Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Wiki-war

Posted by Evan Derkacz at 1:21 PM on January 30, 2006.


Pols and pundits deploying staffers to edit Wikipedia...

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

Okay press, you wanted a bipartisan scandal soooo bad? Here you go (even if it's technically more Republican than Democrat, unlike the Abramoff scandal it does involve Dems at least the teensy tiniest bit, we'll just call it bipartisan).

Encouraged by the revelation that Marty Meehan (D-MA) had staffers alter his Wikipedia entry to remove unflattering (but true) facts, Wikipedia ace detectives deployed themselves to find out just who else had been fudging with the people's medium.

Here's Micah Sifry: "It looks like more Republican staffers than Democrats have their fingers caught in the cookie jar known as the Wikipedia. At least that's what this entry on the Wikipedia page shows..."

Some samples:

  • Richard Pombo (Removing referenced to possible ties to Jack Abramoff and many other npov [neutral point of view] yet politically damaging items)
  • MoveOn (changing liberal to "left-wing")
  • Trent Lott (editing references to his rumored actions...)
  • Nancy Pelosi (entering libelous statements)
  • Phil Gramm (removing quotes I wouldn't want anyone to see if I had to run for re-election)

Wikipedia itself had this to say:

"Further investigation by Wikipedia members discovered well over a thousand edits by IP addresses allocated to the US House of Representatives and Senate. These edits had, among others, added libelous statements, removed content with malice, added childish insults, violated Wikipedia Policy. This has resulted in the blocking of at least one of the IP addresses..."
(PDF)

--> Sign up for Peek in your inbox... every morning! (Go here and check Peek box).

Digg!

Evan Derkacz is a New York-based writer and contributor to AlterNet.


Blago: It Just Keeps Getting Stranger
Have you noticed that Blagojevich appears to be stark raving mad?
Post by Steve Benen. January 9, 2009.
Obama: 'If Paul Krugman Has a Good Idea … Then We're Going to Do It'
Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman has been a frequent critic of President-elect Obama.
Post by Amanda Terkel. January 9, 2009.
Kucinich Speaks Out Against Congress' Blind Support of Israel
"We must take a new direction in the Middle East.
Post by Staff. January 9, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
RIP Wiki
Posted by: esactun on Jan 30, 2006 1:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This, of course, means that, without drastic (and utterly de-Wiki-fying) restructuring, one can no longer keep up any pretense of relying on Wikipedia (and other wikis) for reliable info. The barbarians have crashed the gates, and they cannot be kept out without destroying what we're trying to save.

It's a tragedy of the commons; when everyone uses something purely for their own selfish purposes, it's ruined for us all. A noble experiment ruined by the propangandists and pols. A disgusting thing, but a very appropriate sign of our times.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

SPAM != Free Speech
Posted by: Bytesmiths on Jan 31, 2006 10:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There's something about "free speech" that just bothers me. Like the Supreme Court supported notion that the ability to spend money is a form of speech.

Let's say a very left-wing socialist, Bob Smith, is running for mayor in some college town in the bible belt, with a decent chance of getting in. Now the RNC gets interested, and decides that spending a few thousand dollars of staff time is warranted, putting comments on blogs ("I heard that Bob Smith eats stray cats and slept with a sheep."), shilling Yahoo Groups (CatLovers@Yahoo.com: "Subject: Bob Smith, cat fancier -- with catsup!"), "backed" by obscure references on WikiPedia (page on animal abuse with reference added to the blogs about Bob's cat-eating habits).

And of course, all this gets chewed on by Google, until a search for "Bob Smith" ends up with lots of cat-torture hits. It must be so, I Googled it!

The tragedy of the commons is one thing when you can easily get rid of Viagra ads and offers to enlarge various body parts. It is quite another when it seeks to establish zeitgeist through dubious "facts".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]