What source of edits do you think would yield more interesting results?
Anonymous Wikipedia edits from the Norwegian parliament and government offices
21–30 of 37 posts
Re: Anonymous Wikipedia edits from the Norwegian parliament and government offices
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
I randomly scanned through the list and found the same thing, nothing suspicious. If the government was really determined to change history, you would think they wouldn't be doing it from their own IP ranges...
The thing is we are conditioned to believe that anything the government does, especially anonymously, is necessarily bad. From what I've seem on the list, this has been some kind of an effort to actually improve the arcticles, and update government related information, like embassy addresses and websites. It looks like there is a bunch of responsible, well intentioned and helpful people in the government - at lealst…
Speak for yourself, but I would certainly question any need the government would have to make Wikipedia edits anonymously.
Re: Anonymous Wikipedia edits from the Norwegian parliament and government offices
#23Interesting data, but I fail to see anything sinister going on here. Skimming through the list, it looks like 90% of the articles fall into one of three categories: Streets in Oslo, embassies in Oslo and people I mostly haven't heard of (i.e. not politically controversial characters). I don't see any edits intended to sway public opinion.
Same here, my only worry is that maybe that's exactly the strategy they use to blur the waters. On the other hand, propaganda can't be that forward, can it?
"Muddy the waters"? I think lines, not water, are blurred :)
Re: Anonymous Wikipedia edits from the Norwegian parliament and government offices
#24It's phrased like this is some big evil scheme going on but looking at the edits it's exactly the kind of stuff I believe the government should keep up to date on Wikipedia.
seemed to me like it was explicitly phrased so you WOULDN'T think that. imagine the title (and source) if they were making controversial edits?
I think he's bothered by the vaguely sinister use of "anonymous". It's a true adjective, of course, but not really worth including in the title unless you're trying to imply something bad (and get page views).
Re: Anonymous Wikipedia edits from the Norwegian parliament and government offices
#25There's a Twitter feed of wikipedia edits that originate from the US Congress - https://twitter.com/congressedits
My favorite is the edit of a congressman's bio from saying he used to be a "corporate lawyer" to "attorney".
Re: Anonymous Wikipedia edits from the Norwegian parliament and government offices
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same here, my only worry is that maybe that's exactly the strategy they use to blur the waters. On the other hand, propaganda can't be that forward, can it?
"Muddy the waters"? I think lines, not water, are blurred :)
It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to understand what was meant : )
Re: Anonymous Wikipedia edits from the Norwegian parliament and government offices
#27Interesting data, but I fail to see anything sinister going on here. Skimming through the list, it looks like 90% of the articles fall into one of three categories: Streets in Oslo, embassies in Oslo and people I mostly haven't heard of (i.e. not politically controversial characters). I don't see any edits intended to sway public opinion.
I think the point of the post was, look at how you can see this government's edits, why can't we see every governments edits?
Re: Anonymous Wikipedia edits from the Norwegian parliament and government offices
#28This is one of those cases where the changed Title on HN misleads [1]. These aren't changes from the 'government' they are changes from 'parliament and government offices'. Occams Razor would suggest they are more likely to be staffers and the occasional Patsy Cline-loving MP, rather than cabinet policies being enacted. [1] Title as I write is "10 years of anonymous Wikipedia edits from the Norwegian government"
I'm sorry about that. That's on me. It was necessary to edit it to get below the 80 char limit for post titles.
Re: Anonymous Wikipedia edits from the Norwegian parliament and government offices
#29It's phrased like this is some big evil scheme going on but looking at the edits it's exactly the kind of stuff I believe the government should keep up to date on Wikipedia.
[deleted]
Re: Anonymous Wikipedia edits from the Norwegian parliament and government offices
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
seemed to me like it was explicitly phrased so you WOULDN'T think that. imagine the title (and source) if they were making controversial edits?
I think he's bothered by the vaguely sinister use of "anonymous". It's a true adjective, of course, but not really worth including in the title unless you're trying to imply something bad (and get page views).
it being vague is the reason i concluded it wasn't part of a big evil scheme.
if this was part of some "big evil scheme", the title would be far less innocent. do you disagree?
so to say it is "phrased like this is some big evil scheme" seems disingenuous. i try not to make assumptions, especially when it comes to headlines and "news".