Wikipedia is the online encyclopedia that is open to anyone to edit, unless you happen to work for a member of the US Congress. Then, ironically, you apparently have less rights than other people.
There have been some recent examples of Congress staff tampering with their boss’s, or other’s, details. The most recent one involves Georgia Gubernatorial Candidate Cathy Cox. Her campaign manager Morton Brilliant took responsbility for someone from Cox’s office altering the Wikipedia entry for her opponent, Lt Governor Mark Taylor.
The “crime” was that factually correct details had been added to Wikipedia about the arrest of Mark Taylor’s son after he was involved in a fatal accident in Charleston for driving under the influence. Cox’s office was also involved in re-writing the profile of incumbent Mark Sanford. Again nothing was factually inaccurate (although there was some opinion). Indeed, it could be argued that Brilliant, or whoever the anonymous author was, actually improved the accuracy of the entry when they described Sanford’s parent’s farm as a “Beaufort plantation” rather than the “family farm” that he prefers.
So, what does Wikipedia think it stands for? Either it is open to anyone, or it isn’t. And even if it isn’t open to everyone, shouldn’t it be more interested in allowing for the truth to come out, rather than preferring one version of the truth over another. Wikipedia entries are continuously shifting sand, what version of the truth are they going to try to freeze it on? I’m sure that George Bush would like to have kept the drunken activities of his own daughters from hitting the news, but that’s not the way that democracy works, or genuinely open and honest media.
In another development, a group allied to SourceWatch, has launched a wiki called Congresspedia. The Sunlight Foundation claims that it will “harness the transformative power of the Internet to bring transparency and accountability to Congress and its members”. I have my doubts. While the site will be moderated to ensure that only truthful information is posted, the associated body SourceWatch doesn’t have a great track record.
While SourceWatch claims to keep the PR industry honest, it shows little mercy to organisations on the right. Compare the entry for the Australian Environment Foundation (one of the National Forum’s members) with the SourceWatch entry for the Australian Conservation Foundation (an organisation we’d like to have as a member). Well, actually, you can’t. Apparently the ACF doesn’t warrant watching, even though it is an advocacy body.
All of which proves to me more than ever that the OLO model of moderated dispute is likely to lead to a more honest, open and transparent outcome than the competing models around the Internet which are often so taken with the idea that democracy consists simply in allowing people to participate that they allow themselves to become captives to one or another brand of ideological populism. Our model does cost more than the completely open source alternative, but then, you get what you pay for. And often, what’s free isn’t brilliant.
April 29, 2006 | Graham
Wikipedia gets precious, and not so brilliant
April 25, 2006 | Graham
Our own Prince Charlie
Crikey calls him “Dollar Sweetie” but I prefer to call him “Prince Charles”. Not just because “Charles” and “Costello” start with the same letter, but because John Howard is starting to get that familiar-comfortability that Queen Elizabeth has. We’ll have to reimagine England after her, because without her England has really become unimaginable. Howard’s similarly seminal when it comes to the Liberal Party, and getting that way with Australia.
Costello seems to want to wait on “generational change” to hand him the Prime Ministership, just like Charles waits. But in this generation, generational change is not a strong force, because, as Costello knows, we are all living longer, and working until we drop means jamming the younger generations when it comes to taking our jobs. Costello will have his turn at keeping younger talent out, but he might be quite old when it comes.
International politics demonstrates this better than most fields. When it comes to running countries, older is generally seen as better. Pitt the Younger, PM at 24, is likely to continue to hold his record as the youngest English speaking Prime Minister ever partly because we’ll never see his times of shortened longevity again. The latest demonstration of this is the Italian election. Romano Prodi was a young 66 to Berlusconi’s slightly older 69. So, a few months younger than Howard, Prodi has just taken on the government of Italy for the second time. Not a good omen for our domestic Prince Charles.
April 19, 2006 | Graham
Where’s Casey?
It’s nowhere near as good as the classic “Where’s Rudy” attack ad of Democrat Senator Paul Wellstone, but http://wherescasey.com/, the work of Republican Senator Rick Santorum is worth a look. “Where’s Casey” is an attempt to exploit the web in a humourous way, although I found it a bit boring poking around with my mouse. Have a look and see what I mean. In fact, I found it a bit tiresome.
But then Santorum may well know something I don’t. Both he and Wellstone appear to be able to win votes in territory that’s not natural to either of the parties they represent. In Wellstone’s case that should be past tense as he and his wife and one of his daughters was killed in a plane crash during the course of the last US election campaign. His surviving two children are keeping his memory, his crusades and his website alive at http://green.wellstone.org/.
April 11, 2006 | Graham
Selling googles to google
Has the University of New South Wales out-googled Google? According to this report Google has bought a new search algorithm from Ori Alon an Israeli who studied at UNSW and now works at Google’s offices in Mountain View California.
But apparently the university has registered a patent on the process meaning that at least some of the profit has to stay here. The algorithm goes under the name of Orion and was apparently also the subject of interest from Yahoo! and Microsoft.
According to the report “Orion, offers a list of topics directly related to the original search and only reveals the sites with enough words reasonably linked to one another and relevant to the search, according to a report in the Israeli business magazine TheMarker.” It “also rates the texts by quality of the site in which they appear.”
Sounds a lot like Google to me, but I guess we’ll find out more in the fullness of time. Seems like UNSW is doing well at schooling up hi-tech moguls. Another alumnus Shi Zhengrong has just been named Australia’s fifth richest man with a fortune of $3billion which appears to have been accumulated in only the last 14 years by developing solar technology, starting with a postgrad degree at the Uni.
April 02, 2006 | Graham
Gaven goes as predicted
As the polls predicted, the National Party won the Gaven by-election with just over an 8 percent swing. Listening to them you’d think it was actually the general election. True, a swing like that would most likely deliver them government, but by-elections tend to swing by larger margins than general elections. And they should be sobered by the fact that their primary vote only went up by 3.5%. The rest of the swing seems to more or less have gone to independent Daren Riley who won 7.71% on the basis of very few promises at all, apart from promising to be a good respresentative.
On top of that 25% of voters didn’t bother to turn up on the day – many of these could have been Labor voters who wanted to give Beattie a kick. Some could also have been Liberal voters who felt disenfranchised. Put those 25% together with the 20% of those who did vote and who voted for independents and minor parties and the major parties have nothing to sermonise about.
Yet both of them are claiming the result as proof that they will probably win the next election. No wonder people like to vote for credible independents.
April 01, 2006 | Graham
Nats should win Gaven
I’ve been silent on the blogging front for a while, but it only seems right that I put in my prediction for tonight’s Gaven by-election before any results come in. The National Party should win by a narrow margin, but with a fairly modest swing which will indicate that the next election is still winnable for Peter Beattie.
This will be a good result for Beattie as he needs more people to think that he could lose the next election to ensure that between now and then electors start thinking about what sort of government the Coalition would be. At the moment Beattie’s unpopularity is not being tempered by the question of alternatives.
Neither side has campaigned particularly brilliantly. Beattie has been tactically smarter appearing infrequently in the electorate in favour of spending time in cyclone affected Innisfail. But the ALP slogan is a bit of a doozy for an administration which has been in power for the best part of 17 years – “A fresh start”. Their advertisements also have been insulting – the sort of ads that helped them to lose in 1995. There’s acceptable negative advertising, but lampooning your opponents as hayseeds is outside those parameters.
Springborg hasn’t been able to help himself, and I am told has run a very presidential campaign. Given that the polling apparently says he doesn’t resonate very well in the electorate this was not a smart thing to do. I understand that the Liberals were not happy, but despite Liberal State Director Jeff Greene being the titular head of the campaign, the Nats were off doing their own thing. Expect the same “I am” campaign at the next State election with the National Party ignoring the polling, and their partners, in favour of their own gut instinct. If the Libs can’t keep them in line in a by-election, where variables and personnel are relatively limited, they have no chance in a general election.
Now I’ll go off to dinner and check on the results later. See if I put my money on the right square.
P.S. Don’t forget you can check out the candidates and the seat on our website at http://elections.nationalforum.com.au/gaven-by-election-2006/