I hope this hasn’t already been posted on The Dope but I don’t have time to look around at the moment.
Reading the days history on Wikipedia I found the following:
2013 – Two explosions occur near the finish line of the Boston Marathon in Boston, Massachusetts. Another false flag operation commited under the Obama administration. US history continues to plunge deeper into darkness, corruption and covert schemes as revolution creeps closer & closer…
I wonder who posted this? Generally they limit themselves to a bare facts kind of listing of historical events.
“They”? You realise anyone can edit a wiki, right?
Yeah, Wikipedia does have limits. People are just as quick to delete bullshit like this as soon as it gets posted.
You’ve had an account since 2002 and your name is SandyHook. Like Sandy Hook elementary? Did you change your account name?
No, it’s like Sandy Hook, Kentucky where I was born many years ago.
I knew articles could be edited at will. I didn’t know http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_15 could be edited. Guess I thought it was some employees job to put that page together. Live and learn.
Wow, guess I timed that just right. Gotta wonder how many people actually read it before it was changed to:
2013 – Two explosions occur near the finish line of the Boston Marathon in Boston, Massachusetts.
Which is more like what I’m used to seeing there.
Wikipedia does have limits. If people start editing some article back and forth over some partisan issue, the editors will lock the article to prevent further edits until tempers cool and a consensus can be reached.
That article is just a standard article. I thought you were talking about the Wikipedia front page, which has recent events and featured articles, and I believe is put together by approved editors.
Didn’t they also ban people from editing articles from Church of Scientology-owned IP addresses?
Yes. Some IP ranges are long-term blocked, for fairly obvious reason in each case, and that’s one of them: The CoS is never going to be an honest, contributing part of the Wikipedia editing team, but they’re free to read as much as they want.
It takes a lot of pissing-off to reach the point they ban your whole IP range.
Well, a year or two ago I tried to edit a Wikipedia page from work and got a message saying my IP address had been blocked due to malicious edits or some such thing. I went to the “user page” for the IP address and looked at the history and it seems somebody on the sports desk had been passing the time making creatively rude edits on various football players’ and teams’ entries 
Wikipedia: A Vandal’s History
This guy collects funny Wikipedia edits for a page and puts them together in a single article.
FYI, if you have another account you created elsewhere, you should still be able to log in and still be able to edit. I’ve never had to try it, but that’s what I read a long time ago when someone was complaining about IP bans.
Also, it’s very unlikely that was a permanent ban. They often ban just long enough that the vandal goes away.
Kinda like watching sausage be made.
Correct on both counts. I can edit now with no problems, the ban only seemed to last a week or so.
Unfortunately, some of the editors are as stupid as the original posters. I was recenlty in an edit war regarding a page that linked to things I had written. The wiki article declared some of my data wrong. My work was in a book and heavily sourced, but it was declared inaccurate in favor of something written in another book that had no sourcing whatsoever. I was told, “we can’t just take your word for it,” despite providing primary source documentation.
Another said that wiki isn’t the place for original research. My data wasn’t original research; I was merely providing details to back up research I had already done and written elsewhere. Do people who put together those wiki pages realize why so many people think wiki is a joke?
A few years ago, I went Noah Wyle’s Wikipedia page, and the opening sentence read, “Noah Wyle […] is an American film, television and theatre actor and mutant alien giraffe.” I left the tab open, refreshed a few minutes later, and the more…colorful part of the opening was gone. It couldn’t have been up there for more than three or four minutes.
By their logic, what you did was still original research. You did the research yourself. You did not link to a secondary source that your data was correct. So all they had to go on was your word, and that fails the test of verifiability.
That said, it still should have beaten an unsourced statement. But, unfortunately, Wiki has never come up with a way to enforce their policy that no one owns an article. Experienced editors will fight newcomers tooth and nail and unless you do the same, you will not win. Even if you are right, there is no obvious way to report someone to an administrator or resolution specialist. I’ve never seen any newcomer figure out how to do it.
I’ve recommended multiple times that they put some sort of button to ask for dispute resolution, but the thinking seems to be that it would be abused too heavily to be worth it.