US Congressional staffers receive a nine day ban from Wikipedia…

Just across the street from the imposing US Congress building is home to 9000 staffers servicing federal democracy in the US. Some of them have been very naughty (or very funny, depending on your political opinion) indeed

Most members and staffers of the US House of Representatives won’t be able to edit pages on Wikipedia for more than a week. Administrators of the popular Web encyclopedia have imposed a 10-day ban on the IP address connected to Congress’ lower house.

The ban comes after a series of wild “disruptive” edits that appeared following the creation of @congressedits, a bot that monitors anonymous edits from congressional IP addresses and announces them to the world via Twitter. The account was created just over two weeks ago and already has more than 23,000 followers.

  • Michael Henry

    I have always maintained the view that everyone should be allowed their own views on paper-TV-Computer –

    If people disagree then there should be a counter argument made against such a comment-Staffers or anyone who works for Government or indeed anyone who has excess to a lap- top for most of the day might be seen as having a good advantage over others- but a good enough argument can knock anyone of their perch-

    That 10 day ban might not be seen as good PR- could it cost some staffers to lose their jobs even if those in charge give them the go ahead-

  • Mister_Joe

    While supposedly doing paid work instead?

  • Hamish Eady

    If individuals don’t agree then there should be a reverse discussion created against such a comment-Staffers or anyone who performs for Govt or indeed anyone who has unwanted to a lap- top for most of the day might be seen as having a excellent benefits over others- but a excellent enough discussion can affect anyone of their perch-

    Dukan Diät Plan

  • fordprefect

    Mister_Joe, Those poor staffers have a lot to put up with. I remember John Ashcroft was appointed Attorney General by George W. (Ashcroft lost an election to a dead man), Ashcroft’s staffers hated him, he used to make them sing in the mornings (usually his brand of religion “hymns”) and even wrote “songs” himself for his staffers to sing. Is it any wonder that they’re now making fun of him and anyone else that carried on like that?

  • MalcolmRedfellow

    9000 staffers servicing federal democracy in the US

    I was, at first, shocked by that number. Congress has 435 representatives, 100 senators, and six non-voting delegates (American Samoa, DC, Guam, Marianas, Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands). So that means each voting member needs 16-17 (to use a native term) SpAds?

    If so, it partly explains my strained conversation in Vermont with a “special aide” who didn’t know how to start up his new iPad.

    So I checked it out. It appears to be even worse (and these numbers may be out-of-date).

    In the House, each delegate has $831,252 to hire up to 18 staff and four additional temporary, part-time, of shared staff. Staff can not be paid more than $159,828 per year.

    Each Senator has an admin. allowance between $1,926,936 for the 28 smallest populated states (28m), plus each has three “legislative assistants” (budgeted at $472,677 the job lot).

    So we get to staggering total numbers: 11,692 ‘working’ for members of Congress, 2,492 servicing committees, 274 working for the leadership, 5,034 doing the routine chores, plus 747 working for the Cogressional Research Service, 232 working on the Congressional Budget, and 3,500 in General Accounting. Something adjacent to 24,000 bods in all.

    No wonder quite a few have time on their hands to mess with wikipedia.