While I don't usually subscribe to conspiracy theories, I came across an interesting tidbit this afternoon and it struck me as disturbing. In the Washington Post's coverage of the straw poll, they close with a round up of the top... well, count for yourself:

Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee finished second with 18 percent of the 14,302 votes cast, and Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas ran third with 15 percent. Huckabee and Brownback had waged a fierce battle for the allegiance of Iowa's social and religious conservatives. An ebullient Huckabee said Saturday night that the outcome will give his campaign a significant boost and vowed to coalesce those conservatives in Iowa and other early-voting states.

Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado, the most outspoken opponent of current U.S. immigration policy, finished fourth with 14 percent. Former Wisconsin governor Tommy G. Thompson was sixth at 7 percent. He had said he would quit the presidential race if he failed to finish in the top two, and his campaign said late Saturday that he would make an announcement within 48 hours about his candidacy.

Hat tip: Vox Day

The last time I checked, when you have a set of 6+ things and you put them in order, one of them is always in 5th. Why would the WaPo leave this out?

Cross posted from CaseySoftware.

Recently a friend of mine was banned from Wikipedia. When I found out, I was a bit surprised... until I looked at his account. Most of his edits were on controversial topics/people, added no value to the entry, and even - in a few select cases - removed accurate criticism from his friends pages. Regardless of whether or not you agree with his point of view, this is not the way anyone should go about editing Wikipedia... so for record, here's how to do it legitimately:

• First, if you're going to contribute, contribute. If you're just going to edit, go away. There is a fundamental difference between editing and contributing. Contributing implies giving something of value... editing is just changing content.
• Next, if you're going to contribute on a contentious topic, it's good to build up a non-contentious history first. And yes, almost anything political can be considered contentious. If you contribute information to various topics like your favorite teams, your alma mater, your hometown, etc, you can build your history relatively low-key. If your account looks like it's just a political attack tool, it will be blocked... and rightfully so.
• Next, only post verifiable facts and then post all the facts. Posting a link by itself just tends to annoy people. If someone or an organization has come under investigation, it's fair to note it...and provide the supporting link. If they've since been cleared, you can still note the investigation, but the results should be noted too.
• Next, don't bother trying to hide who you are... they'll know. Since every edit is tied to an IP address, if you're editting from Google HQ or a US Senate office, they'll know pretty quickly. In addition, they can track down everyone who has ever contributed from a range of IP's. There have been numerous dust-ups where a House or Senate staffer have edited their boss's pages. Bad Idea. And if you have multiple "identities", it's trivially easy to identify them as a group. Just don't do it.
• Next, don't ever edit your own page. You're probably a bit biased about yourself... does this need any further explanation?
• Finally, don't get into revert wars. If someone else undoes something that you've done, check out their profile. If they're a total newb or editting from a biased location (think: Microsoft employees editing the Apple entry), feel free to revert back and give a statement to defend it. If they're an established member, go to the page's talk page and defend your edits. If you can make a case on a) why it is relevant and b) why it's not just an attack or whitewash, it's likely to stay... and the community will end up defending it.

The goal of all of this is to demonstrate that a) you can follow Wikipedia's contribution policies, b) you actually have something to contribute, and c) you're not just a troll. These rules apply to everyone regardless of who you are... even Jimmy Whales can't edit his own page.

Alright, today was a big day for updates. As always, if you have feedback, comments, or questions, let us know. We don't delete comments here.

• Community tagging has been taken a step further. Previously only contributors could tag their own stuff, now any contributor can tag anything.
• In terms of layout, I've tweaked the digg badge and tweaked its placement. Also, the Adsense placement has been turned off on anything except the full content posts. You shouldn't see them anywhere else.
• There are now forums. Only authenticated users can create threads - yes, you'll have to create an account! - but anyone can comment with or without an account.
  
  Our best thoughts come from others. Please share:

  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • 

  Continue reading...

In the last few days, you've probably noticed a few things changing around here. In the past three weeks, we've been adding new features, tweaking existing ones, and generally fleshing out ideas for the site. A quick rundown of the new features:

• Content voting - Via the up/down arrow at the beginning of all posts, any registered user can vote up or down a post or comment. Eventually, we'll probably add a block to show the most/least popular and the up and coming.
• Comment Notification - once you post a comment, you can choose to get followup emails to every other comment on that post to stay engaged with the situation.
• SocNet Links - In addition to the links at the bottom of every post, page, etc, there's also a prominent Digg Badge at the top of every item. I'm not happy with the placement...
• Free Tagging - Any contributor can tag their posts with as many tags as they want.
• Tag-based Areas & Feeds - On any post, you can see all the relevant tags and then select them to see all the other posts with that tag. Then, at the bottom of the page, you can subscribe to the RSS feed of the tag.
• @Jobs - The announcement of this one might have been a bit early, but we have a job site coming online. Whether you represent an organization looking to hire or someone looking for a position, we hope to be your one-stop shop for technology people on the Right.

Now we'd like to get some feedback from you:

What do you like about the site?

What do you hate about the site?

What would you like to see more of?

What would you like to see less of?

This message from your friendly neighborhood Site Breaker... now back to our regular schedule.