More on Wiki edits
February 29th, 2008 at 8:47 am by David FarrarAn NZPA story in the NZ Herald has quotes from Russell Brown and Cameron Slater (aka media whore padawan) on the Parliamentary edits to Wikipedia.
As I said yesterday, it is desirable for edits to be done under a user name rather than an IP address if there are issues of potential conflicts of interest involved. I make very very few edits (and none have ever been reversed I think) but always under my name.
Tags: Cameron Slater, Russell Brown, Wikipedia
February 29th, 2008 at 9:05 am
DPF refers to WO as a padawan?!? GEEEEEEEK!
Vote:February 29th, 2008 at 9:07 am
Was Russell’s story journalism or activism? This seems a bit muddied. Assuming it was journalism, it would be nice to have a bit of balance, for example discussing how Parliamentary computers had been used to rort online ‘polls’ in favour of Labour, or how your own wiki page was vandalised by somebody linked to The Standard.
Also, I don’t think Mary English is fair game.
Vote:February 29th, 2008 at 9:16 am
Bill English’s page was effectively vandalised by Labour Party stooges in the first place. Mary English is not fair game, and is not directly relevant to Bill English. It’s the equivalent of discussing Peter Davis’ applications for research funding and how successful they are on Helen Clark’s page.
There are, however, issues with anonymous editors making large numbers of wikipedia entries. Wikipedia has conflict of interest rules: it simply isn’t appropriate for people working in Parliament to edit parliamentary biographies. We don’t know how many Labour Party entries have been significantly edited by people in the PM’s office, although it’s fair to say that the PM has staff who are specifically delegated responsibility for the PM’s profile on-line, and on-line media generally. It is likely that person does keep an eye on the PM’s wikipedia entry.
That person has to be doing other things as well, though, and it certainly isn’t updating the Labour Party website, because that hasn’t had new material added to it in months.
Vote:February 29th, 2008 at 9:20 am
how your own wiki page was vandalised by somebody linked to The Standard.
No one ‘linked’ to The Standard has vandalised David’s Wikipedia page. The person accused of doing so has no relation to The Standard and comments on a variety of blogs, including this one.
That’s a pretty cheap smear Milo – care to retract it?
Vote:February 29th, 2008 at 9:25 am
Did David mention we are Sith Lords? The apprentice always kills the Master…..keep your eyes peeled Farrar!!!!
[WO" Oh and Tane, you'd know all about cheap smears wouldn't you since your blog, it is your blog isn't it, runs cheap smears on John Key every day.]
[DPF: Just so you don't get too ambitious my padawan, I have just done a Radio NZ interview on it, so my throne is secure]
Vote:February 29th, 2008 at 9:29 am
Whale, you’re hardly one to talk. How many nasty (and in many cases sexual) photoshopped images of Helen Clark do you have on your site? That’s right, 137. I especially like the one where you’ve shopped her onto a naked pair of breasts suckling Winston Peters and Peter Dunne. Are you still photoshopping the heads of 15 year old schoolchildren onto gay porn?
Vote:February 29th, 2008 at 9:34 am
Right and the “standard” isn’t a functional tool of the labour party.
Well not a functional one anyway.
Vote:February 29th, 2008 at 9:34 am
Since how is a photo that the NZ Herald or Stuff publishes online a nasty image…oh wait because it wasn’t sanitised by Dear Leader. See you continue the cheap smears by out right lying. Yes I have 137 pictures of Really Truly Helen but none are as photoshopped as the image that purports to be the Prime Minister in her official portrait and most are in fact from reputable news agencies. But hey don’t let the truth get in the way of a good smear.
I knew you would like that image as it is so accurate.
You’re just pissed because the NZPA didn’t ring you, you hollow Labour Party funded try hard blogger. You guys are a one trick pony….Key=Evil. Keep it up it is working a real treat in the polls right now……..for John
Vote:February 29th, 2008 at 9:35 am
BTW nice little Fraudian insight into your obsession into sexual images of Helen Clark there Tane.
Hands up if EEEEWWWWWWWWWWWWW.
Vote:February 29th, 2008 at 9:39 am
Ah, Tutae – this is about Wiki edits, not your continuing and increasingly boring campaign against WO. Haven’t you got a picket line to make sandwiches for?
Vote:February 29th, 2008 at 9:47 am
you continue the cheap smears by out right lying
Here’s a couple Whale:
http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=8660
http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=671
Vote:February 29th, 2008 at 9:53 am
Tane – answer the question. Is it right that Labour bases all its campaigning around an obviously retouched photo of the PM? Yes or no?
Vote:February 29th, 2008 at 10:08 am
Whilst I deplore being the 7th chap to join the gang bang……
Tane, you very much have the attitude, do as I say, not as I do. You excuse behaviour that benefits your side, yet rail against an opposing side that undertakes the same behaviour. An example, you lambast DPF and any news source that does not disclose DPF’s links to the National Party, yet you remain anonymous and refuse outright to disclose any information about yourself. Two faced hypocrisy plain and simple.
Vote:February 29th, 2008 at 10:13 am
There’s a difference between just being ‘puerile’ and ‘vanity’ editing, one would have thought.
Vote:February 29th, 2008 at 10:15 am
Oh come on Tane that first link can’t possibly Helen Clark. The face looks nothing like;
http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/gallery2/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=11979&g2_serialNumber=1 or
http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/gallery2/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=11966&g2_serialNumber=1 or
http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/gallery2/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=11614&g2_serialNumber=3
I thought your second link was quite fetching in a David Benson-Pope sort of way.
Vote:February 29th, 2008 at 10:17 am
Tane – answer the question. Is it right that Labour bases all its campaigning around an obviously retouched photo of the PM? Yes or no?
I don’t see a major issue with it, everyone does it to an extent. Even Don Brash had his billboard image ‘shopped – have you read the email in Hager’s book where they talk about removing his ‘scary hair’? Personally I couldn’t care less.
Vote:February 29th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Oh and Tane that is 2 out of 137, quite some way to prove your rather pathetic point.
Why don’t you trot off and smear John key or perhaps write a post about Class Traitor Chris Trotter.
Vote:February 29th, 2008 at 10:25 am
Ew ew ew! Doesn’t really sound work safe buddy…?
Vote:February 29th, 2008 at 10:34 am
Okay we need a General Debate thread, so this can continue over there.
Vote:February 29th, 2008 at 10:45 am
Yes master, as you command.
Vote:February 29th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Perhaps a centralised kick the crap out of Commisar Tane post is whats really needed David.
Vote: