Better to just link to the tool: <a href="https://github.com/edsu/anon" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/edsu/anon</a>.<p>++<p>- Denmark (<a href="https://twitter.com/FTingetWikiEdit" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/FTingetWikiEdit</a>)<p>- Sweden (<a href="https://twitter.com/RiksdagWikiEdit" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/RiksdagWikiEdit</a>)<p>- United States (<a href="https://twitter.com/congressedits" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/congressedits</a>)<p>- Chile (<a href="https://twitter.com/CongresoEdita" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/CongresoEdita</a>)<p>- United Kingdom (<a href="https://twitter.com/parliamentedits" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/parliamentedits</a>)<p>- France (<a href="https://twitter.com/wikiAssemblee" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/wikiAssemblee</a>)<p>- Canada (<a href="https://twitter.com/gccaedits" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/gccaedits</a>)<p>++<p><i>Local government:</i><p>- North Carolina (<a href="https://twitter.com/NCGAedits" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/NCGAedits</a>)<p>++<p><i>(To those wondering, no interesting edits so far.)</i>
Interesting 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.
It'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.
There's a Twitter feed of wikipedia edits that originate from the US Congress - <a href="https://twitter.com/congressedits" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/congressedits</a><p>My favorite is the edit of a congressman's bio from saying he used to be a "corporate lawyer" to "attorney".
Wikipedia is getting very awkward - it is clear that some articles are 100%
propaganda, while others appear to have honest insight into world events.<p>I guess it's good to break the habit of thinking that history (like AP US
History) can be read in an "unfiltered" way, but without something like a
comprehensive database of every single Wikipedia edit, with tools to help detect
bias (example: CIA wants to edit an article) Wikipedia will become a victim in
the information arms race.<p>In this particular case, I think statistics can reverse the obvious "tragedy of the commons" situation with Wikipedia.<p>For example: tools to help with associating edits / edit conspiracy / sockpuppet detection
This 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.<p>[1] Title as I write is <i>"10 years of anonymous Wikipedia edits from the Norwegian government"</i>