And personally I believe they know about this twitter bot and edit random articles on purpose. There's a lot in there that have just added a space at the end of a sentence. That's obscurification.
Then there are just weird ones
People who intern on the Hill tend to have strong feelings about politics. Makes sense that some of the pages the edit are political.
> People who intern on the Hill tend to have strong feelings about politics.
Probably. I think there is enough evidence to question it. It would take a lot of analysis that I'm not bored enough to perform to prove it. But the few times that I have checked this over the years I see a lot of junk and then edits on hot topics where things keep getting added and removed. I remember one on the Dakota pipelines that completely removed the mention of protestors.
1) They are clearly editing things that are politically motivating. See my examples and scroll through more. This can be attributed to embarrassment or trying the sling mud at opponents. Can you honestly tell me that you wouldn't put these types of editing above politicians? And this is really all I'm suggesting that is happening in terms of "maliciously alter Wikipedia." (I don't think it is really malicious)
2) Most probably don't realize this twitter account exists let alone that their IPs can be tracked.
2.1) Their name isn't attached anyway.
2.2) How often do people actually check this Twitter or Wiki logs?
2.3) Why are they making extremely dumb edits like adding a space at the end of a paragraph? I'm sure that some edits are bored interns/politicians, but there are definitely weird edits that look more like obscurification than worthwhile edits.
There is no incentive for them to mask their IP, because it still can't be traced back to them. And people knowing "someone" changed a wiki entry in a misleading way just gets people to think "politicians are corrupt". Which is nothing new. So why would they even bother?
But the same user added Huda Salih Mahdi Ammash to the List of University of Missouri alumni article.
All of that could of course could be a coincidence. But it'll be interesting to see whether any of Missouri's representatives start pushing a "universities create evil villains" narrative in the next cycle ;-)
The incorrect use seems to have entered the popular imagination following the war in Iraq.
But even if that weren't the case, it wouldn't really matter, because it's clear what meaning the world has today, both in the general case and in the context of OP's comment.
Sorry, I meant in colloquial American english. I don't recall ever hearing the word spoken aloud prior to maybe 2005, though I could be misremembering.
You can certainly find the pejorative use(which I maintain is still incorrect) in the early 80s with respect to some books that were published at the time about the Vietnam War. I think prior to that the term was entirely academic, though again, I could be wrong.
A Zapier-like platform, made available to all Twitter users.
Oh baby Jesus..
Don't call my conspiracy theory "baseless"! https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=804694104&oldid=80...
-Fan of anonymous Paul Gosar, Arizona Congressperson,
For the US, you could do something like this if you wanted to find IP's for the Senate:
$whois "US Senate"@whois.arin.net
CustName: US Senate
Address: Telecommunications Department
NetRange: 184.108.40.206 - 220.127.116.11
Parent: UUNET63 (NET-63-64-0-0-1)
Customer: US Senate (C00594783)
1. Those IP's might not be the ones assigned to desktop computers in staffer's offices. They may only use these for servers, or they might not even be used at all. For all we know, they have access via some random ISP - Spectrum, AT&T, whoever. Hell, they might have dial-up through AOL! In which case, it would be tough to ever really know.
2. Searching the ARIN registry can be tedious and takes some guesswork. Searching "US Senate"@whois.arin.net will give different results than "U.S. Senate"@whois.arin.net, which gives different results than "United States Senate"@whois.arin.net, etc. There may be a way to use wildcards and other fancy search expressions, but if so, I've never bothered to learn how. Might be worth looking into.
% whois "US Senate"@whois.arin.net
No whois server is known for this kind of object.
% whois --version
Report bugs to <email@example.com>.
I guess different versions of the whois command handle this differently. I never knew that until now. Every version I've ever used has supported this kind of query.
$ whois --version
jwhois version 4.0, Copyright (C) 1999-2007 Free
Software Foundation, Inc.
This program is free software with ABSOLUTELY NO
WARRANTY; you may redistribute it under the terms of the
GNU General Public License.
$whois -h whois.arin.net "US Senate"