24 Aug 07
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=230729
PM's staff sanitise Wikipedia
Friday Aug 24 09:09 AEST
The prime minister's staff have been editing Wikipedia to remove details that might be damaging to the government.
Staff in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet have made 126 edits on subjects ranging from the children overboard affair to the Treasurer Peter Costello, Fairfax reports.
A new website - Wikiscanner - traces the digital fingerprints of those who make changes to entries in the online encyclopedia.
Wikiscanner also identifies Department of Defence employees as the most prolific Wikipedia contributors in Australia.
Wikipedia is promoted as the "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit".
The Department of Defence on Thursday said it would ban defence staff from accessing the encyclopedia.
Defence computers were found to have made more than 5000 edits to Wikipedia entries, including articles to the "9/11 truth movement", the Australian Defence Force Academy and the Vietnam War-era Pentagon papers.
Federal Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd has described as "odd" news reports that Mr Howard's departmental staff have been caught editing Wikipedia to remove details that might be damaging to the government.
"I notice the prime minister is engaging public servants to change Wikipedia," Mr Rudd told the Seven Network.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My oh my, aren’t i filled with confidence about our Government...
24 Aug 07
Originally posted by EsotericWhatcha gonna do about it? HeHeHe. Too late dude. Bent over and take it like a man.
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=230729
PM's staff sanitise Wikipedia
Friday Aug 24 09:09 AEST
The prime minister's staff have been editing Wikipedia to remove details that might be damaging to the government.
Staff in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet have made 126 edits on subjects ranging from the children overboard affair to ...[text shortened]... ----------------
My oh my, aren’t i filled with confidence about our Government...
24 Aug 07
1 edit
Originally posted by EsotericSeems new PM has managed to engage computer literate staff.
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=230729
PM's staff sanitise Wikipedia
Friday Aug 24 09:09 AEST
The prime minister's staff have been editing Wikipedia to remove details that might be damaging to the government.
Staff in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet have made 126 edits on subjects ranging from the children overboard affair to ----------------
My oh my, aren’t i filled with confidence about our Government...
Hats off to Aussie Dept. of Defense, very nice record they have set. Will be hard for another agency to top that one!
Wiki does NOT work unless EVERYONE gets the same opportunity. Whether a particular reader or group of readers agree with the news/data posted!ðŸ˜
1 edit-typo
24 Aug 07
Originally posted by Esoteric"Have been caught" "Have been caught" I am appalled at the inferance. This wording makes it seem as though the Wiki posters were sneaking about and doing skull-duggery. An open forum is an open forum.
[b]http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=230729
"reports that Mr Howard's departmental staff have been caught editing Wikipedia to remove details that might be damaging to the government."
I would like to see a list of whom this person thinks should not be allowed to post on Wiki -- and very interested if their own name would appear on that list.
IMHO - Those who would create a list of those disallowed to post, should be the only individuals on that list.
25 Aug 07
Originally posted by MacSwainAccording to the news report: "The Department of Defence on Thursday said it would ban defence staff from accessing the encyclopedia."
"Have been caught" "Have been caught" I am appalled at the inferance. This wording makes it seem as though the Wiki posters were sneaking about and doing skull-duggery. An open forum is an open forum.
I would like to see a list of whom this person thinks should not be allowed to post on Wiki -- and very interested if their own name would appear on th ...[text shortened]... uld create a list of those disallowed to post, should be the only individuals on that list.
Well, the Australian Department of Defence obviously feel they 'have been caught.' Seems to me you're left dangling making indignant excuses in their name!
What was it you said? Those who would create a list of those disallowed to post, should be the only individuals on that list.
So the Australian Department of Defence is quite right to disallow itself from posting - even according to your own logic.
25 Aug 07
Originally posted by FMFBy jove..you've got it! Congratulations!
What was it you said? [b] Those who would create a list of those disallowed to post, should be the only individuals on that list.
So the Australian Department of Defence is quite right to disallow itself from posting - even according to your own logic.[/b]
28 Aug 07
Originally posted by EsotericJust another reason why relying on wikipedia for anything other than spanish fly recipies is a waste of time.
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=230729
PM's staff sanitise Wikipedia
Friday Aug 24 09:09 AEST
The prime minister's staff have been editing Wikipedia to remove details that might be damaging to the government.
Staff in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet have made 126 edits on subjects ranging from the children overboard affair to ...[text shortened]... ----------------
My oh my, aren’t i filled with confidence about our Government...
28 Aug 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYes, but how does one know that?
Except...it's not. It's as good, at least in some topics, as anything Brittanica has put out.
A published encyclopedia is usually accepted since it has the weight of proof readers, editors and knowledgeable experts to back it up.
I use Wikipedia all the time because it's just so damn convenient and comprehensive but I can understand some concerns.
29 Aug 07
Originally posted by amannionOne knows that by performing controlled experiments to determine if it's true or not.
Yes, but how does one know that?
A published encyclopedia is usually accepted since it has the weight of proof readers, editors and knowledgeable experts to back it up.
I use Wikipedia all the time because it's just so damn convenient and comprehensive but I can understand some concerns.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm
29 Aug 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungNo, I was referring to your point that it's at least as good in some topics. How do you know which topics?
One knows that by performing controlled experiments to determine if it's true or not.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm
Controlled experiments are fine, but the average Joe doesn't have the time or inclination to do this. How does he decide what is true or not?
29 Aug 07
Originally posted by amannionHe reads the results of the controlled experiments I just provided. They're quite clear about which subjects are reliable.
No, I was referring to your point that it's at least as good in some topics. How do you know which topics?
Controlled experiments are fine, but the average Joe doesn't have the time or inclination to do this. How does he decide what is true or not?
29 Aug 07
Originally posted by EsotericWIKIPEDIA IS THE DEVIL! BURN IT! BURN IT! BUUUUUUUUURN IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIT!
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=230729
PM's staff sanitise Wikipedia
Friday Aug 24 09:09 AEST
The prime minister's staff have been editing Wikipedia to remove details that might be damaging to the government.
Staff in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet have made 126 edits on subjects ranging from the children overboard affair to ...[text shortened]... ----------------
My oh my, aren’t i filled with confidence about our Government...