The open-to-editing information website Wikipedia has been the victim of self-serving censorship by politicians, corporations, and even churches and other non-profit organizations, Robert Verkaik reports for the Independent Online:
The chance to rewrite history in flattering and uncritical terms has proved too much of a temptation for scores of multinational companies, political parties and well-known organisations across the world.If a misdemeanour from a politician's colourful past becomes an inconvenient fact at election time then why not just strike it from the Wikipedia record? Or if a public company is embarking on a sensitive takeover why should its investors know of the target business's human rights abuses?
Now a website designed to monitor editorial changes made on Wikipedia has found thousands of self-serving edits and traced them to their original source. It has turned out to be hugely embarrassing for armies of political spin doctors and corproate revisionists who believed their censorial interventions had gone unnoticed.
Some of the guilty parties identified by the website, such as the Labour Party, the CIA, Republican Party and the Church of Scientology, are well-known for their obsession with PR. But others, such as the Anglican and Catholic churches or even the obscurely titled Perro de Presa Canario Dog Breeders Association of America, are new to the dark arts of spin.
Read the entire article at the link above. Apparently people still believe just because they do something "anonymously" on the web that it cannot be traced back to them. Wrong.
Now, there are some times when editing your own entry isn't nefarious - no one wants to see inaccurate information posted about them, especially if it's negative. Many of the changes noted by the new software are anything but such benign corrections, though - editing out "inconvenient truths," if you will.
Fortunately, the mere existence of this function (detecting who made changes) will tend to discourage some future abuses before they are attempted. Not all, though: there is never a shortage of those who don't think they'll be caught in whatever they're doing . . .
Permalink | Linking Blogs | Sphere: Related Content | Digg this! | FARK It!
Filed under:
Media
Tags: censorship, whitewash, Wikipedia
Comments (12)
This is highly amusing. Op... (Below threshold)1. Posted by kim | August 19, 2007 7:39 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
This is highly amusing. Open source, you get what you pay for, and it's cheap at the price.
======================
1. Posted by kim | August 19, 2007 7:39 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on August 19, 2007 07:39
2. Posted by Imhotep | August 19, 2007 10:16 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Wikipedia is generally a good STARTING point for general info on a subject, just don't be lazy and stop there...keep digging.
Some of the posters and bloggers on certain portions of this website know what I mean.
2. Posted by Imhotep | August 19, 2007 10:16 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on August 19, 2007 10:16
3. Posted by lowmal | August 19, 2007 11:05 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
IU don't get it..
None of this would seem much of a surprise..
I would have been surprised if it didn't occur..
3. Posted by lowmal | August 19, 2007 11:05 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on August 19, 2007 11:05
4. Posted by lowmal | August 19, 2007 11:06 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Oops..
Should have read "I don't get it.."
4. Posted by lowmal | August 19, 2007 11:06 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on August 19, 2007 11:06
5. Posted by C-C-G
| August 19, 2007 12:11 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
And this, ladies, gentlemen, and trolls, is why Wiki is useless as a primary source.
I am sure the trolls will keep trying to use Wiki, tho... after careful editing so that it says what they want it to say.
5. Posted by C-C-G
| August 19, 2007 12:11 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on August 19, 2007 12:11
6. Posted by marc | August 19, 2007 4:36 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Anyone see something missing from this article on the Wiki-fiasco?
"Rudy Giuliani Tops Wikipedia Self-Serving Edits"
The alterations to Mr. Giuliani's Wikipedia page includedAlthough the article contains a ludicrous denial by Giuliani's "people" no where does it state whether the changes to his page are accurate or not.6. Posted by marc | August 19, 2007 4:36 PM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on August 19, 2007 16:36
7. Posted by Dodo David | August 19, 2007 5:06 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
In his article, Robert Verkaik makes an assumption that other people are also making, that the edited Wikipedia articles were completely accurate and 100% factual in their original form. What if that assumption is wrong? What if those edited articles were flawed when first published? What if those articles contain opinion and speculation?
Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia's article about itself: "Users should be aware that not all articles are of encyclopedic quality from the start,and may contain false and debatable information. Indeed, many articles start their lives as partisan . . ."
7. Posted by Dodo David | August 19, 2007 5:06 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on August 19, 2007 17:06
8. Posted by Brian | August 19, 2007 8:30 PM | Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
And this, ladies, gentlemen, and trolls, is why Wiki is useless as a primary source.
It's "Wikipedia", not "Wiki". A wiki is the type of program it uses. There are thousands of wikis out there, of which Wikipedia is only one. Conservapedia is another.
I am sure the trolls will keep trying to use Wiki, tho... after careful editing so that it says what they want it to say.
Umm, hello! Did you miss all the reports about Fox News, the RNC, etc. also doing self-serving edits?
At least Jim recognizes that the story hits the right just as much as the left, and therefore he tries to diffuse that with this "it's not a big deal" post. I guess you weren't bright enough to pick up on that, and are instead just trying to perpetuate your political rancor.
8. Posted by Brian | August 19, 2007 8:30 PM |
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on August 19, 2007 20:30
9. Posted by Brian | August 19, 2007 8:45 PM | Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Anyone see something missing from this article on the Wiki-fiasco?
Yeah, I see something missing. Your intelligence.
Do you believe what you read in The Onion, too?
9. Posted by Brian | August 19, 2007 8:45 PM |
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on August 19, 2007 20:45
10. Posted by C-C-G
| August 20, 2007 12:27 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Brian, FoxNews, et al are not in the habit of using Wikipeda as a primary source.
Lefty blog and forum trolls ARE.
I'm not at all surprised that you'd deliberately ignore that fact. After all, you are a lefty blog troll yourself.
10. Posted by C-C-G
| August 20, 2007 12:27 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on August 20, 2007 00:27
11. Posted by Brian | August 20, 2007 12:26 PM | Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Brian, FoxNews, et al are not in the habit of using Wikipeda as a primary source.
Show us an example of a "lefty troll" who edited Wikipedia and then cited it.
Thought so.
Judging from marc's post, it seems it's the right who cites fake stories as news.
11. Posted by Brian | August 20, 2007 12:26 PM |
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on August 20, 2007 12:26
12. Posted by The Whistler | August 20, 2007 8:21 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Many of the changes cited in the article did not seem wrong to do.
If that's the best they can come up with there must not be much there.
Correcting an entry is not wrong.
12. Posted by The Whistler | August 20, 2007 8:21 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on August 20, 2007 20:21