Comments:US Dept. of Justice IP address blocked after 'vandalism' edits to Wikipedia

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

• Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
• Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
• You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

Click here to add a new comment · Add onto existing comments

It's called censorship, embrace it!

The same as in Myanmar, China and Russian, stuff that. 211.28.199.234 04:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Kudos!!!

God bless the techno-abilities of the wiki-admin to track all this! God knows we have no need of yet another Government controlled info source. Does wiki keep any manner of back up of the content so as to undo any malicious deletion of material? If so I would be very interested to see the changes made. ~fallenscathed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.237.15.151 (talk) 04:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes it does. Click the "history" tab at the top of any page and you can see any revision. You can select two revisions using the radio buttons on the left of the list and click Compare and it will show you exactly what was changed between the two. TheFearow (userpage) 06:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. People who play up often fail to realise just how public their work on Wikipedia is. The w:WikiScanner media fuss earlier this year was basically the public learning what Wikipedians have known and tracked for years - David Gerard - (talk) 12:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Still, I can't believe how sloppy the DOJ was when they did this. they could have used a f*ck*ng proxy at least. Rekov - (talk) 14:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Many proxies are blocked from Wikipedia A101 - (talk) 15:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Rekov, there is nothing to suggest this done by the DOJ, only that one of their employees did it. --SVTCobra 23:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

PCpro.co.uk story

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/192813/department-of-justice-banned-from-wikipedia.html - Matthew Sparkes called me earlier today for Wikimedia comment on this issue. As I said, it happens all the time and we cope with it in the normal course of events - David Gerard - (talk) 12:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I will be trying to track coverage of this, on the talk page of the article. Will start a subsection for that now. Cirt - (talk) 15:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, this is getting more and more like the movies every day —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.187.220.242 (talk) 15:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I should note by the way - I noted this story here because he called me having read the Wikinews story. Welcome to the worldwide media echo chamber %-D - David Gerard - (talk) 15:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Taint our government grand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.139.169.189 (talk) 16:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The PCPro story was more or less "Government department embarrasses itself again", which IMO is pretty much what's happened ;-) - David Gerard - (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Go Wikipedia!

Go Wikipedia! Put the smackdown on dirty political groups and corrupt government officials. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.108.120.232 (talk • contribs)

While I wish to withhold my own personal opinion in such things I find it highly commendable that wiki has decided to post its findings on such an issue to the public and hope to see future articles on possible group manipulation of wiki articles. The idea that this is the first, last or even only attempt would be naive; and it would be enlightening to learn what other groups participate in such activities. It would also be disheartening if likely, that most if not all do however participate in such actions.

—24.224.176.156 01:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I find it interesting that this type of activity has come to light. Obviously both sides have a political agenda, but it definitely shines a much different light on the pro-Israeli group, especially the fact that these changes were made from a UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IP address. Perhaps we Americans need to take a very careful, and serious, look at what kind of people are involved in these types of organizations; if they are willing to lie about things like this, what else are they willing to do and lie about? This act is what I would consider intellectual terrorism; they are attempting to control the peoples' perception of Israel, through lies and disinformation.

Definitely agree with all of the above, I'm glad wiki found these perps and dealt with them accordingly -Tim Myers II

I doubt this was an official action of the DOJ but just an employee with a POV, we all have them, this employee just chose to express it from what it sounds like is from both at home and at work and they happen to work for the DOJ. You can't hold that against the DOJ.--Ryan524 - (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ryan524. And I wouldn't be surprised if there is now/soon a memo to DOJ employees to not edit Wikipedia or otherwise contribute to the interwebs from their work computers. --SVTCobra 23:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Shame on WikiNews and Wikipedia for showing their bias

The entire point of wikipedia is that all can air their viewpoints. It's no surprise that any group with one particular viewpoint wants to make sure their views are fairly represented.

Both Wikipedia and WikiNews are showing their bias, and taking sides here, by characterizing one group as "secretly" trying to "game the system", while the other group is portrayed as heroically trying to voice the truth.

That's bull. Both sides are doing the same thing. If anything, supporters of Palestinians have been better organized in their efforts to get their point of view heard. Why then aren't they accused of "secretly" trying to "game the system"? {{subst:131.142.52.247}}

Any sources/proof to back up your last paragraph? Cirt - (talk) 14:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Where in the article do we accuse the DOJ or anyone of secret editing etc? And what side did we take? DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 15:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

No suprises

I find it very unsuprising to hear that it has been discovered that such abuse and attempted mass-abuse of wikipedia has taken place.

I'm happy to hear however that the collusion-ists have been detected and punished as deserved. One could only imagine the potential damage that could have been done if this jewish-extremist group gotten the unchecked power and authority over the articles and inflicted their fundamentalist perspectives on those they label the average fact searcher.

Good work Wiki!!

Les —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.94.223.250 (talk) 11:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Did you expect anything different from a broad organized group claiming to be only 6% that has a milleniums long history of similar individual and organized chicanery and control? Currently one of their groups influences or controls the DoJ to have it ignore Russian organized crime members also of their group who not only operate in the US but by previously unknown ruthlessness control organized US crime on a massive multi-billion dollar scale. The US is being flooded with their immigrants who either steal from us by welfare, by organized crimes or by organized economic and political take-over of our wealth creation process. Wiki contributors might wish to focus on these subjects and ask those with influence to close the borders and the government agencies to these abuses of us by organized intent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.89.32.121 (talk) 02:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments from feedback form - "Presentation lacks consistency..."

Presentation lacks consistency - jumps from point to point in disrupted order/sequence. All in all, 4 of 5. —Santasa99 (talk) 00:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)