Tim Ireland on tabloids, media, blogs and politics
Question of the day
This entry was posted on
Monday, June 26th, 2006 at
6:28 pm and is filed
under Anne Milton.
Is it right for an MP (or their staff) to use time and facilities paid for by the taxpayer to edit their Wikipedia listing to their liking? (Not quick factual updates, you understand, but vanity-edits and/or censorship.)
The reason I ask is that (*ahem*) someone seems determined to remove all reference to the Anne Milton weblog from Anne Milton’s Wikipedia entry, and the most recent change (involving yet another removal of any reference/link to the weblog) tracks straight back to the IP address 194.60.38.10
(Psst! Run this IP address through Wikipedia’s back-end to see who else has been making good use of their your time.)
UPDATE (27 June) – Another data and link deletion from inside the Houses of Parliament at 11:06am. They don’t learn, do they?
UPDATE (28 June) – And the entry has been censored *again* at 9:17am from inside the Houses of Parliament. Bold and arrogant, or just plain stupid… what do you think?
| Print article | This entry was posted by Tim Ireland on June 26, 2006 at 6:28 pm, and is filed under Anne Milton. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed. |
Comments are closed.
about 5 years ago
That reminds me of a tool I wish existed for watching a whole spectrum of wikipedia pages, that I was going to focus on pharmaceuticals with their silly names, where the companies have obviously spammed the pages with their complete and total gibberish.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HerceptinMeanwhile, right now I’ve been starting off the following page:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_the_United_Kingdomafter wasting a lot of time editing the US version to make sure that America’s version of Forest Gate ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami_bomb_plot_to_attack_the_Sears_Tower ) didn’t disappear down the memory hole.People have been entering these individual incidents into the ‘pedia, but it’s only when you see them all lined up in their glorious perfection that they cease to become isolated incidents of incompetance.
about 5 years ago
You’d have thought that if she was entering in something herself, she’d at least have something to say to compensate for what she has deleted. Or does this suggest she nothing more than a warm bum on the bench.
about 5 years ago
goatchurch: Spot on. (Why, it’s almost as if she has nothing positive to offer.)Love the ‘terrorist’ pages. I’ll get around to a few additions when I’m able.
about 5 years ago
STALKER!
about 5 years ago
MALCONTENT!;oP