Occupy Melbourne Wiki Page Edited by Australian AuthoritiesAdded: Thursday, March 7th, 2013
Category: Recent Headlines Involving File Sharing > Current Events
Tags:ET, p2p, Torrent, Piracy, Peer To Peer, Network, Hackers, Internet, BitTorrent, Google, utorrent, bitcomet, extratorrent, 2010, www.extratorrent.com
Local council in Australia has suddenly faced a problem after it dealt with a protest movement by editing the movement’s Wikipedia article.
It turned out that Occupy Melbourne’s official Wikipedia article was repeatedly edited by a person who used a City of Melbourne PC to remove contentious words. The experts believe that this move seemed to help re-elect lord mayor Robert Doyle in 2012. The edits in question vandalized the page by removing the word “peacefully” to describe the movement. They also purged references to the council’s alleged involvement in dealing with the protest. In reality, Occupy Melbourne’s protesters were removed from the City Square by over 100 police officers.
In response, the City of Melbourne confirmed that the IP address used to edit the Occupy Melbourne Wikipedia article did belong to it. However, it claimed that it was unaware of any authorization to do that and pointed out that actually anyone could edit Wikipedia page and the council did allow limited personal use of council PCs.
When commenting the issue, Robert Doyle claimed that neither he nor any of his staff made the abovementioned changes to the Wikipedia article. But he still stood by his decision to clear the protesters from the streets of the city. Doyle told the reporters that if he was going to alter the page he would make it to his own entry which has a particular view of those events, which he apparently didn’t like.
In the meanwhile, Melbourne City Labor councillor Richard Foster was concerned that the alterations which removed a reference to the council’s alleged involvement in the dealing with the protest were controversial. However, Robert Doyle claimed that the changes didn’t even warrant an investigation at the council.
March 7th,2013Posted by:
Thursday, March 7th, 2013
|posted by (2013-03-07 22:16:43)|
|And these guys were demanding free wifi and a special place to park cars ....put quite a few small cafes in the area out of business.|
|posted by (2013-03-08 00:26:40)|
|I don't know what to think. When Sam posted an article about the Tea Party, he made it clear that they were just a bunch of neanderthals living in the dark ages. Their ultra-conservative message was something only a fool or a one-percenter could agree with. But apparently he has a soft spot in his heart when it comes to the Occupy movement. Let's compare.|
Tea Party demonstration - no rapes, murders, defecation, urination, destruction of property, arrests, use of force, etc...
Occupy demonstration - total opposite, there was rape, murder, defecation, urination, destruction of property, arrests, use of force, etc...
The difference, the Occupy movement are the ones with their hand out, wanting everyone else to pay for their food, clothes, rent, etc. The Tea Party are the hard working people subsidizing the Occupy movement against their will by a government more interested in buying votes than representing the actual taxpayers.
|Hmmm, so was it evil council or someone just using their IP address looking to discredit them !|
|Unsub You are correct!! I have found that A lot of the tea party people are libertarian. What is funny is the Libertarian party should be considered more liberal than anything! They want drugs legalized, They DO NOT believe the government should have a say on your sexuality or marriage as it implies ownership!! The media really portrays Tons of lies because if the public really knew the truth stances these people take there would be no more democraps or republiturds! Lets face it people NO one NO government owes you a single thing. When ever you accept gifts or services without anything to trade back, you are a slave to the provider!! Pretty simple why is that so hard to understand????|
|These Occupy Melbourne douchebags even said it themselves "This is a protest about nothing". They don't stand for anything. It's just an excuse to push their anarchist agenda. The irony is that without a capitalist society they don't get their free handouts.|
|posted by (2013-03-08 03:48:09)|
|Lord Mayor Robert Doyle has naught but my complete disdain.|
Unlike some others commenting here, who have my patience, tolerance and forgiveness.
|I live in Melbourne and the news media did not mention any rape, murder, defecation, urination, destruction of property, arrests, use of force, etc...linked to this protest. As far as wikipaedia goes..one should always confirm anything listed on it. The fact that editing can be done anonymously is, in itself, a reason to be skeptical.|
|posted by (2013-03-08 10:52:14)|
|Not that I'm a big fan of the "Occupy" movement, but :|
- I never heard of rape or murder allegations (which is weird, I would assume Fox News at least would mention it in passing, seen what they think of the movement)
- if by "defecation, urination" you mean the use and overuse of shops toilets (and peeing outside) etc... well of course the Tea Party never had this problem, as far as I know they never had a "sit-in" that lasted several days / weeks / months ...
- "arrests, use of force", that means that because the authorities arrested violently some Occupy protesters while left the Tea Party protesters alone, that makes the Tea Party better ? Hardly a proof of anything - could simply be that police find it ok to go taser and paperspray crazy on young people who have a bad reputation (people will assume they deserve it) and don't dare to do the same on middle-aged people (the video on youtube of officers tasing a grandma because she shouted to loud would not go as well)
Now obviously reading the articles you find the views of the author on the Tea Party and the Occupy movement really obvious, but that doesn't change the facts which are disturbing.
It would be like if a White House IP had been caught editing the Tea Party page on wikipedia, removing the "Peacefully", or diminishing their numbers, etc... I don't care what your political views are, this is not OK (I'm not surprised, at all, and anyone who is is naive - wikipedia is to be taken with a very healthy dose of skepticism as said before, and has been abused since day one - but not being surprised is not the same as being ok with it)
|posted by (2013-03-09 00:33:22)|
|In the US there were Occupy demonstrations in cities all across the country. I wasn't speaking of just Melbourne but the entire movement. Didn't hear about some of the things I mentioned? Simple enough...Google it.|
Google occupy movement rape.
Google occupy movement murder.
Google occupy movement etc...
My bad, I forgot to mention drugs, overdoses, suicide and more. So I guess I can see why someone might not agree when describing these demonstrations as peaceful. And just like a few have mentioned, that's the nature of Wiki, anyone can edit it. I would just argue that someone posting their gatherings as peaceful needs to be questioned as much as the person removing that description.
|posted by (2013-03-09 10:13:21)|
|Fair enough. While I'm not surprised that when hundred of thousands of people stay in dark camps all over the world, with angry people inside, angry people outside, angry police, without any supervision or internal security, for months and months, that there would be off course deaths, rapes, thefts, drugs, alcohol ... basically anything that could happen would happen, I am however genuinely surprised and angered by the lack of media coverage of it.|
And of course really pissed of at some of the Occupy "leadership" if we can call them that - their reactions (some of them - I am not of course judging them all, not even saying they are the majority) to some of the sexual assaults in particular, are of another world.
Basically that's what I mainly reproach to Occupy : yes it's nice on paper to be "leaderless", philosophically it's interesting, but when people are at risk, young people, some minors, etc... and you deal with real threats like rape, this "no one is responsible - if she came to the camp she's on her own - not anybody's fault but hers" and the "let's not call the cops because they don't like us" is simply unacceptable.
Now for wiki - I'm sorry but the removal of "peaceful" by someone other than the organizers is still not ok by me (for any organization)
If I create a group "My Group", organize a peaceful sit-in in front of a business to protest something, and some other guys also angered by the same thing that started the protest show up and break the shop - is "My Group" a non-peaceful protest ? I don't think so - while the responsibility of "My Group" could be in question (did we provide enough security, did we manage the crowd well enough, ...) the "peaceful" or "non peaceful" in my view show the INTENT of my movement. That's true of any group in my book.
(For example the Tea Party is not against same-sex marriage in principle that I know of -correct me if I'm wrong but they are more libertarian in their definition, no ? - they are for small government. The fact that there is some overlap between Tea Party members and same-sex marriage opponents does not change that. For me, the Tea Party will not be against same-sex marriage until they say so. You get my reasoning : they are the only one (their leadership, elected representatives, founders, ...) who can decide what the group methods and goals, ideas and values, are. Members of the party cannot redefine-it whenever it pleases them - they can say or do whatever they want, it won't change what the Tea Party is. You are allowed to say that a lot of Tea Party members are ALSO against same-sex marriage, but not that the Tea Party is - again, unless they say it themselves)
Anyway that's how I see it - that's why if the Occupy Movement "leadership" (organizers,etc..) are using "peaceful" methods, I don't think anyone should be able to change that (now anyone should be able to add to the page that because of their moronic responses to violence inside their camps there are been a lot of shit going on, rapes, deaths, etc... but you can't say that's what they wanted)
Sorry for the long post - Just to finish : I think what also really push my buttons is the idea that wiki pages are edited, not by individuals (which is what was intended) but groups with agendas - political parties, corporations, etc... It's one thing when a guy writes on the GM page that they make good cars - it's another thing when it's a GM PR employee doing it from work under orders, no ?
|posted by (2013-03-09 19:47:03)|
|Well Matt, like you are surprised by the lack of reporting on the Occupy movement, I am appalled by the misrepresentation of the Tea Party by the media and the left. What they stand for is pretty simple.|
Smaller and less intrusive government.
Reduction in government spending and debt.
This is what I've heard when their members are interviewed. Now on the other hand, if you were to listen to the media and the left, the Tea Party is just a bunch of sexist, racist, homophobic, mostly white, mostly men, redneck, backwoods hicks with a low IQ and a GED if they are lucky. They are just pawns for the rich, big oil, big business, Wall Street and the banks, etc...
A few weeks back SaM had an article on the Tea Party and his disdain for them was obvious. In this article SaM's leanings are pretty obvious as well. I believe in the freedom of speech and the right to peaceably assemble but I don't think pitching tents and hunkering down for weeks and months falls under that right. Then to say they were forcibly removed is absurd. They did the same thing in the US. They were asked to leave. They were given deadlines. They chose to stay. They were removed by whatever means necessary. They could have left willingly and with no incident. They don't have the right to come in and take over public property and stay indefinitely.
|Thank you for sharing information. i would be happy to read this information.|
|posted by (2013-03-12 20:32:54)|
|Unsub: There are a lot of good things about the Tea Party Movement, but I think your bias might be blinding you to some important points: Yeah, they may be against lower taxes, limited government, etc.. But they're also home of the birthers and other right-wing conspiracy movements. Things they let pass under the Bush administration, under the Obama administration are suddenly dark, devious plots intended on turning the country into a socialist hell hole where the President is unilaterally executing political dissidents. The movement is littered with these kinds of people. They're not all Paul Revere types arguing rationally.|
They regularly pervert, what to me, seem like pretty reasonable messages. For instance, the whole "we built it" campaign during the election.. Now of course, this wasn't just a Tea Party refrain, but they embraced it enthusiastically. And what was the root of this? A blatant, obscene misrepresentation of what President Obama actually said, which was essentially that the government employs people to build roads and infrastructure, which everyone gets to make use of, even though THEY didn't build it. Is this not a good idea? Is this not one of the things the government can actually be good at? Building up an infrastructure that facilitates an positive capitalistic society? And what about regulations? They seem to scream that any regulation is just ridiculous, and that we'd all be better off with no government interference, where the "invisible hand of self interest" corrects all. What do you get when you have a market system with zero regulation? Monopolies! Do monopolies encourage innovation or serve the public interest? Come on. Limited regulation is essential to a healthy free market, and regulations are not nearly as onerous as they used to be. So why does the Tea party portray the present as the most heavily regulated environment in history?
Anyways, the principles you laid down are admirable. If that's all there was too it I could get behind their movement, but it seems this backlash movement is not being tempered by reason or practicality.
As far as the occupy movement - I agree with a lot of your sentiment. I do think they reflect a genuine backlash to some pretty legitimate problems with big business, though, and I think that's a good thing.
|Since when is someone in power allowed to make a call about possible illegal actions on their part not warranting investigation...ooops..I forgot... Julia Gillard||
Most Popular Stories