[Beowulf]

Congress would do something underhanded? I'm shocked.

[marvlus]

Wikipedia - the online, free for all, user beware, system that may or may not be accurate. Why would anyone want to rely on it, is my question.

[Tom Bombadil]

Wikipedia says the controversy raises questions about whether it is ethical for those with a vested interest in the subject to edit entries about it.

...But it has been criticised for the correctness of entries, most recently over the biography of prominent US journalist John Seigenthaler - which incorrectly linked him to the Kennedy assassinations.

Caveat Emptor.

[Always Right]

Wikipedia is produced by readers who add entries and edit any page, and has become a widely-used reference tool.

Wikipedia says whatever the most active activists want it to say. You must take everything there with a cartoon of salt.

[One Proud Son]

I'm glad they waste time and tax dollars messing withthis crap.

[maggief]

http://instapundit.com/archives/017246.php

[mewzilla]

Note to Congress: Won't help...

[Sgt_Schultze]

...Among other changes, staff also deleted a reference to Mr Coleman voting with President Bush 98% of the time in 2003, despite running as a moderate the year before.

Since the President does not have any vote in Congress, the change Coleman's staff made was probably wise, in the interest of accuracy.

[pikachu]

Maybe we can change Teddy's Chappaquidic incident into a tragic car washing execise, Vince Foster's death is now simply an example of improper park usage, and Monica Lewinsky's blue dress was the first attempt by the Clintons to institue a constituional right to free dry cleaning.

[stylin19a]

relating to Mr Harkin's having falsely claimed to have flown combat missions over North Vietnam, and his subsequent recantation.

He11...that recantation was like pulling teeth. It took multiple stories at different times before the truth finally came out.

[stylin19a]

Hey, maybe we could have the "Wiki-pedia Freeper police.".
Every now and again, we fact check and change what needs to be changed .(I know, useless effort as the lib monitors @ Wiki will adios the truth about their muses)

[brothers4thID]

Silly staffers should know better than to do such things from traceable IP's.

[stacytec]

Wikipedia has some good definitions for topics non-political. If you are a coin collector looking for a history on a coin, you can find some good stuff. But the definitions on all matters political have a spin on them. I saw the definition for "Southern Strategy" last week and was amazed at how openly biased and left slanted it was. Some folks have contested it but the definition looks like it was still written by the DNC.

[stacytec]

BTW, has this story been getting ANY coverage in the USA ( just noticing this was a BBC aticle)??

[upchuck]

IMHO, Wikipedia is an item of interest. But I question it's veracity and take nothing I read there as the truth unless I have double checked it. Given that, I doubt it's value beyond being a toy.

Buyer beware.

[pabianice]

Using the public history of edits on Wikipedia, researchers collected the internet protocol numbers of computers linked to the US Senate and tracked the changes made to online pages.

1. How can this be done when most people are using high speed cable or DSL?

2. Why would anyone use a reference that can be corrupted by anyone else?

[Darksheare]

I wonder what Fienswines office edited..

[lawgirl]

Duh.

[TradicalRC]

That's what wikipedia is. Caveat emptor.