Comments:Staffs for US presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama caught making questionable edits to Wikipedia

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

• Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
• Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
• You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

Click here to add a new comment · Add onto existing comments

This goes to show how far political systems in today's world have fallen below the line, but also indicates that Wikipedia is starting to look like a tool for companies, religions and governments to influence peoples favor for matters. --Davis (talk) 01:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Everything is a tool for influence by some group or another. The great thing about Wikipedia isn't that it is influence proof, or vandal proof, but rather that ALL sides can influence and vandalize it equally, ultimately cancelling each other out, for a murky yet unbiased viewpoint. Such is the nature of consensus management and peer review:). And those two things are the very reasons why Wikipedia is, and always will be, superior to things like the Google encyclopedia, or even Britannica. Those can be (and without a doubt are) influenced by one side or the other, but wikipedia can never be locked down. It is in constant flux, and so, as long as Wikipedia remains open to everyone, it will never truly be biased against one side or the other. Gopher65_talk 03:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The latest tool in party warfare

is equivalent to a nerd slapfight. --Kitch (talk) 10:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Incomplete Coverage

Is there any correlation between these edits and the candidates platforms? Or could this possibly be campaign staff members engaging in 'recreational' web activity while at work? Some clarification regarding the reason these changes are 'questionable' and suggestions as to to motive behind the changes might be helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.79.117.145 (talk) 14:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

So...

I'm imagining an Obama staff member typing in: "Republicans are tremendous jackasses and you definitely shouldn't vote for one, because then you'd be a jackass. Furthermore, if you vote for McCain this country will go straight to hell, and trust me, you don't want that." It could work for McCain's staff too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.8.195 (talk) 17:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

What's the problem?

I have read the changes and i don't find them specially devious, not even related to their campaign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.39.130.24 (talk) 00:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I was expecting something a lot better than this. With all the REAL dirty stuff there is to know about McCain and Obama, why do the media only focus on trifling nonsense like this? OH YEAH, that's right....we love you Wikipedia! You're like the weatherman - full of good info, but never to be relied upon! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.151.48 (talk) 01:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

More agreement. These edits aren't particularly interesting, they just seem like standard low-level vandalism (and anti-vandalism). Were those the worst edits that were found? It's not clear to me how the McCain speech plagiarized wikipedia, either (at least, judging by the quote given). -Kotra (talk) 16:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Questionable Edits?

Exactly what edits on Wikipedia are NOT questionable? All my edits are questioned all the time, no matter how careful I'm being about citations, sources, and neutrality. So I'm not surprised that their campaign staffs are questioned too -- in fact, it's heartening! Crisses (talk) 02:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Removing "North America has had a current of xenophobia against black people, especially in the United States." Questionable edit? Have you ever heard of this little Wikipedia policy and academic standard called verifiability? Taking unsourced blanket statements like the above out of articles is not questionable - it its one of the practices that gives Wikipedia any shred of truth it may have. --85.82.179.226 16:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Personal opinion

I think all this focus that we have on Wikipedia and people editing it is misguided. Let's leave it to the Signpost to report on people using or abusing Wikipedia... it just seems so inward-looking to keep doing these stories. -- IlyaHaykinson (talk) 08:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hear, hear! --SVTCobra 17:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Who did not see this coming?

I do not put this past political staffers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.68.32.6 (talk) 21:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

My question is...

Why are there pictures of the candidates on the left hand side? This behavior from staffers has nothing to do with either candidate, nor should the candidates be of our concern when reading this article. It simply does not affect their politics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.232.212 (talk) 21:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Edits not done to clean the image of the politicians

I don't think it's fair to state that the McCain IP was editing to favor him. The section removed from w:Xenophobia was blatant uncited original research. I'd have removed it, too. They're pretty kiss-up to Lance Terrace, but the only problem (other than blatant OR) could be the removal of mention of a former company, that appears to be defunct based on its link being dead (and also removed by the IP). This one is most definitely wrong, but it's not pro-McCain, just removing criticism of the Christian Right- easily the opinion of every staffer McCain has. By the way, at least one of the McCain staffers using the IP has a name. The Obama HQ edits also look pretty mild- the "Liar" edit added the text, then promptly removed it. Someone was testing. There are some Obama related edits from the 214.66 IP, but they're mild. This really isn't a big deal to report on; not another DOJ or congress staffer group of edits. JeremyMcCracken (talk) 16:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Can someone comment on the actual work history of Obama being altered.

Because last I checked, he is a 1st term Senator and was not voted into that position in 1996 as the Wiki article states. Can any of his work history on Wiki be trusted?

"After serving in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004. He taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004."

Which is it? Or is this all fact, I am so confused at this point because all I can find is that he was working at now defunct (economically mismanaged) non-profit agencies.

That's funny. Barack Obama is fun to say. It rolls off your tongue. John Mccain's doesn't. Both are still cool, though.

FO SHO! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.169.121 (talk) 23:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)