4 ms·

Too bad it's the people in power trying to make their life-threatening opinions into facts.

by autotravis 13y ago

brown9-2 13y ago
Is it people in power? How many interns and aides do you think work in Congress?
- tommorris 13y ago
  Interns seems likely. I've seen a fair few politicians-attempting-to-surreptitiously-edit-Wikipedia scandals, and mostly they are just incompetent or joking around.
- cm127 13y ago
  What kind of power did Snowden have?
  - benburleson 13y ago
    Considering the aftermath of what he has released, quite a lot of power.
  - betterunix 13y ago
    That is a secret, remember? He claims that he could have wiretapped the President, the NSA claims that is not true but has not been forthcoming about what procedures or technical limitations were in place to stop him. Like everything else surrounding the Snowden leak there is a great deal of secrecy here.
bpatrianakos 13y ago
Too bad it's those anarchists/traitors/dissidents/hippies/[label] trying to make their socialist/anrarchist/communist/[derogatory adjective] opinions into facts. See what I did there? A Senator or anyone within the Senate has just as much of a right to their opinions as any of us do and they also have the same permission to edit Wikipedia entries as we do. So what is the point in pointing out that someone presumably within the US Senate has changed a word in the Wikipedia article about Snowden? To point out that they're wrong? What if we're the ones who are wrong? This act doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights in any way. Its an attempt to persuade possibly but we can't blame them for that. They have just as much a right to try and persuade people to seeing things their way as we do. I'm just wondering what kind of discussion is this supposed to spark? I've seen a fair number of posts on HN lately that are little more than attempts to preach to the converted and turn the comments into a back-slapping fest. Is it weird that I consider the opposing viewpoint any time I make an argument or consider an issue? I don't necessarily agree with changing dissident to traitor but I don't see anything wrong with someone believing that either.
- D9u 13y ago
  Using government equipment to conduct personal "business" is considered unethical. If someone in the Senate wants to edit Wikipedia articles, they're free to do so on their own time, using their own equipment.
  - GhotiFish 13y ago
    really? I'd call editing a wikipedia article a public good, not a bad use of public resources then, eh?
  - bpatrianakos 13y ago
    I think you're debating semantics here. What if the person looks at it as doing the world a service by correcting wrong information? Then that would probably fit into the job somehow. In any case though, I don't think the ethics of editing a word on Wikipedia during work hours is what we're supposed to be getting up in arms about. I'm really not sure still why we're supposed to be upset.
  - BryantD 13y ago
    Eh. If I don't mind someone editing Wikipedia from work (and I don't), I don't mind a Senate staffer editing Wikipedia from work. I would mind if it turned out to be an astroturf campaign but I don't see any evidence of that.

Too bad it's the people in power trying to make their life-threatening opinions into facts.

brown9-2 13y ago

Is it people in power? How many interns and aides do you think work in Congress?

tommorris 13y ago
Interns seems likely. I've seen a fair few politicians-attempting-to-surreptitiously-edit-Wikipedia scandals, and mostly they are just incompetent or joking around.
cm127 13y ago
What kind of power did Snowden have?
- benburleson 13y ago
  Considering the aftermath of what he has released, quite a lot of power.
- betterunix 13y ago
  That is a secret, remember? He claims that he could have wiretapped the President, the NSA claims that is not true but has not been forthcoming about what procedures or technical limitations were in place to stop him. Like everything else surrounding the Snowden leak there is a great deal of secrecy here.

bpatrianakos 13y ago

Too bad it's those anarchists/traitors/dissidents/hippies/[label] trying to make their socialist/anrarchist/communist/[derogatory adjective] opinions into facts. See what I did there? A Senator or anyone within the Senate has just as much of a right to their opinions as any of us do and they also have the same permission to edit Wikipedia entries as we do. So what is the point in pointing out that someone presumably within the US Senate has changed a word in the Wikipedia article about Snowden? To point out that they're wrong? What if we're the ones who are wrong? This act doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights in any way. Its an attempt to persuade possibly but we can't blame them for that. They have just as much a right to try and persuade people to seeing things their way as we do. I'm just wondering what kind of discussion is this supposed to spark? I've seen a fair number of posts on HN lately that are little more than attempts to preach to the converted and turn the comments into a back-slapping fest. Is it weird that I consider the opposing viewpoint any time I make an argument or consider an issue? I don't necessarily agree with changing dissident to traitor but I don't see anything wrong with someone believing that either.

D9u 13y ago
Using government equipment to conduct personal "business" is considered unethical. If someone in the Senate wants to edit Wikipedia articles, they're free to do so on their own time, using their own equipment.
- GhotiFish 13y ago
  really? I'd call editing a wikipedia article a public good, not a bad use of public resources then, eh?
- bpatrianakos 13y ago
  I think you're debating semantics here. What if the person looks at it as doing the world a service by correcting wrong information? Then that would probably fit into the job somehow. In any case though, I don't think the ethics of editing a word on Wikipedia during work hours is what we're supposed to be getting up in arms about. I'm really not sure still why we're supposed to be upset.
- BryantD 13y ago
  Eh. If I don't mind someone editing Wikipedia from work (and I don't), I don't mind a Senate staffer editing Wikipedia from work. I would mind if it turned out to be an astroturf campaign but I don't see any evidence of that.