Calling all "Vandals" Options

[DiotimaPhil]

Greetings Wikipedia Review!

I am a documentary filmmaker and I am currently working on a project about Wikipedia. We are interested in getting in touch with anyone who has deliberately engaged in “vandalism” activities on Wikipedia.

This project is an attempt to understanding what Wikipedia vandalism looks like, how it is done, what motivates those who participate in such activities, and what the broader implications are for Wikipedia and other information sources. It is important to note that we are in no way condoning or approving of vandalizing Wikipedia. We simply want to know all about it.

$500 will be awarded for submissions chosen to be featured in the film.

Guidelines:

- Ideally, we are looking for vandalism that has survived a long time, and preferably that has not yet been dealt with by the Wikipedia community.
- We are looking for content vandalism, or vandalism that promotes claims known by the editor to be untrue or unsubstantiated. Other forms of vandalism will be considered.
- No new vandalism! We do not want to encourage vandalism activities, so only existing vandalism, conducted prior to the first of April, 2011, will be considered.

Please contact me at phil@diotimaproductions.com for more information.

Thanks,

Phil Eldred
Diotima Productions

[thekohser]

Sounds suspicious, because $500 is a lot of money for a documentary film to be giving away.

That got me to looking, and I found PhilEldred.com, which was registered March 10, 2007 (so that's good).

DiotimaProductions.com was first registered only two weeks ago (not so good), and certainly doesn't look like it has a spare $500 to spend. But, at least the site does trace back to:

Philip Eldred
1273 18th St
Sarasota, FL 34234
Phone: +1.352.804.8754
E-mail: phil.eldred@gmail.com

So, Philip can you provide us some assurance that you're not just a Wikipedia lover, looking to "out" some vandalism, with no intention of paying the $500? Do you have a contract of some sort that you would sign with bounty-hunters BEFORE they divulge their findings to you? Are you related to this Phil Eldred, videographer, in the Philadelphia area?

This post has been edited by thekohser:

[DiotimaPhil]

I appreciate your skepticism! If you weren't skeptical I wouldn't take you seriously...

I am in fact who I say I am, but please feel free to use any and all methods you deem fit to verify this. You have already found my personal email, my address, my old phone number, which I have made no effort to hide (from you, anyway).

As to your concerns...

Diotima Productions is a new company. We formed only in December, 2010, and have until now had no need for a website.

The $500 reward is real, and we are prepared with contracts, etc to ensure the interests of all involved parties. We don't expect anyone to out their work right up front. If you have something you think would be valuable to our project, then we would first discuss with you in broad strokes what sort of contribution you can make (without getting into specifics that would expose your work to revision), and if it sounds like something we would be interested in, we will get down to working out the contractual details so that all parties are secure in their involvement and are clear as to what is expected of them.

I am not related to the videographer in Philly (to my knowledge).

A Wikipedia lover? Well, that is hard to say. I use Wikipedia, sure enough. I am happy to make use of it. Yet I am also aware of some of the structural problems inherent in Wikipedia's design, and part of this project is about sharing with a broader audience some of the nuances of how Wikipedia works/doesn't work. I am afraid there isn't much I can do to assure you that I am not simply using extreme measures to out vandalism for Wikipedia policing purposes. But, if you contact me through private means, we can begin to get to know each other, and hopefully in time you will see that I am sincere in my intentions simply to make a film about Wikipedia that focuses on issues pertaining to vandalism.

With regard to your "bounty hunter" comment, I only wish to say that we would prefer to be in touch with "vandals" directly, rather than folks who may simply be aware of vandalism, simply because we want to understand and explore the reasons why people engage in Wikipedia vandalism. That being said, we are happy to learn whatever we can about Wikipedia vandalism, regardless of the source of that information.

And, of course, there are strings attached to that $500 reward. We are in the position to honor our $500 offer, but at the same time, as you have pointed out, we are a new company and cannot simply be mailing out checks for every random screen shot of simple and obvious vandalism. We are looking for cases of vandalism that are not obvious and that have survived for quite a while. We will only be selecting a few submissions, and we are committed to treating all submissions not chosen for use in the film as confidential.

In the end, you will either trust me, or you won't. But I am committed to this project. Wikipedia is a far more interesting and complicated place than most people know, and the contributions of vandals can often be the most illuminating, and most unappreciated, in this regard. I simply want to share with a broader audience the fascinating but hidden world that I have come to know through my research and my experiences as a Wikipedia user. But I want to do so in a way with which my contributors are comfortable, realizing that I am digging into a subject that many are not comfortable speaking about openly.

Thanks again for your skepticism. But, if you would like more specific details about me or my project, please direct your questions to my email address phil@diotimaproductions.com After all, you are not the only one who should be skeptical in this interaction, and I have an interest in not sharing every last detail of my life and project with the general public, as I am sure you can understand.

- Phil

This post has been edited by DiotimaPhil:

[lilburne]

Do you know what 'vandalism' is? It ranges from the "X is TEH gay HHAHAHA" and "Y is a HOE HAHAHAHA" the sort of felt tip pen scrawling you might see on the backs of bus seats, through to the somewhat artistic tagging one might see on the side of subway trains, all the way through to subtle and creative acts of mischief on par with a work by Banksy.

The bots and foot soldiers take care of the former, the admins are mostly engage in daubing the subway trains, and the WMF supplies the paint. No one has yet found a way to clean up after them. The Banksy style activity ....

This post has been edited by lilburne:

[Detective]

Even if AGF we accept DiotimaPhil at his face value, will he reveal enough details of this lovingly created vandalism to enable it to be rectified? I have never vandalised anything myself, but I fully appreciate that the sort of sophisticated vandals who remain undetected for months or years won't want to see their vandalism fixed.

On another tack, it might be argued that the sort of vandals who really ought to get prominence are the long-term POV pushers who distort articles. They are of course nearly all admins or protected by admins, or they'd never get away with it.

[Eva Destruction]

Easily solved—if DiotimaPhil is legitimate, then examples of vandalism which have already been caught and reverted would serve just as well. If DiotimaPhil is an admin fishing for vandals to block, then I'm sure I speak for the rest of The Cabal in saying this is a really lame-ass way to go about it.

[Jon Awbrey]

Then again, it could be just another Wikipediot with nothing better to do than waste the time of Wikipedia Reviewiots who have nothing better to do than let their be wasted by just another Wikipediot with nothing better to do than waste the time of Wikipedia Reviewiots who have nothing better to do than let their be wasted by just another Wikipediot with nothing better to do than waste the time of Wikipedia Reviewiots who have nothing better to do than let their be wasted by just another Wikipediot with nothing better to do than waste the time of Wikipedia Reviewiots who have nothing better to do than let their be wasted by just another Wikipediot with nothing better to do than waste the time of Wikipedia Reviewiots who have nothing better to do than let their be wasted by just another Wikipediot with nothing better to do than waste the time of Wikipedia Reviewiots who have nothing better to do than let their be wasted by just another Wikipediot with nothing better to do than waste the time of Wikipedia Reviewiots who have nothing better to do than let their be wasted by just another Wikipediot with nothing better to do than waste the time of Wikipedia Reviewiots who have nothing better to do than let their be wasted by just another Wikipediot with nothing better to do than waste the time of Wikipedia Reviewiots who have nothing better to do than let their be wasted by just another Wikipediot with nothing better to do than waste the time of Wikipedia Reviewiots who have nothing better to do than let their be wasted by just another Wikipediot with nothing better to do than waste the time of Wikipedia Reviewiots who have nothing better to do than let their be wasted by just another Wikipediot with nothing better to do than waste the time of Wikipedia Reviewiots who have nothing better to do than let their be wasted by just another Wikipediot with nothing better to do than waste the time of Wikipedia Reviewiots who have nothing better to do than let their be wasted by just another Wikipediot with nothing better to do than waste the time of Wikipedia Reviewiots who have nothing better to do than let their be wasted by just another Wikipediot with nothing better to do than waste the time of Wikipedia Reviewiots who have nothing better to do than let their be wasted by just another Wikipediot with nothing better to do than waste the time of Wikipedia Reviewiots who have nothing better to do than let their be wasted by just another Wikipediot with nothing better to do than waste the time of Wikipedia Reviewiots who have nothing better to do than let their be wasted by …

[anthony]

Sounds suspicious, because $500 is a lot of money for a documentary film to be giving away.

Agreed. If the offer had been for less, I might have bitten.

[A User]

Sounds suspicious, because $500 is a lot of money for a documentary film to be giving away.

Agreed. If the offer had been for less, I might have bitten.

Same. Even big film studios wouldn't give away $500 for something that can be found for free.

[thekohser]

Well, I've disclosed to Phil my three best vandalizing edits (all were already known). The cinematic gold in those edits is the personal back-story and, of course, my magnetic charm. So, I offered to participate in his documentary for free -- no $500 needed. Now we'll see if it's a sham or not.

[Jon Awbrey]

Too bad the best story ever can't be told.

Kato knows …

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[carbuncle]

Sounds suspicious, because $500 is a lot of money for a documentary film to be giving away.

Agreed. If the offer had been for less, I might have bitten.

Same. Even big film studios wouldn't give away $500 for something that can be found for free.

Perhaps Mr Eldred has backers with deep pockets full of tax-exempt dollars? He seems to have commented on WP in the past.

[EricBarbour]

I'm not helping him. You folks can do as you wish, but the whole thing smells of crap-artistry.

If Phil is looking for vandalism, he could just type "Grawp" into the searchbox on WR.
Or "SPI", or "Tiptoety", or "Orangemike", or the names of several other admins who
are insanely obsessed with vandalistic socks. God only knows how many legitimate,
hapless ordinary user accounts those pricks have banned, because they only had to
claim sockpuppetry, slap down the Magical Rubberstamp, and poof, a contributor is
Cursed For All Eternity. (Actual provable vandalism not needed.)

Hey Phil! What about this? Or this?

And if Phil's looking for examples of the staggering levels of corruption, incompetence,
backstabbing, buttsnorkeling, manipulation, lying, etc. routinely practiced by WP's
administrative corps and Arbcom, all he has to do is look thru the Notable Editors and
Bureaucracy subsections on WR. Examples abound. The Gary Weiss story alone would
make for a riveting full-length documentary.

That's why this smells. No one has ever made a proper documentary about Wikipedia's
internal operations. That Truth In Numbers thing from 2008 came, and went.
Despite it being posted on YouTube for the past 3 years, very few people have seen it--
apparently because Jimbo's damaged fanbois disliked it. Because it wasn't full of
mindless Wiki-luv, it was a well-balanced (if brief) look at the "epiphenomenon".
That's a core truth of Wikipedia--its nut squad is insecure, neurotic, egotistical, and
unwilling to accept any kind of factual, honest criticism or guidance.

If Mr. Phil wants to make a "balanced" documentary, good luck to him. He'll have no shortage
of material to work with, especially if he wants to cover the WMF's corruption and incompetence.
But what does he show up on WR to ask for? Examples of nontrivial, long-lasting vandalism.
The one thing that WP's Faithful Fools are obsessed with, and violently opposed to. The one
thing they eat, sleep, and live for (in order to fight it, in their uniquely insane, unhinged way).

So, I have to think Phil wants to make a sensationalistic hit-piece, not a "documentary".
Obviously he's been communicating with WP administrative mutants, and they've been
feeding him their especially twisted view of what "Wiki-ality" is. He's accepting it as if
it were the work of rational minds.

If the WR mods are willing, I'd suggest giving Phil access to the private areas of WR.
Perhaps some more deep horror stories will make him sit up and take notice.
(I'm feeling optimistic today.)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[A User]

Sounds suspicious, because $500 is a lot of money for a documentary film to be giving away.

Agreed. If the offer had been for less, I might have bitten.

Same. Even big film studios wouldn't give away $500 for something that can be found for free.

Perhaps Mr Eldred has backers with deep pockets full of tax-exempt dollars? He seems to have commented on WP in the past.

CoS? Quite possible. Even more reason not to give them my contact details. I think Greg should be making a film documentary about Wikipedia. What do you think Greg? I'm sure with your media skills you can do a reasonable job of it.

[thekohser]

I think Greg should be making a film documentary about Wikipedia. What do you think Greg? I'm sure with your media skills you can do a reasonable job of it.

I'd only do it if my distant cousin, Emmy award-winning Greg Kohs, agreed to take on such a project.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Good God, if it went to broadcast it would then mean having a Wikipedia topic written about oneself for being "notable"!?!

[victim of censorship]

Greetings Wikipedia Review!

I am a documentary filmmaker and I am currently working on a project about Wikipedia. We are interested in getting in touch with anyone who has deliberately engaged in “vandalism” activities on Wikipedia.

This project is an attempt to understanding what Wikipedia vandalism looks like, how it is done, what motivates those who participate in such activities, and what the broader implications are for Wikipedia and other information sources. It is important to note that we are in no way condoning or approving of vandalizing Wikipedia. We simply want to know all about it.

$500 will be awarded for submissions chosen to be featured in the film.

Guidelines:

- Ideally, we are looking for vandalism that has survived a long time, and preferably that has not yet been dealt with by the Wikipedia community.
- We are looking for content vandalism, or vandalism that promotes claims known by the editor to be untrue or unsubstantiated. Other forms of vandalism will be considered.
- No new vandalism! We do not want to encourage vandalism activities, so only existing vandalism, conducted prior to the first of April, 2011, will be considered.

Please contact me at phil@diotimaproductions.com for more information.

Thanks,

Phil Eldred
Diotima Productions

Call me

[carbuncle]

Sounds suspicious, because $500 is a lot of money for a documentary film to be giving away.

Agreed. If the offer had been for less, I might have bitten.

Same. Even big film studios wouldn't give away $500 for something that can be found for free.

Perhaps Mr Eldred has backers with deep pockets full of tax-exempt dollars? He seems to have commented on WP in the past.

CoS? Quite possible. Even more reason not to give them my contact details. I think Greg should be making a film documentary about Wikipedia. What do you think Greg? I'm sure with your media skills you can do a reasonable job of it.

Actually, I was thinking of the highly secretive kettlebell industry, but the Cos sounds like a better guess and another reason to be wary. It is a bit of a stretch, but it would be amusing. Politics WP makes strange bedfellows.

[melloden]

Why do people always come to WR for these kind of things? Don't they know what WR is?

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Why do people always come to WR for these kind of things? Don't they know what WR is?

WR is ... whoever turns up on the day.

Care to discuss your ideas on the subject, Phil?

Personally, I think why not encourage a bit of demonstrative vandalism? If you want good TV, let us show you how it is done.

For me, I think "prank" rather than vandalism is a nicer notion ... how to write a spoof topic and make it stick ... can they tell the difference. There are also more interesting role play games going on that do not end in vandalism but territorial adjustments.

Why are you not thinking of picking up on some of the master sockpuppeteers and questioning them about their arts and motivations? Surely far more complex and interesting ...

[DiotimaPhil]

Why do people always come to WR for these kind of things? Don't they know what WR is?

WR is ... whoever turns up on the day.

Care to discuss your ideas on the subject, Phil?

Personally, I think why not encourage a bit of demonstrative vandalism? If you want good TV, let us show you how it is done.

For me, I think "prank" rather than vandalism is a nicer notion ... how to write a spoof topic and make it stick ... can they tell the difference. There are also more interesting role play games going on that do not end in vandalism but territorial adjustments.

Why are you not thinking of picking up on some of the master sockpuppeteers and questioning them about their arts and motivations? Surely far more complex and interesting ...

I came to WR with my appeal because I assumed that I would find here people with more than standard knowledge about Wikipedia. It looks like I was right.

There isn't anything that I wouldn't be interested in learning about, so please feel free to share whatever you think is relevant. My goal with this film is to expose people to a side of Wikipedia that most don't know exists. How accurate that picture turns out to be will be based on what level of cooperation I get from people with relevant information. MY POV is one of someone who has been critical of Wikipedia in the past, and who has reservations about Wikipedia's design, but who also uses Wikipedia happily when in need of a random fact. This tension is what drives my interest in this film, but the story I tell will ultimately depend on whose cooperation I get. That being said, I won't simply swallow whatever I am told, and hopefully my viewers won't either. I will bring my own editorial perspective to this film. But that perspective is a work in progress, so this is your chance to get involved if there is a particular angle that I need to be aware of.

[carbuncle]

I came to WR with my appeal because I assumed that I would find here people with more than standard knowledge about Wikipedia. It looks like I was right.

There isn't anything that I wouldn't be interested in learning about, so please feel free to share whatever you think is relevant. My goal with this film is to expose people to a side of Wikipedia that most don't know exists. How accurate that picture turns out to be will be based on what level of cooperation I get from people with relevant information. MY POV is one of someone who has been critical of Wikipedia in the past, and who has reservations about Wikipedia's design, but who also uses Wikipedia happily when in need of a random fact. This tension is what drives my interest in this film, but the story I tell will ultimately depend on whose cooperation I get. That being said, I won't simply swallow whatever I am told, and hopefully my viewers won't either. I will bring my own editorial perspective to this film. But that perspective is a work in progress, so this is your chance to get involved if there is a particular angle that I need to be aware of.

And it goes without saying that you aren't being funded by the Church of Scientology. You didn't say, so I assume it must go without saying. Are you willing to say who is backing this project, since the $500 offer struck some people here as unusual for this kind of project? By the way, how many of this type of project have you done, if you don't mind my asking?

This post has been edited by carbuncle:

[DiotimaPhil]

I came to WR with my appeal because I assumed that I would find here people with more than standard knowledge about Wikipedia. It looks like I was right.

There isn't anything that I wouldn't be interested in learning about, so please feel free to share whatever you think is relevant. My goal with this film is to expose people to a side of Wikipedia that most don't know exists. How accurate that picture turns out to be will be based on what level of cooperation I get from people with relevant information. MY POV is one of someone who has been critical of Wikipedia in the past, and who has reservations about Wikipedia's design, but who also uses Wikipedia happily when in need of a random fact. This tension is what drives my interest in this film, but the story I tell will ultimately depend on whose cooperation I get. That being said, I won't simply swallow whatever I am told, and hopefully my viewers won't either. I will bring my own editorial perspective to this film. But that perspective is a work in progress, so this is your chance to get involved if there is a particular angle that I need to be aware of.

And it goes without saying that you aren't being funded by the Church of Scientology. You didn't say, so I assume it must go without saying. Are you willing to say who is backing this project, since the $500 offer struck some people here as unusual for this kind of project? By the way, how many of this type of project have you done, if you don't mind my asking?

I don't mind.

The project is being funded in stages. Preproduction and early production expenses, including the money for rewarding contributors, are taken care of by the production team itself. We have a combination of grants/investors that we hope to use to fund the final production and post-production stages, once we have a more precise idea of our total budget. I have never done a feature-length project such as this before. I have been involved on various levels with smaller projects shot either for school or for fun, and I work as a production assistant for a very successful reality TV show, but a project of this scope is a new challenge for me. My role in this is primarily as a researcher/writer/host. My partners include a student at the University of Washington documentary film program, and a camera operator/editor/director with lots of experience shooting reality-based television stuff. We also have an experienced animator who is on board just for love of the project. Once we have finished our research, we will have a more precise idea of the production costs, and then you will probably see me here or elsewhere asking for money to help complete the project. That is, if we find the stories we need to make a compelling documentary. We already have a few good stories, but I suspect there is more interesting stuff out there.

As for Scientology, no, I am afraid we don't have the backing of their deep pockets. I am guessing you saw my comment on Huffington Post. I forgot about making that comment, but I hope at least it goes to show that I am not simply trying to out vandals.

[melloden]

I came to WR with my appeal because I assumed that I would find here people with more than standard knowledge about Wikipedia. It looks like I was right.

You could also ask people on Wikipedia. Obviously, you don't mind the "bad" reputation that WR has, or the fact that vandalism is a very small part of what is discussed here, etc.

I'm not sure that getting your info from WR is a good idea. It might, you know, negatively affect your project. Because people usually don't think nice things about WR.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

And it goes without saying that you aren't being funded by the Church of Scientology.

Oh, they do make me laugh around here ... but I don't understand the reference. Are you suggesting that the CoS would pay $500 to out an anti-CoS vandal ... or the CoS would pay $500 to find Wiki-Siths willing to work for them!?!

I have never gotten involved in that debacle. One cult is enough.

Paul, having survive the WRWelcome acerbic test, you have the potential of tripping into a far more interest documentary on the Wikipedia here. Dig out Cato, go find Moulton if there is room for a song parody (he got banned for being Red Headed), wake up Daniel Brandt ... they are all around the back somewhere.


This is not for your particular documentary but I always though it would make for an entertaining flick to do a "reality TV version" of Wikipedia exposing what it actually looks like in real time ... find some caffeined up admin on his 25th hour of being online dealing 'incoming', play the straights on that side off those on the under belly, do a tutorial on how and why to develop really good sockpuppets, pick up on some of the sicko-, paedo-, porno-industry pushing stuff we have highlighted from here. Basically shine a light onto the shadow of the beast.

I think folks are right, there has not been a good documentary of the Wikipedia.

Would you like to share your proposal so we can start by critiquing it and suggest which directions you might want to go in? Sadly, now that you have put your name here, I doubt you will get a candid interview with the WMF but if you could, I am sure we could suggest some avenues to explore.

[Cedric]

As for Scientology, no, I am afraid we don't have the backing of their deep pockets. I am guessing you saw my comment on Huffington Post. I forgot about making that comment, but I hope at least it goes to show that I am not simply trying to out vandals.

Not really; it was actually a series of comments which were critical of Wikipedia in a very general sense. One can also see from a map that Sarasota is but a short drive from Scientology's headquarters in Clearwater, both of which are in the Tampa Bay metro area. This is not much in the way of proof of a COS connection, but it is an amusing possibility to consider, as carbuncle suggests. I vaguely recall that the COS said a full statement in response to the ArbCom ban of two years ago would be forthcoming, but such a statement never came. Not yet, anyway.

More suspect is the particular focus on vandalism and the offer of cash prizes, as others have noted. As is well known here, Wikipedia content is manipulated by its "community" (a/k/a The Cabal, a/k/a the Frei Kultur Kinder) and by outsiders all the time and in a variety of ways. Vandalism is a small part of the story of primary interest to those who think it's fun and to those pretend policemen of Wikipedia who dub themselves the "Recent Changes Patrol". For me, it's too early to call "shenanigans", but I'm keeping my broom handy. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

[carbuncle]

And it goes without saying that you aren't being funded by the Church of Scientology.

Oh, they do make me laugh around here ... but I don't understand the reference. Are you suggesting that the CoS would pay $500 to out an anti-CoS vandal ... or the CoS would pay $500 to find Wiki-Siths willing to work for them!?!

I was just speculating irresponsibly based on Mr Eldred's comments at the Huffington Post article "Wikipedia bans Scientology from site". Plus, he lives in Florida, quite close to Clearwater, which is apparently Scientology central. Of course, that also means he's quite close to Jimbo when he's visiting his first offspring, so there's no conclusion to be drawn there.

I have no idea what the CoS would pay $500 for, but like most commenters here, I don't think any experienced documentarian offers $500 of their pre-production budget to find subjects, so the offer made me curious. I'm chalking it up to inexperience, based on Eldred's reply.

I like your idea of a WP vandals vs editors reality show. I think that could be quite interesting. There are some rather, um, quirky people involved on both sides. Mr Eldred, you should seriously consider this. Read up on some of the media profiles of prominent WP editors and admins.

(Oh. I guess I could just refreshed the page and seen that Cedric already said everything that needed saying. Doh!)

This post has been edited by carbuncle:

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

I don't think any experienced documentarian offers $500 of their pre-production budget to find subjects, so the offer made me curious.

I like your idea of a WP vandals vs editors reality show. I think that could be quite interesting. There are some rather, um, quirky people involved on both sides. Mr Eldred, you should seriously consider this. Read up on some of the media profiles of prominent WP editors and admins.

I'd film it split screen, Warhol style. I don't see it as simple B&W "WP vandals" versus "editors" though. I don't even suspect you do. A lot of what goes on is far from vandalism. Like you say, what screws the Wiki is Wiki establishment. I'd just like to see their faces as they justify their actions.

Battle Re-enactment has become a big thing, you could go over - or even revive - some of the better ones.

It would be interesting also to take two characters and put them both in a room together to talk through their actions, why they did them, how they felt, what motivated them. It might make for some good finger pointing and punch ups.

[DiotimaPhil]

I don't think any experienced documentarian offers $500 of their pre-production budget to find subjects, so the offer made me curious.

I like your idea of a WP vandals vs editors reality show. I think that could be quite interesting. There are some rather, um, quirky people involved on both sides. Mr Eldred, you should seriously consider this. Read up on some of the media profiles of prominent WP editors and admins.

I'd film it split screen, Warhol style. I don't see it as simple B&W "WP vandals" versus "editors" though. I don't even suspect you do. A lot of what goes on is far from vandalism. Like you say, what screws the Wiki is Wiki establishment. I'd just like to see their faces as they justify their actions.

Battle Re-enactment has become a big thing, you could go over - or even revive - some of the better ones.

It would be interesting also to take two characters and put them both in a room together to talk through their actions, why they did them, how they felt, what motivated them. It might make for some good finger pointing and punch ups.

We do have a very skilled animator on board, and we have considered something like this, but just by animating the action on some particularly ridiculous talk pages.

FYI, our intent is to do a film that uses vandalism, from the silly x calling y names, all the way up to the serious acts of protest and "artistry," as a way of introducing our audience to some of the more complex issues pertaining to Wikipedia and the way it works/doesn't work. This isn't an essay on vandalism, or the problems with Wikipedia. But it is a serious film about truth, information, and authority clothed in the dressings of a quirky documentary about vandalism and the people who do it. We want to keep the feeling light/humorous, even as the subject matter gets deeper. After all, it takes a special person to take interest in the inner-workings of Wikipedia from a purely philosophical point of view. But anyone can laugh about a silly comment, for example, placed on the Richard Gere article making reference to gerbils, which within a few months grows into a serious philosophical debate about the significance of the gerbil story as an urban myth central to the story of Richard Gere's life as a public figure. This is one focal point of the film, how silly things can become quite serious debates, and how serious people can be reduced to doing quite juvenile and silly things in response to the reality of the way the Wikipedia community works/doesn't work.

The reason my appeal has focused on existing and undiscovered vandalism is that I have found in my research that sophisticated acts of vandalism amount to assertions of truth in the eyes of most WP editors. When you try to revert a vandalistic edit that has survived for years, you are likely to have to engage in an edit war just to get back to the truth. After all, there is no criterion for truth on Wikipedia, a citation will do just fine. But how often, and how thoroughly are these citations checked? A surviving act of vandalism usually survives because it "follows the rules" of a good edit, with the small exception that it asserts an untruth. By following these rules, such edits usually earn a strong defense from unwitting editors who swallowed the vandalism hook, line, and sinker. And this is something that I find particularly interesting/comical: how the very rules Wikipedia uses to ensure the veracity of edits can actually work to defend/keep in place a vandalistic edit that was added without "breaking the rules." I would like to film attempts by vandals themselves to revert their own edits, and show how difficult this can be when the vandalism "followed the rules" in the first place. So, if you know of any things that may fall into this category, please let me know. Also, I am very interested in vandalism that ultimately gets cited by a journalist, who then becomes a source for the edit, effectively protecting the vandalism from removal. I already have a few examples of this that don't seem to be widely known, but the more the better.

Please keep up with the suggestions, tongue in cheek as they may be. This is a pretty tongue in cheek film, so all is appropriate.

[EricBarbour]

Also, I am very interested in vandalism that ultimately gets cited by a journalist

What about this?

You can make a "tongue-in-cheek" film about vandalism, but what Wikipedia needs is serious criticism, not giggles.

[DiotimaPhil]

Also, I am very interested in vandalism that ultimately gets cited by a journalist

What about this?

You can make a "tongue-in-cheek" film about vandalism, but what Wikipedia needs is serious criticism, not giggles.

My hope will be that my audience will laugh and giggle their way to thinking. I want to avoid making this thing into a 90 minute lecture, simply because I think the only people who would tolerate such a film are the very people who probably could have made it themselves. I want to avoid "preaching to the choir" so to speak. My goal is simply to bring people in for the laughs, but have them thinking by the time they leave. Most people approach Wikipedia and what they read there with absolutely zero criticism or skepticism. Now, as you know, once you take your first step down that rabbit hole, you are likely to find out that it goes much deeper than you ever suspected. But most folks never will take that first step. My hope would be that this film might encourage them to do so. Without giving away too much (I have already given away almost everything), I would just like to add that the goal of the film finally is not simply to make people more critical of Wikipedia, but to make people more critical consumers of information generally. After all, Wikipedia is a unique medium with specific structural problems, but all media can be manipulated, and all sources of information are worthy of criticism. My film included. So, I will be happy if I can expose people to a set of problems pertaining to information on Wikipedia of which they are likely unaware, and also clue them in to the fact that these problems, or versions of them, can be applied to all sources of information. Although I have compiled enough information through my research for this film that I could probably throw together a systematic treatment in the form of a short book that might make for an interesting read for "the choir," if not for anyone else.

[thekohser]

...sophisticated acts of vandalism amount to assertions of truth in the eyes of most WP editors. When you try to revert a vandalistic edit that has survived for years, you are likely to have to engage in an edit war just to get back to the truth.

It's not a case of "vandalism" so much as people not knowing what's what, but I think you'd get something out of this piece, originally published on Akahele.org (a project you also would have been keen to observe, Phil).

[thekohser]

[Selina]

That video is the most constructive thing you've posted for a few weeks I think, thanks that's brilliant (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) I threw us a comment and like on youtube (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

This post has been edited by Selina:

[SB_Johnny]

(youtube)

Is cognition one of our gang here? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Somey]

Is cognition one of our gang here? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Not that I know of... I would tend to suspect that he has an account, we just don't know who.

[mbz1]

Greetings Wikipedia Review!

I am a documentary filmmaker and I am currently working on a project about Wikipedia. We are interested in getting in touch with anyone who has deliberately engaged in “vandalism” activities on Wikipedia.

This project is an attempt to understanding what Wikipedia vandalism looks like, how it is done, what motivates those who participate in such activities, and what the broader implications are for Wikipedia and other information sources. It is important to note that we are in no way condoning or approving of vandalizing Wikipedia. We simply want to know all about it.

$500 will be awarded for submissions chosen to be featured in the film.

Guidelines:

- Ideally, we are looking for vandalism that has survived a long time, and preferably that has not yet been dealt with by the Wikipedia community.
- We are looking for content vandalism, or vandalism that promotes claims known by the editor to be untrue or unsubstantiated. Other forms of vandalism will be considered.
- No new vandalism! We do not want to encourage vandalism activities, so only existing vandalism, conducted prior to the first of April, 2011, will be considered.

Please contact me at phil@diotimaproductions.com for more information.

Thanks,

Phil Eldred
Diotima Productions

Well, The list of banned users has everybody listed there as a "vandal"
So, I guess you could talk to me. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

[DiotimaPhil]

Just as an update for all those interested, we have given the film the title "The Encyclopedia Game", and we are preparing to launch a kickstarter campaign to raise the funds we need to finish the production.

We have identified 3-5 individuals to feature in the film, and a supporting cast of 12-50 secondary contributors to offer context and perspective to the stories of the featured contributors.

Our minimum fundraising goal is $60,000, which will mostly be used for travel and logistics associated with filming the core contributors and about 12 secondary contributors. The budget for talking to all 50 or so supporting characters is $200,000, so any amount we raise over $60k will go towards getting input from additional contributors. Of course, there is only so much time in the film, so to the extent that we get a chance to talk to an abundance of contributors, we will select the best material for the film, and then edit and release the rest as bonus material. We want everyone's story to be told as completely as possible.

Check out our website, encyclopediagame.net, or facebook page at facebook.com/encyclopediagame for more info on the film. And please stay tuned for info about the Kickstarter campaign. This is going to be a very quirky yet also quite serious film, definitely not the sort of thing you would see coming out of a big studio with deep pockets. We want to share an honest look at the activities of Wikipedia vandals, and also at the way the Wikipedia community functions more broadly. And the only way for a film like this to get made is with the support of those who know the more hidden aspects of how Wikipedia works, and realize how distorted (or empty) the average person's understanding of Wikipedia really is.

I will post the kickstarter information as soon as it is ready to go. Wikipedia Review has been incredibly helpful for me as I have done the research for this film, and I would very much appreciate everyone's continued help spreading the word and making this film a reality.

-Phil

[melloden]

Brilliant.

If you haven't already seen it, the "glucojasinogen" incident may be worthy of including in your film.

[thekohser]

I hope you have some creatively devised "gifts" that you'll bestow on donors at different levels. I've seen this work to good effect on music production projects on Kickstarter.