Question of the day

Posted by Tim Ireland at 26 June 2006

Category: Anne Milton

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?








5 Comments

  1. goatchurch says

    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.

  2. goatchurch says

    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.

  3. Manic says

    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.

  4. Guido Fawkes says

    STALKER!

  5. Manic says

    MALCONTENT!;oP

  • External Channels

  • Page 3 Politics

    Page 3: a short history

  • Main

  • Archives

  • Categories

  • Twitter

  • The Cautionary Campfire Songbook

    The Cautionary Campfire Songbook

  • Badges + Buttons

    religion