Wiki vandalism coming from Congress

User Comments: 8

1. January 30, 2006 9:29 PM
   djleyo said:
   too bad for them ***i think wiki should come out with some type of svc were you can store articles in a folder like your email and have options to update the new content added by users ***that way you can save the evidence (something like that)
   Reply
2. January 30, 2006 9:42 PM
   gamingmage said:
   Wow, this is a wierd thing. LOL. Congressmen altering info about themselves in order to not be embarassed. How child like.
   Reply
3. January 30, 2006 10:12 PM
   Kaleid said:
   It's a result of all too much focus on their personal lives and not so much on the professional side. I still laugh at the witchunt on Clintons BJ or politicians past drugs usage. Interesting perhaps but how relevant is it?
   Reply
4. January 30, 2006 11:18 PM
   Need_a_Dell said:
   What do you expect from a website that allows anybody to edit it? Obviously congress wants to be in the best light possible, and I don't blame them for editing their online information. If you were Paris Hilton and you saw that in your bio, they mentioned that god awful sex tape, wouldn't you want to edit that out? Wait a second, maybe that was a bad analogy.
   Reply
5. January 31, 2006 11:42 AM
   nathanskywalker said:
   [quote]"The vandalism is just plain childish," Bowker said. "The term-limit pledge (that was changed by Meehan's staff) is a much more serious case. That's someone trying to alter the public record.[/quote]No kidding, but[quote] What do you expect from a website that allows anybody to edit it?[/quote]Wait! i have the solution, everyone can edit wikipedia, except politicians!!! huh, what do you think? ok nvm.But "what is done in secret shall be shouted from the rooftops"...or something like that. Basically, wikipedia is an opportunity to give information,a nd expose the truth, and let's face it, some people are afraid of the truth. They just don't want people to know who they really are....
   Reply
6. January 31, 2006 5:48 PM
   Vaulden said:
   Props to Wiki for taking this step. I'm sure it won't stop; they can always access it from home, or another location. It's good for people to see themselves from other people's eyes. It bugs me when people want to change people's perception rather than change themselves. If the items are not factual, it's a different story. However, the article pointed out that not all of the changes were removing falsehoods.
   Reply
7. January 31, 2006 10:06 PM
   Race said:
   Clearly a case of abusing a very useful and informative site. (not to mention the time spent with our tax dollars)It's one thing to change information that may not be factually correct, but changing and/or deleting entries in regards to facts (promises made during campagnes and such), or just to smear fellow constituents, is another issue altogether.Also, the thought of a potentially escalating tit-for-tat scenerio amongst a legislative branch of our government is absolutely ridiculous.It is good to know that Wikipedia monitors all aspects of it's site very closely, and although I'm in favor of the temporary banning of users of the House IP address, I have to wonder just how effective that is. Staffers will find a way if they really want to alter, add, or delete something.Perhaps the Office of Government Ethics will do their job and put an end to this type of abuse, and everyone (including the House) can continue utilizing the Wikipedia site as it was intended.
   Reply
8. January 31, 2006 11:26 PM
   fury said:
   Anyone can view the entire history for an article on the Wikipedia. It's not like editing it and removing embarrassing facts is going to rewrite history and make it so that it didn't happen. Anyone can go into the history and dig it up, and if they so desire, reinsert it into the article.That said, it's pretty pathetic that the congressman are taking their playground quarrel to a public forum like the Wikipedia. It gives the government a bad name...Wait a minute...:p
   Reply

Recently commented stories