No wonder Aussie politicians have reputations lower than a snake's belly.Certain pollies, their staff and advisers have again been sprung editing Wikipedia, to change or remove parts of entries with which they disagree.
Being ably assisted in this by staff at the Australian Parliamentary Library, who should have known better than to advise such a risky course of
What was left of Wikipedia's rep has, along with the previously considerable reputation of the Parliamentary Library, flown out the window with this latest news.
Clocking up hours at taxpayer expense to edit a charitable organisation's website will not win any points with voters either.
It seems that a change of government did not in fact alter the habits of those scurrying about Roaches Castle on Capital Hill, Canberra.
If you didn't keep a record last time, here is the Wikiscanner website which will allow you to back track suspicious entries and edits to their source.
2 comments:
But if somebody published information about you that you didn't like, surely you would alter or delete it if you could? I don't see why politicians are in a special class that should be expected to cop having people publish anything they like about them.
One of the net's less appealing characteristics is the ease with which people can publish scurrilous and even defamatory material hiding behind the cloak of anonymity, leaving the victims no practical recourse. If one person publishes something and another changes it - which is the whole Wikipedia model - it's silly to call it 'censorship'.
No-one expects pollies to "cop having people publish anything they like about them".
In fact quite a few senior MPs made a lucrative side-income from taking people to court for judgement or settling out of court those instances when they thought they had been defamed.
If a pollie thinks he or she has been misrepresented beyond normal political comment, said pollie can contact Wikimedia or issue a formal C&D notice to the foundation.
Back tracking from time to time over the last twelve months has shown that what is being self-edited is more frequently starightforward historical presentations of facts that were in evidence at the time.
That is a form of censorship.
Also, every individual who logs on to edit an entry is capable of being identified by Wikimedia.
Post a Comment