Christy Clark's Wikipedia page receives cheeky edit

    1 of 2 2 of 2

      Is it time for Wikipedia to lock down the entry on Christy Clark?

      A quick perusal of her Wikipedia page today finds a salacious, unsourced allegation against the B.C. premier.

      The page states that Clark attended three separate universities, including Simon Fraser University, but never received a university degree.

      "Thus," as Wikipedia currently notes, "she is technically illiterate, as evidenced by her inability to formulate rational arguments." 

      Click to expand screenshot.

      So who's behind this cheeky edit?

      The page's revision history suggests that the change was made early this morning from an American IP address. Perhaps a dissatisfied B.C. teacher on vacation is responsible? A BC NDPer with too much time on their hands? A pipeline protester? Or maybe someone angry about the premier's recent statement supporting Israel's "right to defend itself"?

      We do know who it's not: members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, who were banned from making edits to the world's largest collaborative free-content encyclopedia earlier this week after reports of malicious, troll-like edits emanating from IP addresses located within the U.S. legislature.


      We're now using Facebook for comments.



      Jul 29, 2014 at 1:18pm

      It's funny because it's true


      Jul 29, 2014 at 2:46pm

      That's a pretty long list of people that have damn good reasons to be angry with her. And somehow, I feel like it's only a small portion of the list. Maybe she should take it as a hint and start conducting herself like what she is - a speaker for the people.


      Jul 29, 2014 at 4:00pm

      as an elected member, she should remember that she represents the people of b.c, and therefore should be careful of blabbing about her personal views


      Jul 29, 2014 at 4:17pm

      When can we start firing politicians who refuse to represent our interests? Politics must be the only job where people gain job security the more they piss off their employers.
      She broke her contract with the teacher's union so we should be able to terminate her contract and fire her or at least be able to investigate her to see if she is personally benefiting from these decisions.
      Like any other job, it would be nice to finally see politicians be held accountable for their decisions, especially if it goes against public opinion.

      No One Remembers

      Jul 29, 2014 at 6:03pm

      There's this thing called impeachment. Everyone seems to forget about it.. And Harper + Clark deserve this honorary treatment.


      Jul 29, 2014 at 8:06pm

      Rulish and fun. Great edit. Christy Clark and her bowl cut can go elsewhere.


      Jul 29, 2014 at 11:36pm

      I couldn't find that particular edit from the link you provided. When was it, so I can look and see how long it "stood".

      American IPs editing Canadian political articles is nothing new, same with geographic and history articles; same with Australian IPs, British and Irish IPs, and more; and we (regular Canadian editors) edit US articles all the time; IP addresses can be faked and dummied; many Americana-based edits I've seen on various articles, however, do come from "military contractor" sites or towns with large military industries.....but those aren't regular editors, and don't behave like regular editors either.


      Jul 29, 2014 at 11:43pm

      your article is dated July 29, 2014....I'm all the way back in the page history to April now, and see no sign of it:

      What was I saying about overblown hype? yeah, uh-huh. Maybe before reporting on Wikipedia you might choose to find REAL issues, like how American and UK editors are playing "we know best" on Canadian article titles and what is and isn't a "reliable source". I can't go on more about that, it's semi-forbidden to discuss things ongoing in Wikipedia to the media without risking a block or ban...... there's a lot more going on in Wikipedia than meets the eye, though...but the media always seem to focus on transitory non-sequiturs.

      So what date was that edit your article is about on? Last year sometime?


      Jul 29, 2014 at 11:59pm

      "...members of the U.S. Senate & House of Representatives, were banned from making edits to the world's largest collaborative free-content encyclopedia {Wikipedia]..."
      oh, i LOVE that. :D


      Jul 30, 2014 at 1:01am

      Oh, this is the edit you mean, on the 29th; I didn't see a big deal with it (like you've made of it) as it lasted only a little over four hours before being reverted;

      the reverting account has only one contribution, namely this one, and is what we call a SPA (single-purpose account); when an account is registered the IP address is masked but it's likely someone assigned to "watch" the page on Clark's behalf

      The source of the edit you've hyped is in Brooklyn,

      but who and what it is remains dubious; it could well have originated in BC and been masked/rerouted via a re-server in NYC

      I could provide you with way juicier controversial edits than this one which stood for four hours and a bit. But this was completely transitory and not worth the space you've given to it, unlike earlier much nastier changes, or the war over the Dix or Bornmann or Idle No More articles....and more