Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-01-30/Congressional astroturfing

A few more details in this news report from The Transcript -- the reporter actually talked to several government folks.

Highlights:

'Jon Brandt, a spokesman for the Committee on House Administration, which oversees the House computer network, confirmed House ownership of the address.'
'Matt Vogel, chief of staff for Meehan, a Lowell Democrat, said he authorized an intern last year to replace existing Wikipedia content with a staff-written biography of the lawmaker. "It makes sense to me the biography we submit would be the biography we write," Vogel said.'

I think the IP range is currently blocked again because someone there just doesn't know when to stop being a dick - David Gerard 14:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Post

On the front page of Saturday's Washington Post:

Noguchi, Yuki (2006) "On Capitol Hill, Playing WikiPolitics". Washington Post. Saturday, February 4, 2006; Page A01.

--Aude (talk | contribs) 05:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

I am trying to NPOV this article (see [1]) only to be reverted without explantion. So I am inserting a NPOV tag. Cognition 00:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please describe the POV that you think needs fixing. It appears to me that you want to insert more POV, not less-Will Beback 01:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is very POV: Still, involvement by political professionals need not be detrimental, as SimonP pointed out: "We've long been aware of edits coming from the Canadian House of Commons. Overall their edits were not much worse than any random group of anons." And Adam Carr, a long-time user and one of Wikipedia's most prolific editors, works for Michael Danby of the Australian House of Representatives. This implies that Adam Carr's edits to the Danby article are not detrimental-- something with which everyone might not agree. Cognition 01:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not engage in personal attacks on Adam Carr. -Will Beback 03:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the language is "need not be detrimental", which is not a conclusion that all of the edits are "not detrimental". This should be clear by the quote from SimonP, which is what the phrase is actually connected with, where he draws a comparison to a "random group of anons". That would obviously include both detrimental and non-detrimental edits, and even if you try to extend this to cover Adam Carr's work, it's a pretty low standard. Furthermore, the paragraph makes no actual value judgments about the value of his edits, and I trust nobody is going to dispute the factual, value-neutral description of him. Please take personal vendettas elsewhere, we do not appreciate having people try to conduct them via the pages of the Signpost. --Michael Snow 22:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the word "and" in "And Adam Carr..." implies that the fact that Simon P pointed out that "involvement by political professionals need not be detrimental" has something to do with Adam Carr. Adam Carr is being used as an example of non-deterimental editing by "political professionals." Many people disagree that Adam Carr is such an example. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Adam Carr. BTW, you should read Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:No personal attacks before accusing me of "personal vendettas." My only personal mission on Wikipedia is promoting the Truth. Cognition 03:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you have failed to grasp the distinction between a categorical claim that his edits are entirely non-detrimental, and the much milder assertion that they are not necessarily detrimental. I think everyone would have to concede that he's made a number of useful contributions, and while I'm sure you claim there are some counterexamples, that doesn't negate the point.

As for personal vendettas, it's pretty clear from your behavior that some of your editing is an extension of a longstanding beef with Carr over his efforts, beginning some two years ago now, on Lyndon LaRouche. That's an observation on your conduct, not a personal attack, and I don't feel obligated to continue assuming good faith when plenty of evidence suggesting bad faith has manifested itself.

This is now a months-old story, and should be left in the state from when it was published. Also, Signpost stories are bylined for a reason, and our policy is that the bylined author has final prerogative on what the story says. If you change it again in any fashion, it's effectively like altering someone's signed comment on a talk page, and I shall have you blocked for it. --Michael Snow 06:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So let me get this straight, you admit that Signpost articles cannot be modified if they disregard the spirt of the policy of Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View? I met Jimbo Wales at the St. Petersburg Wikipedia:Meetup. He seems to take that policy pretty seriously. Perhaps I should contact him and let him know that the Signpost is being dominated by the POV of a particular Wiki-clique, without reference to Mr. Wales' esteemed NPOV policy. Cognition 07:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citation

This article was cited in a paper by Marc Foglia and Chang Wa Huynh published by l'Encyclopédie de l'Agora (French language, site is based in Quebec). --Michael Snow 16:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]