Comments on: Vatican Caught Editing Wikipedia Entries

By: shelray

shelray — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 02:24:43 +0000

‘They do mention that the Wiki guys find it “in poor manners” to edit your own entry’
that doesn’t mean much coming from a site that have/had pedophiles editing pedo material and other sexual subjects, or non theologians posing as editing theologians. As a side note, Wikipedia and google must have some sort of arrangement bacause it seems thier website shows up in the top 5 for just about any google search.

By: Foxfier

Foxfier — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 00:09:30 +0000

They do mention that the Wiki guys find it “in poor manners” to edit your own entry.

By: shelray

shelray — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 23:54:12 +0000

"You’re joking, right"

yeah, the whole idea behind wikipedia is the editting process, that's what so assinine about the article.

By: Lynne

Lynne — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 23:43:48 +0000

You’re joking, right?

By: Foxfier

Foxfier — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 15:20:49 +0000

Now, wait a minute…. the Democratic example, that’s childish and wrong. The Labor one is questionable.

But, without knowing the information that was changed, it’s not right to assume that whoever was at the Vatican and changed the information was wrong.

Wiki is supposed to be a good source of information BECAUSE anyone can edit it. It’s reasonable to believe that someone at the Vatican might– just maybe– know a bit about saints, and I can think of half-a-dozen things that are likely to show up on a “Catholic” terrorist’s page that need editing.

The same goes for the CIA– they don’t tell us what was changed. Judging from the other examples, which are all reasonably foolish on the part of the editors, I’m going out on a limb and saying the unlisted stuff *wasn’t bad.* If it showed how horrible the CIA and folks at the Vatican were, they would have mentioned the changes.

Kudos to the original article for separating between “The Vatican/CIA/DNC did THIS” and “Someone at a computer sharing the IP address of ____ did this.”