like the star witness in a mob trial.
Why would the prosecution call as a witness a former mobster? There's the credibility issue--hey, the guy was in the mob. There
freedom (Score:2)
Also, Wikipedia recently got a grant from the Sloan Foundation. On the board of the Sloan Foundation are several General Motors execs. So... hands up anyone who is naive enough to think that Wikipedia's General Motors pages will be 100% POV.
4 legs good, 2 legs better.
Re: (Score:2)
The Sloane Foundation being only one recent example of a potential conflict and lack of transparency in Jimmy's and Wikipedia's dealings.
And always worth mentioning -- there's STILL no accepted definition of "Vandalism". Wikipedia Admins use it the way "terrorism" is used by Fox News. This is easily abused and most certainly not to be trusted. Banning IPs is a disgraceful and disgusting practi
Be Rational People and Think This Through (Score:2, Insightful)
Information Warfare at its best (Score:2)
Good Reg article, bad Slashdot article (Score:2)
The Reg did a good job of summarizing the issue. The Slashdot "article" does not.
The main dispute regarding CAMERA's lobbying campaign is summarized on Wikipedia. [wikipedia.org] That effort did not involve DoJ. (CAMERA, the "Committee for Accuracy in Middle-East Reporting", is an advocacy organization for Israel. CAMERA sometimes claims to be neutral, but even the Israeli press says they're pro-Israel.)
After the CAMERA lobbying effort had been detected, and edits related to CAMERA were being closly scrutinized, so
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Mod Parent Up (Score:4, Interesting)
First, never said I was 100% anti-anything. I disagree with some of Israels actions, and current ideologies. This doesn't even make me anti-Israel (much less antisemitic), I acknowledge that the Israeli state has the right to exist, and disaprove of ANY violence (from any side). Your argument is thus; "My child misbehaves, I dislike this, therefore I dislike my child", which is obviously silly.
Second, your argument doesn't make sense. Israel is a country, not the sum total of the Jewish experience. They are separate entities, I can like one of them, but not the other with no paradox. I also disapprove of many of the US's actions, but obviously don't dislike Americans (being one). The people ARE NOT the country.
This flaw in reasoning has tainted the whole middle eastern debate.
As for the rest - really, why is Wikipedia so worried about people trying to improve their articles with sourced information? Why are they so worried that systemic bias in the Israel-related articles might be (gasp!) removed?
As you stated, Wikipedia isn't the most... unbiased... of entities itself. This probably plays a role. Also, to be generous, this topic is MASSIVELY contested, therefore all edits should be suspect, and held to higher standards than on non-controversial topics. Everyone has an agenda, everyone thinks that is represents the truth. This may be what they are doing. I honestly have no idea.
For that matter, why is "Electronic Intifada" a source to be trusted in this regard? It's just as likely that there are already organized Muslim/anti-semitic groups on wikipedia messing with these pages; they used to operate openly (Wikiproject Islam: The Muslim Guild/The Sunni Guild/The Shia Guild/etc) until they decided they'd work better hiding their affiliation, and there are users to this day running around with pro-Hezbollah buttons prominent on their pages.
Why is any source to be trusted? Yes, it seems a flippant question, but the truth is that EVERYONE has an agenda on this issue. The only trusted source would be a pure, uninterested, 3rd party. I don't know if any of those exist anymore.
In fact, one of the users with a pro-Hezbollah button (User Tiamut) is one of the ones who was working so hard to get the complainant above banned from wikipedia. Think about it; since under real application of wikipedia policy their bias-pushing edits wouldn't hold, the next best thing is to try to get the opposition banned from wikipedia.
This is one of my largest complaints about how Wikipedia works. This happens all the time, and not just on this topic. Go read the talk pages on Ayn Rand for example. Wikipedia is too political (in the social sense, and the public sense) to be a valid reference on any issue that holds any psychological weight.
Parent
Re:Mod Parent Up (Score:4, Insightful)
That's pretty unfair, and definitely doesn't fit the other poster's comments.
We can separate the actions of governments from the people they govern, and criticise them accordingly. That's normal, rational behaviour.
I look at the previous government of Australia (my country) and often criticised them for their policies. I'm not anti-Australian, I'm just not pro-Liberal (the local conservatives have an ironic name).
Similarly I can criticise the governments of the US, UK and Israel for various things without being anti-US, anti-UK and anti-Israeli (or anti-Semite) respectively.
For the record, I definitely do criticise the Israeli government for their lying about nuclear capability, for their often lethal attacks on civilians and for their habit of occasionally killing a foreign journalist in cold blood and then pretending they didn't spot the bright orange outfits or the camera crews. I also criticise the Palestinian government and Hamas for their insane campaign of terrorism, their willingness to kill and die rather than shut up until they get to the negotiating table and the atrocious tactic of using civilians as shields so that they can then paint Israel as evil for killing civilians.
Maybe you'll call me anti-Semite too, but it's bullshit and we both know it.
Lastly, it's entirely possible that Wikipedia has issues of bias. Just about every publication around the world seems to be biased for or against someone. Exposing it is a good thing, as is exposing any unwillingness to correct bias.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)