Awesome: Wikipedia edit tracker shows who’s editing which pages

posted at 1:34 pm on August 14, 2007 by Allahpundit

They’re getting slammed with such immense traffic that it’s actually crippled their search function for the moment. But I’m going to link anyway, first and foremost so that you can bookmark it for use later when the wave subsides and second because the “Editor’s Picks” search terms in the sidebar do work — and some of them are tasty indeed. For example, select “Democratic Party” and it’ll bring up all the edits made to all Wikipedia pages from the range of IPs (allegedly) assigned to Democratic Party computers. Scroll down to the one for Rush Limbaugh and click the number in the “diff” column and you’ll see this. The pre-edit version is in the red text in the yellow box at the top and the post-edit is in the red text in the green box. Needless to say. Click to enlarge:

wiki.png

That should start you off. I’ll leave you to find the other easter eggs for yourself; I’ve already found a few myself. Feel free to report back in the comments below. Thanks to LGF for the heads up.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

I wonder what Ron Paul has been up to heh

William Amos on August 14, 2007 at 1:40 PM

Can’t get a single result back. Not surprising that it has taken off, though. Whoever runs that page could make a mint by putting some ads on there.

MadisonConservative on August 14, 2007 at 1:41 PM

Yes, there was always some guy editing your entry to say, “Allahpundit is fat.” lol!

Blake on August 14, 2007 at 1:46 PM

Thanks DNC. I always wanted to be legally retarded.

My slice of cheese is about to get bigger.

gabriel sutherland on August 14, 2007 at 1:48 PM

Interesting edits on the International Republican Institute under the “Republican Party” term on the sidebar, including the removal of information regarding potential links to dirty politics and controversial involvement in Haiti.

tneloms on August 14, 2007 at 1:49 PM

Hey.

Remember before the clone wars, Obi-Wan was searching for the planet Kamino to locate a clone army, and found a big hole in the memory files which erased the planets known existence?

Never mind.

Krykeee. They’ll let anybody build this info highway.

“Knowledge is power.”

locomotivebreath1901 on August 14, 2007 at 1:49 PM

Hmm I did the US congress link page. Some people are a bit edit happen

Someone from a congressional office was edit Che Guevarra. Other have been edit famous gay people adding new names.

Some republican edited Nancy pilosi heh

Wont even get into all the iraq edits

William Amos on August 14, 2007 at 1:50 PM

I like the Democratic assault again Apple, the left leaning darling of a company. Check out this change that was done by the Democratic party. WAR!!!! I’m throwing a post up on this too…apparently LGF else has a Slashdot RSS feed ehhhh…..

StoutRepublican on August 14, 2007 at 1:50 PM

Wow someone has been doing some intel edits. Adding in new stuff about Saddam’s Iraq. Wonder if its National Security leaks. This could be a big deal

Someone edited in names and locations of attacks planned by saddam against the west

William Amos on August 14, 2007 at 1:53 PM

I like FoxNews’ edit of Olbermann’s page. Nothing too big, but pretty funny. There are a few of them, but this one stands out…

I wonder who might have edited that one.

nailinmyeye on August 14, 2007 at 1:53 PM

again “Links between Saddam and terrorist groups”

here

William Amos on August 14, 2007 at 1:54 PM

NYT on Bush. Heh.

nailinmyeye on August 14, 2007 at 1:57 PM

Hmmm. My links don’t go directly to the comparison page. I guess Im not smart enough for that…

But, if you find the entry: George W. Bush, under the NYT link, it is pretty funny. Exactly what you’d expect from the NYT.

nailinmyeye on August 14, 2007 at 2:00 PM

NYTimes on Bush

repeating “Jerk jerk jerk’ over and over again shows something

William Amos on August 14, 2007 at 2:01 PM

Grr wasnt direct linking. Lets try this (This site really needs an edit function)

jerk jerk jerk

William Amos on August 14, 2007 at 2:11 PM

This is why I never put a lot of stock in what Wikipedia says, anyone can edit it. That is not to say I never use it or reference it. It’s a good starting point, but if what you are reading “doesn’t seem right” its probably because it isn’t right. This is especially true with highly political topics. And the LEFT has totally won at Wikipedia… the LEFTist propaganda can be found on nearly every page.

All that being said, it still provides, if nothing else, a place to find other links associated with the topic you are interested in. Beware of Wiki… it may be right… but it may be wrong.

But this new tool might make it a bit more difficult to post purely political points of view without regard to the facts, we will see. In any case, you should never think Wikipedia is the “last word” on any topic.

Maxx on August 14, 2007 at 2:11 PM

BwaaaaaHHHH

Pilosi

William Amos on August 14, 2007 at 2:14 PM

Here is the intersting one. Someone from the House added in all this info

Connections between Saddam and terrorism

William Amos on August 14, 2007 at 2:16 PM

Grr wasnt direct linking. Lets try this (This site really needs an edit function)

jerk jerk jerk

William Amos on August 14, 2007 at 2:11 PM

Good job.

Esthier on August 14, 2007 at 2:16 PM

Dont know why someone in Congress is editing the Masterbation pages on wiki.

William Amos on August 14, 2007 at 2:19 PM

Neat trick, but bad user interface: They show more recent dates on the bottom, while Wikipedia defaults to the top. So one guy who found edits made in 2005 posted that the IP should be banned… not realizing that the vandalism was two years’ old!

Anyway, be careful out there!

calbear on August 14, 2007 at 2:26 PM

Way cool. I’ll have to check this out after the avalanche subsides.

I’m sure the folks at the DCCC will babble something about witchhunts, spying and McCarthyism.

JammieWearingFool on August 14, 2007 at 2:28 PM

OKAY, YOU CAUGHT ME, I CONFESS! I edited the pages on Kirsten Powers and Mary Katharine Ham to say that they got into a catfight over me.

radjah shelduck on August 14, 2007 at 2:29 PM

Someone in Congress has been busy editing Wiki pages about “Homophobia” gooing to great lengths to add in republican names and info

homophobia

William Amos on August 14, 2007 at 2:35 PM

Joseph Farah on Wikipedia
————————-

By Joseph Farah

For 10 years now, I’ve been championing the Internet.

As a pioneer in the New Media, I believe it has provided a leveling of the playing field for entrepreneurs like me to provide good content to millions efficiently and inexpensively.

But, I’ve got to tell you, you can’t believe everything you read on the Internet.

You’ve got to use common sense and discernment in sorting out the good from the bad.

Today, I’m going to give you two illustrations of “the bad.”

They are, in alphabetical order, Snopes and Wikipedia.

I know. I know. Some of you are shocked to hear Snopes is not the last word on truth – that it is not the bible of rumors and urban legends.

Let me give you a recent example of the twisted sense of reality that exists in the land of Snopes.

I wrote a story a few weeks ago on the mania to phase out incandescent light bulbs, replacing them with compact fluorescent lamps, or CFLs. The story was so good, if I do say so myself, it was picked up internationally.

Everything in the story is 100 percent accurate and truthful – and not a word of the original story has been altered.

So, why, you may be wondering, is the story used as an “example” of a fallacious charge on Snopes?

Good question. I have to assume the all-knowing, all-seeing, rumor-busting gurus at Snopes simply can’t tell the difference between a straight news account reporting what some people say and believe and an actual assertion.

Snopes reports my story is an “example” of this ludicrous assertion: “An environmental clean-up crew needs to be called in to deal with the mercury dispersed by one broken CFL bulb.”

Now, I dare you. Go read my story and tell me where I, the reporter in this case, suggested any such nonsense.

It seems to me, in cases like this, Snopes is not busting rumors, it is perpetuating them.

And, while we’re at it, notice the sources Snopes relies upon to conclude beyond any doubt CFLs don’t pose a serious health threat to anyone – the same government agency pushing CFLs. Where I come from (nearly 30 years of solid journalism experience), this is not considered good reporting. This is not considered the best way to seek truth and enlightenment or even objective facts.

I would dare say we spend quite a bit more time and energy and resources putting together our reports for WND than the inexperienced and unprofessional researchers at Snopes do theirs. Does that express my opinion clearly enough?

And now for Wikipedia.

Please don’t ever send me a link to Wikipedia as evidence of anything. It has zero credibility with me.

Why?

Because anyone can post anything they wish at Wikipedia. There are so many lies posted there, the whole site would have to be scrapped and rebuilt from scratch to deal with them in any systematic way.

If you doubt what I am saying, test it for yourself.

Is there a subject you know quite a bit about?

Is there an area of real expertise in your life?

Are you famous enough to have a bio up at Wikipedia?

If the answer to any of these questions is yes, then go and test Wikipedia. See what it says about a subject you know well. See what it says about you.

Please don’t bother seeing what it says about me because none of it is true. And, for the life of me, no matter how many times I correct the record, some Wikipedia jokers decide they know me better than me.

Now, if I can’t trust Wikipedia to report accurately about me – and I can’t – how can I trust it to report on any other topic with veracity?

Long story short: Learn to trust those with track records of honesty, integrity and standards. WND has those traits. Snopes and Wikipedia do not. — By Joseph Farah

Maxx on August 14, 2007 at 2:41 PM

Joseph, Snopes isn’t reliable? Damn, maybe a dwarf really did hang himself behind the scenery of the Wizard of Oz!

radjah shelduck on August 14, 2007 at 2:45 PM

Sergeant of Arms Congress, edits this page on Harry Reid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=13576827

before…

“Reid is known for speaking his mind. He made headlines in May of 2005 when he said of the sitting President, “The man’s father is a wonderful human being. I think this guy is a loser.”

after

“Reid is known for speaking his mind. He made headlines in May of 2005 when he rightfully said of the sitting President, “The man’s father is a wonderful human being. I think this guy is a loser.”

mmmm

Kaptain Amerika on August 14, 2007 at 3:23 PM

IreneFIrene caught this one over at Ace’s place. NYT changed *pianist* to *penis* under Condaleeza Rice entry.

PattyAnn on August 14, 2007 at 3:23 PM

then I love this one, Sergeant of Arms Congress, edits this page on Dianne Feinstein

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=14276343

before

“Feinstein is married to wealthy [[financier]] [[Richard C. Blum]]. The couple have a net worth ranging from $26 million to $50 million.”

after

“Feinstein is married to [[Richard C. Blum]]. They have 4 children.”

Kaptain Amerika on August 14, 2007 at 3:27 PM

this is absolute gold

little did the left know that they would be out’d years later on every edit they made…

notice how most republican edits are facts and democrat edits are filthy or just outright lies?

HOTAIR.com I love you…

Kaptain Amerika on August 14, 2007 at 3:29 PM

OOI got into the US senate and their edits

new word added in bold

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=13611486

Reid is known for speaking his mind. He made headlines in May of 2005 when he rightfully said of the sitting President, “The man’s father is a wonderful human being. I think this guy is a loser.”

William Amos on August 14, 2007 at 3:55 PM

By Joseph Farah

the WND bumper sticker is on the back of my truck…

Kaptain Amerika on August 14, 2007 at 3:55 PM

I already beat you William Amos look a few posts up…

Kaptain Amerika on August 14, 2007 at 3:56 PM

BAwwwaaaahhhhh’

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=20113514

Old version

In the early 1940’s, when Byrd was approximately 24 years old,

new

Robert is 180 years old. In the early 1940’s, when Byrd was approximately 24 years old

William Amos on August 14, 2007 at 3:57 PM

Well someone hates tom Coburn in the senate. IS an edit done by them

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=32138561

has been alleged that Coburn [[Sterilization (surgical procedure)|sterilized]] a woman without her consent on [[November 7]], [[1990]], resulting in a civil [[malpractice]] suit. Coburn contends that he had her oral [[consent]], but he did not obtain written consent. Coburn admitted that he performed the same procedure on “lots” of women. He also admitted during [[testimony]] that he charged [[Medicaid]] for the procedure, although the patient was under the age of 21. Under the applicable funding rules, the sterilization would have been ineligible for reimbursement even though it was administered as part of the same procedure (termination of an [[ectopic pregnancy]]) which saved the patient’s life. The suit was ultimately dismissed with no finding of liability on Coburn’s part.
+
+ Furthermore, in 2005, Senator Coburn was voted the most annoying Senator by his peers in Congress. This was due to Senator Coburn being a huge douche-bag. In the August edition of Roll Call, the senator was voted “most likely to get his arse kicked by hill a hill staffer over recess”. He gladly accepted this honor saying “I completely expect to get my arse kicked because I suck at life”.

William Amos on August 14, 2007 at 4:03 PM

From Al-Jazeera, lol.

Emilie H. on August 14, 2007 at 6:40 PM

Whoops. I’ll try that again.

Al-Jazeera’s Contribution

Emilie H. on August 14, 2007 at 6:41 PM

More proof that those on the left are childish, immature a-holes. It is patently obvious that emotions rule them, they “care” about everything going so far as to murder-death-kill members of their own species to “save” the planet (see: E.L.F.).

I am waiting to see Euthanasia become en-vogue so all the nutroots will save their own carbon-units by prematurely ending their own existence. Imagine all the carbon units they won’t use and all the petroleum products that won’t need to be processed.

Neo on August 14, 2007 at 7:55 PM

Getting a second opinion for an “open edit” site is common sense.

Anyone can twist their slant to any article.

How long will adding that: “Harry Reid was known to eat red ants as a child and then giggle uncontrollably, with crimson-speckled little teeth, as he chased the neighborhood Mormon girls around the block, screaming “Moroni, Moroni!’ in his pre-pubescent nasal falsetto” to his profile on Wiki?

Just asking…

profitsbeard on August 14, 2007 at 8:46 PM

FYI

The NY Times user has been warned and threatened many times to stop the vandalism, as recently as December 2006.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:199.181.174.146

slp on August 15, 2007 at 6:57 AM

the NYT? nooo never…

are you talking about the same paper that publishes national security information? and then also publishes missinformation about that same government?

say it ain’t so…

Kaptain Amerika on August 15, 2007 at 11:14 AM

Check it out. The UN is getting in on the Wiki wackiness themselves, branding Oriana Fallaci as a “racist wh0re”:

http://liberrocky.blogspot.com/2007/08/more-wiki-wacky-this-time-from-un.html

crushliberalism on August 15, 2007 at 1:40 PM

Wikipedia is already biased by belief. Any one who tries to insert a centric view into one of their pet articles (like Evolution, Global Warming, etc) gets admonished instantly, and all the changes reverted. If one tries again to tell the truth, they are banned.

I’ve had my discussions on the “talk pages” (to discuss article improvement) censored and deleted by the left wing administrators. Now I’m banned.

RightWired on August 16, 2007 at 2:37 PM