What is Digg?90 Comments
- MikeonTV, on 10/10/2007, -4/+27Why can't these retards just edit wikipedia from home?????
- GoodAthiest, on 10/10/2007, -4/+20You sound like you write for Fox News.
- BowieX, on 10/10/2007, -3/+18Dear JamesSpaza
"Leftwing," "liberal"... "rightwing" and "conservative"... these are meaningless. We are all humans, we are all in this together. Please help us reach peace by encouraging unity, not division.
Enough of this draw-and-quarter brainwashing! Let's put our heads together and solve the world's REAL problems.
United we stand, divided we fall. Reagan understood this: http://www.digg.com/political_opinion/Establishment_vs_Grass_Roots_America
Sincerely
BowieX - MattInChicago, on 10/10/2007, -4/+12Who cares! If the edit is false or misleading, AND, has something to do with the company in question, there's an issue. But the fact is millions of people waste time at work on the net and so what if someone edits an article while at work? People really need to focus on REAL issues and not BS fluff. Dugg down for lame.
- duke1776, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10I find it very hard to believe that the United States government and big business would misrepresent facts.
- Elohir, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Well someone has to maintain the truthiness.
- rkuchiki, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Why would you do something for your employer off the clock anyway?
- fkr3, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8YES IT'S A CONSPIRACY!!!! OMG PEOPLE AT WORK EDIT WIKIPEDIA!!! OMG COMPANIES WANT WIKIPEDIA TO SAY GOOD THINGS ABOUT THEM!!!!
Anyone who's surprised that people edit Wikipedia crap at work needs to think outside the box.... most grown ups spend a big chunk of their week at work. It's also stunningly unsurprising that companies want Wikipedia articles about them to say good things. If anything I would guess that balances the "fanboy vendetta" affect. - ganjadude4391, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9In English please?
- jollyholly, on 10/10/2007, -7/+13Did Wikipedia not expect everyone to make changes since that is the core feature, by design? Everyone has an agenda..
- WarpFox, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Every time I hear someone blast liberals, I can't help but think, every woman in america that does such is a hypocrite.
Enjoying your right to vote ladies? Yea, conservatives fought that.
WTB history books. - MarkOfTheDead, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5actually i have to disagree, wikipedia was known to be far more accurate than brittanica or funk and wagnalls. schools don't like it because it isn't printed and copyrighted.
- betasp, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Marked an inaccurate. You can't make it freely editable and then say it was "vandalized."
- spikes, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4If you spoof your IP in a TCP stream, how is the return packets going to end back up at its rightful spoofing sender? It will return to the spoofed IP which didn't actually make the connection. DUH!
- bitcloud, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7There are terms of service that disallow conflicts of interests.
- JohnFlux, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6I haven't. Please explain how you could edit a wikipedia page via tcp while spoofing your IP address as a different company, and assuming that you're not the companies ISP.
- TubaTechno, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Funny, those employees can edit Wikipedia to favor their own company during off hours, but NEVER while their on their corporate network! This article shows the ignorance and the immaturity of the Digg community today.
- DavidYeah, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4BowieX: Okay, you're right, let's work together! Let's start with poverty in America.
American A, traditionally a liberal/progressive:) We need to fund wide reaching government programs that fall under some sort of democratic control in order to ensure that we get the results needed. Also, we need to raise minimum wage in order to prodive a higher starting point for positions of all levels, including low paying blue collar jobs, because having more money in the hands of common people help create demand for products and thus more jobs.
American B, traditionally a conservative:) We need to destroy government because it creates dependencies on government programs, figure out ways to get as much of the government's money to the rich and corporations, and they will create jobs that will lift people out of poverty. Also, faith based initiatives must be used at all times (they'll work someday, I promise!)
As much as you want to pretend there is no difference between left and right.. there IS a difference between how they approach the world's problems. Which one works better is up to whom you talk to. - thcobbs, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Yeah... just like EULAs disallow copyright infringement.
- moracity, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Why is anyone surprised by this? When something is open to everyone, it's open to everyone. And to suggest that organizations are vandalizing it anymore than the rest of the Joe Schmoes out there is absurd. Wikipedia is full of biased information because most people are simply incapable of being truly objective. The temptation to pontificate is simply to strong. I'm not saying it's a faulty, it's just the way it is.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6It's good that these people are being exposed. Dugg for relevence
- rblancarte, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Just like it stops regular joes from posting their own angles on stories etc (which "never" happens, right?)
Please, this points out the major flaw of Wikipedia. Anyone, at any time, can go in and edit pages. Sure you aren't supposed to break the rules, but it happens. Now that wikipedia has gotten so large, eventually they are going to have to realize that the open editing model will fail at some point. It has a usefulness, to a point, but saturation will cause issues such as these to arise. - CourtesyFlush, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Is Wiki open to everyone, or not?
Or just people we like and with whom we agree? - takeda, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry%20Potter&oldid=19338858
According to: wikiscanner.virgil.gr it was modified by the Republican party.
Posting Harry Potter spoilers... I never thought they were that evil... - ozydingo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4( - UNRELATED - )
"In general, changes to a Wikipedia page cannot be traced to an individual, only to the owner of a particular network." Yet that doesn't stop the RIAA from assuming they can pinpoint the specific individual based on the same information... - tubeblender, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5I've thought long and hard about your comment and have formed a cogent response to your utter lack of intellectual substance.
***** off. - luxette, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Oh for crying out loud, that "all corporations are evil soulless beings and all truth is false unless promulgated by THE PEOPLE" stuff went out with patchouli and the 1960s.
And all of them will act in their own self-interest in order to survive as an entity. Just like you. Does that make you evil too? - easy4lif, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2come on, who didn't see this coming. if anyone can edit wikipedia then that means EVERYONE (including people who work for companies)can edit wikipedia. I'm just surprised it took the groups so long to figure this out.
- elvisjulep, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4I just anonymously changed Wiki's TOS, so now it's cool.
- Error601, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5Conspiracy! Stupid.
- kirk444, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Why is it so hard to imagine that the edit was done by someone slacking off at work? Just because it came out of a corporate network (used by thousands) doesn't mean it's some form of vandalizing or marketing.
- thcobbs, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4
Proxies - wolferz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2proxies wont work in this situation unless the proxy is being run by the company in question. Technically proxies and IP spoofing are not the same thing ether. Infecting the company with a bot could allow you to proxy through them but would also leave a trail back to you unless you were to place another proxy between you and the one set up inside the company.
- ThrottledU, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4just one more reason not to trust wikipedia as a reference source, and why universities do not accept reference material coming from wiki sites in general....
- hexydes, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Additionally, what about people that work at companies that use or make a technology that has an entry at Wikipedia, who then edit the entry for that technology (while at work, on the corporate network) to correct true factual errors about said technology? You have to remember that often, these people are just as valuable and accurate a resource to providing factual information as "impartial" scientists and researchers from public universities...
- V1ncent, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1LOOK - if it wasn't for Colbert the elephants would be no more!
- mohrt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Dang, this page was vandalized too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandalism - fjc8, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1There's a difference... the RIAA mainly targets residental IPs, which tend to be one per residence with one listed owner, with a few users max (similar to how one person might be the registered owner for a few cars, yet only ever drive one of them). Corporate networks tend to use NAT so a single IP address might be the source address for all Internet traffic out of a single building or campus.
- dougmc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Students have never cared about using primary sources, at least not until they were forced to. How many papers did you write throughout school (especially in the earlier grades) based only on what you found in the encyclopedia? Hell, it wasn't until late high school that teachers told me to (gasp!) cite my sources! (Which I still today whenever appropriate, 20+ years later! It's possibly one of the most useful things I learned in high school.)
WIkipedia is incredibly useful, and it's usually accurate. It's not 100% accurate. Neither is your printed encyclopedia. Neither is any other non-trivial work, for that matter. Writing a report based only on Wikipedia is a bad idea -- just like it's a bad idea to write one only based on Encyclopedia Britannia. But both are fine resources for getting started, for looking for other things to read, etc.
As for companies editing pages about themselves, you have to expect this. And it's not always bad -- often employees of a company are the `subject matter experts' about that company. Now, they shouldn't be turning the Wikipedia page into a PR piece for themselves, and so they shouldn't remove information about scandals and such, but some do. Of course, all that this increased scrutiny will do is make people edit pages about their companies from their home connection, or via proxies. - MarkOfTheDead, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1No, laughing when people fall is what makes me evil.
- MarkOfTheDead, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Sorry I didn't bookmark it since I didn't think it would be really important to throw on digg one day to back me up. Do some research on your own. I'd say start with google.
And umm..... paper encyclopedias don't have a dispute forum. chances are the pulishers would laugh and tell you to ***** off if you said they were wrong. that or they'd shrug their shoulders and say "yeah? so what?"
So.... my comments prove how inaccurate wikipedia really is? that sounds like a vague statement to me. Way to solve a problem with a problem. - billmccartney, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2For instance, check out Raytheon, they have editted all the scandal out of their pages. They even use a username called RayCompany. Since the article, the scandals have been added back by users. See the history page :)
- lkms, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1only a fool would trust wikipedia over political and historical (same thing in fact) stuff. even if some vandal/biased edits and removals will be spotted because they originate from corresponding networks, what about the same kind of edits coming from proxies, or from the homes of corporation workers? these wouldn't be spotted as fast and thus the damage is unlikely to be undone in time.
However Wikipedia is still good source for the "pure information" like science and technology. Well, at least for now. - DavidYeah, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Conservatives in either the Democratic party or the Republican party at different points in history fought advancement of culture every damn step of the way. And if the earliest conservatives in American history had their way, we'd still be under the British king.
- Murdats, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1uh, please show us where these things are in wiki articles.
- Winston84, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Why don't you just shut the ***** up and go eat a bullet you nazi ding-bat .
It doesn't matter how much fact is shoved down you morons throats does it ? - rhinopig, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2"Corporate Networks CONTINUE to Vandalize Wikipedia"
Marked as inaccurate. This article is entirely about edits that happened before the scanner was released, not continuing edits. - ozydingo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Good point
- Millsee, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Some people have little in their lives outside work, and are workaholics.
- ReinMasamuri, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1So... Just because I'm at the USDA at the moment, if I change something on Wikipedia it means I have/had an ulterior motive?
-
Show 51 - 88 of 88 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is