US Senate banned from Wikipedia for vandalizing Snowden's page

[Deleted]

I don't understand how to read Wikipedia's user Talk. What order does it go in? Does it go top to bottom most recent or vice versa? Where does it say what word was changed or edited?

New talk entries are suposed to go on the bottom, and signed, but that doesn't mean everyone will conform to that. A talk page is like another page, edited as a whole, you can see what was changed by whom in the page history.

[oblivionx]

How quickly the champions of the whistle blower turned and decided to call anyone doing it traitors.

[Kasierith]

I've never seen Wikipedia get so angry over a single thing, and if anything they're showing that several of them are biased in the matter. Even if reverting the edit to its less politically descriptor in the interest of not presenting biased information was the right thing to do, their reactions on the talk page pretty clearly shows a lack of impartial professionalism and demonstrates that they are just as trustworthy as whoever it was who edited the page from a US senate address.

[Melkandor]

I've never seen Wikipedia get so angry over a single thing, and if anything they're showing that several of them are biased in the matter. Even if reverting the edit to its less politically descriptor in the interest of not presenting biased information was the right thing to do, their reactions on the talk page pretty clearly shows a lack of impartial professionalism and demonstrates that they are just as trustworthy as whoever it was who edited the page from a US senate address.

Or maybe it's just that those mods don't agree with a whistle blower being called a traitor, especially when what he blew the whistle on had to do with exactly what they do. The Interwebz.

[ringpriest]

I've never seen Wikipedia get so angry over a single thing, and if anything they're showing that several of them are biased in the matter. Even if reverting the edit to its less politically descriptor in the interest of not presenting biased information was the right thing to do, their reactions on the talk page pretty clearly shows a lack of impartial professionalism and demonstrates that they are just as trustworthy as whoever it was who edited the page from a US senate address.

No, it does not. The world is not magically composed of exactly two choices of equal weight. Wikipedia is far from perfect, but it has accomlished a great deal and made some significant efforts to uphold its standard. The Senate, otoh, is mostly a sock-puppet for a narrow collection of vested interests and regularly acts against the interests of the people it is supposed to represent. Wikipedians can be wrong, and Senators (or their staffers) can be honestly trying to do the right thing. To claim that the two are of equal reliability - just because some Wiki editors honestly expressed some strong opinions on a Talk page - is fallacious and indicates a seriously lack of thought.

[Kasierith]

No, it does not. The world is not magically composed of exactly two choices of equal weight. Wikipedia is far from perfect, but it has accomlished a great deal and made some significant efforts to uphold its standard.

Yes, and it is a very admirable standard... one that the first and last posters in the talk page represented. But rightfully reversing a bias-driven edit and then talking about how the US government is wanting to control the people is pretty damn hypocritical.

The Senate, otoh, is mostly a sock-puppet for a narrow collection of vested interests and regularly acts against the interests of the people it is supposed to represent.

Something that is a slightly different discussion, although related to, what I was talking about.

Wikipedians can be wrong, and Senators (or their staffers) can be honestly trying to do the right thing. To claim that the two are of equal reliability - just because some Wiki editors honestly expressed some strong opinions on a Talk page - is fallacious and indicates a seriously lack of thought.

If you want to attempt to assert that wikipedia does not suffer from the same self-interest, and does not make decisions and assertions based on individual perspective and beliefs and values, then I suppose that the "if you read it on the internet" mentality truly has spread very far. But going back to reality, both the US senate and wikipedia, and every organization where individual judgment is a necessary implementation, suffers from the same propensity to act in their own interest as opposed to the stated goals of their institution. The only difference between them is where the self-interest lays. The interest of Congress is in consolidating finances and appealing to 50.001% of their constituents, whereas the interest in wikipedia is more nebulous and lays in maintaining the overall reputation of the site. If you were to place the people maintaining Wikipedia in public office, and give them a direct incentive to lie, cheat, fabricate, make decisions directly hostile to large groups of people, scam, accept bribes, and abandon the stated values that got them into office, with that direct incentive being financial prominence and continuous authority over others, you would see just how quickly those values would be laid aside.

But to wrap this up, and give a more accurate testament of my previous post that the brevity of it disallowed.. if individuals (notice, not wikipedia overall; there were clearly participants in the discussion that upheld their group's values) show the same propensity for bias, without even requiring any direct incentive to do so, I have as little faith in them as I do a member of US congress who does so.

[ringpriest]

Yes, and it is a very admirable standard... one that the first and last posters in the talk page represented. But rightfully reversing a bias-driven edit and then talking about how the US government is wanting to control the people is pretty damn hypocritical.


Something that is a slightly different discussion, although related to, what I was talking about.



If you want to attempt to assert that wikipedia does not suffer from the same self-interest, and does not make decisions and assertions based on individual perspective and beliefs and values, then I suppose that the "if you read it on the internet" mentality truly has spread very far. But going back to reality, both the US senate and wikipedia, and every organization where individual judgment is a necessary implementation, suffers from the same propensity to act in their own interest as opposed to the stated goals of their institution. The only difference between them is where the self-interest lays. The interest of Congress is in consolidating finances and appealing to 50.001% of their constituents, whereas the interest in wikipedia is more nebulous and lays in maintaining the overall reputation of the site. If you were to place the people maintaining Wikipedia in public office, and give them a direct incentive to lie, cheat, fabricate, make decisions directly hostile to large groups of people, scam, accept bribes, and abandon the stated values that got them into office, with that direct incentive being financial prominence and continuous authority over others, you would see just how quickly those values would be laid aside.

But to wrap this up, and give a more accurate testament of my previous post that the brevity of it disallowed.. if individuals (notice, not wikipedia overall; there were clearly participants in the discussion that upheld their group's values) show the same propensity for bias, without even requiring any direct incentive to do so, I have as little faith in them as I do a member of US congress who does so.

Your approach would reduce all of humanity to a single mean average. It denies the ability of humans to self-select groups for traits desired by the group. I do not personally believe that the Senate and its staffers are so fungible that they could be swapped for the staff and supporters of Wikipedia for identical results.

But even if I, for the sake of argument, grant your contention that base self interest dominates all human action and interaction is correct, I suspect Wikipedia is a far more trustworthy source than the Senate. Wikipedia is 'quite close' to Britannica's accuracy, according to Nature.

Neither the Senate nor Wikipedia are singular entities - both are comprised of a large number of human beings and procedural rules. The fallibility of any individual member is not particularly relevant when we're comparing the trustworthiness of the two organizations when compared to each other. I find the Senate severely lacking, though I will confess that is more an aggregate personal opinion (itself a product of a mind evolution optimised for a hunter-gatherer) than absolute statistical judgement.

[Kasierith]

Your approach would reduce all of humanity to a single mean average. It denies the ability of humans to self-select groups for traits desired by the group. I do no personally believe that the Senate and its staffers are so fungible that they could be swapped for the staff and supporters of Wikipedia for identical results.

There would likely be some difference, but the difference between their conduct as website moderators and their conduct in public office would be clear and prominent. Even in the interest of working for the good of everyone, one has to be in office to make a difference as a politician (for the most part), and if some amount of good must be set aside in order to continue on, it is essentially a necessity to do so. You are grossly underestimating the importance of "playing the game" in politics, in order to get anything done.

But even if I, for the sake of argument, grant your contention that base self interest dominates all human action and interaction is correct, I suspect Wikipedia is a far more trustworthy source than the Senate. Wikipedia is 'quite close' to Britannica's accuracy, according to Nature.

I never said that Wikipedia is overall not a reliable source; I actually made that distinction quite distinct. That said, there are instances like this one that demonstrate that there are individuals running Wikipedia who do demonstrate bias in their activities.

And yes, self interest is the primary drive of human action. We are driven by evolution for survival, to put ourselves in a position to continue our existence.

Neither the Senate nor Wikipedia are singular entities - both are comprised of a large number of human beings and procedural rules. The fallibility of any individual member is not particularly relevant when we're comparing the trustworthiness of the two organizations when compared to each other. I find the Senate severely lacking, though I will confess that is more an aggregate personal opinion (itself a product of a mind evolution optimised for a hunter-gatherer) than absolute statistical judgement.

Since you did not read the final part of my post, I will do it again.

But to wrap this up, and give a more accurate testament of my previous post that the brevity of it disallowed.. if individuals (notice, not wikipedia overall; there were clearly participants in the discussion that upheld their group's values) show the same propensity for bias, without even requiring any direct incentive to do so, I have as little faith in them as I do a member of US congress who does so.

[NYC17]

Well clearly this was a government sanctioned editing. I mean the Senate, and Congress in general, is nothing if not a well-oiled cohesive unit that would have agreed to this. It's not like they would have had to hold 15 hearings to discuss the meaning of traitor or to find out what Wikipedia even is.

[lupii]

The page got vandalized so heavily only registered and approved accounts can edit it now. AKA if a senate-ip'd account did edits they could and would be able to undo everything it does at once as well as keep a close eye on it.

Ultimately, one big fail.

[Deleted]

Seems very childish

[Deleted]

This was clearly a plan by Frank underwood, look at all the signs!