Bereft of Sex Scandals, Bored Congressional Staffers Turn to Wikipedia

Editors at Wikipedia have compiled an amusing/appalling list of edits made to Wikipedia entries by IP addresses allocated to the House and Senate. The editors also threw in a list of the "potential staffers involved," who were no doubt trying to distinguish a Freyesque "essential truth" from annoying facts by replacing entries with staff bios and removing "unflattering quotes." Occasional Reason contributor Declan McCullagh notes:

One edit listed White House press secretary Scott McClellan under the entry for "douche." Another said of Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma) that: "Coburn was voted the most annoying Senator by his peers in Congress. This was due to Senator Coburn being a huge douche-bag."

This juvenalia is, of course, thoroughly bipartisan. Another change to the Iraq invasion entry shows that the anonymous congressional editor played up the dubious connections between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.

More here.

Comments

[sulla]

I always suspected that Congressional staffers were a lot like the back-biting douche-bags at the Model United Nations events I used to attend as a student.

[JD]

To some people, things like Wikipedia are valuable tools for the furtherance of education and the search for truth. And to some people, everything in the world is just another tool for self-aggrandizement. Or vicarious self-aggrandizement, as the case may be.

I always suspected that a lot of Congressional staffers, pages, etc. are worse types than Congressmen themselves, if that’s possible. A Congressman at least might have some ideas or ideals he can promote; a staffer just hangs around the rich and powerful.

[Deus ex Machina]

Congressmen, leave the childish name calling and libellous articles for the floor of the Senate, or the Uncyclopedia.