Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Bot Tweets Anonymous Wikipedia Edits From Capitol Hill

samzenpus posted about a month ago | from the noting-the-changes dept.

Twitter 95

mpicpp writes about a new Twitter bot that reports all of the anonymous Wikipedia edits being made from the US Senate and House of Representatives. Ed Summers, an open source Web developer, recently saw a friend tweet about Parliament WikiEdits, a UK Twitter "bot" that watched for anonymous Wikipedia edits coming from within the British Parliament's internal networks. Summers was immediately inspired to do the same thing for the US Congress. "The simplicity of combining Wikipedia and Twitter in this way immediately struck me as a potentially useful transparency tool," Summers wrote in his personal blog. "So using my experience on a previous side project [Wikistream, a Web application that watches Wikipedia editing activity], I quickly put together a short program that listens to all major language Wikipedias for anonymous edits from Congressional IP address ranges and tweets them." The stream for the bot, @congressedits, went live a day later, and it now provides real-time tweets when anonymous edits of Wikipedia pages are made. Summers also posted the code to GitHub so that others interested in creating similar Twitter bots can riff on his work.

cancel ×

95 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

In a week it'll need to be updated to @toredits (2, Insightful)

Assmasher (456699) | about a month ago | (#47447651)

...for when they start anonymizing... ;)

Re:In a week it'll need to be updated to @toredits (4, Funny)

plaukas pyragely (1630517) | about a month ago | (#47447703)

That's even better! Imagine the headache for NSA staff if TOR becomes popular in congress.

Re:In a week it'll need to be updated to @toredits (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47448121)

Modded funny because you actually think TOR is even slightly secure from the NSA.

Re:In a week it'll need to be updated to @toredits (3, Insightful)

Bobakitoo (1814374) | about a month ago | (#47448147)

The point is that they wont be able to argue that TOR is a paedophile/terrorist tool and use that as a 'probable cause' to harasses and torture citizens.

Re:In a week it'll need to be updated to @toredits (5, Funny)

daremonai (859175) | about a month ago | (#47448657)

If congressmen are using it, doesn't that only strengthen the argument that "TOR is a paedophile/terrorist tool"?

Re:In a week it'll need to be updated to @toredits (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47461969)

Yeah, you could make that spaghetti stick...

Re:In a week it'll need to be updated to @toredits (1)

SeaFox (739806) | about a month ago | (#47450879)

They'll only use that argument when dealing with regular citizens. That issue will simply not be mentioned when a congressman is involved. Just like how courts rarely entertain the possibility a policeman can be lying, like any other human.

Re:In a week it'll need to be updated to @toredits (1)

NotInHere (3654617) | about a month ago | (#47447797)

The problem is that wikipedia, just like almost every non-darknet site in the world, doesn't allow users with tor ips to edit it.

Re:In a week it'll need to be updated to @toredits (1)

Assmasher (456699) | about a month ago | (#47449441)

Tor to VPN then :)

Re:In a week it'll need to be updated to @toredits (1)

Trepidity (597) | about a month ago | (#47447807)

There's no real reason to use Tor to avoid getting on these lists, just create an account and then your IP is hidden.

Re:In a week it'll need to be updated to @toredits (1)

nitehawk214 (222219) | about a month ago | (#47447931)

But that makes you hella-easy to track. Oh look, here is this guy that only makes positive spin edits for congressman XYZ, or party R.

Re:In a week it'll need to be updated to @toredits (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47447981)

Certainly not party D, because they would of course never do such a thing.

Re:In a week it'll need to be updated to @toredits (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about a month ago | (#47448141)

Typical Bias Bot

Re:In a week it'll need to be updated to @toredits (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47448271)

What about party I, or party G or party S.

Exactly what reason to we need to be verbose for? Did you just want to go "Durr the other guys do it too!" ?

Re:In a week it'll need to be updated to @toredits (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47450537)

But that makes you hella-easy to track. Oh look, here is this guy that only makes positive spin edits for congressman XYZ, or party R.

How would that make you easy to track? A careful spin doctor would be making edits to a variety of things, all the time, and slipping in the one-sided ones only when it's really needed. Also, there is absolutely no shortage of blatant political trolls on Wikipedia so if they did choose the easy way, they would fit right in.

Re:In a week it'll need to be updated to @toredits (1)

cheater512 (783349) | about a month ago | (#47451995)

That is kinda the point.....

Re:In a week it'll need to be updated to @toredits (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47448391)

If push comes to shove, VPN services can be used to get around Tor exit node blocks.

Pretty much any system admin who has any clue at all has blocked exit nodes, either completely at the router, or the web server will redirect the users at that IP range to take a hike.

Of course, the sophisticated people are way beyond this. It doesn't take much of a clue for someone who is already on a business trip to start editing Wikipedia pages anonymously from various Wi-fi networks, periodically rotating VMs so browser fingerprinting can't be used to see if the edits are the same people. If push comes to shove, the top guys will just buy a bunch of "clients" from a bot-herder, and use a RAT as a proxy for the edits. A hacked box on a dorm network or a dynamic IP range of cable machines is the best candidate for editing anonymously since Wikipedia either would have to lock the page or lock the entire IP range down.

Of course, there are paid for VPN services.

The bad guys won't run out of IPs... Tor is just low hanging fruit.

Re:In a week it'll need to be updated to @toredits (1)

cheesybagel (670288) | about a month ago | (#47447817)

Or they can pay an external astroturfing outfit.

Re:In a week it'll need to be updated to @toredits (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about a month ago | (#47448153)

Or they can pay an external astroturfing outfit.

Or vice versa.

Re:In a week it'll need to be updated to @toredits (1)

Guppy06 (410832) | about a month ago | (#47448273)

You've never actually tried editing a Wikipedia page through TOR, have you?

Not really new (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47447655)

Wikinews did a piece on this years ago

Re:Not really new (2)

oobayly (1056050) | about a month ago | (#47447739)

Yeah, but there was no citation, so the piece was reverted.

Mom' Basement (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47448085)

We need a bot that will tweet out all the changes done by people living in their mom's basement.

But I guess that would crash Twitter.

Re:Mom' Basement (1)

HiThere (15173) | about a month ago | (#47450471)

More to the point, how could you tell? Minus, of course, using personal bias.

GitHub link (4, Informative)

worf_mo (193770) | about a month ago | (#47447673)

In case you don't want to wade through the article, the source code is at https://github.com/edsu/anon [github.com]

Also available for UK, Canada, France ... (5, Informative)

Andreas Kolbe (2591067) | about a month ago | (#47447701)

@parliamentedits, @wikiAssemblee, @gccaedits and @RiksdagWikiEdit Twitter accounts have been the set up to do the same for the UK, France, Canada and Sweden.

One thing to remember here is that most of these edits are probably made by junior IT staff rather than elected representatives (recall the recent Hillsborough case [telegraph.co.uk] in the UK).

Re:Also available for UK, Canada, France ... (4, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a month ago | (#47447755)

One thing to remember here is that most of these edits are probably made by junior IT staff

It doesn't matter who makes them, the only thing that matters is the reason.

Re:Also available for UK, Canada, France ... (1)

Andreas Kolbe (2591067) | about a month ago | (#47447769)

A prominent reason is probably boredom in the lunch break.

Re:Also available for UK, Canada, France ... (2)

SpzToid (869795) | about a month ago | (#47447973)

The few that I checked out, were all clarifying legitimate typos. This is an excellent tool, to be able to monitor such, with precision like this. If only we could get this tool into OpenSSL or some derivative of OpenSSL, etc., somehow.

FWIW, this is the first useful thing I've personally seen Twitter used for. But like everything I see in Twitter, there is redundancy in plained old, un-walled-garden rss publishing, (with no 140K limit!)

Re:Also available for UK, Canada, France ... (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about a month ago | (#47448183)

FWIW, this is the first useful thing I've personally seen Twitter used for.

You got a problem with food tweets?

[note: the first time I typed the above, I mis-typed it as "foot tweets" which sound much more interesting]

Re:Also available for UK, Canada, France ... (1)

NoKaOi (1415755) | about a month ago | (#47450791)

The few that I checked out, were all clarifying legitimate typos.

Looks like there are several of those. But then there's the one about a radio host saying he's a disinformation agent of the Kremlin. Or the tea bagger that had a paragraph added with wording that sounds like it's from a campaign pamphlet (rather than facts about what his platforms are).

Also available for UK, Canada, France ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47447783)

Or they are blamed for it... (maybe not in the posted case, but still)

Re:Also available for UK, Canada, France ... (4, Insightful)

Guppy06 (410832) | about a month ago | (#47448331)

One thing to remember here is that most of these edits are probably made by junior IT staff rather than elected representatives

I can't speak for the others you've listed, but these Capitol Hill edits almost exclusively affect articles on sitting members and those on politically contentious topics. If it really is by "junior IT staff," then it's more likely that they're doing it under orders from their higher-ups rather than wasting office hours on topics they're personally interested in.

Re:Also available for UK, Canada, France ... (1)

Andreas Kolbe (2591067) | about a month ago | (#47448521)

Well, the latest edit tweeted [twitter.com] by @congressedits for example is this one [wikipedia.org] , inserting the following into David Icke's biography: "He is also a disinformation agent funded by the [[Pleiadians]]." That's just someone wasting their and everyone else's time. That's not to say there haven't been edits on politically contentious topics from gov't IP addresses; there most certainly have, and that's why these Twitter accounts are a good idea. The downside is that long-term, they will drive this sort of editing underground. People who do want to make a politically contentious edit will go to the nearest Starbucks to avoid detection. It's an inherent weakness of Wikipedia, because on less well watched pages some of those edits always slip through. Wikipedia is full of articles edited by people with an undeclared conflict of interest. It's arguably one of the reasons for its popularity.

Re:Also available for UK, Canada, France ... (1)

mrbester (200927) | about a month ago | (#47448551)

Except that there's a bunch of edits that to pushed that have nothing to do with politics. Like one for a dance movie.

So while it's good to see the positive spinning, it's also good to see the time wasting on the taxpayers dollar.

Re:Also available for UK, Canada, France ... (1)

dryeo (100693) | about a month ago | (#47448857)

Plausible denialability says that the higher-ups will honestly not know about what the junior staff member is doing, instead they just mention how such and such wiki article is wrong or such.

Re:Also available for UK, Canada, France ... (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about a month ago | (#47449127)

If it really is by "junior IT staff," then it's more likely that they're doing it under orders from their higher-ups rather than wasting office hours on topics they're personally interested in.

I work at a major US Air Force base as a civilian in a middle level management capacity. I edit Wikipedia "articles" related to the military several times a week from work (possibly on my lunch hour, it's a grey area).

Does this mean I'm editing on the orders of my superiors?

Re:Also available for UK, Canada, France ... (1)

HiThere (15173) | about a month ago | (#47450513)

No. But it *does* mean that in contentious areas your edits should not be as trusted as those of a possibly unbiased person. (OTOH, do note the "possibly unbiased". You are guaranteed to be biased, as well as informed. It's not clear what your biases are, or whether you will intentionally shade the truth because of them. But many will.

If you consider that you are willing to stand behind your edits, get an account.

Re:Also available for UK, Canada, France ... (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about a month ago | (#47452073)

If you consider that you are willing to stand behind your edits, get an account.

I have an account. I have for the last 10 years. But often times I don't feel like being abused by editors / admin with "WP:OWN" and God Syndrome issues.

Re:Also available for UK, Canada, France ... (1)

HiThere (15173) | about a month ago | (#47461267)

Yeah, I understand your problem. But if you are anonymous from a known-to-be-biased IP range, you can't be as trusted as even ordinary anonymous posters.

Re:Also available for UK, Canada, France ... (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about a month ago | (#47463183)

Yeah, I understand your problem. But if you are anonymous from a known-to-be-biased IP range, you can't be as trusted as even ordinary anonymous posters.

A government IP range is automatically "known to be biased"? It sounds to me like you have some bias of your own.

Re:Also available for UK, Canada, France ... (1)

pjt33 (739471) | about a month ago | (#47448859)

The UK one which inspired the US one is actually mentioned in the summary, but if you're assuming that 90% of /.ers won't even RTFS you're probably right.

Re:Also available for UK, Canada, France ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47449327)

Not that it matters, but the UK version came before the USA version..

Work from home. (5, Funny)

KarlH420 (532043) | about a month ago | (#47447707)

In other news congressional interns are now encouraged to work from home and on their mobile devices.

Re:Work from home. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47447805)

Hasn't Congress always "phoned it in"?

Re:Work from home. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47448017)

Unlike White House interns, who work at the boss' home on their knees.

Re:Work from home. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47448489)

These scripts can only track anonymous users, because the IP address of anonymous users is published as the author of the changes on Wikipedia. It takes seconds to create a Wikipedia account, you just have to give a username, a password, and the fill in the CAPTCHA... you don't even need to give an email address... Then the IP address is not publicly visible anymore, and these scripts cannot do anything anymore... So no need to use another IP address...

The appearance of good behaviour... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47447733)

...is so easy to set up.

Here's a list of all the packets I've sent over the Interwaves today with the evil bit set:

  • .

I must be some sort of saint.

Some hilarity (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47447747)

There's some hilarity in here. An anonymous edit made by Congress to the article Horse head mask.

Re:Some hilarity (1)

hsmith (818216) | about a month ago | (#47447791)

While i see the "point" in this Bot, the fact is a lot of the editing is probably bored staffers and interns editing things they find interesting.

Re:Some hilarity (1)

nitehawk214 (222219) | about a month ago | (#47447957)

And a lot of the edits were "good" edits, correcting grammar, filling in sources on existing articles. But we need to watch it to see if that is an attempt to hide the spin edits.

Re:Some hilarity (1)

Andreas Kolbe (2591067) | about a month ago | (#47448205)

That's it; quite a few edits will be perfectly fine, others are vandalism by bored staff, and occasionally you will get something interesting like the Snowden edit and others described here [telegraph.co.uk] .

Re:Some hilarity (0)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about a month ago | (#47448303)

Horse Head guy, a Photo Op for Obama, just after he wouldn't go for a photo op tour of the invasions from the south. Priorities!

Re:Some hilarity (2)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | about a month ago | (#47448377)

My favorite one is the most recent:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/inde... [wikipedia.org]

Here comes the conspiracy theorists...

Re:Some hilarity (1)

kaputtfurleben (818568) | about a month ago | (#47448993)

My favorite one is the most recent:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/inde... [wikipedia.org]

Here comes the conspiracy theorists...

Take note, RyuuzakiTetsuya is also a disinformation agent funded by the Molemen.

our tax dollars at work... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47447767)

Step Up 3D Wikipedia article edited anonymously by US Senate https://twitter.com/congressedits/statuses/487338666357174272

captcha = laughed.

Re:our tax dollars at work... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47447925)

Where is the problem? There's normal people sitting in administration and that's fine.

External Firms (1)

Joe Gillian (3683399) | about a month ago | (#47447831)

I applaud the effort to make a bot like this, but from what I understand, most of the Wikipedia edits that are shilling for someone (or something) are done by outside "reputation management" firms. It would probably be interesting to track anonymous and reverted edits to pages for major politicians and see if they can catch some of these firms at work.

Re:External Firms (2)

matbury (3458347) | about a month ago | (#47447923)

That's easy enough to do: create an account on Wikipedia.org and "watch" those pages.

Actually, the edits look good! (5, Insightful)

MobyDisk (75490) | about a month ago | (#47447969)

I started browsing it looking for anything juicy. The edits seem to be small, good quality, mostly political edits. They look like interns with an interest in politics, history, and dance movies. I'd love to have an app like this for my employer's corporate network, just to see what people here do (if anything).

Here are the changes I've seen thus far:
lawyer --> attorney
remove "cold war" from some 18th century guy
change someone from democrat to independent
however --> then
$ --> dollars
Jiang Jiemin --> Zhou Jiping
[[ --> ]]

Re:Actually, the edits look good! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47448117)

Competent edits? Not on my watch! [revert]

Re:Actually, the edits look good! (4, Insightful)

cultiv8 (1660093) | about a month ago | (#47448179)

And then there's this edit added to Lyndon LaRouche's page:

He is also a disinformation agent funded by the Kremlin.

Source [twitter.com]

Re:Actually, the edits look good! (0)

Clockwurk (577966) | about a month ago | (#47448541)

Totally not someone fucking with the bot. Not even a little bit.

Re:Actually, the edits look good! (1)

Raseri (812266) | about a month ago | (#47448885)

This is what I was thinking, as well.

There's also the possibility of someone eventually getting it into their head to spoof a Congressional IP address and cause all sorts of fun mayhem for the enjoyment of their twitter-provided audience.

Re:Actually, the edits look good! (1)

zyxwvutsr (542520) | about a month ago | (#47456923)

Similar addition to the Alex Jones page [wikipedia.org] :

Following his appearances on Russia Today, there were allegations that he was a disinformation agent with ties to the Kremlin.

Re:Actually, the edits look good! (3, Informative)

Binestar (28861) | about a month ago | (#47448243)

I agree in principle, but you missed the context and a bit on completeness on the lawyer -> attorney edit.

It was actually "Corporate Lawyer" -> "Attorney", which has a different feel to it.

Re:Actually, the edits look good! (1)

sjf (3790) | about a month ago | (#47449375)

Exactly. Moreover it was in the bio of a Congressman. For some voters "lawyer" is a pretty damning word, "Attorney," less so. But "Corporate Lawyer," is synonymous with "Corporate Shill."

Re:Actually, the edits look good! (1)

AthanasiusKircher (1333179) | about a month ago | (#47448667)

I started browsing it looking for anything juicy. The edits seem to be small, good quality, mostly political edits. They look like interns with an interest in politics, history...

Huh. Competent information provided by people who actually might know something about a topic. Who would've guessed?

This is one of the main issues with Wikipedia -- it depends on knowledgeable editors, but those who know the most about a topic are often barred (or at least discouraged) from sharing their knowledge, which might be branded "original research" or (as in this case) automatically assumed to be suspicious or potentially made only in self-interest.

The problem here is NOT contributions from experts -- I imagine those involved in government might be most qualified to know what needs to be added to articles on it. The problem is the continuing Wikipedia mentality that we don't need qualified (but disinterested) experts to authorize edits on good articles... and instead depend on whichever volunteers are best at wikilawyering.

Don't get me wrong: Wikipedia's amazing growth is largely from its early "open door" policy on edits. But new editors have stopped coming to Wikipedia now, because they are greeted with suspicion and faced with the daunting task of fighting a bureaucracy (mostly of people who are not experts on the topic) to suggest any substantial edit. It's time to move into a more "mature" phase on established articles that have been deemed to be reasonably good quality. (My personal suggestion would be a two-stage edit on established articles, with a "stable version" displayed by default and an "experimental" or whatever version that can still have suggested edits by anyone... and those edits can be added to the stable version after review... but that's just one possible system. That would be a better system to prevent abuse as well as random vandalism, rather than a system that is suspicious of any user from the wrong IP or any new user who might just be a shill.)

Re:Actually, the edits look good! (2)

Andreas Kolbe (2591067) | about a month ago | (#47448817)

Sounds a bit like Pending Changes [wikipedia.org] (installed on the German, Polish and some other Wikipedias, but not on the English one). This requires all IP edits to be approved by a "trusted" editor. Not a perfect system, but better than what is in place now.

Re:Actually, the edits look good! (1)

HiThere (15173) | about a month ago | (#47450555)

Considering some of the people who appear to be "trusted editor"s, I'm not sure that would be a good thing.

Re:Actually, the edits look good! (1)

Andreas Kolbe (2591067) | about a month ago | (#47451453)

Quite.

Re:Actually, the edits look good! (1)

gman003 (1693318) | about a month ago | (#47448889)

Re:Actually, the edits look good! (1)

HiThere (15173) | about a month ago | (#47450579)

Yeah, that looks like spin management. Now if they's moved it's position to "allegedly each year" I would have considered it acceptably parsimonious reasoning. After all, I only know that it meets occasionally, I don't know that it actually does meet yearly. Or if it had said "allegedly the most powerful men", I would have found that acceptable. AFAIK nobody from either the Chinese or Russian government attends. It seems to be mainly a US/European group.

Re:Actually, the edits look good! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47450027)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=616934752&oldid=607245083

Added text to Choco Taco's wikipedia entry:

In addition, Choco Tacos have been a staple of vending machines in the Rayburn House Office Building of the [[U.S. House of Representatives]] honoring former Speaker [[Samuel Rayburn]]'s devotion to his favorite snack.

Re:Actually, the edits look good! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47451785)

Maybe that was true earlier in the day. The edits to Crimea, Abby Martin and Alex Jones' page look *very* suspicious:

Crimea: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/inde... [wikipedia.org]

Abby: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/inde... [wikipedia.org]

Alex: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/inde... [wikipedia.org]

Great Idea - Escalation (1)

pubwvj (1045960) | about a month ago | (#47448001)

Great idea. What the politicians will now do is use remote IPs to hide their anonymous behavior however that can then be tracked by watching the aggregate behavior, the meta data of Wiki. This will in turn reveal the lying scumbags. NSA will drool at this tool.

Re:Great Idea - Escalation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47448229)

Why would the NSA drool at a tool with way less capability than they have themselves?

Re:Great Idea - Escalation (1)

pubwvj (1045960) | about a month ago | (#47455837)

Because they're not actually doing this - according to them. They were asked and said they didn't. They clearly want to. They probably are. But not legally, not publicly.

The danger... (1)

LihTox (754597) | about a month ago | (#47448025)

...is from kneejerk partisan/anti-government types who automatically revert every change reported by his bot, because of course politicians are always wrong. For an example, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/ind... [wikipedia.org] and the history changes that follow.

Re:The danger... (1)

operagost (62405) | about a month ago | (#47448133)

anti-government types

The IP address these changes were coming from was congressional so, no.

Re:The danger... (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about a month ago | (#47448253)

anti-government types

The IP address these changes were coming from was congressional so, no.

I'm pretty sure it can be argued that at least one house of Congress is currently being run by anti-government types, so yes.

Re:The danger... (1)

JackieBrown (987087) | about a month ago | (#47449163)

Too bad it is just one

Re:The danger... (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about a month ago | (#47450121)

Too bad is is actually none.

Ignore what they say, look at what they do.

"Anonymous" is not anonymous at all (1)

phaunt (1079975) | about a month ago | (#47448329)

Many people don't seem to realise that by editing Wikipedia anonymously, you're giving away your IP address for everyone to see. I'd expected a comment to that effect here but didn't, so I'll be the first to post it.

In that sense, editing with a registered account is much more anonymous. Only some Wikipedia staff members can look up your IP address, so edits from Capitol Hill using an account won't be picked up by this twitter bot. Also, those staff members (should) have to follow procedures before they can look up your IP.

Re:"Anonymous" is not anonymous at all (2)

Andreas Kolbe (2591067) | about a month ago | (#47448781)

Correct, though note that checkusers are not staff members but unpaid volunteers. The Wikimedia Foundation doesn't even necessarily know who they are.

Re:"Anonymous" is not anonymous at all (1)

Andreas Kolbe (2591067) | about a month ago | (#47449501)

Topical complaint from a Wikipedian about anonymous checkusers being granted access to Wikipedians' private information, on the talk page of a Wikimedia Foundation trustee: Why Did You Support Granting Private Information of Editors to Anonymous Administrators? [wikimedia.org]

Re:"Anonymous" is not anonymous at all (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47449575)

And yet there is still the misconception that IP Address is somehow equivalent to a mailing address. Granted this 'bot looks at a congressional IP range (i.e. we know it came from some set of computers), but a specific IP address does not necessarily tie to an individual.

For example, I could edit a wikipedia entry via tapping into my neighbor's wifi. My IP address would appear to all logs as having come from them, should the ISP's keep records for address leasing during whatever time frame in question. With DHCP, my modem could have any of a large number of IP's, and that could change at any time.

riff (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about a month ago | (#47448437)

I don't think this word means what you think it means.

already slander edits (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47448553)

the most recent two edits posted by the bot are already two slanders lol

yuo Fail It (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47448801)

Warning: House, you're up for relelection soon! (1)

The New Guy 2.0 (3497907) | about a month ago | (#47448825)

I'm not sure this is a bad thing... but if it is then it's too close to election day for the US House to get away with it.

Their IP block is too broad. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47533055)

Their IP block may be too broad. I'm being classified as originating from Congress - though I am connecting from a DoJ system.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>