The revelation that an unknown number of federal public servants made multiple changes to almost 9000 Wikipedia pages over the past 10 years suggests some bureaucrats have too much time on their hands.
It also shines a spotlight on the long-running issue of political minions diving into Wikipedia to launder their bosses' entries of anything salacious, negative or, God forbid, potentially informative.
That practice was outed by Fairfax Media almost a decade ago when it was revealed John Howard's staff were removing details considered damaging to the Government's political interest.
The same report stated defence department staff, who have been identified again as part of the latest Fairfax Media probe, were prolific re-writers of history.
We were told at the time that Defence was going to ban its staff from the site. That obviously either never happened or has fallen by the wayside.
The main difference between the long-established, and self-serving, practice of editing pollies' Wikipedia entries and the latest round of changes is many of the latter appear to be unsanctioned.
The prospect of rogue federal employees using Australian government computers to deny the holocaust took place or to call the president of Iran the flatulent son of a pumpkin farmer is far from welcome.
Partisan posts, such as one suggesting Tony Abbott has "chimpanzee ears" or that Barnaby Joyce has crossed the floor 28 times are also of concern.
It would appear as if, after having been skilled up in order to perform official tweaks, some staffers have either shared their knowledge with others who lacked the emotional maturity to handle it or wandered off the reservation all on their own.
Reports dating back to 2008 that indicated hundreds, if not thousands, of edits had been made from computers in the Department of Parliamentary Services seem to suggest many of the changes had been sanctioned.
The same reports stated the then Parliamentary Librarian – the Parliamentary Library is housed in the Department of Parliamentary Services – had actually coached politicians on how to change "incorrect or biased" information on their Wikipedia pages.
Wikipedia, while far from perfect, is a handy, crowd-sourced, reference tool of sometimes startling currency that is used by hundreds of millions of people across the globe on a daily basis.
A fundamental part of its credo, unfortunately honoured as much in the breach as in the observance, is that posts and edits should reflect "a neutral point of view".
While a case could be made for politicians or their staffers to carry out edits designed to correct factual errors or provide context, there can be no defence for trivialising major crimes against humanity, insulting the leader of a nation state or satirising a political opponent using tax-payer-funded equipment.
The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet has said it is investigating. Let's hope the results of that probe turn up on Wikipedia very soon.