When an online encylopedia goes bad

This entry comes from Guest Blogger RMHED, who probably doesn’t really care how you pronounce his name.

There sits on Wikipedia a short biography of a minor British showbiz personality - let’s call him Mr X. It is unloved and unwatched. How do I know this? Well, for over 7 weeks now, the article has contained two paragraphs of creative nonsense about Mr. X’s career. The first paragraph was added on April 22nd, the second on May 14th, and neither of these additions were referenced. Both paragraphs are humorous, especially the longer one, which goes into detail about a very downmarket game show Mr. X supposedly hosted. Needless to say, this game show is entirely fictional, but it was just plausible enough to cause me to actually check to make sure.

These two paragraphs now make up more than half of Mr. X’s short biography. Shouldn’t this poor abandoned biographical article be deleted? Or does its continued existence really help Wikipedia fulfill its mission of encompassing all human knowledge?

Or, is it more likely that it is an embarassment, that any credible encyclopedia would be only too glad to be shot of? You’d certainly think so. Now, I wonder what would happen if this article were put up for deletion - it’s my guess that it would almost certainly be kept, and if Wikipedia’s ARSe (Article Rescue Squadron editors) get involved, then it’s even more likely. Once the ARSe unfurl their “inclusionist” banner upon an article, “deletionists” must be prepared to do battle.

I can’t help but wonder if Mr. X would see the funny side of all this. He probably would, as the nonsensical additions aren’t really malicious, though they just as easily could have been. It may well be that Mr. X would rather have an article on Wikipedia than not have one. Given that he’s in the entertainment industry, he may see anything that raises his profile as a good thing.

So what does this incident tell us about Wikipedia? For one thing flagged revisions would probably have prevented this, and the semi-protection of all biographies of living persons (BLP’s) would definitely have prevented it. Is it really that important, you may ask, since after all it was only silly nonsense that was added? If you don’t have an article about yourself on Wikipedia, then it’s probably hard to understand all the fuss. Wikipedia is an extremely powerful internet phenomenon, and many misguided people take its content at face value and do not question its veracity.

Try for a moment to imagine that there is a biographical article on Wikipedia about you, and anyone can edit this article, and add anything they like. While obvious vandalism usually gets quickly reverted by Wikipedia’s ever-expanding army of bots or by the marginally more human Recent Change Patrollers, anything that is slightly more subtle in tone will often slip through the protective net and could do untold damage to your reputation.

Over the last few years Wikipedia’s power to influence has grown enormously. Usually with power there comes responsibility, thus far the Wikipedia community has chosen to shun its responsibility, and the Wikimedia Foundation Board show no sign of thrusting responsibility upon Wikipedia. So where will it all end? Most likely in a law court, where one side or the other will achieve a pyrrhic victory of sorts.

Meanwhile, Mr. X’s biography remains in situ, complete with its fictional additions unreverted. I just hope he’s game for a laugh.

If you're reading this caption, you ARE the Resistance

I went to see the new movie Terminator Salvation the other night, and I have to say, it was quite the action-packed whizbang smash summer blockbuster! The SWE:SLE ratio (that is, the ratio of scenes-with-explosions to scenes-lacking-explosions) is about as high as you’ll get in a modern motion picture - and that’s saying a lot, these days. However, plot-wise, the movie made little sense. Of course I wasn’t really expecting it to, but it would be unfair to potential viewers to simply not mention it. Frankly, based on the results of this film, I’m guessing that the next installment of the franchise will be entitled Terminator Management Training Challenge.

Despite the plot-related issues, I still enjoyed the movie. Two things struck me about it in particular: First, this is the first major R-rated action film I’ve seen in, quite literally, months that doesn’t include a shot of someone throwing up. These “puke-shots” have become more common than kissing scenes, and nobody seems to know why. Hopefully, Terminator Salvation will be part of a new vanguard of artistically original and cutting-edge films that manage to somehow keep audiences awake for two hours with no vomit imagery whatsoever. And, as an added bonus, there’s no need for anyone to add Terminator Salvation to the International Emetophobia Society’s always-useful searchable puke-shot film list. What a time-saver!

The other thing that struck me about Terminator Salvation, and more importantly for our purposes here at The Wikipedia Review, is how much Skynet - the evil AI-based global network bent on destroying the human race using time-travelling robot assassins who look like Austrian body-builders - has come to resemble Wikipedia. Read the rest of this entry »

I was thinking of posting this directly to Larry Sanger’s blog on Citizendium.org, but it’s too long, and Dr. Sanger would probably object. Also, it’s a bit personal, and I don’t like to be seen as a grudge-bearer, but sometimes you just have to speak out… So, just to follow up on my post from yesterday, I’d like to ask our highly appreciated and valued readers to indulge me, just this once.

Calm down, fellas.

In 2001, I was working for a small Midwestern (USA) IT company, a VAR actually, and one day we were told that the owner was moving to the West Coast and had sold the company to another guy, who we’ll just call “New Owner.” Well, it turned out that New Owner was an Ayn Rand fanatic who would wax ebullient over her “objectivist philosophy” whenever he got the chance, and even kept extra copies of Ayn’s literary masterworks in his desk drawer to hand out to people. (This is how I got my copy of The Fountainhead, which I ultimately threw away after being utterly appalled by the first 80 pages or so). Read the rest of this entry »

The whole debate over whether or not Wikia’s Jimmy Wales should be referred to as the “co-founder” of Wikipedia, along with Dr. Larry Sanger, has always been more than a little amusing. Mr. Wales was the CEO of the Bomis, Inc., the pornographic link-farm site/company that employed Sanger to develop an online encyclopedia project from January 2000 to March 2002. As such, Mr. Wales now assumes - perhaps rightly - that he can legally declare anything produced by Sanger during that time to be a “work for hire,” and therefore take sole credit for it. After all, money talks; employees simply get laid off.

Meanwhile, since speaker’s fees evidently make up a large portion of Mr. Wales’ personal income, the reduction in status he could suffer by being commonly referred to as the “co-founder” of Wikipedia might make him a less marketable commodity on the lecture circuit. Yikes! Without these fees, Mr. Wales might have to rely on his income as CEO of Wikia, Inc. just to survive - clearly not an attractive prospect, given the nature of Wikia’s business model.

But why all the fuss over one word, “co-founder,” when that word isn’t even accurate in referring to either of these two giants of unpaid-volunteer online content aggregation? Wouldn’t it be better for all concerned to use a term that’s more descriptive of what these two men actually did, like “co-instigator,” “co-conspirator,” or “co-defiler of Western educational traditions”? At least that way, there wouldn’t be all this petty sniping, since presumably there would be less objection to sharing such a title in the first place.
Read the rest of this entry »

Wikipedia’s Biography vandalism crisis reaches new depths. This time, for the most watched article on the whole site. What more needs to be said? See here for news coverage. 

(Screenshot taken from Wikimedia’s own site) 

Round up of some of the activities going on at the Wikipedia review for the first month of the New Year. 

As if suffering a seizure during US President Obama’s post-inaugural luncheon wasn’t bad enough, US Senator Edward Kennedy endured an additional ordeal Tuesday, as did his friend, Senator Robert Byrd — death by Wikipedia. This slur, comparatively mild by Wikipedia’s traditional libellous standards, appeared to be the straw that broke the camel’s back for Jimbo Wales - who immediately endorsed the long overdue Flagged Revisions proposal (more below). Later in the month, well known BBC gardener Alan Titchmarsh (T-H-L-K) complained that Wikipedia was “full of wrong facts” after he had to deny that he had published an updated version of the sex manual Karma Sutre. 

 
After a long period of pressure from the Review, Jimbo Wales eventually came out and endorsed the implementation of “Flagged Revisions” on biography articles. This would mean that edits to biographical articles would need to be checked before they appeared on the final article page. And hence would significantly reduce the number of “drive-by defamation edits”. As far as the Review is concerned, this is the culmination of many people’s efforts to address that particular odious side-effect of Wikipedia’s internet dominance - beginning with the experiences retold here by victims Daniel Brandt, as well as the regular extra-media pieces by fellow victim Seth Finkelstein. It’s been a long, along time coming but I know A change gon’ come, oh yes it will!

UPDATE: Typically, a confusing counter-flagging proposal was mooted by BLP extremists (usually teenagers who are unsympathetic to BLP victims and demand the “right” to edit anonymously on whatever they like) which, in the words of one Wikipedian “will allow IP and new editors to edit articles that would otherwise be semi or full-protected”. So hold your breath. Wikipedia remains incapable of implementing any ethical reforms. 

And thus; “Bureaucrat” AGK (T-C-L-K) retired from Wikipedia having swallowed the final cherry of New Year. He was followed by former arbitrator Rebecca (T-C-L-K) (formerly known as Ambi / formerly known as erm… Dave (?)), and long term Wikipedio admin Gaillimh (T-C-L-K). In fact, admins “seem to have left in significant numbers in December“. While the rest of us were downing our mince pies and sipping Christmas sherry, Jossi (T-C-L-K) - whose online Conflict of Interest was the Gold, Frankinsense And Myrrh of Conflicts of Interest - announced his retirement as well. Then arbitrator Deskana (T-C-L-K) went on “Wikibreak”. WReviewer GlassBeadGame even crafted a crude chart to show the exodus! 

Last month, pressure on User:FT2 (T-C-L-K) - a senior Arbitrator on Wikipedia’s “Supreme Court” - reached a head, with accusations hurtling his way regarding the erm… Zoophilia Oversighted Edits Scandal. The Wikipedia community, led by traditional Drama-Master of Ceremonies Giano (T-C-L-K), wanted blood. This month they got it, and FT2 became one of those rare Wikipedios who, having found himself acting as a lightening rod for negative drama, actually did the dignified thing and resigned. Less dignified was FT2’s appearance at The Review to argue the toss with all and sundry. Though denying wrong-doing with some legitimacy, he typically overegged any new sympathy he may have garnered, by producing endless interminable foul smelling yolks every time he posted. And by the end, the relevant thread looked like a rancid omelette.  

The Register reported that Roger McNamee, a previous large donor to the WMF, had finally found his way onto the WMF Advisory Board, which opens up some potentially interesting developments. The WR thread about that is here. Seth Finkelstein gives his brief overview here. The Register were also the first to cover Jimbo’s endorsment of Flagged Revisions. Bloggers soon followed up the story. By the 26th, the BBC was running the Flagged Revisions dispute. Their interpretation was irritatingly flawed and appeared to be based on a misinformation campaign in Slashdot led by BLP extremists (who have been resisting the implementation).

One of the best op-eds of the month appeared in The Guardian, and was another take on the community’s resistance to Flagged Revisions. The Guardian’s Marcel berlins wrote, “Wikipedia is unreliable in its current form. So why do its users resist even modest changes? It is hardly a secret that the hasty reporting of a current event is the enemy of context and accuracy.”

Newcomers to the Wikipedia Review may benefit from the following glossary of terms, which explains the origins of certain memorable expressions which have found their way into the lexicon here. Each, in its way, encapsulates something essential about the wacky and wonderful world of Wikipedia.

“The Cabal” — Jimbo Wales first proposed the formation of a “cabal” in this post on the Wikipedia mailing list. He expressed a desire to “empower some shadowy mysterious elite group of us to do things that might not be possible for newbies.”

“Exceptional Well-Honed Linguistic Analytic Skills” — the classic phrase posted by SlimVirgin here on Jimbo’s talk page, explaining why she don’t need no stinkin’ evidence to convict other editors of sockpuppetry.

“Living in England in a Very Similar Way” — another gem, this time from W.Marsh, illustrating another method for convicting someone of sockpuppetry without evidence. This one came from the celebrated ANI discussion of the blocking of Poetlister. The fact that Poetlister turned out to be completely guilty does not negate the charm of this famous turn of the phrase.

“I regard it as a pseudonym and I don’t really have a problem with it.” — Jimbo’s comment to The New Yorker, upon discovering that Essjay was not really “a tenured professor of religion at a private university” with “a Ph.D. in theology and a degree in canon law.”

“Will you be able to watch my back?” — (Jayjg, in an email to wikien-l, December 20 2007) Jayjg’s clarion call to his tag-team troops was mistakenly posted to the public email list, instead of his private one. “I’m planning to go in tonight and do some re-adding and tagging. Will you be able to watch my back?”

“Wikipedia is nothing more than the biggest and most prolific defamation machine that the world has ever known, run by people with varying degrees of personality disorders.” — Rachel Marsden, media commentator and former girlfriend of Jimbo Wales, after Jimbo, having dumped her and announced it on-Wiki, withdrew his special BLP protection from her bio. Rachel, demonstrating once again that Hell Hath No Fury, posted this on Jimbo’s talk page.

“Obscene trolling; knows German.” — This memorable phrase comes from Durova’s Sekret Evidence which was leaked to WikiTruth. She is describing the clues which lead her to indict User:!! as a Ripened Sock, a disturbing term to anyone but Dr. Scholl. User:!!’s “obscene trolling” was in reality an explication of a rather common German insult, “Leck mich im Arsch,” also the title of a canon by Mozart which has its own Wikipedia article.

“Are you Kafkaesque?” – In an exchange reminiscent of the famous Abbott and Costello Who’s on First? routine, an admin misunderstands a hapless user who has been blocked for the offense of removing material that was in violation of the Biographies of Living Persons Policy. Needless to say, the user (”Hullabaloo Wolfowitz”) was puzzled and chagrined by the block, insisting in his unblock request that “This is Kafkaesque.” An Admin with the moniker “Sandahl,” apparently not the brightest crayon in the box, replies: “You say you are Kafkaesque, if you are User:Kafkaesque you need to need to make this unblock request in this account name.”

Round up of some of the activities going on at the Wikipedia review for the festive month of December:

Wikipedia Biography Defamation case 2,123,262#. Yet another journalist describes how he was “slimed” by the site via his biography here. No surprises that the guilty party was a non registered IP editor - meanwhile, Jimbo Wales’s biography remains permanently protected from such inconveniences as a consequence of the grossest hypocritical practice at the site. Later in the month, former US Vice-President Walter Mondale wrote that Wikipedia was “all bull” after discovering ridiculous additions to his biography. TV star Paul Reiser became the latest celebrity to be pronounced dead by drive-by IP editors of Wikipedia, having been discovered floating “in the Squallahassee River where he reportedly enjoyed fly fishing,” - thankfully he came back to life again a few days later to celebrate New Year.

The furore over Wikipedia’s insistence in publishing a tasteless image of a pre-pubescent naked girl, which featured on a 1970s Scorpions album cover, was the big story of the month. This sparked British Internet Service Providers to block the page under the advice from the UK’s Internet Watch Foundation. The main Wikipedia Review trunk thread about this is here. Bloggers reactions are here. Other interesting pieces are Valleywag’s coverage here, this excellent piece is by WP critic Andrew Keen, this overview is by Wiki-critic Seth Finkelstein, and an antidote to the “OMG censorship” cries from Wikipediots can be found in this piece in the legal magazine Out-Law. After the IWF backed down, Wikimedia Foundation UK’s self appointed spokesman David Gerard announced that he was “gleefully dancing on the skulls of the IWF”. The WR thread about that can be found here.

Read the rest of this entry »

Soon it will be 2009, and then, before long, it will be Awards Season: the Oscars, the Screen Actors Guild, and Golden Globes, and of course, the ceremony that is claiming an increasing share of the public’s attention(citation needed), the Wikipedia Review WP:DICK of Distinction Awards Pageant.

It’s all about the Drama. For serious contestants, Wikipedia is WP:NOT an encyclopedia, but a Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game (MMORPG.) We here at the Review are doing our part by polling members of our own Academy to determine which contestants should be recognized for a truly stellar performance.

The first polling took place in 2006. That year, the coveted award for “Most Abusive Admin” went to SlimVirgin, providing an important boost to her career and helping to propel her to notability. Read the rest of this entry »

1. INSTANT EDITING OF ARTICLES. I believe that this one feature of WP is the single greatest factor causing WP’s decline and will largely cause its eventual destruction. This feature ensures that both the improvement and the marring of articles are impermanent, and that the battles against internet trolls, polemicists (in wikispeak, “POV pushers”), spammers, vandals, and ignorant interlopers will be everlasting (at least while WP still exists). It is this single feature of WP, more than any other, that gives rise to the MMORPG character of WP and makes ridiculous its claim of being an “encyclopedia”. Read the rest of this entry »