Comments on: Well done, Virgil

By: Katz

Katz — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 01:14:51 +0000

Probably the same ones that edited the entry on Star Trek about the food eaten by Vulcans. You just can’t get good help these days….

Public Service Trekkies would be paragons of urbanity in comparison with Public Service Ratty panderers.

In the interests of preserving the reputation of Trekkies, they whould be given the opportunity of defending themselves against your serious accusation against them.

Names must be named.

By: Tony

Tony — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 01:03:29 +0000

Probably the same ones that edited the entry on Star Trek about the food eaten by Vulcans. You just can’t get good help these days….

By: Katz

Katz — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 00:49:30 +0000

That’s worse!

I’d be appalled that my taxes paid the salaries of public servants while they acted on the belief that Ratty’s reputation was worth protecting.

Those public servants should be sacked, unless, of course they could demonstrate that they were obeying orders to pander to Ratty’s vanity.

I want names, and I want them now!

By: Tony

Tony — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 00:37:13 +0000

Has anyone produced any evidence to demonstrate that is what was happening here, Katz? Like an order or instruction to someone to carry out edits? A range of IP addresses is a pretty crude and broad tool to be using to frame a specific allegation of misuse or impropriety.

By: Katz

Katz — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 23:39:02 +0000

Hands up, those folks who like their taxes being spent on public servants salaries when they are employed to polish the political image of personalities in the executive government.

If Ratty wants Wikipedia to reflect more closely his own personal vanities, let him pay for it out of his own pocket.

By: Tony

Tony — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 23:29:44 +0000

“Wikipedia can be edited by anyone shock”, “Revealed - Politician changes own Wikipedia entry to be more flattering”, “Vatican edits Wikipedia entries on Catholic Church, saints and abortion”, “Employees roaming internet and editing Wikipedia in work time!”, “Wikipedia contributors get involved in anal & stupid battles over entries”

Aren’t most of these revelations … well … bleeding obvious? I think the transparency is fine, although I’m surprised not to find a more civil-libertarian line here on an employees right to anonimity, to not be outed in the newspaper. But it’s Wikipedia, for heavens sake! If there was an entry on me, I’d get in and edit it!

By: steve

steve — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 21:37:44 +0000

Lord Downer at his best.

By: judith m melville

judith m melville — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 19:54:35 +0000

Reply to Darryl Mason. If you want to check the accuracy of media reports on Wickipedia entry editing yourself, just go to:

wickiscanner.virgil.gr

By: judith m melville

judith m melville — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 19:51:36 +0000

Reply to Darryl Mason. If you want to check the accuracy of media reports on Wickipedia entry editing yourself, just go to:

By: adrian

adrian — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 12:57:25 +0000

Ah, Lord Downer, the shining light in a veritable galaxy of stars.

By: Kina

Kina — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 12:41:13 +0000

“Poo bum dicky wee wee�? sounds like a Downer edit.

Haven’t has such a good laugh in a while.

By: R.Dreams

R.Dreams — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 12:35:15 +0000

Re concerns about anonymity. Editing is in fact anonymous if you decide to create an account. Edits from people who don’t have an account are simply labelled by their IP addresses. And of course IP addresses can be tracked back to a school, department, company, etc.
With accounts, only a very select group of users and administrators will ever track your IP addresses; they are given this power to track “sockpuppets,” that is people who abuse multiple accounts to create a false sense of consensus or agreement.
Bottom line: editing is anonymous if you get an account, so please do and contribute to this great project!

By: phil@VVB

phil@VVB — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 11:41:44 +0000

He has a sort of recollection about wikipedia sites, but none about cables relating to the sale of wheat to Iraq.

Of course.

By: tim

tim — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 06:02:34 +0000

Hilarious contribution from Lord Downer on AAP:

Fed: Wikipedia is anti-government, Downer says
Wikipedia Downer
By Steve Larkin
ADELAIDE, Aug 24 AAP - The online encyclopedia Wikipedia is
anti-government, Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer says.
“My sort of recollection of Wikipedia sites is they are a bit,
sort of, a bit anti-government, they are sort of a bit negative
about people in the government,” Mr Downer said today.
“That is my recollection of them, so maybe we should fire people
up to edit them - but I know they have editorial control at
Wikipedia so it probably wouldn’t help.”

By: joe2

joe2 — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 02:23:37 +0000

“Poo bum dicky wee wee�?

How about that? Finally, Department of P.M. and Cabinet are starting to make a bit of sense.

By: Razor

Razor — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 01:42:21 +0000

Members of the ADF and the Dept of PM&C have opinions?! Bugger me with a fish fork. It was never like that in my day!

By: Paul Burns

Paul Burns — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 01:31:28 +0000

Decided to take some action about these Howard staffers. Apparently this story originates with Nicola Roxon. I’ve e-mailed her to see if she has a list of the Howardian changes which, if I get it, I will circulate nationwide, with suggestions people change back to more accurate versions. The more pople who do this, the less able the Howard staffers will be able to cope.
I also think its a good idea that articles on Wikipedia be credited by initials. I’ve only used it for the American Revolution, and then, very sparingly, but those entries seem okay as long as one is aware of the various historiographical debates going on in the profession.

By: Craig Mc

Craig Mc — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 01:28:39 +0000

Wikipedia is a fantastic resource - I use it every day, but with “caveat lector” in mind. It only works because anyone can edit it. I’ve done it myself when I was aggrieved by an obviously false entry - and I wasn’t even it’s subject.

I can imagine if, for instance, I was a scientist who developed some technology and saw it completely misreported and mangled by successive contributors. I’d feel compelled to correct those mistakes too.

WikiScanner is a great tool - openness and accountability are the keys to any Wiki. The mistake is to think that only certain contributors have barrows to push, because by definition everyone who edits Wikipedia is an interested party. So what’s their interest?

Obviously the truth of an article is more important than who contributes what, but that’s any Wiki’s greater problem - whose truth? Who gets to decide what mutually exclusive version of reality gets top billing? They’re still figuring that one out.

By: steve

steve — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 01:26:03 +0000

Other funny examples from the Courier Mail.

By: Kevin Rennie

Kevin Rennie — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 01:16:48 +0000

The Trouble with the Web

John Howard decided to embrace the internet through YouTube at the same time as funding internet filtering. Two ironies:

If you search “John Howard” on YouTube videos there are nearly 1000, most of which are attacking him. Even made one myself: ‘About John Howard’

If you use Safe Eyes, one of his net blockers, it won’t let you do YouTube video searches.

Controlling information is not just a matter of fixing the spin.

For more see: Labor View from Broome http://laborview.blogspot.com/