PDA

View Full Version : Wikipedia Good Enough For DHS...


Davian93
09-04-2008, 07:56 PM
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/09/asylum-seeker-r.html

I'll admit that I do look things up on Wikipedia at work when I need a quick fact or I want some info on a certain country real quick...but I never use it for official decisions that I'm putting my name on...Wikipedia's just so bloody convenient is all.

Bryan Blaire
09-04-2008, 08:42 PM
HOLY CRAP!

Brita
09-04-2008, 09:56 PM
That's crazy!

Ivhon
09-04-2008, 10:17 PM
*shakes head*

I got nothing. Which is to say that I have a 12 page rant, but I'm just not gonna go there.

Davian93
09-05-2008, 07:04 AM
Yeah...it was good for a head smack to say the least. I see a training standown DHS wide on what are and what aren't legitimate sources for official decision making.

Hopper
09-05-2008, 07:09 AM
Why are you guys ridiculing DHS. You must hate the US and support terrorism.

/sarcasm off

Davian93
09-05-2008, 07:13 AM
Why are you guys ridiculing DHS. You must hate the US and support terrorism.

/sarcasm off

Definitely not ridiculing...it is damn funny though.

irerancincpkc
09-05-2008, 07:21 AM
Wow, that is crazy. :eek:

GonzoTheGreat
09-05-2008, 07:30 AM
Why shouldn't Wikipedia be considered a reliable source?
I'm not sure it is really all that much worse than the (American) secret services, and it is definitely a lot cheaper.

Gilshalos Sedai
09-05-2008, 08:43 AM
So, Gonzo, you'd be happy with YOUR government using Wiki to make official decisions?

JSUCamel
09-05-2008, 08:48 AM
We've had this discussion before.

As a general research tool and for general information gathering, Wikipedia is a pretty damn good place to go.

However, I think we all agree that it's not a place to go for information to make judgment calls of this magnitude.

I might go there if I'm interested in learning about Xerxes or string theory or the definition of a dipthong, but for something that could potentially result in millions of dollars in damages, someone in jail, or otherwise huge results... definitely not.

Davian93
09-05-2008, 08:54 AM
We use it at work as a nice research tool if you want background info on a certain topic as it can lead you in the right direction...but all decisions are made on the basis of our regulations and rule of law. The first rule (I'm an adjudicator for DHS now) is that personal feelings and opinion don't matter, but law does. If you base your decision on the regulations you'll be fine. We have to defend our decisions in federal court if a person appeals (happens often) so its some major CYA...that's what I've learned in the 2 months I've been here now.

Gilshalos Sedai
09-05-2008, 08:57 AM
Government's all about the CYA.

Davian93
09-05-2008, 09:01 AM
Government's all about the CYA.

Yup...it certainly is.

GonzoTheGreat
09-05-2008, 09:06 AM
So, Gonzo, you'd be happy with YOUR government using Wiki to make official decisions?
Based on what I've heard of this type of cases in the last couple of years, I am not sure I am happy about any goverment whatsoever making these particular official decisions. No matter what sources they use, they manage to overlook reason and humanitarian considerations, and focus entirely on "we have a reason to throw this bugger out of the country, let's do so".

So no, I don't think that if they relied on Wikipedia that would be all right. I think that a lot more fact checking should be done, before a decision to send someone back is made. However, that costs money and time, and just getting a reason to extradite someone is considered 'better'.

To summarise: I do not know which is worse in this matter, the USA or the Netherlands. I wish we could instead discuss "which is better". But that's a pipe dream, apparently.

Brita
09-05-2008, 09:29 AM
...that's what I've learned in the 2 months I've been here now.

How is the new job going?

Davian93
09-05-2008, 09:30 AM
How is the new job going?


Better than I expected...TL isn't blocked like it was when I worked for DoD...fun stuff to say the least.

Cary Sedai
09-05-2008, 10:55 AM
HOLY CRAP!

Ditto :eek:

Bryan Blaire
09-05-2008, 11:09 AM
Dude, I work for USDA, and it's blocked for me. Jerks.

:p

Davian93
09-05-2008, 11:10 AM
Dude, I work for USDA, and it's blocked for me. Jerks.

:p


Shhhh!

Bryan Blaire
09-05-2008, 11:13 AM
Hey, maybe if I get that DHS job, then I can get on TL at work again too!

:D

John Snow
09-05-2008, 11:24 AM
In Korea, and I think in most of East Asia, records are kept by the family, specifically the "head of household", usually the oldest person in each generation. Births, marriages, and deaths are entered into this record, the 'family registry', and a copy (not the original, mind you, which stays with the family) is sent to the local government office. There are no government birth certificates, marriage certificates, death certificates - it's all in the family registry, which, of course, can be edited by the HoH, and often by others as well. I wonder what the DHS thinks of this....I suspect they get copies of the family registry that are from the government offices, and regard that as some sort of proxy for the usual US documents. If you're thinking this leaves people who have minimal or no family out in the cold, you're correct.

One amusing event in my life was that my mother-in-law, when my wife and I married, entered me into her family registry. At the time I thought it was a nice gesture, and didn't realize just how nice. First, she didn't have to do it; in fact it's kind of unusual. Second, marrying a Korean and being entered into a family registry automagically gives me Korean citizenship. Third, considering that my mother-in-law's family is dynastic nobility, it was a very generous gesture indeed.

Brita
09-05-2008, 11:43 AM
One amusing event in my life was that my mother-in-law, when my wife and I married, entered me into her family registry. At the time I thought it was a nice gesture, and didn't realize just how nice. First, she didn't have to do it; in fact it's kind of unusual. Second, marrying a Korean and being entered into a family registry automagically gives me Korean citizenship. Third, considering that my mother-in-law's family is dynastic nobility, it was a very generous gesture indeed.

Cool! Sounds like you lucked out in the Mother-in-law department :)

Davian93
09-05-2008, 11:45 AM
I suspect they get copies of the family registry that are from the government offices, and regard that as some sort of proxy for the usual US documents.

~not an official answer~

Yes, that would probably be a good assumption on your part.

Hopper
09-05-2008, 11:45 AM
One amusing event in my life was that my mother-in-law, when my wife and I married, entered me into her family registry. At the time I thought it was a nice gesture, and didn't realize just how nice. First, she didn't have to do it; in fact it's kind of unusual. Second, marrying a Korean and being entered into a family registry automagically gives me Korean citizenship. Third, considering that my mother-in-law's family is dynastic nobility, it was a very generous gesture indeed.


This must also make YOU dynastic nobility. Great, now we have to call him Lord Snow.

John Snow
09-05-2008, 11:53 AM
This must also make YOU dynastic nobility. Great, now we have to call him Lord Snow.

I think the best I get out of this deal is Royal Concubine - one of those exotic foreign types....

Brita
09-05-2008, 11:57 AM
There's still concubines in this world! I think the preferred term is Carnal Pleasure Specialist.

Hopper
09-05-2008, 11:59 AM
I think the best I get out of this deal is Royal Concubine - one of those exotic foreign types....


I need clarification here. Do you GET a Royal Concubine, or do you BECOME a Royal Concubine?

Gilshalos Sedai
09-05-2008, 12:00 PM
He becomes.

SauceyBlueConfetti
09-05-2008, 01:35 PM
He becomes.


precisely
;)

ShadowbaneX
09-05-2008, 01:46 PM
I've used Wiki for papers in the past...but I always backed up whatever I found there with paper sources before actually putting it in print.

Wiki's good for referencing stuff, a quick check, but always back it up with something else first.

Bryan Blaire
09-05-2008, 01:55 PM
This is outright and blatant governmental agency favoritism!

Jerks.

:p

:D

Oddly enough, I actually put forward to my boss that as part of my work, when doing identification and stuff, I could possibly update a lot of Wikipedia's articles on entomology, fill in gaps in their links, etc, and cite actual scientific and governmental work on the subject. I was very politely told I was insane and that we are to stay away from Wikipedia as much as possible, and it is not an allowed source for work.

Edit: Oh, and go Concubine Snow.

John Snow
09-05-2008, 04:30 PM
Ummm, yes......becomes, am.......
on edit: No, wait - I am a "Carnal Pleasure Specialist"

JSUCamel
09-05-2008, 05:47 PM
on edit: No, wait - I am a "Carnal Pleasure Specialist"

I read that as "a Camel Pleasure Specialist".

I need me one of those.

Davian93
09-05-2008, 06:05 PM
I read that as "a Camel Pleasure Specialist".

I need me one of those.


LOL...though a bit awkward for Snow.

Crispin's Crispian
09-05-2008, 06:13 PM
I read that as "a Camel Pleasure Specialist".

One hump or two?

DeiwosTheSkyGod
09-05-2008, 06:14 PM
One hump or two?

Hopefully it'll last longer than that.

John Snow
09-05-2008, 06:16 PM
I read that as "a Camel Pleasure Specialist".

I need me one of those.

Whoa, thread hijack - now we can take about camel's noses into tents, or camel foots.....feet? :confused:

Davian93
09-05-2008, 06:18 PM
Hopefully it'll last longer than that.

Face!