What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
See the new YouTube feature trailer for Dragon Age: Origins view!
youtube.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
121 Comments
- swight, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16If the person is editing their own information to make it non factual, then yes, the should not be able to edit it. I fully support Wikipedia on this decision.
- lenlewis, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Why does Wiki always make the wrong decision?
Don't block edits from the Congress's IP range -- sheesh, if aides are smart enough to update Wiki they have the smarts to do it from a public internet access point in a library, etc.
The right decision, by the way, is obvious. Each congress-critter should be allowed to have two entries: his/her own entry and a public entry. His/her entry must come from a congressional IP address and the other entry can come from anywhere subject to the usual monitoring rules.
People will find it most interesting to see what the differences are. - David513, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12How in the world is this a proper response to the problem? First, it doesn't change the fact that staffers (or a politician himself) can change his entry from his home computer or from some other office. It's just a minor irritation for the person trying to make such changes. Second, it blocks a lot of people who were NOT abusing the system. It's the worst of both worlds, creating problems for the innocent without changing the ability of the guilty to keep doing it. I would expect more intelligent thinking from a tech-savvy organization such as Wikipedia.
David - gluon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Note that these users were warned first before they were blocked.
- Otto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4A lot of people are missing the point here. They blocked the Congress IP range because several staffers were going in and editing their bosses information to make it look better, removing factual material and the like.
It's one thing to fix errors or add new information, but to simply remove known facts, for no reason other than they might make the congressman look bad, well, that's wrong.
And they did warn them, changes had been reverted in the past, etc, etc. All the usual steps. Blocking the IP range was the next logical step, as these people were spamming Wikipedia. - MasterDwarf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3How long before wiki has to lock down many things that people find problems with. Its getting worse. Maybe people who submit should be rated like digg. The higher their ranking the more credibility they have.
Dont misunderstand me, the gov has no reason to be there, IMNSHO. - Kitsune818, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Wikipedia is doomed unless changes, corrections, and postings can be signed in a secure way so that there is some ability to measure information validity.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I guess they'll just have to show their loyalty off the job. Not that any of us should mind having these pricks to tamper with wikipedia entries while on the job (you know, paid for by taxes).
Good call. - geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3This shows off the beauty of Wikipedia excellently. Instead of allowing users to cook the books and reverse engineer history, this insures that the validity of the material is strong.
Thus, I signed and support this action wholeheartedly. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Wikipedia is not singling out anyone. Abusers that engage in revert wars ALWAYS get their ip banned at wikipedia, no exceptions.
- gwax, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I like how everyone wants to attack Wikipedia over this matter and no one is bitching about our politicians.
That this is even an issue is a terrible reflection on the American Congress. People should stop complaining about Wikipedia's response to the problem and go after the problem. Write letters complaining to congress members about trying to rewrite history and use Wikipedia as a vehicle for slander and spin. Better yet, don't vote for dishonest congress members and don't comment that is was their staff, they are responsible for their staff. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"I'm sorry, but this kind of knee-jerk reaction just goes against whatever Wikipedia says it stands for. One of the fundamental flaws of their system is that they allow anyone to make changes to the pages, and then those changes are accepted as gospel until someone else reverts them, regardless of that person's agenda."
You are confusing something. They are not blocking people who are engaging in discourse or modifying an article for a valid point of view. They are blocking people who are, essentially, vandals. What you are saying is a little like "well, you say you love art and want to protect artistic expression, so why are you pissed off that someone spraypainted graffiti on your house?". - ShadowMarth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Great idea from wikipedia.
Not to mention, how can you not digg geeks stickin' it the man? - mofomojo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Great move against libelous behavior, shows that wikipedia is in control of it's own content and will not be hindered by abuse.
I see wikipedia as still standing proudly as the inter net's largest source of accurate factual information. Applause for wikipedia. ^_______________^ - plamoni, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1These are the people who make our laws? *shudder*
- panique, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"Good News" "Great News" ???? WTF are you diggsheep?
Now we taxpayers will be paying for T-Mobile accounts at Starbucks AND paying Congressional/Senate Aides to sit at Starbucks and sip Lattes while still whitewashing wikipedia entries for their masters. - q3ctf4, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I think this is a good move from wikipedia:
1. Creates bad publicity against those in congress who abuse wikipedia. This fact alone shows you how powerful wikipedia has become.
2. Shows that wikipedia is credible in that a collaborative effort fights back against abuse.
I think wikipedia rocks! - gamekid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1*ahem* ...( http://wikipedia-watch.org/ )?
- MrHolla, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That's awesome. Too bad we can't block them from passing dumb laws.
- gluon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I should chime in here... I'm not sure how knee-jerk a reaction this was. They spent quite a bit of time trying to resolve the issues with each owner of each IP and issued several warnings before any IP was blocked. If they were given so many chances to correct their behavior, i'm not so certain this was an instant and mindless decision.
- LucasOman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1DogzOfWar:
It's the same reason I can't change my own comment's score on Digg. Besides one's mom, no one has as biased an opinion as his opinion of himself.
mogebier:
Indeed. Kinda like Communism that way. The selfishness and ulterior motives of a minority always spoil it for the majority. That's why humans will never be successfully autonomous. Bring on the theocracy :-D - fishbert, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@gluon
... I didn't say this story was a dupe; just that there's a related story people may want to look at. - coachace, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Great decision. Get back to work, you civil servants, you! It's my tax dollar you're spending by playing online. Go rewrite history somewhere else.
- harrisbradley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I wonder if they made a wiki-bank, if you guys would buy into that. Maybe wiki-voting, or wiki-medical records. It's all the same. Value added by accuracy, but in control of the users. Makes sense. Maybe wiki-terror database, that might be the most relevant today.
- LucasOman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1People keep looking for solutions to problems like these, but this problem is congruent to the very problem of human government. There's no solution. Aside from removing man's free will and programming all of us to be unselfish and truthful, we cannot fix this problem.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Two thumbs up wikimedia!
- lukas88, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0hilarious!
- scott1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Wikipedia would be a WMD if they allowed politicians
- seraph741, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Haha, wikipedia sticking it to the man! There's some kind of irony in this news, just can't really figure out what it is, lol. Sweet news, good job wiki!
- adam8281, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I think this decision is evidence that Wikipedia is doomed. If they are to apply this principle consistently, they would have to block IPs from everybody who has a vested interest in anything. You'd have to block pharmaceutical companies from editing articles having to do with their medicine, university IPs from editing articles pertaining to the university or the school teams, Microsoft IPs from editing articles about software, etc. ad nauseum. I think this is a sign that a user-edited, web encyclopedia is a doomed project unless you're willing to sacrifice some accuracy.
- Democritus2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Ok summary of responses:
Lots of reactionary ***** who will slam anything popular and bring up stupid points.
The rest see Wiki as it is- a good thing, who fixes problems as it goes along.
so STFU the rest of you. - ek3s, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0EL OH EL
- kinglongo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Politicians need to get a life!
- osbjmg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0power to the people, power to the states
- WrecksTXP, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"I didnt pass the law, nor do I support it. Is it more ironic comming from me? Or from the congress persons who passed the law, yet blatantly violate it?" ... Both! You're all hypocrites! So wait, you don't support the law it but you were complaining about the violators not being in prison for it? Make up your mind! LOL LOL LOL!!!
- Democritus2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0David
Its one ***** week moron.
***** people will whine about anything - Toiling, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"A lot of people are missing the point here. They blocked the Congress IP range because several staffers were going in and editing their bosses information to make it look better, removing factual material and the like.
It's one thing to fix errors or add new information, but to simply remove known facts, for no reason other than they might make the congressman look bad, well, that's wrong.
And they did warn them, changes had been reverted in the past, etc, etc. All the usual steps. Blocking the IP range was the next logical step, as these people were spamming Wikipedia."
Has to be said again. - fightstrife, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0They aren't doing anything that they wouldn't do to everyone else. Like others stated, its in WIKI's rules that revert wars will be warned and if not heeded, ips will be banned. Its humurous to find that the IP's coming from congress are being blocked.
- jasnmb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Digg. But I like lenlewis's comment too.
- TheRappingShoe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Great decision. Well done Wikipedia.
- ToadPedestal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I can't believe that they did this to ensure legitimate data. As people have stated, all they need is a public proxy or to send someone home.
The only reasonable things I can think of are these:
1) slow down/delay a ping-pong where wikipedia is being updated every 5-10 minutes
2) propganda posters see that they have specifically been banned and might re-think their behaviors
3) media coverage might make the public aware of the entities that are either a) removing valid data that they don't want seen or b) adding false data that they do want seen - ColdDimSum, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Wiki would block anyone's IP if that IP address habitually abused the system. No, it doesn't entirely solve the problem but it's one tool. Because now white-house staffers can't use wikipedia for looking things up which is bound to piss a few people off eventually.
I wonder if it's possible to claim harassment against someone vandalizing your website. Considering that guy who was arrested for calling a customer support complaint line it's conceivable.
Side note: Most professional-level people don't get paid overtime. - lesaintfabuleux, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I think Wikipedia, without any central authority, often becomes a private playground for the admins that govern it and who do they answer to? What respected authority do they have? there shuld be tabbed entries to cover all sides INCLUDING VESTED INTERESTS sometimes what they haev to say is just as interesting or more so than the so called neutral writers EVERYONE has Bias weither they realize it or not.
- tylerni7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I don't get why people keep saying now he can't protect himself. First, if people are writing bad things about him, he can go through all the time to make an account and edit it, that won't be banned as long as he follows the rules. There wasn't anything slanderous on the article, they just changed it so that it would make the senator seem like a better person. By removing facts, they violated wikipedia's rules and rightfully got kicked the hell outta there...
- drowningfish, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Viva La Revolution!
- dmron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Haha, the federal government can blow my dick.
- ezkiel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"My question is where does it stop? I agree that something needed to be done about this problem, but this solution opens a whole can of worms."
I don't see the complication unless local government offices start editing stuff they shouldnt.
I think it's pathetic that these guys who represent you are such scum. Not to mention you guys are paying them to edit stuff. At least in Canada we know that our politicians are doing nothing but at least arent passing too many BS laws. - junkfood, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It's a little sad because I love Wikipedia and, whether you agree or disagree with Wiki's decision, it looks bad to people who barely know what Wikipedia is or understand how great it can be.
On the other hand, a definite digg simply for anyone who adds someone's name to an entry for douche. That's awesome! - hordak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Just another reason why I don't like Wikis...
- Simen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Ballsy and beautiful.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 121 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is