Wikipedia ban edits from US Congress

Wikipedia has imposed a ten-day block on edits from computers within US Congress building after the latest series of rogue edits

Free online collaborative encyclopedia Wikipedia has imposed a ten-day block on edits from computers in US Congress building.

The block is a response to anonymous changes to Wikipedia entries on politicians, businesses and historical events.

The entry for the assassination of John F Kennedy was changed to say Lee Harvey Oswald was acting "on behalf of the regime of Fidel Castro", according to the BBC.

The entry on the moon landing conspiracy theories was changed to say they were "promoted by the Cuban government".

The rogue edits were revealed by a Twitter feed, @congressedits, which posts every change made from a US government IP address.

The feed is modeled on @parliamentedits, which posts every change made by UK parliamentary computers, according to The Guardian.

The twitter feed was created by journalist and coder Tom Scott after a series of news stories of embarrassing edits to Wikipedia by users of UK parliamentary computers, the paper said.

Wikipedia allows any user to make changes to entries, but the changes are policed by volunteers who can remove inappropriate content and impose bans on users who flout editing rules.

Wikipedia monitors have been warning editors from the House of Representatives since March 2012, and imposed a one-day block on edits from the US Congress building earlier this month.

Blocks on edits from computers in the building have been imposed before following acts of vandalism.

Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, told the BBC the incident did not surprise him, and vandalism has "always gone on and it always will".

Earlier this year, the BBC discovered that an edit from a UK government computer added the phrase "all Muslims are terrorists" to a Wikipedia entry about veils.

The incident followed a report by the Liverpool Echo which found insults had been added by a government computer in Whitehall to the Wikipedia entry for the Hillsborough disaster.

Read more on Wikipedia

CW+

Features

Enjoy the benefits of CW+ membership, learn more and join.

Read more on Privacy and data protection

Join the conversation

1 comment

Send me notifications when other members comment.

By submitting you agree to receive email from TechTarget and its partners. If you reside outside of the United States, you consent to having your personal data transferred to and processed in the United States. Privacy

Please create a username to comment.

This is why while Wikipedia is a great idea and a great place to get anything factual beyond entertainment tidbits (who was the lead singer of my favorite band in 1980)

It is a good place to start researching because you can get consolidated information, and to quickly find potentially correct information. But, no one should rely on it as facts.

One must only trust information that has a reference and then actually follow that reference and read the original source for oneself.

I found an article with a very subjective statement about a public figure and it was referenced, but the reference was to a blog site where an online journalist simply stated in an editorial that they thought this about the person - it was a character statement not a fact statement. So it was a person's opinion of their character and motives. And a "friend" had the nerve to try to say that this was a "fact" that this person did this because it was on Wikipedia. Crazy

Cancel

-ADS BY GOOGLE

SearchCIO

SearchSecurity

SearchNetworking

SearchDataCenter

SearchDataManagement

Close