White House Staffers Editing Wikipedia Entries?

[sabra]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html

<snip>

So what about the White House? Well, this WikiScanner results page is a list of Wikipedia edits by people who appear to use White House (eop.gov) servers.

(If you can't get through, try going directly to Wikipedia for a list of edits by these IP addresses: 63.161.169.64, 63.161.169.65, 63.161.169.66, 63.161.169.67, and 63.161.169.68.)

I don't know for certain if these edits were made by White House staffers. Many have vanished in time, overwritten by other changes made by the Wikipedia community. And I only had a chance to do a cursory examination this morning. But here's some of what I found. (Post anything you find in the comment section at the bottom of the page; I'll publish more on Monday.)

In May 2005 someone added to the main entry on President Bush: "His favorite sandwhich is peanut butter and jelly." (Which is true, though spelled wrong.)

In December 2005 someone removed this clause from the page on appointee Rob Portman: "who is a millionaire thanks to his family's heavy-equipment business."

In March 2007 someone edited presidential personnel director Liza Wright's profile to add the following: "She is responsible for leading the team that recruits thousands of candidates for all senior-level positions within the Bush Administration. Mrs. Wright meets with the President regularly to make recommendations for all political appointees throughout the Executive Branch, including cabinet and non-cabinet members, ambassadors, and appointees to Presidential boards and commissions."

Some of the other pages apparently edited by White House staffers include those on the Office of National Drug Control Policy, Jane Fonda, Washington socialite Juleanna Glover Weiss and Horcruxes (it's a Harry Potter thing).

[EFerrari]

1. If the internet is so unreliable, why do they bother?

:evilgrin:

[havocmom]

2. Correct favorite sandwich but spelled wrong?

bush is editing wiki? :rofl:

[Ahpook]

6. Heh..

I can see the dipshit now. "Hey, i wanna do one"

[Spinzonner]

3. Brushing up their Resumes ?

[Igel]

4. Sure.

You don't think that the dem and repub candidates have people that edit their bosses' entries--whether as part of their job or when they're not on the clock?

Perhaps nobody that actually knows McCain or Giuliani or Romney should be allowed access to their Wiki entries, or those of their opponents, or anybody that they might have strong feelings about. They might be biased. But I'd then have to say the same thing about anybody who knows Obama, Edwards, or HRC.

The RW is busy pointing out how liberals and perceived liberals go about imposing their own perceptions and biases on Wikipedia. The RW is going bonkers over the very idea of a liberal (or somebody they think of as liberal) messing with an admittedly non-objective information source.

The LW is busy pointing out how conservatives and perceived conservatives go about imposing their own perceptions and biases on Wikipedia. The LW is going bonkers over the very idea of a conservative(or somebody they think of as conservative) messing with an admittedly non-objective information source.

Solution: Just avoid controversial topics, or approach them with extreme care. Be sure to look at the edit and talk pages. And do what your sixth grade teacher should have told you--check the information with at least one other source whenever possible (and when it's not possible, critique the information, looking at its pluses and minuses).

[L. Coyote]

5. Kick for more exposure for the Hatch Act criminals

Here is a good example that could result in civil action.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Office_of_National_Drug_Control_Policy&diff=prev&oldid=24751432

Someone in the White House has written that the Marijuana Policy Project is "an organization committed to legalizing drugs" when in fact they are not.
This is blatant propaganda promulgated from someone in the White House using a government computer illegally, in violation of the Hatch Act.

Everyone who has committed such an act is subject to removal from government service. We need to pass a law stating they lose their pensions if removed from USG service for Hatch Act violations. Wow, would that save a lot of money!