Last night, the number 1 issue in the TV news (not some obscure page 40 in a local newspaper or internet publication, but actual proper mainstream news) was Wikipedia. The headline was " Australian politicians editing Wikipedia, as picked up by Wiki Scanner". To put this in to perspective, this is an election year, and whilst an election hasn't officially been called, it is expecting to be called within the next month. This issue could determine who wins power, who is the new leader of Australia.

It made me feel proud to be involved in this watchdog site.

Most relevant internet story: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../24/wiki124.xml

Isn't that Wiki Scanner just a lovely tool? I'm no expert in Australian politics, but I see the importance here. Many businesses and politicians, have been doing this. I actually don't use wikipedia as a resource for things I want to know, although I still edit there (no, NOT as an admin). It's not reliable. Which is the main reason I'm still there. That is, to keep statements as true as possible.

Good luck with that …

A WikiPediot who WikiPersists in such WikiPholly shall one day become a WikiPhulltime WikiPedia Reviewer …

Jonny

Okay, for people outside of Australia, maybe they don't give a shit. Except perhaps to note that this exact same thing could happen in any country in the world. We've already seen the CIA caught editing, and of course the earlier congress staffers scandal. This is the Australian Federal Government caught editing, just weeks before a federal election.

Does anyone still doubt that Wikipedia has the potential to change history?

One of the great criticisms of the John Howard government (which has been in power since 1992) is that in every single election, they were way behind on the polls but won because of some great scandal that went in their favour, which later on turned out to be an outright lie.

1992 - "We will not introduce GST" - and then they did
1997 - "We had to introduce gun law reform because that is the one and only reason that the Port Arthur massacre happened" - except of course that the actual reason was police incompetence
2002 - "We were forced to ignore the MV Tampa immigration crisis, because they were throwing children overboard, and manipulating things" - except of course that they actually weren't, and ASIO had deliberately lied to Australians to help win an election
2007 -

Well, they are struggling, let's just say. They've tried a lot of things, but so far nothing has stuck. I can list the things they've tried to focus on in an attempt to win the election:

- Australia isn't really way behind the rest of the world in terms of internet use. We are really trying our best.
- Kevin Rudd (leader of the opposition) was caught going to a strip joint - except that the majority of people thought that that was actually a good thing
- We are protecting aboriginal kids from child abuse - except that the majority of people see this as a racist exercise and an attempt to steal land from their traditional owners
- We will not become like America with their hopeless welfare system. (To America - we are very much like you, and trying our best to be more like you). Uh, yeah.

I know that politicians lie like mad, but being caught out like this with Wikipedia is huge, and somewhat unavoidable. Darn it.

Remember this one?

Good catch.

But can we perhaps have the non-lofi version? http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=2162

Of course, bear in mind that the current scandal is against the ruling Liberal party (similar to USA's Republican party), while the old scandal was against the opposition Labor party (similar to USA's Democratic party). Don't let the names confuse you. By names you'd think that Liberal was similar to Democrats, but they're not.

It's important to remember that "Liberal" has traditionally meant "Laissez-Faire," not good things like compassion toward the poor.

I can summarise the 2 main parties in Australia, for people outside of the country (note: this is my perspective):

Liberal Party: Aims to improve the wealth of the country as a whole, more jobs for everyone, higher average wage, less debt, lower taxes, at the expense of the welfare system and rights. Currently leader (John Howard) is extremely pro-UK (especially the royal family) and extremely pro-USA.

Labor Party: Aims to improve welfare, better rights for all workers, and aims at equality for all, but at the expense of higher taxes and less wealth. Current leader is generally anti-USA and desires for Australian independence from UK.

Simply, Liberal = Republican (mostly) and Labor = Democrat (mostly).

Translation: "Liberal" has traditionally meant free minds and free markets, not bad things like socialist oppression.

Free minds?

It's the tag line of Reason magazine... great magazine.

Anyway, it is a huge issue right here.

Yesterday morning, as I was getting up, I had one of the local breakfast shows on TV. For over half an hour (out of their 3 hour show) they talked non stop about Wikipedia, all of the ins and outs, and so forth. To the best of my knowledge, they had never previously discussed Wikipedia. I have never heard Wikipedia even mentioned in the TV news before.

Then that night, it was the number 1 story on the nightly news.

Not in some obscure cable show, but the major public news channel.

It was all "Wikipedia, Wikipedia, Wikipedia".

They didn't bother to mention the Seigenthaler scandal, Essjay scandal, or heck even Wiki Scanner. Wiki Scanner was mentioned in a comedy show on the radio, and in another comedy show on TV, but that's about it. It wasn't seriously a major news item.

But this suddenly is going to affect the whole nation. Its huge, massive, bigger than the stripper scandal.

Press conferences are being called. For the entire day, it was all that they talked about. Prime Minister John Howard in major damage control mode, while Leader of the Opposition Kevin Rudd was non stop talking it up, saying how awful it was.

Now I don't know if it has ever got that important in any other countries. I don't think it has.

For everyone discussing it, it was like they were saying "Oh, Wikipedia isn't just a fun hobby site" or alternatively "So it is more than just a collection of knowledge?" It was like a horrible rude awakening to them all. Like they hadn't previously realised just how damaging it could be.

And whilst the pro-Liberal news were focussing on the vandalism, the pro-Labor news were focussing on their edits to the Children Overboard article (one of the Howard Government's most embarassing episodes, where they were caught lying like mad to win an election - also one of a long series of embarassments for ASIO). They actually edited the article itself to try to make it look like less of a scandal!

Don't get fooled in to thinking that their petty vandalism is the main story. That's the cover up. The main story is their history-changing.

You mean the magazine that has specials on Ayn Rand and this muppet on the cover. Jeez.... Well at least you've proved your "free mind" tagline. This guy's mind is free of all sorts of things.

Your several mentions of how Wikipedia is in the news has made it clear that the news is showing that Wikipedia is a threat to society.

Seriously, this is the first ever major mention of Wikipedia in the main news in Australia, and its a negative one. At least the first ever mention that I've noticed. Yes, its in the papers on page 43 every so often, or in the IT section, and a few other specialty areas, sometimes even mentioned in TV shows on specific areas. But this was on the news. This was on a major network, which has 15 minutes per day to talk about the world's major news. 5 minutes out of that 15 minutes was devoted to Wikipedia - all negative.

This is so much more interesting (and of longer-lasting importance) than whether SlimVirgin used a sock two years ago because she's in the pro-Israel-hide-the-TRUTH-about-9/11 cabal.

The thing is that all of us here at Wikipedia Review *KNOW* that this stuff has been happening for a really, really long time, and are glad that the mass media is finally starting to notice it. Its not a revelation to us.

SlimVirgin's case is THE SAME CASE but in a more definite issue.

Oh yeah here's another new article that is anti-Liberal:

http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/24/...?section=justin

5,000 Wikipedia edits by the Department of Defence to such important issues as the Children Overboard issue, trying to hide the government's agenda.

Truth-changing, by governments.

And if you think that the SlimVirgin scandal isn't related, then you weren't paying much attention to what the SlimVirgin scandal was actually about.

I've seen that Wikipedia itself will deny stuff forever. And then eventually the press learns about the issues and Wikipedia still denies it.

Deny deny deny deny deny deny deny deny plausible deniability inplausible deniability deny deny deny ack that's harassment!

I just found this neat picture so I thought I'd post it:



http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/web/p...7462443308.html