• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What Congress Edited on Wikipedia Today: Snowden, Manning, Cato, More

Bob0627

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2014
Messages
4,523
Reaction score
1,345
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Members of Congress may want to check if their staffers are actually hard at work on their computers, because a few people (but mostly one prolific individual) seem to spend their days trolling Wikipedia. Today, the site has been edited at about 20 times by people with congressional IP addresses.

And one person, who has made about 30 edits in the last 48 hours, has been focusing on some politicized topics, like Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning, the Cato Institute, and many others.

Under the IP address 143.231.249.138 (which has apparently been blocked in the past for "disruptive edits"), he (or she) today changed an entry about Snowden, calling him an "American traitor who defected to Russia." Regarding Manning, the user took to the talk page, asking, "Why is this man referred to throughout the article by his alias? He is much more well-known under his real name." As far the Cato Institute goes, the individual added the fact that the policy institute is hosting a talk about congressional staff editing Wikipedia.

What Congress Edited on Wikipedia Today: Snowden, Manning, Cato, More - Hit & Run : Reason.com

What source of information is trustworthy these days?
 
Ehhh people troll Wikipedia all the time. Luckily once you change something and its flat out false, it gets changed back pretty damn fast. Is it worrying someone in the congressional office is doing this? Yea. But my guess its just some college intern with too much free time.
 
Studies have been done and show Wikipedia as surprisingly accurate, but yes, this stuff does still happen. I'm less interested in the Wikipedia aspect and more interested in *who* is doing this. This person needs to be outed.
 
Members of Congress may want to check if their staffers are actually hard at work on their computers, because a few people (but mostly one prolific individual) seem to spend their days trolling Wikipedia. Today, the site has been edited at about 20 times by people with congressional IP addresses.

And one person, who has made about 30 edits in the last 48 hours, has been focusing on some politicized topics, like Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning, the Cato Institute, and many others.

Under the IP address 143.231.249.138 (which has apparently been blocked in the past for "disruptive edits"), he (or she) today changed an entry about Snowden, calling him an "American traitor who defected to Russia." Regarding Manning, the user took to the talk page, asking, "Why is this man referred to throughout the article by his alias? He is much more well-known under his real name." As far the Cato Institute goes, the individual added the fact that the policy institute is hosting a talk about congressional staff editing Wikipedia.

What Congress Edited on Wikipedia Today: Snowden, Manning, Cato, More - Hit & Run : Reason.com

What source of information is trustworthy these days?

Interesting.
 
Members of Congress may want to check if their staffers are actually hard at work on their computers, because a few people (but mostly one prolific individual) seem to spend their days trolling Wikipedia. Today, the site has been edited at about 20 times by people with congressional IP addresses.

And one person, who has made about 30 edits in the last 48 hours, has been focusing on some politicized topics, like Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning, the Cato Institute, and many others.

Under the IP address 143.231.249.138 (which has apparently been blocked in the past for "disruptive edits"), he (or she) today changed an entry about Snowden, calling him an "American traitor who defected to Russia." Regarding Manning, the user took to the talk page, asking, "Why is this man referred to throughout the article by his alias? He is much more well-known under his real name." As far the Cato Institute goes, the individual added the fact that the policy institute is hosting a talk about congressional staff editing Wikipedia.

What Congress Edited on Wikipedia Today: Snowden, Manning, Cato, More - Hit & Run : Reason.com

What source of information is trustworthy these days?

Why should a person from a Congressional ip address be less trustworthy than anyone else?

And Snowden is a traitor and he is living in Russia.
 
Members of Congress may want to check if their staffers are actually hard at work on their computers, because a few people (but mostly one prolific individual) seem to spend their days trolling Wikipedia. Today, the site has been edited at about 20 times by people with congressional IP addresses.

And one person, who has made about 30 edits in the last 48 hours, has been focusing on some politicized topics, like Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning, the Cato Institute, and many others.

Under the IP address 143.231.249.138 (which has apparently been blocked in the past for "disruptive edits"), he (or she) today changed an entry about Snowden, calling him an "American traitor who defected to Russia." Regarding Manning, the user took to the talk page, asking, "Why is this man referred to throughout the article by his alias? He is much more well-known under his real name." As far the Cato Institute goes, the individual added the fact that the policy institute is hosting a talk about congressional staff editing Wikipedia.

What Congress Edited on Wikipedia Today: Snowden, Manning, Cato, More - Hit & Run : Reason.com

What source of information is trustworthy these days?

Uh, Wikipedia?

Under the IP address 143.231.249.138 (which has apparently been blocked in the past for "disruptive edits")
 
Subjective opinion. Not fact based on legal conviction.

No . He has not been convicted. But he has publicly admitted to acts that are treason. Now, he might have been lying and it was someone else, but it does seem unlikely in this case. So I don't think your subjective opinion can stand.
 
No . He has not been convicted. But he has publicly admitted to acts that are treason. Now, he might have been lying and it was someone else, but it does seem unlikely in this case. So I don't think your subjective opinion can stand.

I don't consider him a traitor I consider him a whistle blower.
 
I don't consider him a traitor I consider him a whistle blower.

The one does not exclude being the other. But he must go to jail. He did huge damage to the US internationally that was unnecessary to achieve domestic results.
 
The one does not exclude being the other. But he must go to jail. He did huge damage to the US internationally that was unnecessary to achieve domestic results.

How else was it going to happen? Please don't tell me you're one of those people who actually believes the government was going to get to it on their own.
 
The one does not exclude being the other. But he must go to jail. He did huge damage to the US internationally that was unnecessary to achieve domestic results.

You and I disagree on this profoundly and I am going to leave it at that as if we continued it would derail the thread. We can pick it up at another time in a thread about Snowden specifically.
 
How else was it going to happen? Please don't tell me you're one of those people who actually believes the government was going to get to it on their own.

Well, to start with, he could have published email relating to domestic data mining. Instead he indiscriminately spread out international information.
So, you see it was possible to blow a whistle effectively without causing the all the damage to us. And the damage is very real and is and will continue to cause the country problems and create high costs.
 
The one does not exclude being the other. But he must go to jail. He did huge damage to the US internationally that was unnecessary to achieve domestic results.

He embarrassed the US, revealed information that is damaging to government credibility. This is what we need to see more of, and in this fashion perhaps we can improve accountability.
 
Anyway, the op title is deceptive then for it isn't congress that's editing Wiki.
 
He embarrassed the US, revealed information that is damaging to government credibility. This is what we need to see more of, and in this fashion perhaps we can improve accountability.

No. The information was damaging to the US community as a whole. That you think that is good does not surprise me much. So for you it was good he did not refrain from doing the harm and chose a path that would have domestically achieved the same without harmful treason.
 
No. The information was damaging to the US community as a whole. That you think that is good does not surprise me much. So for you it was good he did not refrain from doing the harm and chose a path that would have domestically achieved the same without harmful treason.

One of my big criticisms of Obama is that he campaigned on reinforcing whistleblower protections and in fact he has prosecuted more than all his predecessors, its rather funny you think he could have come forward and been treated with the respect someone should be treated with when they expose government WRONGDOING. What, pray tell, harm has he done to the US community as a whole, I'm part of that community, and know plenty others, some here at DP that don't feel harmed by his disclosures at all, but rather feel we have been informed of further ways that this (and the last) administration have overstepped constitutional authority.
 
(1) One of my big criticisms of Obama is that he campaigned on reinforcing whistleblower protections and in fact he has prosecuted more than all his predecessors, its rather funny you think he could have come forward and been treated with the respect someone should be treated with when they expose government WRONGDOING.
(2) What, pray tell, harm has he done to the US community as a whole, I'm part of that community, and know plenty others, some here at DP that don't feel harmed by his disclosures at all, but rather feel we have been informed of further ways that this (and the last) administration have overstepped constitutional authority.

(1) It was naiv to vote Obama into office on the promises he was making. They looked suspiciously uninformed at the time, which only seemed to underline his lack of experience.
(2) Just because you do not know how foreign policy on the ground works, what it means, when popuplations of allies are riled, because their politicians had not informed them of what they were doing and had allowed the US to do and how the revelations have changed power balances does not mean that it does not affect you. But that is a rather large debate and I do not think this is the thread for it.
 
Members of Congress may want to check if their staffers are actually hard at work on their computers, because a few people (but mostly one prolific individual) seem to spend their days trolling Wikipedia. Today, the site has been edited at about 20 times by people with congressional IP addresses.

And one person, who has made about 30 edits in the last 48 hours, has been focusing on some politicized topics, like Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning, the Cato Institute, and many others.

Under the IP address 143.231.249.138 (which has apparently been blocked in the past for "disruptive edits"), he (or she) today changed an entry about Snowden, calling him an "American traitor who defected to Russia." Regarding Manning, the user took to the talk page, asking, "Why is this man referred to throughout the article by his alias? He is much more well-known under his real name." As far the Cato Institute goes, the individual added the fact that the policy institute is hosting a talk about congressional staff editing Wikipedia.

What Congress Edited on Wikipedia Today: Snowden, Manning, Cato, More - Hit & Run : Reason.com

What source of information is trustworthy these days?

No surprise to me. It shows how "the government", in this case by way of congressional assistants, makes such an effort to write history the way it wants it to be written. The Official Story, on virtually any topic.

I think Wikipedia is a great idea, but it is so easily abused. I don't use it that much, and don't really trust it, though it can be useful for certain subjects.
 
(1) It was naiv to vote Obama into office on the promises he was making. They looked suspiciously uninformed at the time, which only seemed to underline his lack of experience.
(2) Just because you do not know how foreign policy on the ground works, what it means, when popuplations of allies are riled, because their politicians had not informed them of what they were doing and had allowed the US to do and how the revelations have changed power balances does not mean that it does not affect you. But that is a rather large debate and I do not think this is the thread for it.

Then why'd you put this drivel into this thread?
 
So that you would have a chance to be impolite. ;)

Waite a minute joG, you were impolite in that very thread to me, so, why'd you really post it?
 
Members of Congress may want to check if their staffers are actually hard at work on their computers, because a few people (but mostly one prolific individual) seem to spend their days trolling Wikipedia. Today, the site has been edited at about 20 times by people with congressional IP addresses.

And one person, who has made about 30 edits in the last 48 hours, has been focusing on some politicized topics, like Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning, the Cato Institute, and many others.

Under the IP address 143.231.249.138 (which has apparently been blocked in the past for "disruptive edits"), he (or she) today changed an entry about Snowden, calling him an "American traitor who defected to Russia." Regarding Manning, the user took to the talk page, asking, "Why is this man referred to throughout the article by his alias? He is much more well-known under his real name." As far the Cato Institute goes, the individual added the fact that the policy institute is hosting a talk about congressional staff editing Wikipedia.

What Congress Edited on Wikipedia Today: Snowden, Manning, Cato, More - Hit & Run : Reason.com

What source of information is trustworthy these days?

On wikipedia: it might interest folks to know that any reference to any wiki source in a college paper nets an instant "F". I won't use wiki for any source in these kinds of forums because you never know what you're reading. I know that there have been studies that show wiki to be supprisingly accurate; supprisingly... but that 'edit' button is what hrows their credibility out the window. Now we also know that the federalies are using it for both propoganda and to snuff truth.
 
Back
Top Bottom