michael west wrote:
On 24/08/07, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I don't really see the problem with this. Employers are paying people to do their job, not to edit Wikipedia. Brownie points to them for allowing read-only access; many organizations would simply have blocked access entirely.
Of course, all those would-be editors can click on the site when they get home, and edit to their heart's content.
Risker
On 8/23/07, michael west michawest@gmail.com wrote:
Anonymous editing aint bad - just dont break COI, now where has free speech gone in Australian government departments?
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22299984-5005961,00.html
"The Defence Department has blocked employees from altering information on
Wikipedia after 5035 edits by defence staff were detected."
"Defence has closed personal edit access down, though employees will still
be able to browse Wikipedia for information purposes," a defence spokesman
said.
I think "defence" could include guys and gals that have to use government computers on their tours of duty, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc......
That kind of works in our favour. It's hard to see how anyone with a computer in the battlefield can provide a reliable source for what is happening there. Even if they are editing from the base during their off time, I doubt that they have much there in the way of reference material. ;-)
Ec