Air Force Communications Squadrons discovered editing Wikipedia

[ck4829]

And some of the edits add evidence to the claims that Dominionists and other extremists in the Christian Right are creeping into it.

355Th Communications Squadron
2Nd Communications Squadron
9Th Communications Squadron
20 Communications Squadron
99Th Communications Squadron
35Th Communications Squadron
56 Communications Squadron /Scbb
6 Communications Squadron/Scsnd
7 Communications Squadron
27Th Communications Squadron
4Th Communications Squadron
7 Communications Squadron
Have all made edits to Wikipedia
http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/name2ip.php?orgname=communications+squadron&location=

Creation Science before:
Creation science is the attempt to justify a literal interpretation of the Biblical account of creation with supposedly scientific evidence.
And after someone in the 56th Communications Squadron edited it:
Creation science is the attempt to justify a literal interpretation of the Biblical account of creation with scientific evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=139038876

From a talk page, written by someone in the 355th Communications Squadron:
"Should the group (Army of God) be labeled as terrorist, though?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Army_of_God#Terrorist.3F

An edit by someone in the 99th Communications Squadron:
A Muslim is an adherent of Islam, (or a crazy son of a b****.) The feminine form of Muslim is Muslimah. Literally, the word means "one who submits to God". There are approximately 1.31 billion Muslims worldwide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muslim&diff=74399698&oldid=74344482

[ensho]

1. kick

nt

[benddem]

2. Holy cow

Why are they writing this stuff anyway on AF squadrons?

[Ichingcarpenter]

3. This is disturbingly alarming especially with the topics and squadrons

This needs to go to Waxman

[lpbk2713]

4. "But we were only following orders!"

Hmmm? Where have I heard that one before?

[Richard Steele]

5. Grrrecommended

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

6. The New Crusaders......

[Ichingcarpenter]

7. Why are they doing this on Government time and Government computers?

I know the answer to that but I'm making the point to draw attention
to the mission of the US Air Force.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

8. Have you seen this?

[Ichingcarpenter]

9. Yes and I'm an Air Force Brat

Its sicking how the religious right has taken over that branch.

[jmowreader]

13. It beats the shit out of one of their previous slogans?

Remember "Aim High"?

Which is how you shoot down an airplane.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

17. Sorry, I find Air, Space and CYBERSPACE a little more disturbing.

The Above All doesn't give me that much comfort considering the AF is becoming a branch of the religious wrong.

[intheflow]

10. ..

Pretty disturbing. I'd be more apt to think it was just a few guys if there weren't so many squadrons involved. And, of course, if the Air Force Academy wasn't across the street from Focus on the Family and hadn't been found complicit in evangelical Christian proselytizing in the past.

K&R



*Edited b/c I should actually read what I'm commenting on before I post. :dunce:

[snot]

11. is there some kind of Wikipedia authority who should be alerted?

[ck4829]

12. There are people in charge who should look at this stuff

The problem is that Wikipedia is so large, they definitely won't be able to check where the editors are coming from.

Usually quite scandalous when an organization or other entity is found to be editing it, like with the Justice Department recently.

[Jim Lane]

16. No -- Wikipedia's radically decentralized structure relies on corrections from below, not above

Classical media (including traditional encyclopedias) strive for accuracy by making it hard for errors to be inserted. Wikipedia's approach is to make it easy for errors to be corrected.

Edits like these from the Air Force happen all the time. The remedy isn't to alert the Editor in Chief of Wikipedia. The bad news is that there is no Editor in Chief, and no Editorial Board either. The good news is that they're not needed. Anyone can correct a mistake -- yes, even you, and even without registering an account.

Wikipedia has a pervasive problem of systemic bias toward crediting the MSM. Trying to insert information from Media Matters for America or FAIR or the like meets determined resistance. Recently, quite a few articles about the 2004 voting problems were deleted. Wikipedians favoring deletion said things like, "the fringe view is that problems were systemic and intentional." We desperately need more progressives editing Wikipedia to help counteract this kind of thinking.

[L. Coyote]

14. Hatch Act violations?? Suspension? n/t

[LeftinOH]

15. Why do they even bother?..They already have 'Conservapedia'..and its awesome!:

...awsome in its insanity, that is- They are obsessed with just three things. Gays, Wikipedia, and Evolution. Here are their most-viewed pages stats, from their own webside, no less!:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Statistics

Most viewed pages

1.Main Page‎ <2,610,231>
2.Homosexuality‎ <2,394,309>
3.Wikipedia‎ <387,274>
4.Arguments Against Homosexuality‎ <332,715>
5.Homosexual Agenda‎ <332,080>
6.Ex-homosexuals‎ <317,511>
7.Homosexuality and choice‎ <312,046>
8.Homosexuality and Health‎ <292,942>
9.Examples of Bias in Wikipedia‎ <290,809>
10.Theory of Evolution‎ <283,750>