Talk:Staffs for US presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama caught making questionable edits to Wikipedia

OR

All this is derived from Wikipedia edits. There are no further or additional mainstream media sources available. This is all research Wikinews has done. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Eh, how do we know it is staff? Why couldn't be volunteers for the campaigns or even the candidates themselves? Or maybe kids that were forced to go to the campaign hq when their parents were there? --SVTCobra 21:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well we can say affiliated with the campaigns, but in all likelyhood, based on trace routes of the IPs, they are definitely using the direct network login. So that seems likely only staff would have that kind of access. I would also be willing to suggest that the reason the edits are lacking in number , is because of the restricted access to staff maybe. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 23:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I am just saying that it is circumstatial evidence, never mind the implication that somehow these edits were carried out on behalf of the respective campaigns. --SVTCobra 23:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Its possible that they are just mudslinging each other on company time. If only there were evidence to suggest otherwise. Though I do find it interesting the IP address for Obama that made a few nonsense edits, suddenly started to do good edits. I am not suggesting that it was ordered, but more so that another staff member noticed what was starting to happen. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 00:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Some of these seem to be good-faith edits. Further, the edit to Aaron Goulette is still there and has a source. Even if it may have been COI, it seems to have been a valid addition to the article. --SVTCobra 21:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Done DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 22:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Really? You think "malicious" is better or nicer than "vandalism"? --SVTCobra 23:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Eh...no and yes...but I also don't think vandalism is right either...unless you disagree with me...DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 23:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe 'unfavorable'? DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 23:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

How about 'questionable edits' that seems to even cover the Goulette edit (though I see it's no longer in the article). We wouldn't want to be slanderours.--SVTCobra 23:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree...was really struggling with that one word. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 23:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

"And the Founder said, 'Thou shalt have no false edits before me'." Thunderhead 02:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Staffs or Staff?

In this usage, shouldn't it be staff, not "staffs"? --Jcart1534 (talk) 21:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Aren't we talking two separate staffs? I think "staffs" is the proper choice. --SVTCobra 22:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The word "staff" when related to employees is plural as is - whether or not it refers to two different groups. "Staffs" can be used for walking sticks. --Jcart1534 (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If McCain has a staff and Obama has a staff and as long as this is not a shared staff, I think it must be "staffs" see staff and the plural thereof. --SVTCobra 22:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Try to replace the word "staff" with "group" and I think you can see how it should be plural. Also, "staff" is not the plural of "staffer" ... "staffers" is the plural. --SVTCobra 23:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

OR 2

I e-mailed both campaigns. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 00:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I did tell both campaigns that we intended to publish the article though did not say when. We can always update if I get a response on the 26th early enough, or just do a new story :) DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 00:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Problems

These are some things that I personally think are problematic with this article:

A claim is made essentially that Obama's staff is editing Wikipedia appropriately and McCain's is not. This may well be true, but no particular instances of editing are cited, which makes it very difficult to determine whether that claim is in fact true; and, lacking evidence, this also makes Wikinews look biased. I guess the most important thing is that we cite specific edits.

Also, I'm not sure whether it really matters if a few renegade staff members of the campaigns are editing (or vandalizing) arbitrary Wikipedia articles (like the edits to the [w:liar]] article). On the other hand, I think it is important that we do cover the edits these staff members are making to the articles on the candidates because when they do so they are in effect campaigning through Wikipedia. Theshibboleth (talk) 08:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)