Comments:Congressional computers continue to be used to vandalize 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 is beyond childish. It's great to see those in Washington are so mature nowadays. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.166.175.146 (talk • contribs)

PROTIP: Nothing has changed! Fephisto (talk) 12:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Congressional computers continue to be used...

The key word is VANDALIZE. A more objective term might be EDIT. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.249.212.228 (talk • contribs)

a less appropriate term too24.30.16.34 03:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It says some edits were to correct grammatical errors, that's not vandalizing anything. If it is, 90% of Wikipedia editors should be banned for vandalism.--64.90.84.103 23:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

There would not be a story if they were making grammatical/constructive edits a majority of the time. This is not the first, second, third or fourth time this happened. This is the Fifth time. The issue I think is, that they are using government funded and operated computers, while on company/congressional time to do these things, constructive or not. I might be wrong on this (seriously speaking), but I don't think it's in the job description of members of Congress or their staff to edit Wikipedia, even on lunch breaks. Their own IP address, used by another Congressional member or worker, states that as well. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 23:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's also clear something up. Vandalism on Wikipedia is not just the addition of offensive words or terms. Vandalism, in terms of Wikipedia policy while 'editing', is "any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Common types of vandalism are the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, and the insertion of nonsense into articles." With that said, these congressional individuals are responsible for all types of this 'vandalism'. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 23:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The point of view of Congressmen should be involved in the writing of articles too, you know. They put out campaign ads, they do phonebanking and other things, why not campaign via editing Wikipedia? It makes perfect sense from their point of view. 206.74.5.136 04:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Why?

As an admin over at Wikipedia, why haven't we just blocked the things wholesale yet? It would clearly avoid a whole lot of embarrassment for many people. Circeus (talk) 04:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Er, the Foundation can't really turn round and say, "fuck the government". Besides, actually knowing this is the source of contentious edits means said edits can be more quickly assessed. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 06:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes that wouldn't help, the system is that they would anyhow have the channels to anonimously edit.../ mh there for jobdescription^^ crude oaths and simple loyalty's. 62.194.221.212 (talk) 21:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

This is sad

So, these are the people we've elected into office? The same teenage boys who draw devil horns on historical figures in their textbooks? The same people who draw obscene pictures on bathroom stalls? This is our Congress? And let's not forget that these people also have a problem with twittering during presidential speeches. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 122.203.79.66 (talk • contribs)

No wonder why we have such uninformed laws. --Phil1988 (talk) 18:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Matter of Opinion

"They used the official House of Representatives gateway and removed a section of information relating to inaccurate comments Austria made about The Great Depression. Austria stated in an interview with The Columbus Dispatch in February that Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal in 1935, caused the U.S. to go into a depression.

"When Roosevelt did this, he put our country into a Great Depression. ... He tried to borrow and spend, he tried to use the Keynesian approach, and our country ended up in a Great Depression. That's just history," said Austria during the February 11 interview. He later admitted that his statement was wrong saying Roosevelt's spending "did not have the desired effect," which caused the depression."

The Chicago and Austria schools of economic thought (I adhere to the Chicago school) both hold the view that the New Deal intensified and prolonged the Great Depression. I have never seen a sensible rational for New Deal helping and so although I can't say this is historical *fact*, since it is a theory, it is as far as I can see the best theory and in more casual conversation I would certainly assert this is what actually happened. 77.251.241.202 08:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. A longer quote is "Roosevelt's attempt to use significant spending to get us out of the Depression did not have the desired effect". The article appears to misunderstand the word "desired" and twist the phrase into meaning "did not have the effect I previously said it did", when of course it means "did not have the effect desired by Roosevelt". This part of the article needs rewriting, for the sake of fairness. The words "which caused the depression" give a misleading impression, or are just plain wrong, and should not be tacked on to the end of the quote. 213.122.20.3 (talk) 04:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

this article is awsome —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.158.66.113 (talk • contribs)

I think continental european history has it that 'new deal' wasn't well received at that time.The effect on the recession appears marginal in every sense. It can be a matter of opinion that this case is a matter of "picking" on roosevelt(democrat my guess?). Such information can be very informative when it is about a politician. It is also informative politic(ian)s are a source of the continuous adding of new such matters of opinion on wikipedia. Not a surprise tho, since they make a living in the sneaky and on a huge scale with massmedia and campaigns, they expect it will allways work.62.194.221.212 (talk) 21:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hope they don't edit Wikinews too

I can see it now: "Congressional Computers Continue to Make Helpful and Relevant Contributions to Wikipedia."

Editing Comments:Congressional computers continue to be used to vandalize Wikipedia

Sounds like that Wikipedia needs to filter out the US Congress's IP addresses to no longer allow them to edit Wikipedia pages. This is so Stupid! Like no one would notice.

Bias

So, has there been any other edits/vandelism by the opposing party, or is it acceptable for the Democrats to edit? Could this by why congressional IP's are not tagged?

Corrupt

This deserves more than an apology. I find this more distressing than the expected corruption in US politics, Wikipedia is an amazing collection of information that an enormous amount of people use to get information on whatever subject interests them, including politicians! The fact that some members of government are using it to sabotage the pages of rivals or whitewash their own should be a crime. The instance of an ip address that is linked with the government posting that a member of congress is part of the Nazi party is considered slander, if I'm not mistaken, and that is a crime. The fact that the EFF is not allowing a request under the FOIA is also completely ludicrous. I commend wiki news for developing this story and I am surprised that the mainstream media has not picked up on this in any real manner.

You are incorrect - and possibly an aspect of the article is misleading. The EFF were consulted, their response was that the information we would like would not be accessible via a FOIA request. I am sure if it had been they would have advised on drafting it. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 15:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I should have clarified, I believe that the fact it is NOT covered by the FOIA is preposterous.

Typical Republican can't stand that FDR was liked so he tries to vilfy him long after he is dead. Republicans need to grow up and act like men not Frat Boys.