Wikipedia Review: Opinions and Editorials

Wikipedia Scanner

August 15th, 2007 by blissyu2

On 13 August 2007, Cal Tech computation and neural-systems graduate student Virgil Griffith released what he calls the “Wikipedia Scanner”, which is available over the web for all to see here.

When it was first released, a number of media outlets covered the story, considering the possible implications that such technology might bring. Some of the stories that were written include:

See Who’s Editing Wikipedia, by John Borland, Wired Magazine, 14 August 2007
Companies and party aides cast censorious eye over Wikipedia, by Bobby Johnson, The Guardian, 15 August 2007
A new Wikipedia sleuth, Andrew Eder, Knox News, 14 August 2007
Tracking Wikipedia’s not-so-neutral editors, Brock Read, The Chronicle of Higher Education, 14 August 2007
Web Tool outs Wikipedia manipulators, Michael Dorausch, Planet Chiropractic, 14 August 2007
The CIA really IS editing Wikipedia, John Pospisil, Tech Blorge, 14 August 2007
Vote on the most Shameful Wikipedia spin levels, Kevin Poulsen, Wired Blog, 13 August 2007
Tool shows who is fiddling their Wikipedia entry, Will Knight, New Scientist, 14 August 2007
A move to unmask the Wikipedians, Chris Wilson, US News, 14 August 2007
Fox News changes Wikipedia to smear rivals, Brian Bokyo, Scoop, 15 August 2007
Wikipedia Spin Doctors revealed, Thomas Claburn, IT News, 15 August 2007
Diebold, Disney, Many others caught editing Wikipedia entries in their favor, Mike Masnick, Techdirt, 14 August 2007
New Online Tool Unmasks Wikipedia Edits, Brian Bergstein, Star Tribune, 16 August 2007 (note: this story has been repeated multiple times by other media)
Church of Scientology, CIA edit Wikipedia articles, author unknown, eitb, 16 August 2007
New tool exposes self-edits on Wikipedia, John Blau, CIO, 16 August 2007 (repeated multiple times)
Wikipedia: Tool for Propaganda?, Matthew Sheffield, News Busters, 14 August 2007
When a wiki goes bad, John E. Dunn, Techworld, 15 August 2007
Wikipedia scanner reveals who’s editing, Amy-Mae Elliot, Pocket-Lint, 15 August 2007
Anonymous Wikipedia editors caught red-handed, Andrew Thomas, the Inquirer, 15 August 2007
Corporate self-interest finds haven on Wikipedia, Ann All, IT Business Edge, 15 August 2007
New tool outs would-be Wikipedia tricksters, Katherine Noyes, Tech News World, 15 August 2007
Wikipedia edits exposed, Nathan Statz, Image and Data Manager Online, 16 August 2007
Mad scientist Virgil Griffith’s disruptive WikiScanner creation, Michael Dorausch, Planet Chiropractic News, 15 August 2007
Wikipedia Scanner slaps corporate editors, author unknown, PortaLit, 16 August 2007
Scanner tracks Wikipedia edits, Simon Aughton, PC Pro, 16 August 2007
WikiScanner mania, Kevin Maney, Conde Naste Portfolio, 16 August 2007
Is Wikipedia becoming a hub for propaganda?, David George-Cosh, The Globe and Mail, 16 August 2007

News continues to break, so it might be a good idea to keep a look out on Google News to see if any more stories break in the meantime. It has also been discussed in a number of forums, including:

Wikipedia Scanner!!, Sense Maker, Wikipedia Review forums, 14 August 2007
Wikipedia Scanner, Michael West, WikiEN-L mailing list, 14 August 2007
See who is whitewashing Wikipedia, Zonk, Slashdot, 14 August 2007
Wikipedia is only as anonymous as your IP, Artur Bergman, O’Reilly radar, 14 August 2007

It is interesting to note Wikipedia’s own coverage of this.

Wikipedia’s article on Virgil Griffith, the creator of Wikiscanner (makes virtually no mention of Wikiscanner)
Wikipedia’s article on Wikipedia Scanner, a very small article

This story has created a wave of new stories. Most prominent of these is that Wired Blogs is running a user submission to allow people to submit their own stories, using the scanner, of where companies, using anonymous IPs, are adding false information that it is in their best interests to add. And bear in mind that the scanner does not include anyone who has logged in and created an account (hence this represents less than 1% of all of this kind of activity). To read the submissions and also add one if you have any, read below:

Vote On the Most Shameful Wikipedia Spin Jobs

Some of the most prominent submissions are as follows:

Opinion seems to be divided on this one. Some people, such as Lamont Storm Star, pointed out that this tool could make it possible to stalk others. Others, such as Infoboy, suggested that it would help to make people accountable. Some, like Blissyu2 and Daniel Brandt, pointed out that it could be used in the wrong way to stalk innocent people whilst at the same time providing extra cover for people who are trying to hide what their doing, thus making accountability even worse.

As with so many other things, only time will tell. Will this new product make Wikipedia more accountable or less? Will it make any difference at all?

One thing is certain. All of the news reports highlight that Wikipedia is not to be trusted. We at Wikipedia Review have been saying this since we opened in October 2005. Are people finally starting to listen?

UPDATE (16 August 2007):

I’ve included the link to the Wired story that highlights examples of bad editing, and added a wealth of new stories, including Wikipedia’s coverage of the events. This seems to be spiralling, at least in the mass media, yet is being covered less on the Wikipedia mailing list than the comparable SlimVirgin scandal.

Posted at 9:50 am, August 15th, 2007 by blissyu2 in WikiEN-L, Editors, Software |

5 Responses

Cedric Says:
August 15th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Great post, Blissy. Like you and Daniel Brandt, I have some reservations about this new tool; I really don’t know what to think of it yet.

I think the story about the general inaccuracy and unreliablity of WP is already largely out there. The challenge will be in getting the mainstream media to notice and comment on the drama and dysfunction that lies behind the inaccuracy and unreliability.
blissyu2 Says:
August 15th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
The thing that I have been noticing about these recent news items is that they are consistently referring to Wikipedia as “broken” or “corrupt” or “wrong” in some way, something that they weren’t consistently doing before. And whilst some of the news reports are from obscure sources, some of them are very much mainstream.

It is kind of a gateway, to open their eyes up a little. For now, they are content to laugh and joke that the scanner doesn’t really expose anything more than petty vandalism, but then they might look around to say hey, wait on, perhaps there is something to these suggestions that Wikipedia is broken? Maybe we should look in to this?
EddieElastic Says:
August 16th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
Maybe the idea that WP is a propaganda tool has entered public consciousness, and not simply the “nerds”? Right now, I consider the scanner a pretty good thing. I don’t know what Jimbo has said about it yet, and I am very interested to hear his comments.
blissyu2 Says:
August 16th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
I’ve noticed that the Wired Blogs is providing LOTS and LOTS of hits:

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/08/vote-on-the-top.html

So I am going to update this blog entry to reflect that. It seems like this story is getting bigger and bigger every day. Is Wikipedia covering it up?
blissyu2 Says:
August 16th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
Actually, from what I can see, Wikipedia is not covering it. Virtually no mention in the mailing list, very little noise on-wiki. It seems like they think that it is out of their control, so they just watch the train wreck.

Categories

Archives

Meta:

Search

Blogroll

Recent Posts

Wikipedia Scanner

Vote On the Most Shameful Wikipedia Spin Jobs

The NRA adds “Iraq was involved with 9/11″ bullshit to 9/11 article

Scientology again using celeb deaths for self promotion

Exxon-Valdez spill whitewash

FBI edits Guantanamo page

“Bad luck & poor investments” caused bankruptcy of native tribe destroyed by Exxon-Valdez spill

The NRA changes “hunting” to “wildlife conservation & management”

ChevronTexaco deletes “Biodiesel”, Iraq fine

scientology removes criticism

Al-Jazeera says the foundation of Israel was just as bad as the Holocaust

5 Responses

Leave a Comment