Posted on 02/09/2006 11:57:14 AM PST by NormsRevenge
Washington -- Sen. Dianne Feinstein's office acknowledged today that a former staff member had removed references to the California Democrat's net worth on the Internet encyclopedia Wikipedia, as well as altered entries about her husband Richard Blum's Chinese investments in 1997.
A former staff member "independently went on to Wikipedia to correct some material he felt was not appropriate," said Feinstein spokesman Howard Gantman. "The senator was not even aware of it."
The changes to the biographies of members of Congress, allegedly by their staffs, have again raised questions about the credibility of the online encyclopedia that has become an authoritative source for millions of Internet users.
The disclosure by Feinstein's office today was the latest admission from a handful of senators' offices that staff members had been beautifying their bosses' biographies on Wikipedia.
Gantman said the changes to Feinstein's bio had been made by a former staff member in May and June of last year. The former staff member, whose name Gantman wouldn't release, had also added to Feinstein's list of awards and corrected an error on the Web site.
Gantman said that Feinstein's office policy has been changed to ensure that future changes to Feinstein's biography be made through an official notice to Wikipedia.
Wikipedia operates as an "open source" information site that anyone can add to or edit -- viewed as a strength and a weakness of the site that Hitwise tracked as the second-most visited Internet reference site after Dictionary.com. The idea is that self-policing in that its users will find and correct inaccuracies, continually improving the content.
After biased edits were discovered on the biography of Rep. Martin Meehan, D-Mass., an investigation by the Wikipedia Foundation's Wikinews traced public edits from all House and Senate internet protocol addresses.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
I'm betting that most congressional staffers have enough sense to do their editing from their home ISP accounts, so that most of the "anonymous" edits are made by congressional staffers too.
Yes, in agreement with others here, Wikipedia is (intensely) liberally biased. On all fronts, all issues. It's a relative propoganda fest of liberalism, to the discredit of the site itself, as with those who enforce the biased content.
I've read several comments from the site as to editing difficulties and the place responds with highly emotional negation (and derision as to the inquiries/issues raised) whenever there is the suggestion of bias present, which is bias in and of itself.
Typo, previous: "propaganda" not "propoganda."
Please, explain, if you wouldn't mind. I'm always eager to read more information about the "Mr. Blum." Ha.
Yes, anyone can edit anything but there's a history published as to who does what and when along with the content, and, there are dedicated volunteers on behalf of the site that pour over all content, eventually, and correct anything that to their view is "biased" or even irregular.
Of course, you then have to contend with the bias of the volunteers themselves, so that's another story.
I think that house is rather creepy. Despite the profound view involved from that lot, it's a rather foreboding (and CREEPY) structure.
Note: this topic is from . Thanks NormsRevenge.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.