The National_Institute_on_Drug_Abuse, one of the National Institutes of Health, is the subject of an entry in Wikipedia. NIDA staffers, apparently unhappy with the content of the entry, changed it. "Wikipedia determined the edit to be vandalism and automatically changed the definition back to the original." NIDA staffers re-edited it. Now the community of people posting to Wikipedia are involved in a dual with NIDA staffers about the online content.
According to this article:
A little more than science-reflecting was done to the site (by the government employees). Gone first was the "Controversial research" section that included comments critical of NIDA. Next went the section on the NIDA-sponsored program that grows marijuana for research and medical purposes. The next slice of the federal editor's knife left all outside references on the cutting-room floor, replaced with links to government Web sites.Comment: I am having trouble articulating why this story bothers me so much. I think it is because it suggests a new form of government censorship, in which government employees (paid with taxpayers dollars) remove comments critical of their work from a public space -- a space which is quite appropriate for such criticism. Were there not a history of Bush administration appointees seeking describing their activities to prevent the public from having access to knowledge as "in the interest of science" I might be less suspicious of the activity here. Certainly it is permissible for an agency of the government to have staffers review material posted about the agency, and seek to correct erroneous statements, clarify postings, or rebut claims which appear unfair. However there is a dramatic and important line between public service and censorship. JAD
No comments:
Post a Comment