The weapons of mass distraction - UK minister Jack Straw, obviously distracted
AUSSIE PUBLIC servants are being paid taxpayers' money to censor Wackypedia so that it does not say anything bad about their political masters.
Wackypedia, which continues to be staffed by fake penis experts who define who is real and who is noteworthy, seems completely unable to stop professionals sanitising political entries.
According to the Sydney Morning Herald editing instructions, emailed by the parliamentary librarian, Roxanne Missingham, told MPs and their staff how to remove information they regarded as "incorrect or biased".
The Department of Parliamentary Services, which houses the Parliamentary Library, has edited 30 Wikipedia pages in the last week and has used the same internet address. However the fake penis experts have failed to spot something so obvious.
Some of the edits are just to replace politicians' biographical details and photographs with official versions from the parliamentary handbook.
However the page for the Labor MP, Kerry Rea, was modified to remove a paragraph detailing criticism of her full-time work as a councillor while she was spending considerable time campaigning for Parliament.
Innovation Minister, Kim Carr's entry deleted personal details and a paragraph saying he had been criticised for branch-stacking. A reference to the "disastrous" 2002 state election in Victoria was cut from Liberal senator Helen Kroger's entry.
Generally politicians from both sides of the spectrum think its is perfectly fair to sanitise their entries so don't expect self regulation.
Wackypedia famously deleted the Everywhere Girl and was set to obey the edits of Daily Tech readers and remove the entry of the INQ's former editor, Mike Mageek from its pages until our readers revolted. ยต
L'Inq
Sydney
Morning Herald
Meanwhile, under all this (dirty) surface froth, Wikipedia continues to provide vast amounts of solid, fairly reliable entry-level information on a host of worthwhile subjects.

Who cares about all these politicians, megastars, sportspeople, celebs, and other thrid-rate nonentities? Try Wikipedia's featured article today on William Gibson; or its article on lambda calculus; or even look up a little-known historical figure such as Dionysius Exiguus. (Go on, try it, you might learn something).

Wikipedia may not be quite as reliable as Britannica, for instance (although at least its name is not deliberately misleading). OTOH it has at least 100 times more useful information, simply by being so much bigger and more comprehensive.
Are they faking their expertise with penises? Or are they experts on the subject of fake penises?
They are experts on fake penises, how you become the oracle of such things is a mystery. The authenticity of their own appendage is at this time unknown.

(Although there are mutterings of scale model).
Wikipedia does really well with "non-controversial" subjects, things that comprise the bulk of the information in it. It fares less with topical / controversial subjects. But then these wouldn't be in an encyclopedia, would they?