Wikipedia editing
September 10th, 2008 at 7:22 am by David FarrarThe NZ Herald has a story on edits done to Wikipedia by Aaron Bhatnagar, highlighted a few days ago by Russell Brown.
Auckland City councillor Aaron Bhatnagar has been caught doctoring the online encyclopedia Wikipedia to paint his opponents in a bad light at last year’s local body elections.
Using the alias of Barzini _ a power-hungry psychopath from Mario Puzo’s novel The Godfather _ Mr Bhatnagar created entries for his Action Hobson opponents in the Hobson ward and made unflattering changes to the entry for Mayor Dick Hubbard.
After winning a council seat and watching Action Hobson councillors Christine Caughey and Richard Simpson go down to a C&R rout in Hobson, Mr Bhatnagar tried to remove the Wikipedia entries for his opponents at 3am the following morning.
An unrepentant Mr Bhatnagar yesterday admitted setting up and editing entries against his opponents on Wikipedia, but claimed everything he said was true, such as broken promises on rates. He said Wikipedia was self-regulating and a community where everyone could have a say. There were mechanisms to delete or rewrite entries. …
Mr Brown yesterday said anyone could edit an entry in Wikipedia, but the main barrier was ethical. There was a Wikipedia rule that stated it should not be used as a soapbox. “I think his behaviour is incredibly inappropriate. It was really the wrong thing to do,” Mr Brown said.
I agree that the editing was inappropriate. It wasn’t vandalism (this is vandalism), but it is inadvisable to make questionable changes to topics you have a vested interest in.
This isn’t an absolute. I’ve made some changes to articles on National and the 2005 funding controversy. But when they are political topics, I try and be extra careful that the edits are neutral point of view. Also I try to avoid edit wars by sometimes using the Talk page on a topic to propose a change. For example the debate over whether Adam Hamilton or George Forbes was the first Leader of the National Party (I say Hamilton, not Forbes).
UPDATE: A commenter has pointed to some Wiki vandalism done by IP address 122.57.62.181 and 125.239.124.113, where the author signed a comment on a talk page as philu. The Phil U who posts here has told me it was not him, he has never edited Wikipedia. He has also never commented here from those IP address which are on the Telecom network, and Phil is on Woosh. So I take his word it was not him, and the person who did the edits either signed his name falsely or maybe has the same first name and initial.
Tags: Aaron Bhatnagar, Russell Brown, Wikipedia
September 10th, 2008 at 8:14 am
Stupid move Aaron and one we reserve for lefties. Not your first silly thing either. Acknowledge you were silly to do it and we move on.
Dig in and you start to look like a pale version of Winston. No one wants that.
Short version: Busted!
Vote:September 10th, 2008 at 8:54 am
oo-err..!
that’s not really very ‘net-cool’..
..is it..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:September 10th, 2008 at 8:59 am
I agree that the editing was inappropriate.
Freedom of speech much?
The fact that Aaron chose to use Wikipedia to draw attention to his opponents shortcomings is not a crime. The fact that nobody else had done so yet doesn’t make it any worse.
I am all for balance but balance does not mean giving corrupt leftists like the Action Hobson candidates a free pass. In fact true balance would mandate the most severe condemnation of the crimes these people have committed in the guise of local government.
Vote:September 10th, 2008 at 9:01 am
So what?
Aaron has simply given the pinko’s a dose of their own medicine, its about time that the right started fighting fire with fire anyway.
Vote:September 10th, 2008 at 9:06 am
“rightie lies good..leftie lies bad..”
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:September 10th, 2008 at 9:09 am
Whats wrong with that Phul?
Its been the other way for the last nine years so I fail to see why you would have a problem with it.
Or do you believe in “courageous corruption”
Vote:September 10th, 2008 at 9:17 am
You shouldn’t have worried Aaron. Just spread the word that Wikipedia is useless as a source of information on politics, because like most such services, its completley screwed by the left, who are always the only ones with the time to spare to write all the necessary bullshit. Let them flounder in their own swamp.
Vote:September 10th, 2008 at 9:38 am
http://www.conservapedia.com is a good alternative to Wikipedia for those who want unbiased information on the issues.
Vote:September 10th, 2008 at 10:23 am
http://www.conservapedia.com is a good alternative to Wikipedia for those who want unbiased information on the issues.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA…. *gasp* HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
http://www.nevermind.co.nz/2008/06/18/conservapedia-the-biggest-joke-on-the-internet/
Vote:September 10th, 2008 at 11:18 am
Well Chris I wouldn’t expect somebody of such impeccable leftist-atheist credentials to have much time for a pro-growth, pro-christian perspective. But what else is new?
Vote:September 10th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
No, no, I certainly respect it’s right to exist, as I do “liberalpedia”.
But, I have trouble coalescing the facts “unbiased information on the issues” with “pro-growth, pro-christian perspective”.
However, some of the information on there is quite obviously slanted, biased rubbish in ways that are far more extreme than ever seen on Wikipedia.
Vote:September 10th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
We on the right have repeatedly attacked the left for this sort of thing and its gross hypocracy to now defend the “highlighting of others failings” because it happens to suit us on this occasion.
The ends do not justify the means and a prinicple is a priniciple. Only the morally bankrupt consider a priniciple to be a flexible optional extra.
Vote:September 10th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
philu says:
How about this and this philu, is that net-cool? philu went on a little rampage, with hilarious contributions like removing the controversies section from the Steve Maharey article, and various pathetic edits on the John Key article. After being reverted he whines:
But gets little sympathy:
No, not “net-cool” at all.
[DPF: See edit to the main post - it was not Phil U who posts here]
Vote:September 10th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
DC: Very nice investigative work. So Phil U is a Wiki vandal also. Giving John Key the middle name of Slippery is pure vandalism.
[DPF: See edit to the main post, making it clear the vandal was not Phil U who posts here]
Vote:September 10th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
I believe my case has been proven.
quod erat demonstrandum
Vote:September 10th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
So if Aaron progresses in politics, this would seem to usher in a new sort of Muldoonism. An era which saw Colin Moyle and ‘Diamond’ Jim McLay dispatched from politics and Sue Wood (then National Party President) foul-mouthed by Muldoon each time she put her name forward as a candidate. I thoght nowadays Helen, Mike and Trevor had a monopoly on this sort of behaviour.
Not to mention theft of web site names.
Vote:September 11th, 2008 at 1:38 am
Crikey, the vandalism “grotesque, ugly….etc.” was bloody hilarious. LOL
Vote: