Comments on: Heh.

Heh.

delmoi — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 15:45:04 -0800

editors from the range of IP addresses belonging to the United States Congress have been banned from wikipedia.

By: JekPorkins

JekPorkins — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 15:48:40 -0800

Members of congress distorting the truth??? What???? O. M. G.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 15:49:03 -0800

LOL!

By: brundlefly

brundlefly — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 15:50:23 -0800

That's awesome.

By: mk1gti

mk1gti — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 15:51:29 -0800

Great, I say let's wall up D.C. and ban them from having any influence over anyone or anything. This is a good start.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 15:52:09 -0800

Oh, here's some more background, etc.

By: crunchland

crunchland — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 15:57:21 -0800

You don't suppose you could have posted this information into this thread from two days ago, could you?

By: y6y6y6

y6y6y6 — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 15:57:47 -0800

Allowing Congress to edit the truth deemed "bad". Film at 11.

By: crunchland

crunchland — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 15:58:54 -0800

correction, yesterday.

By: Smedleyman

Smedleyman — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:04:53 -0800

That's damn funny. Wow. Like Van Helsing bringing out the cross and driving off Dracula. Man that's great.

By: Rothko

Rothko — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:05:03 -0800

Excellent. Give them a taste of their own medicine.

By: spicynuts

spicynuts — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:08:34 -0800

Whatever, they'll just tell their junior staff to go home and do it from their home computers. You can't bar every IP address in D.C. It's a nice message but it has no teeth.

By: elpapacito

elpapacito — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:08:46 -0800

That's actually a WRONG move, imho. If you ban the Congress from deleting part of WIki (which you can restore easily) who will notice they are infested with low lifes, scoundrels and well-2-do-screw-u people ? Like honeypots for black hat hackers, free publicity for politicians :)

By: sourwookie

sourwookie — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:09:51 -0800

You think any congress persons actually log in and edit Wikipedia?

By: mathowie

mathowie — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:11:56 -0800

Just for kicks, I did an IP search of the 1.2 million comments to MeFi, and there was one member that posted many times using an internal (house) congressional IP. Thankfully, they never posted in any political threads, so it seems like just a bored staffer killing time on breaks or something.

By: TwelveTwo

TwelveTwo — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:13:25 -0800

I'm found out!

By: clevershark

clevershark — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:15:23 -0800

[in Nelson's voice] HA HA!

By: The Jesse Helms

The Jesse Helms — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:15:54 -0800

Right now, calls are being made to the NSA. . . "John, I need you to set up an SSH tunnnel, get me inside that commie datafuck."

By: elpapacito

elpapacito — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:16:17 -0800

1.2 Million comment ? Jeeeezuz

By: jne1813

jne1813 — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:21:02 -0800

Big Brother is Watching

By: cmyk

cmyk — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:24:21 -0800

Waha! That rules. Probably won't keep them out for more than a few days, but it's a great gesture.

By: Max Power

Max Power — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:26:24 -0800

Your tax dollars at work

By: delmoi

delmoi — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:27:32 -0800

Which is why this is comment 1191534 or so.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:27:44 -0800

er, close.

By: tkolar

tkolar — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:28:42 -0800

This is a very very interesting time for Wikipedia. Shutting off IP addresses won't fix anything -- the staffers making these changes can log in anywhere. So, in the first corner we have: A) Wikipedia, which allows anyone to edit any page, any time. And in corner B we have: B) Congressional staffers, who are paid to modify, monitor, and re-modify Wikipedia pages on an ongoing basis. It's interesting to watch. In a lot of ways it's a replay of the arrival of spam on Usenet, with the exception that they actually can clamp down Wikipedia (the Metafilter $5/posting delay deal would work fine) without destroying its usefullness. Actually, now that I think about it it's amazing that the congress critters got there first: Wikipedia seems like an irrestible target to spammers.

By: tkolar

tkolar — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:30:42 -0800

Note to self: at least spell check postings, even if that won't catch your horrible grammar.

By: Meredith

Meredith — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:35:03 -0800

I know this won't really stop them, but it's still hilarious and worthy of much applause.

By: brundlefly

brundlefly — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:41:45 -0800

Why limit it to Congress?

By: JekPorkins

JekPorkins — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:43:05 -0800

Good point, brundlefly. Surely lobbyists, pacs and other political organizations have an incentive to manipulate wikipedia.

By: elwoodwiles

elwoodwiles — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:52:38 -0800

So, just hypothetically, how long before wikipedia is no longer a wiki at all? It seems that in the last few months more and more people are exploiting its open structure and that the editors have had to institute more controls. At what point will those controls interfere with the inherent openness of a wiki?

By: insomnia_lj

insomnia_lj — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:54:05 -0800

Now if only we could block their access to the press, so that they couldn't distort the truth there, either...

By: Bort

Bort — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 16:59:54 -0800

Looks like Peak Wiki to me.

By: Ndwright

Ndwright — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 17:02:34 -0800

elwoodwiles, that sort of degeneration is inherent in any open system. Remember in the early days of the internet where they had those message boards with no registration where you just typed your message and your moniker and posted? And it actually worked because so few people were using the internet? Moral of the story: assholes ruin everything.

By: It's Raining Florence Henderson

It's Raining Florence Henderson — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 17:05:02 -0800

BushCo promotes the spread of Democracy throughout the Middle-East, then has to break off relations with Palestine because he doesn't like who they elected. Wikipedia creates an encyclopedia that anybody can edit, then is forced to begin enforcing restrictions when "anybody" does. Boy, freedom sure is a messy business, no? No matter who's version you're implementing.

By: prak

prak — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 17:11:49 -0800

Boy, freedom sure is a messy business, no? No matter who's version you're implementing. It just does not scale well.

By: FeldBum

FeldBum — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 17:13:29 -0800

Beat me to it. Gotta love that wiki wars exist even in the highest levels.

By: It's Raining Florence Henderson

It's Raining Florence Henderson — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 17:18:59 -0800

*whose*

By: Brandon Blatcher

Brandon Blatcher — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 17:27:39 -0800

Just for kicks, I did an IP search of the 1.2 million comments to MeFi, and there was one member that posted many times using an internal (house) congressional IP. It's only fun if you can edit other people's comments.

By: Pontius Pilate

Pontius Pilate — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 18:23:32 -0800

Here is a simple solution: register a Wikipedia nickname, then enjoy the relative privacy. All it takes is five seconds and a free webmail account. From the Wikipedia: Why Create an Account?: "Your IP address will no longer be visible to other users."* Problem solved, astroturf away. *Though the admins will still of course have access to it. Per WP's privacy page, however, it seems like it takes a fairly flagrant violation (or series of them, even) for them to flag you.

By: rolypolyman

rolypolyman — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 18:35:52 -0800

Bill titled HR 9424 Internet Libel "Reform" coming in 5... 4... 3...

By: Afroblanco

Afroblanco — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 18:52:17 -0800

I think that Schneier hits it right on the head - it's not about anonymity, it's about reputation. If nicknames are attached to wikipedia edits, you can know what someone's biases are and whether or not they should be trusted.

By: nickp

nickp — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 19:11:02 -0800

mathowie says: Just for kicks, I did an IP search of the 1.2 million comments to MeFi ... Many sites log IP addresses, and it's clearly something a user should expect. Yes, there are privacy considerations, but I don't want to get into that just now. Nevertheless, for the maintainer of a site, there is an excellent argument to be made against logging. When I was a sysadmin at MIT (more than a decade ago), we made a very conscious decision to limit the amount of information we logged, and how long we retained backups of even that limited set. I've been the guy who had to respond to a subpoena -- as in "We want every file, email, logfile or other record that pertains to the username 'xxx'. ". Satisfying that requirement for one machine and one user took me days of spinning backup tapes. It's a huge pain. Ever looked at the penalties for not complying? Given the government's willingness to go on fishing expeditions at other people's expense, perhaps the best response is a truthful "We're sorry, sir, but this is all we have -- we don't keep any other records." Just for kicks aside, is there any real reason to keep IP address information for more than the two weeks, say, that is necessary for most actual troubleshooting?

By: Pontius Pilate

Pontius Pilate — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 19:17:33 -0800

That's not a bad point, Afroblanco. However, the problem is that upon reading any given article, it's not immediately apparent what portion of it was edited by a malicious user. In other words, let's say that I go and register the nickname "PP" on Wikipedia, and then go on an editing spree of the biographies of congressmen I happen to favor. Let's also say that the edits I add are not blatant (e.g., "Lantos for PRESIDENT because he's so rox0r!"), but much more subtle - scrubbing unflattering quotes, massaging the facts a little, and the like. Now, if you already know that I am likely to engage in these types of edits, you can just look up my posting / editing history and dismiss my edits as crap. However, this is far from obvious to a casual visitor who looks up Tom Lantos' bio. He doesn't know my name and he doesn't know my reputation; further, he doesn't get to see the disagreeable bits I've scrubbed and cleaned up *unless* he already knows that I am a malicious user and also knows how to look up the edits that I made.

By: Afroblanco

Afroblanco — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 19:21:17 -0800

True. However, nicknames combined with increased moderation seems like a winning combination. If you have people keeping an eye out for such things, it shouldn't be too hard to screen out the spammers.

By: destro

destro — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 19:35:09 -0800

Awesome

By: Pontius Pilate

Pontius Pilate — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 19:48:52 -0800

I am all for a Wikipedia moderation system a la Slashdot (i.e., introducing the concept of "Karma," and allowing users to moderate fellow users with meta-moderation thrown in to prevent abuse). Most people argue that such a system would run counter to the egalitarian project they are trying to accomplish, though. Oh well.

By: mrgrimm

mrgrimm — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 19:53:59 -0800

Just for kicks aside, is there any real reason to keep IP address information for more than the two weeks, say, that is necessary for most actual troubleshooting? Good question. What is the point of keeping it?

By: emelenjr

emelenjr — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 19:59:45 -0800

I tried posting in the appropriate thread, almost an hour earlier than delmoi's new FPP...

By: terrapin

terrapin — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 20:16:31 -0800

1.2 Million comment ? Jeeeezuz That was just amberglow alone probably? ;)

By: loquacious

loquacious — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 20:59:55 -0800

I'm glad this was posted as it's own thread. I probably would have missed it otherwise. This is awesomeness to the nth. "Heh. You guys wanna fuck around and be lying, good-fer-nuthin' grabasses? Yeah?" *bans IP range* "Yeah, that's what I thought. Congress-person who? Sorry, can't hear you. Don't know, don't care." Though, as mentioned above it's a little more than a slap on the wrist. But how often do nerds get to slap the Federal Gov. on the wrist for bad, bad behavior? Sheesh. About 9 out of 10 odd times I've actually bothered to write a real, individual letter to my reps over issues important to me, all I ever got in return was a form letter. That and the bonus gift of a never ending stream of spam from each of them, like I actually wanted to hear about their campaign drivel or something. Also: MetaFilter: That commie datafuck.

By: stbalbach

stbalbach — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 22:49:17 -0800

Congressional staffers are propagandists?!

By: moonbiter

moonbiter — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 22:50:21 -0800

The product of liberty and security is a constant. Complete liberty gives you no security, and vice versa. Wikipedia is experiencing this effect now, and it will be interesting to see if they can come up with an effective solution.

By: kurtrudder

kurtrudder — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 22:56:04 -0800

We have all paid our $5 to Metafilter for use of their services. How many people out there use Wikipedia and have not given them a cent? If there is anytime that they could use a few bucks it would be right now. Anyway, it's what Wikipedia stands for that makes supporting them all the more worthwhile.

By: Tlogmer

Tlogmer — Tue, 31 Jan 2006 00:05:03 -0800

1. Wikipedia's different from usenet because (among other things) anybody can remove pov-pushing/astroturf/spam; it's not a task left to a few administrators (a model that doesn't scale) 2. There's no good technological enforcement mechanism for this kind of thing -- humans are great at gaming systems run by computers (or progamming computers to game those systems for them). The best enforcement systems are social (and that includes the offline social systems, including the legal system. I want to see some staffers' careers ruined; that'll put a chill on the political wikiturf pretty quickly. 3. Casual users are at a disadvantage. But lots of people read and edit wikipedia obsessively; someone coming in and simply removing sourced information information that they don't like acts as a red flag, and these people will revert that edit before many people see it. Seriously -- as long as congressional staffers are making edits as utterly, utterly retarded as the ones they've made, they can be spotted from miles away. And really trying to slip under the radar means adopting more wikipedian modes of editing -- it takes cunning, and intelligence, and generally more trouble than it's worth. And assuming political operatives did manage to becoming invisible POV-pushers, they wouldn't be any worse than honest partisans (they couldn't, or they'd stop being invisible), and wikipedia already keeps those well in check.

By: Tlogmer

Tlogmer — Tue, 31 Jan 2006 00:07:03 -0800

Caveat: self-correction doesn't just happen. Add local politicians to your wpedia watchlist.

By: matteo

matteo — Tue, 31 Jan 2006 00:24:07 -0800

Just for kicks aside, is there any real reason to keep IP address information for more than the two weeks, say, that is necessary for most actual troubleshooting? users with at least 5 accounts who use them to start shitstorms on a daily basis, just for kicks, all from the same IP address. maybe that didn't happen at MIT ten years ago, but it happens now around here though.

By: pyramid termite

pyramid termite — Tue, 31 Jan 2006 00:36:24 -0800

here's my question ... if they can't be trusted to behave themselves on a website, WHY THE FUCK ARE WE TRUSTING THEM WITH OUR COUNTRY?

By: beth

beth — Tue, 31 Jan 2006 02:47:28 -0800

We have all paid our $5 to Metafilter for use of their services. Speak for yourself, latecomer.

By: Plutor

Plutor — Tue, 31 Jan 2006 06:44:25 -0800

Pontius Pilate: "I am all for a Wikipedia moderation system a la Slashdot (i.e., introducing the concept of "Karma," and allowing users to moderate fellow users with meta-moderation thrown in to prevent abuse). Most people argue that such a system would run counter to the egalitarian project they are trying to accomplish, though. Oh well." This is a bad, bad, bad idea, and not because it would damage egalitarianism. Wikipedia is far from complete on a huge number of topics. In fact, Wikipedia's so-called "systemic bias" means that only in a few subject areas (science, history, math, etc) is it a reasonable encyclopedia. If half of the current Wikipedia effort was not on correcting the errors and expanding content, but rather on rating the quality of other users' edits (or rating the correctness of other users' ratings), the whole process might grind to a halt. Some sort of system of rating a user's "goodness" on Wikipedia would be neat. But so much of how trustworthy a user is depends on social aspects that are very complex and hard to automate (or even to learn at-a-glance). Revert wars aren't always fast. Disagreements over policy aren't always in a single place. And users can always logout and be an anonymous IP, or go to the library and be a different anonymous IP. I don't think that some sort of User Helpfulness Quotient (I coin the term UHQ) would damage egalitarianism, but I do think that incorporating it would change Wikipedia drastically. Policies like RFCs and Arbitration would have to have programming behind them, instead of being simply social community discussion processes. Also, Slashdot isn't exactly a paragon of factual accuracy (although, granted, the comments there were never really intended to be any more definitive than the threads here). But modelling a karma system after theirs would be awkward.

By: zpousman

zpousman — Tue, 31 Jan 2006 06:47:19 -0800

Beth: 1k users represent! CongressCritters and their staff: the internet is very resilliant to spin and fluff and outright lies. The fact that we're all here means that your jobs are going to get a lot tougher. Nobody's mentioned the fact that congressmen and women (and their staffers) are paying attention to wikipedia and that it is in some very real sense, a resource of record on the web. Wow. Color me impressed. I'm not a big wikipedia hater, but I never thought it'd get so big, and be so often used, as to make it worthy of spamming by those in power.