Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United Kingdom Government Your Rights Online Politics

British Politicians Delete Negative Wikipedia Descriptions Before Election 121

Posted by timothy from the war-on-the-ground dept.
EwanPalmer writes: The Wikipedia pages of dozens of UK politicians had references to sex scandals, fraud and opposition to same sex marriage removed in the run up to the UK general election. Dozens of MPs had negative aspects of their online biographies removed or altered prior to the election in a bid to make them more electable. The changes include several instances of MPs' expense claim scandals being removed, as well as details of arrests and the use of 'chauffeur-driven cars.' The edits were made using computers with IP addresses registered from inside Parliament.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

British Politicians Delete Negative Wikipedia Descriptions Before Election More

British Politicians Delete Negative Wikipedia Descriptions Before Election

Comments Filter:

  • Surprised those edits weren't reverted (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rockout ( 1039072 ) on Tuesday May 26, 2015 @08:01AM (#49774235)
    I've noticed in the past that most of those white-washing edits, especially when they're done by anonymous IPs, tend to get reverted by registered editors, so that the white-washing isn't that much of an issue.

    • So you took the same thing away as I did, that there are no pimply, greasy, reversion hounds with axes to grind that have bots looking for changes? That's pretty odd for Wikipedia.

    • Re:Surprised those edits weren't reverted (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26, 2015 @08:10AM (#49774303)

      Even if they were immediately reverted, that the edits were done is a cause for concern on its own basis.

      Me, if I were a politician, I'd tell my staff to have NOTHING to do with any Wikipedia pages on me EXCEPT post comments to the talk page clearly established as being from them, and requesting any errors or clarifications be made. Well, I suppose commenting to BLP or other places would be ok too.

      But that's why I'd never be a politician, I'm too honest and earnest.

      • Re:Surprised those edits weren't reverted (Score:4, Interesting)

        by MickyTheIdiot ( 1032226 ) on Tuesday May 26, 2015 @08:22AM (#49774365) Homepage Journal

        Politicians are in such a bubble these days and are so self-righteous and self-involved I wonder if the actual office holder even has Wikipedia on their map. Here in the US we have politicians that proudly say they don't use email or have never used the web. It wouldn't surprise me if many staffers receive no guidelines at all about their online usage, and if they do it might come ignorance of how the Internet works.

      • Re:Surprised those edits weren't reverted (Score:5, Interesting)

        by RDW ( 41497 ) on Tuesday May 26, 2015 @08:43AM (#49774479)

        Me, if I were a politician, I'd tell my staff to have NOTHING to do with any Wikipedia pages

        Personally, I'd have my staff whitewash my opponent's page, then leak that somebody had done this...

        • Maybe that's what happened...

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by TheCarp ( 96830 )

          Nah, you pay someone to deface his page with slander and lies, and have your staffer fix it immediately and release that you have no connection to such underhanded tactics as to spread ....insert reference to slander and lies.

          That way, you have a legitimate reason to speak your slander and lies, while making it someone else's fault; and take credit for being fair.

          • These days it won't even be staffers who will fix it, it'll be PR companies and they most definately do know a lot about Wikipedia pages etc... They'll know for example that if you change it before an election, it'll most likely take time to be fixed, so it'll only show back up again after an election. So gives them the effect they want. Whitewash before the election, then next election, play the same game again.

            It is a problem because a lot of people won't see the truth in time, then will forget it by th

            • It is a problem because a lot of people won't see the truth in time, then will forget it by the next election.

              This is only a problem for the three people who vote based purely on what they read on the candidate's Wikipedia page.

      • If anyone can put anything in, then anyone can take anything out.

        Deal With It.

        • The article IS dealing with it. It's exposing the fact that staffers for these candidates are white-washing pages. Not sure what you're so angry about.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by sycodon ( 149926 )

            "Exposing".

            What's to expose? People did what people do in Wikipedia all day long.

            People are acting as if this is a big deal and somehow improper. It's just as proper as people putting information in that may be inaccurate or biased.

            Wikipedia is a poorly controlled free for all and no one should be surprised or upset when stuff like this happens.

            It's a great big So What?

            • Probably because even though it's rarely practiced in reality, we'd like to think our elected leaders are held to a higher standard of honesty than the random population typing away edits at home. This article at least sheds SOME light on that behavior when it's coming from a place we'd rather see it not come from.

      • Even if they were immediately reverted, that the edits were done is a cause for concern on its own basis.

        I'm more concerned with voters who decide based on info on wiki pages. A sad state of affairs if it really makes a difference.

        • Those voters are at least making an attempt to research their choices in some objective manner, rather than listening to both (or all of) the sides flinging attacks, promises, and lies. On many political issues, I wind up not knowing what's correct and what's not until I do my own research or find somebody else I trust who's done the research.

    • Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday May 26, 2015 @08:23AM (#49774373)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re:Surprised those edits weren't reverted (Score:5, Informative)

        by rockout ( 1039072 ) on Tuesday May 26, 2015 @08:49AM (#49774523)
        Well, that may be true if an editor gets involved in a protracted edit war with another editor. For anon IPs, such as the ones doing the edits described in the summary, it's trivial to revert the edit, and if anon IPs continue to remove sourced material, the IP addresses tend to get blocked for a few days, or a week, or a month, depending on the individual circumstances surrounding the edit war. An administrator is going to back a registered editor over an anon IP pretty much every time, so there's no danger of getting banned.

        • Is anyone ever held accountable for libelous information in Wikipedia? Has there ever been any lawsuits over false information?

        • Well, that may be true if an editor gets involved in a protracted edit war with another editor. For anon IPs, such as the ones doing the edits described in the summary, it's trivial to revert the edit, and if anon IPs continue to remove sourced material, the IP addresses tend to get blocked for a few days, or a week, or a month, depending on the individual circumstances surrounding the edit war. An administrator is going to back a registered editor over an anon IP pretty much every time, so there's no danger of getting banned.

          Wouldn't it just be easier to build in a delay of all edits from anonymous IPs?

          • Maybe. It would be even easier to just ban IP edits entirely. Of course, that's not the idea that drives Wikipedia -

            Anyone with Internet access can write and make changes to Wikipedia articles, except in limited cases where editing is restricted to prevent disruption or vandalism. Users can contribute anonymously, under a pseudonym, or, if they choose to, with their real identity.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

            • Yes and...that's why I suggested a delay.

              • This is obviously the wrong place for that suggestion, mainly because Wikipedia has an excellent system in place for any user to submit a suggestion of that nature. If you cared enough to take the time to do it, you could end up starting a discussion there and if enough editors agreed with you, that type of major change might actually happen. I encourage you to take part and start the process.

            • Maybe. It would be even easier to just ban IP edits entirely. Of course, that's not the idea that drives Wikipedia -

              Surely different types of information can have different levels of protection. eg a page on Pythagoras Theorem should pretty much be lock in now, I can't imagine much changing there, whereas the latest football season scores will expect to be updated in an ongoing basis.
              We have media blackout laws 4 days prior to an election, I can't see why relevant political pages can't be locked during this time.

              • They do, in fact, have different levels of protection for different types of pages. For examples, biographies of living people are afforded far more protection than an article, on, say, the World Trade Center. However, when it comes to topics like the Pythagorean Theorem, the encyclopedia tends to err more to the side of openness, rather than lockdown, and trust that the community will revert any vandalism-type edits, thus also allowing easy access to anyone that has anything of substance to add. The whole
      • Wikipedia has had lots of high profile problems lately, like when they refused to let the author of a book, correct the Wikipedia entry about his own book. BUT, he could write a blog post, and then LINK to that post, and it'd be okay because it's somehow more verifiable.

        It also has lots of problems with hardcore progressives / gender warriors (::cough::slashdot owners::cough::) going ape-shit on all of the gender-related articles and reverting, censoring, and forcing out anyone who disagrees with the peop

    • Re:Surprised those edits weren't reverted (Score:5, Interesting)

      by mwvdlee ( 775178 ) on Tuesday May 26, 2015 @08:37AM (#49774445) Homepage

      It's an issue in that these politicians are wasting the precious time of honest, taxpaying volunteers.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Z00L00K ( 682162 )

      Add to it that there's a history of edits, and it may be valuable to actually analyze the history on the pages that can contain controversial information.

    • I've noticed in the past that most of those white-washing edits, especially when they're done by anonymous IPs, tend to get reverted by registered editors, so that the white-washing isn't that much of an issue.

      Unless the reversion takes place after the elections in which case the scumbags have accomplished what they set out to.

      Any politically sensitive pages should have editing delays and open review for some time (two weeks?).

    • ...you don't get blocked for edit-warring until there have been three successive reverts. If there's a handy list of the affected pages I'd be glad to hop in and revert a few of them, and then bow out and let someone else hop in if needed.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by tsotha ( 720379 )
      It's a question of timing, though. Most voters don't think about politics much, so even just a few hours at the right time could be critical.

  • Last minute voting researchers? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rmdingler ( 1955220 ) on Tuesday May 26, 2015 @08:08AM (#49774291) Journal
    Sure it's scandalous, but mostly because candidates with this many flaws are still running at all.

    Access to information is the greatest threat to rule of crooks and despots, which is why it is frowned upon in so many closed counties.

    In the West? Chances are very few people will be reseacrhing online inside the voting booth. Do your homework before election day.

    • In the West? Chances are very few people will be reseacrhing online inside the voting booth. Do your homework before election day.

      You'd be surprised at how many people bring their smartphone into the voting booth with them for some quick wikipedia lookups.

    • Sure it's scandalous, but mostly because candidates with this many flaws are still running at all.

      Ah, how quaint: another naive kid who thinks that if we just elect flawless candidates, our government will be functional and do good.

      Access to information is the greatest threat to rule of crooks and despots, which is why it is frowned upon in so many closed counties.

      The greatest threat to the rule of crooks and despots is for the people to refuse to be ruled and only accept minimal government. Once you transf

    • People without serious flaws are likely to lack serious virtues as well. We want to select people who will be good in their office, not the ones with the most innocuous youths.

  • Obilg Orwell (Score:5, Informative)

    by seven of five ( 578993 ) on Tuesday May 26, 2015 @08:19AM (#49774357)
    'There is a Party slogan dealing with the control of the past,' he said. 'Repeat it, if you please.'
    '"Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past,"' repeated Winston obediently.
    • The response to this is simple. LOCKSS. Many archives (not all online) in many jurisdictions limits censorship to countries running Great Firewalls, which have their own problems.
  • And you think politicians from other countries will keep their "negative" details? Ah!
    • You're right, of course. This article only deals with British politicians, though. I've reverted anon IP edits to American politicians' pages myself; mostly it's just simple white-washing stuff that, once you add it to your watchlist, becomes really easy to spot and maintain.

  • With all the talk going on around UK's adult content policies, it was only natural to remove some social-centric articles which directly impact on public opinion. It just doesn't seem like the British thing to do, does it?

    Well, I guess the way they are heading, any censorship is good censorship. Might as well make it a totalitarian state sooner better than later. How anyone in there is outraged that the EU is eye-browing such policies, that is the actual surprise... But then again, who would want freedom of

    • Aah, but the British thing is also to make a cock of it. The British had their own eugenics movement back in the thirties. It had people Marie Stopes disowning her daughter because she wanted to marry someone who wore glasses, because that would 'pollute the race'. It was a bunch of very ordinary looking people pretending to be the master race, while falling over their own furniture. A properly organized nation would be a lot worse. Makes one proud, it does...
  • The root of the problem is people using Wikipedia as a research resource in its own right. It's very helpful for uncontroversial facts but horrible for anything even slightly politically charged. Wikipedia is filled with power hungry POV pushing scum in denial. The solution isn't to fix Wikipedia, it's far beyond fixing. The solution is to take anything you read on Wikipedia with a whole shaker of salt. Do real research.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      And what source do you suggest that isn't politically charged? Wikipedia is of course far from perfect but with the audit logs it is the one source that completely details the evolution of the article on a particular subject. If you think an article has been tweaked to show a certain viewpoint you can always look at past versions to see how it has been changed and by who.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jodido ( 1052890 )
        a. 99 percent of wikipedia users don't know there are audit logs let alone are willing or interested in wading through them. And audit logs don't tell you anything about prejudices or points of view. b. Wikipedia is pretty good for science stuff. The further you get away from science the worse it gets in terms of reliability.

  • that usally goes well for anyone using it.

  • Humans are the problem.

    Knowledge sources can only be built through networking efforts which actively strive for truth at all cost, self-police of its membership, values multiple viewpoints in the understanding that one person is powerless to perceive reality in its totality, and is prepared to take ego hits as members put truth and knowledge ahead of personal whimsy.

    The human world at large is a cauldron, or more accurately, a crucible evidently designed to purify human psyche and spirit. The action of

  • Coming to a Clinton near you!

Slashdot Top Deals

Think of it! With VLSI we can pack 100 ENIACs in 1 sq. cm.!

Close