Wikipedia Blocks Suspicious Edits From DoJ

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."

It's about time...

Someone stands up to them. Now I think if the RIAA ever comes after me I will overrule them...I guess what I'm trying to say is I for one welcome our Self overruling overlords.

Re:Our long national nighmare is almost over

I've always thought that a direct democracy, in which everyone has the right to vote on every issue, would be a good base.

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...

Re:Our long national nighmare is almost over

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.

Re:

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

Re:Our long national nighmare is almost over

You write source code in the way you do because it has a specific audience that is intended to be able to understand it and behave according to that understanding. That audience is a computer.

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?

Good for them

Although I'm really not sure what the big deal is, except perhaps the fact that "suspicious" edits were occuring from the DOJ's networks.

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.

The big problem with the Wikipedia comes down to one of opinion.
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

Governmental Wikipedia editing around the world:

Japan: "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam"
USA: "The defense department is in charge of Gitmo"

Glass House

Meet stone.

Should the DOJ and Gov't Edit Wikipedia?

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.

Re:Should the DOJ and Gov't Edit Wikipedia?

The argument is only valid if you view 'the government' as a single faceless monolithic entity. I'll guarantee that 90% of edits coming from various government IP addresses are interns on their coffee breaks.

Re:

That's all well and good, but honestly, how would you propose we stop government from editing wikipedia. Wikipedia is what it is. An open community inviting everyone to the table. Do you think Google has any less at stake than the Department of Justice? Ma

Re:

I have no problem with them editing articles, until they start whitewashing and inserting propaganda into them to shed a better light on whatever the material is in question. Then they get put in timeout until they can learn to behave themselves.

Re:

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 ON

Summary has the wrong emphasis

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.

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:

having people doing it from their home PCs...

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:

Or disappear into coffee shops with free wifi, and, you know, coffee.

"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

Re:Good for individuals, useless for organizations

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.)

Re:

..but what will come out? a paper tiger or a man eater? I cannot see the DOJ taking this lying down.

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 inheren

Re:

It's not pedantry, it's clarity. Examine the difference before you respond childishly to polite posts explaining the problem.

Re:

Did anyone RTFA?

But odds are, the edits were made by a single individual acting independently. Wikipedia's ban on the department's IP is due to be lifted today.

So.. you must be new here?

Re:

It's consistent. The Department of Defense is responsible for attacking other countries. The Fire Department is responsible for extinguishing fires. Clearly, the Department of justice is responsible for preventing any justice from happening.

Re:

I mailed proof positive (full emails + screenshots) of malfeasance by editor AGK acting in league with anti-semitic editors

Please provide evidence. I'm not saying you're lying or anything but if you're going to accuse them of being anti-semitic, you should justify it somehow otherwise it's just slander.

Re:Mod Parent Up

>i>"I'm not an anti-semite, I'm just anti-Israel" ranks up with "I'm not a racist, some of my best friends are (black, hispanic, asian, etc)" on the bullshit-o-meter, buddy.

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.

Re:Mod Parent Up

"I'm not an anti-semite, I'm just anti-Israel" ranks up with "I'm not a racist, some of my best friends are (black, hispanic, asian, etc)" on the bullshit-o-meter, buddy.

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.