NationStates Jolt Archive

I thought this was halarious
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/United_States_Congress

Wikipedia blocked the IP ranges associated with editors in the united states congress.

Sounds like staffers are having pissing matches and involving wikipedia in the potentialy libelous behavior

lol good times

So American legislators don't realise that vandalising Wikipedia is akin to book burning? :mad:

So American legislators don't realise that vandalising Wikipedia is akin to book burning? :mad:
To be fair it sounds like staffers rather then actual legislators

So American legislators don't realise that vandalising Wikipedia is akin to book burning? :mad:

Since when have US legislators had anything against book burning?

Since when have US legislators had anything against book burning?
True. :(

Where books are burned, people follow. It could happen again.

Heh. Ironic, this, given Bush's whole Anti-Griefing thing only a couple of weeks ago. ^_^

Poor Wikipedia. This just shows that mainly biographies are tainted.

So American legislators don't realise that vandalising Wikipedia is akin to book burning? :mad:
They probably just don't care. Their Americans afterall.

Poor Wikipedia. This just shows that mainly biographies are tainted.
Actually shows me they are taking an active hand in trying to maintain the accuracy.

lol i like the idea of the internet's premier information resource banning the government... just sounds so poetic! :p

They probably just don't care. Their Americans afterall.

Now now, I'm sure Americans are very nice people--in fact, I've talked to some, and they are.
:)
No hard feelings.

As for the topic... this whole thing makes me want to laugh. :D Wikipedia bans congress...

Now now, I'm sure Americans are very nice people--in fact, I've talked to some, and they are.
:)
No hard feelings.

As for the topic... this whole thing makes me want to laugh. :D Wikipedia bans congress...

Tomorrow's head-line: Congress Bans Wikipedia. :eek:

lol i like the idea of the internet's premier information resource banning the government... just sounds so poetic! :p

it really does, doesn't it. now if only the media would learn the same lesson.

Tomorrow's head-line: Congress Bans Wikipedia. :eek:
That sort of thing would not surprise me at all.

Good, they've gotten rid of the opposite of progress :D

LMAO. Hilarity.

Can't they just..... I don't know...... NOT be fascists about everything?

That sort of thing would not surprise me at all.

The Day After Tomorrow's head-line: PRC Congratulates Congress on Job Well-done

Better for Wikipedia to ban Congress than for Congress to ban Wikipedia.

Congressman Meehan staffers - 1000 edits over 100's of articles!?

These people get paid to do this shit?

Congressman Meehan staffers - 1000 edits over 100's of articles!?

These people get paid to do this shit?
Does anyone get paid to wiki? No, some people just get bored and fuck around. Other times, you get people who never turn down an opportunity for propaganda.
Somehow, I doubt that the US congress is the only group playing silly buggers, but I'm not surprised that they were stupid enough about it to get caught.

They probably just don't care. Their Americans afterall.

Yes, they're Americans after all.

Does anyone get paid to wiki? No, some people just get bored and fuck around. Other times, you get people who never turn down an opportunity for propaganda.
Somehow, I doubt that the US congress is the only group playing silly buggers, but I'm not surprised that they were stupid enough about it to get caught.
But they are doing it “on the clock” (as their ip's were that of congresses not of their personal Internet providers)

Since when have members of the House been capable of using computers?

I'm one edit away from being IP banned from wiki.

But they are doing it “on the clock” (as their ip's were that of congresses not of their personal Internet providers)
Yes, but a little under 1 in 3 US, UK, and Australians admitted to downloading porn at work, and I hardly think that that was part of their job description. Further, wiki-vandalising is even less likely to get you fired (as it isn't as immediatly noticeable as porn).
Thus, it is a major leap to go from Point A (gov't computers used in wiki-vandalising) to Point B ("0MFGZ!!!73H U5 15 73H N4Z1!!1!!7H3Y BURN 73H B000K5!!!11!").

Yes, but a little under 1 in 3 US, UK, and Australians admitted to downloading porn at work, and I hardly think that that was part of their job description. Further, wiki-vandalising is even less likely to get you fired (as it isn't as immediatly noticeable as porn).
Thus, it is a major leap to go from Point A (gov't computers used in wiki-vandalising) to Point B ("0MFGZ!!!73H U5 15 73H N4Z1!!1!!7H3Y BURN 73H B000K5!!!11!").
I agree as far as it goes but I was more commenting on the first part "Does anyone get paid to wiki? "

Really they are in essience geting paid while using that time to post on wiki

While personally I think porn at work is worse it does not detract from them reciving funds for their time that they spent on wiki

I bet they're all going to go complain about in on MySpace.

lol i like the idea of the internet's premier information resource banning the government... just sounds so poetic! :p
Say what??? Wikipedia is hardly "the internet's premier information resource!" I wouldn't trust the damned thing as far as I could throw it, and I'd love to throw it out the frakking window!

I agree as far as it goes but I was more commenting on the first part "Does anyone get paid to wiki? "

Really they are in essience geting paid while using that time to post on wiki

While personally I think porn at work is worse it does not detract from them reciving funds for their time that they spent on wiki
Well, they aren't getting paid to wiki, so much as stealing from their employers while they wiki. You wouldn't blame the victim of a pickpocket for supplying the pickpocket with the resources he can use to commit other crimes, because the pick never informs the mark what he is planning to use with the stolen goods.
Anyway, I have a feeling that a few people will be quietly fired over this, if it is as big a thing as it is made out to be.

Well, they aren't getting paid to wiki, so much as stealing from their employers while they wiki. You wouldn't blame the victim of a pickpocket for supplying the pickpocket with the resources he can use to commit other crimes, because the pick never informs the mark what he is planning to use with the stolen goods.
Anyway, I have a feeling that a few people will be quietly fired over this, if it is as big a thing as it is made out to be.
Fair enough all a matter of perspective.
And I would be willing to bet so too ... they may not be releasing who the ip's belong to but I would be sorely disappointed if they were not keeping track of it.

Congressman Meehan staffers - 1000 edits over 100's of articles!?

These people get paid to do this shit?

Why not? It's not like they're playing an online game- they're "correcting misinformation" about their employer.

I am fucking loving this. Take that damn government. Maybe there is hope for the armed revolution after all…

Why not? It's not like they're playing an online game- they're "correcting misinformation" about their employer.
Not purley they thimselfs were retaliating and so on and so forth

Not purley they thimselfs were retaliating and so on and so forth

They are paid to defend the Congressman in question...maybe they shouldn't be on Wikipedia all the time doing that, but I don't see it as too far off their tasks.

They are paid to defend the Congressman in question...maybe they shouldn't be on Wikipedia all the time doing that, but I don't see it as too far off their tasks.
Not all staff members job descriptions include “defending the honor of” their charge...

They are staff workers their job is to fulfill tasks necessary to facilitate their charge completing his duties ... they are paid by public funds they are not PR people for the campaign.

Why not? It's not like they're playing an online game- they're "correcting misinformation" about their employer.

Uh..maybe you didn't look into it very well because that certainly is not what they were doing. Especially in the case of Congressman Meehan who was busted by his own local newspaper for altering factual information about his lies.

Uh..maybe you didn't look into it very well because that certainly is not what they were doing. Especially in the case of Congressman Meehan who was busted by his own local newspaper for altering factual information about his lies.

I did put "correcting misinformation" in quotation marks for a reason- it was supposed to be sarcasm. It's still an attempt to defend Meehan's character.

Not all staff members job descriptions include “defending the honor of” their charge...

They are staff workers their job is to fulfill tasks necessary to facilitate their charge completing his duties ... they are paid by public funds they are not PR people for the campaign.

Some of them could be...I don't know which staffers were there so I can't judge. Though I'll concede that editing Wikipedia pages shouldn't be on a taxpayer's bill.

Snip

Some of them could be...I don't know which staffers were there so I can't judge. Though I'll concede that editing Wikipedia pages shouldn't be on a taxpayer's bill.
Agreed... if it was something like a campaign manager or something I would understand but not general workers

My secretaries job is NOT to defend my character online its to do secretarial work

Agreed... if it was something like a campaign manager or something I would understand but not general workers

My secretaries job is NOT to defend my character online its to do secretarial work

I think I'd rather have my campaign manager doing actual work, not wasting his time on Wikipedia pages. If he's doing that, I hope the campaign's going well, because if not, it means he's not doing his job.

They probably just don't care. Their Americans afterall.


yeah seeing as we americans are arrogant dickheads that never care about ANYTHING:rolleyes:

Sounds like a reasonable thing to do. As far as misinformation from the masses goes, it's not that bad. I would rather have some angst-filled teenager telling me what he thinks than have some congressional aide telling me what I should think.

I think I'd rather have my campaign manager doing actual work, not wasting his time on Wikipedia pages. If he's doing that, I hope the campaign's going well, because if not, it means he's not doing his job.
Yeah but it would at least be closer

Yeah but it would at least be closer

True...and this guy does have a war chest of $4.8 million, so he's got the funds to hire a "Wikipedia" expert.

True...and this guy does have a war chest of $4.8 million, so he's got the funds to hire a "Wikipedia" expert.
That he does

Though I would hire some 13 year old geek for a laptop and 40 dollars a week

That he does

Though I would hire some 13 year old geek for a laptop and 40 dollars a week

Knowing him, he'd probably do it...

I still think it's pretty sad he had to stoop so low as to edit a Wikipedia article...

Wikipedia is a joke, unless you are into revisionist history. If someone gets it into their head that your website is spam, all they have to do is lodge a protest, and poof, three days later, you're gone off Wikipedia, and all references to your site irregardless if you have valuable information to impart or not. Three days is all you have to mount an effective protest. A friend of mine had his site removed from Wikipedia in that same exact fashion. He is a nature documentary filmamker who does short films or "webumentaries", as he calls them, that people can download and watch for free. He isn't even political.

And if they've done that, I am sure that many other things have been censored as well.

Check it out. See if you think he deserved a ban.

http://216.57.202.248/
http://www.midwestfrogs.com/

Wikipedia is a joke, unless you are into revisionist history. If someone gets it into their head that your website is spam, all they have to do is lodge a protest, and poof, three days later, you're gone off Wikipedia, and all references to your site irregardless if you have valuable information to impart or not. Three days is all you have to mount an effective protest. A friend of mine had his site removed from Wikipedia in that same exact fashion. He is a nature documentary filmamker who does short films or "webumentaries", as he calls them, that people can download and watch for free. He isn't even political.

And if they've done that, I am sure that many other things have been censored as well.

Check it out. See if you think he deserved a ban.

http://216.57.202.248/
http://www.midwestfrogs.com/
"Irregardless" ISN'T a word.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10332100&postcount=300

There. Happy Holidays! :fluffle:

"Irregardless" ISN'T a word.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10332100&postcount=300

There. Happy Holidays! :fluffle:

lol :D I hope you feel better now!

lol :D I hope you feel better now!
Well, nothing wrong with a good fluffle. I hope that doesn't change our efficient working relationship. :D