At left is the old version of this page, which claimed that Obama "arrived facing an unprecedented array of challenges, and has met them with a bold, comprehensive plan." Also that he has "kept faith with the American people" and "restored America's alliances abroad."

But that whole past-tense thing can come back to haunt you, so someone in the White House wisely did an ass-covering edit: "has met" became "is meeting"; "he restored" became "he is restoring"; and "he kept faith with the American people through a government that is open" became "he is reimagining government to be more open."

Most significantly, the headline "Delivering On Change," which implies the actual delivery of change, became "A New Foundation," which conveniently lacks a verb.

Notice of the change comes courtesy this amazing machine ProPublica put together, which will alert you anytime some socialist intern in the White House changes anything on the site and tracks the history of each page, Wikipedia-style. We already checked to see if the original iteration of Obama's bio said he was born in Mombosa, but these guys are too smart for that.

When Gawker first introduced comments, they were an exclusive club. As we've grown, we've opened up the doors more and more, and our comments have become, to be charitable, more freewheeling. Today, we the editors are taking control back with what we're calling "featured comments" as the place directly under posts to gather the best of the best, as decided by your tireless editors and star commenters.

But before I get into that, a few other changes:

• You have 15 minutes after you leave a comment to edit it. So, please, no more comments pointing out your typos.
• There are new tools to easily upload images and YouTube videos. Use them!
• Comment threads are only viewable by reverse chronology, just like on Facebook and Twitter.

Now about those star powers. The editors are the only ones who can give you a star, and we'll be giving them out to the commenters we trust the most. This means that many people who have stars now will be losing them. But for those who keep their stars, your comments will automatically appear in the featured comments, and you will have the ability to promote non-star comments up to the top level. In fact, just replying to a comment will bump up to the front page. You'll also see all of the unapproved comments left by new users and can approve the ones that you think are up to snuff. But use your powers wisely. We're going to be taking a closer look at who's doing what. Use your star powers to make mischief, and we'll take them away.

So what kind of comments are we looking to feature? We're giving more prominence to the featured comments because we've realized that they go a long way to setting the tone of the site. So, we want them to be an addition to what we post, not just an open-forum place to rant. We want to feature comments that are first and foremost about the post they're left on. They may add information, be a well-reasoned critique, a particularly funny line or, if you're named in the item, a rebuttal. Oh, and proper grammar counts. What we're not looking for: snark for snark's sake, comments about Gawker, IM-like conversations, attacks on your editors, comments pointing out how stupid other comments are (do not engage the trolls) and basically anything else that we don't like.

There are no doubt going to be plenty of glitches and bugs, and please email those to me. As for any other questions, ask away in the comments.

For reference, here's our overlord Nick Denton's rundown on the new changes:

Six months later, we're finally ready to go live with the Ganja power commenting system across the nine sites of Gawker Media. Here's why we've overhauled the comments — and a summary of the key changes you'll notice on the sites later today. There will be some glitches and many complaints — but the new system is elegant, already rich in editorial possibilities with so much more to come. It's an enormous accomplishment by the tech team in Budapest, New York — and Kansas City.

1. THE PROBLEM

As a site gets bigger, the comments tend to get busier — and sometimes more annoying. Our titles are no exception. Deadspin's had to contend with a war between the daytime and nighttime users; Jezebel editors battle for control with a politically-correct mob; perceptions of Gawker are set by a small group of glib and bitchy commenters. All sites that are growing as rapidly as ours have something like this problem — and one that can't be solved simply by banning the offenders or applying more strictly our approval process.

It can't be solved because the most pernicious comments don't come from trolls or spammers. Those can be easily identified and barred. What ruins a good discussion is what we could call the chatty commenter. They may be a devoted reader, someone we don't have the heart to ban. But they only occasionally contribute something to the sum of human knowledge. And the chatty commenters — because there are so many of them — set the tone. Their presence puts off the subjects of items — or other people with something interesting to say.

So we need to introduce another level — the power commenter — to the hierarchy. We used to refer to our comment environment as a club — with a velvet rope to keep the riff-raff out on the street. Well, now the club is too busy. If we're going to maintain credibility, we need a the equivalent of a VIP room. We'll populate the VIP room by giving special privileges to star commenters. They'll get prominence and space — as will their guests. And — we hope — it will be this salon that sets the tone of discussion.

Our comments have stood out amid the illiterate abuse and empty-headed wittering of the rest of the internet; we're going to make sure it stays that way as the audience continues to expand.

2. THE KEY CHANGES

* Privileges for star commenters (see below)
* Image and video embedding in comments
* Comment threads switched (like Facebook and Twitter) to reverse chronological order
* Related stories show to the right of each post (and a few other design changes)
* Comments can now be edited (for 15 minutes after publishing)

3. RIGHTS OF A STAR COMMENTER

* A gold star next to each commenter's name (as now)
* Comments given priority and published immediately after post
* A star commenter can see comments even before a moderator has approved them
* By replying to any comment, a star commenter can give it priority
* Promotion of another's comments to the featured section

4. THE FUTURE

* Many more items such as interviews, live chats, live blogs, contests and photo pools
* Web submission and publishing of tips
* Discussion forums around personalities and topics
* Commenting via Twitter
* Rebuttal rights for the subject of an article
* Commenters able to call on friends or colleagues for support in an online discussion

Yes, the New York Observer brings us word of the untrending. The economic downturn has caused TV and movie houses to slash their budgets, and personal stylists are one of the first things to go. So that could explain why It girl celebs like Gossip Girl's Blake Lively have been dressing themselves of late. They'll go to showrooms and fashion expos on their own and pick out what they like, enraging some of the bitchiest of the fashion bunch:

"She's the one that looked like a mess in that Nina Ricci dress at the Golden Globes!" sniped celebrity stylist Phillip Bloch [of Lively], who has worked with Halle Berry and Salma Hayek. "This is why you need a stylist. If you go to a designer, their goal is to get you out the door and on the red carpet in their gown come hell or high water. They're never going to say, ‘This just might not be right for you.'"

Hey girl, hey. Bloch does have a point, albeit a useless one, though it doesn't address the other reason why celebrities might be ditching their highly-paid helper monkeys. As stylists like Zoe, Stacy London, and Bloch become celebrities in their own right—with reality shows and bitchy newspaper quotes—it begins to pull back the curtain on how our favorite stars look so damn fabulous all the time. No, natural acting ability does not come hand in hand with innate fashion sense. Ha! It's all very practiced and calculated, sometimes down to what one wears to the grocery store.

So while the American empire crumbles all around us, celebrities increasingly do not want to be associated with the embarrassing largess of paying someone lots of money to pick out their clothes in the morning. Bloch says this is a cutting out of "the middleman," which is apt and true. And it's an unnecessary middleman! Maybe everything in the entertainment industry just got too overheated, too frivolous and expensive. Now's the time to issue some correctives, so let's start with the people whose jobs are really just entirely made up.

Of course then we'll have to march down the line axing everyone from dog walkers to, gulp, people who recap television shows, but if it'll get America back on the right track, then so be it.

We can't dress ourselves and we're damn proud of it. Won't you join us, rich and famous celebrities? Potato sacks unite!

Image via INF

The Oscar best picture race has been dominated by tiny, often indie, films that not very many people see, i.e. The Reader. Widening the field could mean that they won't necessarily be the only ones competing for the top prize, and the studios and their big-budget "prestige" titles can finally play in the pool again. Ten nominees means more competition, which could net some eyeballs curious to see how the crazy It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World-style race ends up.

For example, had their been ten Best Picture nominees last year, The Dark Knight would surely have been among them, which would likely have brought in some curious fanboys. And if the studios have doubled chances of doing a blitz awards-tie-in marketing, then that's even better. More money for everyone means nicer, bigger parties and then everyone wins!

We think it's a fine idea, as more competition is more fun. Though we'll have to suffer through twice as many set-up clips, it ought to make the long, long, long evening slog to the final dance all the more put-up-withable. Because now TEN enter and only one leaves. Lots more carnage.

[Oscars.org]