×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Wikipedia Blocks 'Disruptive' Edits From US Congress

Soulskill posted about 5 months ago | from the history-no-longer-written-by-the-victors dept.

Wikipedia 165

alphatel writes: Wikipedia has blocked anonymous edits from a congressional IP address for 10 days because of "disruptive" behavior. These otherwise anonymous edits were brought to light recently by @Congressedits, a bot that automatically tweets Wikipedia changes that come from Congressional IP addresses. The biography of former U.S. defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld was edited to say that he was an "alien lizard who eats Mexican babies." Mediaite's Wikipedia page was modified to label the site as a "sexist transphobic" publication.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Yeah, "disruptive" (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47531765)

The biography of former U.S. defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld was edited to say that he was an "alien lizard who eats Mexican babies."

His unmasking isn't supposed to happen for another 20 years, now our plan is shot to hell.

Damn meddling kids mumble mumble...

Re:Yeah, "disruptive" (1)

jehan60188 (2535020) | about 5 months ago | (#47531801)

[citation needed]

Re:Yeah, "disruptive" (4, Funny)

Ol Biscuitbarrel (1859702) | about 5 months ago | (#47531947)

The biography of former U.S. defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld was edited to say that he was an "alien lizard who eats Mexican babies." [1] [google.com]

I take offense! (5, Funny)

Joe Gillian (3683399) | about 5 months ago | (#47531779)

I take offense to the idea that Donald Rumsfeld is some kind of racist who only eats Mexican babies. Donald Rumsfeld isn't a racist - he eats babies of all races equally, without taking the color of their skin or their nationality into consideration. Have a little respect for the man!

Re:I take offense! (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47531841)

But to be fair... the babies are skinned before they arrive on a golden platter for him to devour.

Re:I take offense! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47531957)

Bones would be able to tell by the bone structure... damnit she is so hot.

Re:I take offense! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47532145)

Dammit Jim! I'm a doctor, not a jolie actrice!

Re:I take offense! (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | about 5 months ago | (#47532599)

But to be fair... the babies are skinned alive before they arrive on a golden platter for him to devour.

FTFY

Re:I take offense! (2)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about 5 months ago | (#47533457)

WTF but the crispy skin is the best!
What a waste!

Re:I take offense! (4, Interesting)

Calavar (1587721) | about 5 months ago | (#47531913)

Sure, these edits were mostly harmless, but @CongressEdits is still a great idea because it dissuades politicians from ordering their staff to make edits that could be misleading. I, for one, would love to see an @HeartlandInstituteEdits.

Re:I take offense! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47532171)

I would love to see @CocksuckingFaggotsFromSlashdotWhoLikeToSmellTheirOwnFarts. ... but that would overwhelm the servers.

Re:I take offense! (1)

PIBM (588930) | about 5 months ago | (#47532835)

That filter might be a little too restrictive; you'd only see your own edits.

Re:I take offense! (2, Insightful)

nospam007 (722110) | about 5 months ago | (#47533103)

"That filter might be a little too restrictive; you'd only see your own edits."

That's how Republicans like it.

Re:I take offense! (1)

morgauxo (974071) | about 5 months ago | (#47532589)

I hope they have the same for the executive branch!

Re:I take offense! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47533123)

I'd love to see a @DirtyPinkoCommieEdits. Oh wait, that's what Wikipedia *is*.

Re:I take offense! (4, Funny)

Sockatume (732728) | about 5 months ago | (#47531959)

I think that these stereotypes about alien lizards are getting out of hand. All we ever hear about is the baby-eating, and never the fine and nuanced cuisine that goes into it.

Re:I take offense! (4, Insightful)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 5 months ago | (#47532273)

All joking aside... Donald Rumsfeld is 82.
He's about as open minded as most other 82yr olds in this country.
Our problem is that Donald Rumsfeld is a bad guy. Or problem is we put people into positions of power who developed their sense of morality at a time when "The Nazis" were still a valid political party and we didn't generally allow African Americans into the military yet.

Re:I take offense! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47532385)

What makes gerontophobia less problematic than any other form of bias?

Re:I take offense! (4, Funny)

digsbo (1292334) | about 5 months ago | (#47533401)

Because eventually it becomes self-correcting.

Re:I take offense! (5, Informative)

operagost (62405) | about 5 months ago | (#47532489)

Our second problem is that we have voters who never learned in school that there were plenty of African Americans in the military, but they were segregated thanks to progressive President Wilson. They also like to pretend that the Nazi party was ever a legitimate party in the USA, when it's the ever-enlightended Europeans and progressive darlings like George Bernard Shaw who liked both the Nazi party and Stalin.

Re:I take offense! (3, Informative)

blackraven14250 (902843) | about 5 months ago | (#47532701)

Our second problem is that we have voters who never learned in school that there were plenty of African Americans in the military, but they were segregated thanks to progressive President Wilson.

Our third problem is that plenty of people think it's cool to blame it all on a particular president of a political leaning they do not agree with, even though the US has had African Americans in the military in their own segregated units at least as early as the Revolutionary War [wikipedia.org] .

Re: I take offense! (1)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | about 5 months ago | (#47532637)

Our problem is that we have given a generation of attention-deficient gadgeteers who think that a reader-edited encyclopedia was a good idea public forums to spew their gerontophobic bias.

Re:I take offense! (1)

dargaud (518470) | about 5 months ago | (#47533139)

You are right. Why isn't there a customary retirement age for politicians ?!? WHY ?
It's there for ALL other professions, at least in my country.

Re:I take offense! (3, Insightful)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about 5 months ago | (#47533235)

Or problem is we put people into positions of power who developed their sense of morality at a time when "The Nazis" were still a valid political party and we didn't generally allow African Americans into the military yet.

And in 50 years, we'll be putting people into positions of power who believe something that is a very fashionable idea in 2014. No idea what it will be, but since we pick our leadership from among the elderly, and develop our ideas of what's good, right and proper during our youth, it's inevitable.

Note also, for reference, the "Buffalo Soldiers". They were around from the end of the Civil War (formed in 1866). There were Negro regiments during the Civil War as well.

It should be noted also that the 9th and 10th Cavalry, as well as other Negro regiments existed through WW2 until the military was integrated during the Korean War (considerably before the rest of US society).

Re:I take offense! (3, Funny)

plover (150551) | about 5 months ago | (#47532799)

Have a little respect for the man!

I already have about as little respect for the man as I possibly can! How much less do I need to qualify under your guidelines?

Or is that an unknown unknown?

Re:I take offense! (1)

mrzaph0d (25646) | about 5 months ago | (#47532901)

...without taking the color of their skin or their nationality into consideration...

I think that's only because his species are color blind.

Re:I take offense! (2)

Rakarra (112805) | about 5 months ago | (#47533499)

Look, no one said that Rumsfeld won't eat non-Mexican babies, but everyone knows that Mexican babies are the most delicious ones. That's not racist, that's just being a gourmand, and it's a taste he probably picked up eating at the finer restaurants on the beltway with lobbyists.

I see the error (2)

satan666 (398241) | about 5 months ago | (#47531785)

In the case of Donald Rumsfeld, it should say: "Evil, alien lizard who eats Mexican babies and puppies."

If anybody cares (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47531797)

Re:If anybody cares (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47532211)

We absolutely care. Thank you.

Re:If anybody cares (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47533137)

Yes, that was fascinating, thanks for that.

Citation needed? (4, Funny)

aicrules (819392) | about 5 months ago | (#47531827)

I assume this means they're certain he is NOT an alien lizard who eats Mexican babies? I mean, it does seem pretty unlikely, but we should at least check into it.

Re:Citation needed? (1)

some old guy (674482) | about 5 months ago | (#47531853)

Correct. He is proud American domestic lizard who eats Mexican babies. Sorry about the mistake.

Re:Citation needed? (1)

mu51c10rd (187182) | about 5 months ago | (#47532899)

No no...he is a proud domestic lizard who only eats domestic babies...

Re:Citation needed? (1)

cdrudge (68377) | about 5 months ago | (#47531867)

Exactly. Just tag it with [Citation Needed] and let people know that there's a chance he might not be.

Re: Citation needed? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47531889)

Well Louis C.K. Asked him just that back in 2011, and instead of a simple yes or no answer he dodged the question. Now, I'm not saying he's not not a lizard person, but if he wasn't not not a lizard person I wouldn't think a simple not-yes wouldn't not suffice.

Re: Citation needed? (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 5 months ago | (#47531909)

A simple not-yes would not not suffice?

Re: Citation needed? (4, Funny)

jones_supa (887896) | about 5 months ago | (#47532373)

The truth is the opposite of that it would be wrong to say that it isn't true that I'm not uncomfortable processing that sentence in my brain.

Re:Citation needed? (3, Funny)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 5 months ago | (#47531911)

Well, if he is an alien, let's make sure he doesn't overstay his visa.

Re:Citation needed? (1)

Primate Pete (2773471) | about 5 months ago | (#47532073)

Sorry, that would be disqualified as "original research."

Re:Citation needed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47533169)

The null hypothesis does not have the burden of proof.

Or: It is the extraordinary claims that require extraordinary evidence.

Re:Citation needed? (1)

wbr1 (2538558) | about 5 months ago | (#47533243)

Now that it is mentioned here, slashdot can be cited as the reference for his culinary proclivities. Problem solved. Put the edit back with a citation.

I wonder who is doing the actual posting. (1)

jellomizer (103300) | about 5 months ago | (#47531837)

I hope this is coming from some over zealot unpaid interns, working for the congress. Not from the actual congressmen themselves.

Re:I wonder who is doing the actual posting. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47531985)

Bahahahahahhaa.... lol... like actual Congress-people would know how to edit wiki pages.

Re:I wonder who is doing the actual posting. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47532215)

They know how to bend you over and fuck your ass.

Re:I wonder who is doing the actual posting. (1)

WaffleMonster (969671) | about 5 months ago | (#47532847)

Bahahahahahhaa.... lol... like actual Congress-people would know how to edit wiki pages.

They obviously don't.. hence need for bracketbot to clean up their mess.

Re:I wonder who is doing the actual posting. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47531993)

This isn't that different than the kind of stuff you would hear when Robert Byrd would start filibustering. He wasn't so big into the 'space-lizard' conspiracy, but he would gladly go so far off-topic that a GPS couldn't find a route back to whatever vote was scheduled to happen.

Re:I wonder who is doing the actual posting. (2)

oodaloop (1229816) | about 5 months ago | (#47532005)

Surely the number of congressmen computer literate enough to edit Wikipedia unassisted would be small enough to check by name.

Re:I wonder who is doing the actual posting. (2)

aardvarkjoe (156801) | about 5 months ago | (#47532285)

I hope this is coming from some over zealot unpaid interns, working for the congress. Not from the actual congressmen themselves.

I hope this is coming from the congressmen themselves. They're much less likely to cause damage trolling Wikipedia rather than if they're attempting to pass legislation.

Alien Lizards everywhere are shocked! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47531859)

Alien Lizards everywhere are shocked! Shocked I tell you! They are very offended to be tied in any way to Donald Rumsfeld, although there are first hand accounts of the Mexican Baby thing (he threatened them when they caught him feasting, but they told him this was too big and eventually it would leak out). As a normal rule, Alien Lizards never eat Mexican Babies, they only ever had to eat one, once, after a saucer crash, a forced ditch, following a surveillance mission over area 51.

bad information (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47532683)

The amount of blatant disinformation in this thread is astounding. I would figure that the /. audience would be better acquainted with the basics of contemporary conspiracy theory. The lizard people outed by noted investigative report Hunter S. Thompson are not aliens, they've been here all along. They're the remnants of the advanced civilization that retreated to their underground cities when the meteor that created the Chicxulub crater caused the mass extinction we refer to as Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event. Richard Shaver decoded some of their archives left in stone and identified them as deros.

Congress? Disruptive? (2)

PvtVoid (1252388) | about 5 months ago | (#47531871)

Now if we could only block all of the other disruptive behavior from Congress.

Fuck, with this bunch of chuckleheads, we can't even get roads and bridges maintained.

Re:Congress? Disruptive? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47533059)

We'd be better off blocking edits from people living in their mother's basements.

Re:Congress? Disruptive? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47533433)

Shut up. People living in their mother's basements totally shot lasers in issue number seven.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to write a page on Starbuck from the reimagined Battlestar Galactica that's ten times longer than the page on Ada Freaking Lovelace*.

(* Citation needed. I haven't looked in a few years, but this is when I started completely ignoring Trashipedia.)

Actually showing Wikipedia admin bias (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47531881)

The Objectivist experiment that is Wikipedia has been very successful, but it's going to slip if it makes its opinion on the US government so obvious.

If we're going to take the Collective Punishment philosophy, why not just ban the whole United States? After all, nearly 100% of disruptive edits to the English Wikipedia come from there.

Wikipedia Never Bans Vandals? (5, Insightful)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about 5 months ago | (#47531949)

Looking into this, this ip address has been vandalising Wikipedia for over 4 years now...

Wikipedia does not ban people who repeatedly vandalise their site, over a period of years?

Re:Wikipedia Never Bans Vandals? (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 5 months ago | (#47532143)

Looking into this, this ip address has been vandalising Wikipedia for over 4 years now...

C'mon, we're working hard enough to undo the "an IP address is a person" myth, to keep the government from smashing people who have shared wifi/tor exits/etc., without perpetuating it ourselves.

You'll notice a few helpful edits from staffers too - only most of them on Capitol Hill are psychopaths, not all of them. Probably the good editors already have accounts, though.

Re:Wikipedia Never Bans Vandals? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47533279)

An IP address may be a person, but you are responsible for the Internet connection that you buy. If you allow other people to use it, their use is your responsibility.

Re:Wikipedia Never Bans Vandals? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47532239)

Wikipedia does ban. The IP has been banned for 10 days. RTFS.

Re:Wikipedia Never Bans Vandals? (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 5 months ago | (#47532287)

Wikipedia does not ban people who repeatedly vandalise their site, over a period of years?

The other editors get so much sadistic pleasure of continuing writing the "I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions" notes that they do not want to completely ban an user.

Re:Wikipedia Never Bans Vandals? (2)

wbr1 (2538558) | about 5 months ago | (#47533255)

That IP had been vandalizing for years. That IP is not a person. Period.

Screw these Republicans (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47531989)

They've proven they can't cooperate on the Internet. We need to start banning them and putting the ones that don't honor the ban in prison. Force is the only thing their kind understands. Between the deletionists trying to destroy information and these religious morons trying to destroy all scientific information, the amount of information on Wikipedia is really dropping rapidly.

Re:Screw these Republicans (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47533099)

May you die in a fiery car wreck, trapped in the burning, twisted metal and fully conscious until the last ounce of flesh is burned from your bones.

Chris Hedges (4, Insightful)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 5 months ago | (#47531991)

“We now live in a nation where doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, governments destroy freedom, the press destroys information, religion destroys morals, and our banks destroy the economy.” - Chris Hedges

News source (2)

OzPeter (195038) | about 5 months ago | (#47532031)

I was amused to see that TFA was a front page BBC article. For comparison I went to CNN and FOX to see what was reported there. Didn't find anything on either of those 2 sites.

Re:News source (1)

Infiniti2000 (1720222) | about 5 months ago | (#47532191)

Well, it's not like this is really news yet. Let's see if we can dig up what's really happening at Congress. Is a representative actively sanctioning this behavior? If so, then that's news.

Re:News source (1)

Sir_Eptishous (873977) | about 5 months ago | (#47532261)

I learn more about what happens in the US from foreign news than I ever do from US news, with the exception of The News Hour on PBS, NPR and Democracy Now.

American mass media and "journalism" is a vast miasma of bloated infomercial junk food weight loss car commercial erection drug propaganda aimed at conditioning whats left of the American Mind into dull and plodding consumerism and hopelessness.

Bread and Circuses and all that.

Re:News source (1)

hax4bux (209237) | about 5 months ago | (#47532747)

I love your .sig

Re:News source (1)

MaWeiTao (908546) | about 5 months ago | (#47532885)

I agree with you on everything exception your mention of Democracy Now. They definitely cover some legitimate stories and they haven't been commercialized, but they're clearly pushing a particular worldview and appealing to a certain demographic in very much the same way as Foxnews. Just because you happen to agree with that particular perspective doesn't mean that they aren't biased.

Absolutely correct (1)

argStyopa (232550) | about 5 months ago | (#47532057)

That's an unfair assertion, and completely not supported by facts.

Don Rumsfeld has NOT been proven to be an alien, nor have I seen any evidence that he prefers Mexicans over any other nationality, much less the exclusivity implied by the wiki entry.

Glad they fixed it.

Re:Absolutely correct (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47532349)

I don't understand why he doesn't simply deny these allegations. Every time he has been asked he avoided the question. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xz_gy7-bOoo

Sad (4, Insightful)

JWW (79176) | about 5 months ago | (#47532149)

What is really sad is that these congressional staffers show suck a lack of professionalism and honor in doing their jobs.

There used to be a time where you could politically disagree with some but still be great friends, or at the very least amicable colleagues. Nowadays, the other political side is just filled with inhuman enemies that need to be degraded and driven into oblivion.

The concept of a government and laws derived from debate and compromise and consideration of different sides of an issue has been wiped out in favor of "I am right and you are wrong, and since you are wrong you can shut the hell up."

So much of this shit looks like stuff a 3rd grader would come up with to insult their enemies.

Re:Sad (4, Interesting)

dbc (135354) | about 5 months ago | (#47532451)

There used to be a time where you could politically disagree with some but still be great friends, or at the very least amicable colleagues. Nowadays, the other political side is just filled with inhuman enemies that need to be degraded and driven into oblivion.

Indeed. I recall when Hubert Humphrey retuned to the Senate floor after months of cancer treatment. He was terminal, in the last weeks of his life, but he found the energy to return one last time. Barry Goldwater, a man he had run against during a presidential election, a man who was always on the opposite side of any debate, crossed the aisle and embraced Humphrey in a bear hug that lasted a least two minutes, Senate decorum be damned. On national television. These two men, decade after decade, made the case for their beliefs, debated vigorously, but never lost each other's respect. Where has that gone?

Re:Sad (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47532547)

Where has that gone?

Forsaken for the sake of the Eternal Campaign. You are now always campaigning for your party's next presidential candidate, which means the other party must always be demonized.

Re:Sad (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47533507)

There used to be a time where you could politically disagree with some but still be great friends, or at the very least amicable colleagues. Nowadays, the other political side is just filled with inhuman enemies that need to be degraded and driven into oblivion.

Indeed. I recall when Hubert Humphrey retuned to the Senate floor after months of cancer treatment. He was terminal, in the last weeks of his life, but he found the energy to return one last time. Barry Goldwater, a man he had run against during a presidential election, a man who was always on the opposite side of any debate, crossed the aisle and embraced Humphrey in a bear hug that lasted a least two minutes, Senate decorum be damned. On national television. These two men, decade after decade, made the case for their beliefs, debated vigorously, but never lost each other's respect. Where has that gone?

Barack Obama announced to the world that "He won" and Republicans be damned. It was his way or the highway. He's willing to do whatever unconstitutional thing he wants to get his way and everyone else be damned. And you let him. That's where it went.

God forbid liberals ever take responsibility for their own actions.

Re:Sad (0)

Gothmolly (148874) | about 5 months ago | (#47532585)

It started when it became ok to simply "hate" GWB. You never needed a reason.

Re:Sad (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47532709)

It started when it became ok to simply "hate" GWB. You never needed a reason.

Hardly.

Robert Bork ring any bells? The treatment Clarence Thomas got and still gets?

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/28/weekend-opinionator-kennedy-bork-and-the-politics-of-judicial-destruction/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0 [nytimes.com]

Re:Sad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47532757)

It started with that? Really? That was the trigger? Sure.

Re:Sad (2, Interesting)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | about 5 months ago | (#47533111)

I'd push it a lot farther back than that. More like when it became fashionable to hate Liberals. Not merely as individuals a la GWB, but as an entire group.

To the point that Liberals, who - as any Conservative will happily point out - are too spineless to defend themselves, dodged the problem by renaming themselves "Progressives".

Re:Sad (1)

plover (150551) | about 5 months ago | (#47533113)

The vandalism in question is coming from someone who has access to a congressional staffer's computer, not necessarily a member of congress. This could be anyone from a member of congress to a teenage page to the 12-year-old nephew of a congressman's chief of staff to an intern to a night watchman. Apparently, there are about 9000 people with regular access to the machines in this address range. Given a sampling of 9000 people, how many are going to be as impolite as an internet troll? That there is at least one uncultured moron in the crowd is not particularly surprising.

Yes, it's sad that anyone would either sink to this level, or fail to grow beyond it. It's just not surprising.

if only.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47532245)

the same could be done to block other disruptive acts of congress.

the actions of a few (2)

Sleeping Kirby (919817) | about 5 months ago | (#47532321)

"Out of over 9,000 staffers in the House, should we really be banning this whole IP range based on the actions of two or three? " Tell that to voter fraud bills, the claim of "welfare queens" and not allowing female reproductive rights because "some use it to be promiscuous". Not so fun now that it's on the other foot, is it? However, unlike those claims, they do have control of AND responsibility over their entire network. This IP ban is standard practice for IT security. If they can't secure their network, then they don't deserve access to the server. Access to servers are a privilege, not a right.

Re:the actions of a few (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | about 5 months ago | (#47532587)

Tell that to voter fraud bills, the claim of "welfare queens" and not allowing female reproductive rights because "some use it to be promiscuous".

You missed gun regulation bills because "some use guns to murder", banking regulation bills because "the fraud laws that were violated arent good enough", gambling regulation bills because "some people gamble away their house", ....

...pretty much everything they do... including all the liberal shit that you didnt want to mention and probably dont even realize is the exact same thing...

Re:the actions of a few (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47533485)

Admittedly most of us are pretty strongly anti-murder.

Re:the actions of a few (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47532603)

not allowing female reproductive rights

You argue for that, but then you turn on me the minute I say a father should be allowed to torture and beat his children to death on his whim -- even if it's just to prove that he has the right to.

Rewriting the history (3, Interesting)

jones_supa (887896) | about 5 months ago | (#47532337)

While Wikipedia is varying in quality, I'm actually glad that we have at least some kind of transparency to see who makes the various edits. I wonder what kind of manipulation or shilling has been going on with dead tree encyclopedias or history books?

Lost a bet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47532429)

I owe someone a beer for this. I said the lizard comment wasn't going to make Slashdot.

Wikiality (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47532431)

Some of the edits are funny and the response to the Wikipedia admin from whoever is doing this is also kinda funny

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=617234780&oldid=617214414

Apparently most of the other Congressional staffers editing Wikipedia are transphobic otherkinphobic conspiritard Republicunts shilling for the heteronormative patriarchy. And it seems like a lot the Wikipedia administrators are as well. No wonder this site is so biased. 143.231.249.138 (talk) 18:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I have just been informed that there's a Twitterbot posting all Wikipedia edits from Congress. There have been questions as to exactly which edits are otherkinphobic. The edit calling Donald Rumsfeld and "alien lizard" was clearly intended as a smear against otherkin people. Firstly, we prefer the term "Scalie". The term "alien lizard" is considered a slur. Secondly, if he wants be open about his species identity (if the claims that he's not cisspecies are true) then that should be his decision. People shouldn't be outed for their species identity before they want to come out. 143.231.249.138 (talk) 21:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Truth (1)

mu51c10rd (187182) | about 5 months ago | (#47532507)

The biography of former U.S. defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld was edited to say that he was an "alien lizard who eats Mexican babies."

Truth hurts...although I hear Guatemalan babies are much tastier with better spices.

Reptilian Humanoids (1)

mu51c10rd (187182) | about 5 months ago | (#47532639)

This is going to drive the Area 51 conspiracy theorists crazy...
This edit [twitter.com] on this article [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Reptilian Humanoids (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47532717)

If people would want to understand what really is happening.. ask the teacher...

Unfair? Hardly. (2)

Omega Hacker (6676) | about 5 months ago | (#47532739)

From the article, presumably from a staffer: "Out of over 9,000 staffers in the House, should we really be banning this whole IP range based on the actions of two or three? Some of us here are just making grammatical edits, adding information about birds in Omsk, or showing how one can patch KDE2 under FreeBSD."

Sorry, but if you're a congressional staffer, using a computer in a congressional office, why are you making edits about birds in Omsk, or KDE? You want to make those edits, do them from your own home on your own time. There, I fixed it.

The @CongressEdits Wikipedia page (1)

tarc (2793789) | about 5 months ago | (#47532749)

Was created by a person via that IP address in question;

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/ind... [wikipedia.org]

Curious...

Maybe it's a bot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47532777)

Is it impossible for a congressional computer which is obviously connected to the public Internet to be a botnet slave?

For all we know someone else outside of congress controls this computer/router/whatever (could be multiple infected computers behind a firewall) and uses it mess up wikipedia entries.

Re:Maybe it's a bot? (1)

WaffleMonster (969671) | about 5 months ago | (#47532913)

Is it impossible for a congressional computer which is obviously connected to the public Internet to be a botnet slave?

Maybe your a botnet slave? How would we know if you weren't?

For all we know someone else outside of congress controls this computer/router/whatever

It's controlled by a Gremlin in the Kremlin. Mothra Russ1a p0wn3 a11.

Supervise Your Children (3, Insightful)

Toad-san (64810) | about 5 months ago | (#47532999)

""Out of over 9,000 staffers in the House, should we really be banning this whole IP range based on the actions of two or three? "

Yes. It may get the attention of the guilty parties. I, for one, want to see the exact identification of that House representative, the office guilty of this ongoing abuse. Name names, cowards!

Bipartisanship in action (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47533013)

Bipartisanship is apparently live and well in Washington. I heard that it is actually a form of communism just last week, but I can't reveal my sources in the UK government.

Seems fine to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47533461)

Although Wikipedia doesn't normally block IPs indefinitely [wikipedia.org] , it's not a firm rule and this negligent ISP with a pattern of abuse seems like a good enough justification. If anyone in the government wants to make legitimate contributions they can just apply an IP block exemption [wikipedia.org] - it's not like they have anything to hide, and we have a duty to keep Wikipedia safe from domestic and international vandalism.

If congress doesn't like the actions of Wikipedia administrators then they are free to participate in Wikipedia:Requests for Adminship [wikipedia.org] . If you don't think the RfA process is fair then you should just support a different administrative candidate and stop whining already. If you don't participate in RfAs then you have no right to complain about how Wikipedia works.

Pathetic!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47533479)

All facts/opinions/arguments aside...

I think these insulting/unprofessional edits made from government IPs is a pathetic act. These people who made the edits, or the people that ordered them to do so, deserve to get spit in their faces.
 
  I dont have an opinion on Mr. Rumsfeld. I don't agree nor disagree with anybody, but I think they should be labeled just as bad as they labeled the Secretary.

I expected utmost professional behaviors from people that represent us!!!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?