WaGuns.org

TechnoWeenie wrote:

MadPick wrote:Are you saying that everyone BUT the NYPD is allowed to edit Wikipedia?

If they put bullshit up there, I won't defend that. However, I'm not sure why there's outrage over them editing, just like anyone else can.

It's a blatant infringement.

The gov't has no right to freedom of speech, the people do, and have the right to not have it edited/policed by the gov't.

The Gvt is made of people isnt it?

What if the info published isnt true.....I know, thats a strech but.

Heres another thought.

What if the cop in question was your twin brother, you knew he wasnt lying, it went down as he said and he swore the Wiki publish was wrong......

Would you leave it?

Maybe it' just me, but I don't see correcting mis-information as an infringement upon my right to free speech.

WaJim wrote:

TechnoWeenie wrote:

MadPick wrote:Are you saying that everyone BUT the NYPD is allowed to edit Wikipedia?

If they put bullshit up there, I won't defend that. However, I'm not sure why there's outrage over them editing, just like anyone else can.

It's a blatant infringement.

The gov't has no right to freedom of speech, the people do, and have the right to not have it edited/policed by the gov't.

The Gvt is made of people isnt it?

What if the info published isnt true.....I know, thats a strech but.

Heres another thought.

What if the cop in question was your twin brother, you knew he wasnt lying, it went down as he said and he swore the Wiki publish was wrong......

Would you leave it?

I'm not a gov't employee.

The fact that it was done on a gov't computer, most likely on paid time, and seemingly a systemic issue (a guy told to do it, not one guy doing it on his own), reeks of what amounts to a cover up.

Massivedesign wrote:Maybe it' just me, but I don't see correcting mis-information as an infringement upon my right to free speech.

Did you read the 'corrections'?

Most of the words changed were to paint the 'victims' in a bad light, or otherwise attempt to minimize the negative impact of a shitty situation.



Imagine a company editing Wiki to minimize its role in scandals, removing negative but truthful information to protect its CEO and board of directors, and make the behavior seem normal instead of abhorrent...

You'd say that's some pretty shady shit, wouldn't you?

It's NOT the gov'ts job to censor people or 'correct' information....

CurtisLemansky wrote:

dan360 wrote:

CurtisLemansky wrote:

dan360 wrote:Meh...they're editing Wikipedia, which is a craphole site anyways.

They aren't editing history, they're editing a public blog and a crappy one at that. Doesn't pass the smell test, though I'll agree with that.

Does that make it ok?


Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0

Again. It's Wikipedia. Who cares.

Wikipedia is not a blog, by the way.


Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0

I don't really care what it is. It's stupid. Go hug it if you really need to.

dan360 wrote:I don't really care what it is. It's stupid. Go hug it if you really need to.

I never understood the hatred of Wikipedia. Sure, Wiki can be edited by anyone, this results in the occasional bad fact. But, oddly enough, there are those who go about looking for bad Wiki pages to fix them. The information on Wikipedia is largely accurate, and has the attached cites to back it up.

Wikipedia is the unfiltered summation of the collective knowledge of the First World (and to a lesser extent the Second and Third as well). It's essentially what the Internet was created for....


... except for porn

TechnoWeenie wrote:

MadPick wrote:Are you saying that everyone BUT the NYPD is allowed to edit Wikipedia?

If they put bullshit up there, I won't defend that. However, I'm not sure why there's outrage over them editing, just like anyone else can.

It boils down to this...


Gov't says 'you can publish anything you want'...

You 'publish' something...

The gov't then removes the stuff it disagrees with and republishes it.


See the issue?

It's a blatant infringement.

The gov't has no right to freedom of speech, the people do, and have the right to not have it edited/policed by the gov't.

I'm going to disagree, at least as it relates to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is open to being edited by anyone; there's nothing that says that a government employee can't edit along with the rest of us.

Now if the government hacked a website to change info . . . that would be a different story.

And you're right, the NYPD edits were done to make the police actions seem more positive. However, that's not necessarily WRONG; it's only wrong if the edits they made did not reflect the truth. Did they reflect the truth? We really don't know.

MadPick wrote:And you're right, the NYPD edits were done to make the police actions seem more positive. However, that's not necessarily WRONG; it's only wrong if the edits they made did not reflect the truth. Did they reflect the truth? We really don't know.

Therein lies the problem.

The gov't is editing dissent.

What's the truth? Should the gov't be removing the public's information and overwriting it with their version of the truth?


Right or wrong, the fact that a gov't agency is censoring and removing information, and replacing it with its own, is outright scary, when you think of the implications.

If the gov't can edit wikipedia, to 'correct' information, what else can it edit?

Slippery slope, people...

Wikipedia is wide-open . . . would it be "scary" if someone else went in there and edited it?

I just don't think you can paint the government as "bad" and the rest of the population as "good," which is what you're doing in this thread.

MadPick wrote:Wikipedia is wide-open . . . would it be "scary" if someone else went in there and edited it?

I just don't think you can paint the government as "bad" and the rest of the population as "good," which is what you're doing in this thread.

The constitution was designed to limit gov't, the first amendment is in place to make sure that the gov't doesn't censor its people.

Is this not censorship?

That's what it boils down to.

The role of the gov't is not to censor what it disagrees with... even if the information is false. Create its own page, not edit the statements of others.

No, I don't think it's censorship, only because of the way that Wikipedia works. Wikipedia invites everyone -- even the government -- to edit the articles.

I suppose someone could go make a Wiki page highlighting all the glorious exploits of TechnoWeenie. Of course if you went in and edited you would be changing history and lying right? Gotta love inflationary and misleading bullshit thread titles.

MadPick wrote:No, I don't think it's censorship, only because of the way that Wikipedia works. Wikipedia invites everyone -- even the government -- to edit the articles.

We'll have to agree to disagree, but I definitely understand your argument, and the logic is sound.

Jagerbomber35 wrote:I suppose someone could go make a Wiki page highlighting all the glorious exploits of TechnoWeenie. Of course if you went in and edited you would be changing history and lying right? Gotta love inflationary and misleading bullshit thread titles.

For the 2nd time.....


I'm not a gov't agency...

TechnoWeenie wrote:

Jagerbomber35 wrote:I suppose someone could go make a Wiki page highlighting all the glorious exploits of TechnoWeenie. Of course if you went in and edited you would be changing history and lying right? Gotta love inflationary and misleading bullshit thread titles.

For the 2nd time.....


I'm not a gov't agency...

And for the second time that doesn't matter. Jesus christ government can't do anything right in your eyes can they? Its no different that scientologists editing their page. Granted, they "allowed" to anymore, but its the same principle. You're making many assumptions about how and when and by whom it was edited by. Doesn't stop stop you from slandering them though thats for sure.