Wikipedia Edits

[BrianIsSmilingAtYou]

Wired has a log of major Wikipedia edits by biased sources:

e.g. Scientologists removing entries critical of Scientology, Fox News editing entries that concern it etc. The NY Times has apparently done a lot of this as well. The CIA and Al-Jazeera have done some editing too.

This can be detected in several ways--first, by checking the IP address and seeing who it belongs to, or secondly, because the user often admits to it, such as in one of the Scientology examples, where the user claims that he is qualified to update the article on Dianetics, since he has been a practicing Scientology Auditor for 20 years. Other users call him on bias, of course.

http://wired.reddit.com/wikidgame

The cool thing, of course, is that you can trace all of the changes, and Wired links to the before and after.

BrianIs AtYou

[anthriel]

Interesting, Brian.

I was sorely tempted to edit a glaring typo on a Wikipedia site I saw yesterday; thankfully, my more reasonable side prevailed. But I did think it odd that I had so much freedom to revise what was written.

By the way, I lived in Clearwater, Florida, for many years, and the part edited out of that Scientology article was completely true. I well remember the criticisms the Scientologists had of the police department, and the community definitely vacillates between acceptance and rejection of the church.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Thanks for starting this thread, Brian. I admit to having somewhat of a love/hate relationship with Wikipedia. I admire the incredible wealth of information that the site contains, but recognize the potential for abuses. I'm glad to learn of a resource that tracks some of those abuses.

[vison]

Wikipedia is one of the greatest things ever. I have been, on and off, working on an entry myself. I just haven't had the time to devote to it to finish it and post it. And no doubt, someone will immediately edit it . . .

[truehobbit]

That's very interesting, thanks, Brian!

I'm always amazed to see who much time people must be devoting to write those articles. I've tried to read their 'how-to' pages, where you can learn how to format articles if you want to write something yourself, but it's too complicated for my taste (or rather, more effort than I'd be prepared to give it).
I have made minor corrections, though, and even there it's a bit of a bother to learn how to format things. But they do save your IP address, if you are not registered, so I suppose that if someone messes with things, they'll block their address.
That does not help with noticing bias, of course. I guess the most important thing is just to remain aware of the possibility of errors and bias.

[Inanna]

Wiki has long since fascinated me, being the very visible front of a kind of open source movement. I have often thought of adding stuff, editing etc but never got around to it. Interestingly, I always assumed it was well, people, who did it - I am a bit taken aback to know that Fox News has been editing information related to it.

[The One Ring]

They have debate forums for discussing edits, though, don't they? I've seen little windows on articles where they will advertise that a discussion of the entry is taking place.

Jn

[BrianIsSmilingAtYou]

They have debate forums for discussing edits, though, don't they? I've seen little windows on articles where they will advertise that a discussion of the entry is taking place.

Jn

Yes, in fact, some of the links from Wired that take you to the changed pages include these discussions, as in the Dianetics example.

BrianIs AtYou

[MithLuin]

Interestingly, I always assumed it was well, people, who did it - I am a bit taken aback to know that Fox News has been editing information related to it.

It probably mostly is - for instance, it wasn't an official Scientology group, but one guy who is a Scientologist. For Fox News, the IP would just get traced to their computers, so it's someone who works there, but not necessarily a 'boss' - meaning, it's not someone's job to go edit Wikipedia! But if you work for a news corporation, you may take it upon yourself to 'correct' news articles. After all, individuals can have bias too

Basically, wikipedia articles give you an opportunity to provide citations - articles that lack that are already more bogus. It is, by definition, a work in progress, and should serve as a gateway to more specific websites on the topic in question.

I have made minor corrections to some articles there. Wikipedia has a very good Tolkien archive, for instance, but they insist on spelling Noldor with ñ - they stick to the latest HoME developments, not the published works. I find that annoying, but I'm not going to edit all their articles in spite!

There is even an entry for my surname - how bizarre is that? Etymology, famous people who have had it, occurances in literature...bizarre .

[BrianIsSmilingAtYou]

Criticism of Wiki

Self-criticism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia

Criticism of Wiki from Conservapedia (which was created specifically to counter supposed liberal bias in WIkipedia):

http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_o ... _Wikipedia

Wiki on the reliability of Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

Articles on other websites critical of Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Watch

The actual site http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikitruth

The actual site http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Main_Page

For fun (warning--many article may contain colorful language):

http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Main_Page

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

BrianIs AtYou

[solicitr]

Hre's irony for you- a few weeks back the BBC did a huge story on this, castigating (in particular) Scientology and Wal-Mart.

Shortly thereafter, alert observers pointed out that the BBC was the single biggest Wikipedia editor in the world- almost all of their edits removing statements which reflected badly on the Beeb.

[Maria]

There is even an entry for my surname - how bizarre is that? Etymology, famous people who have had it, occurances in literature...bizarre .

I just looked up my maiden name on wiki- and it turns up that the house my great great grandfather grew up in is now considered to be the most haunted in the state. Interesting. My great grandmother's book never mentioned that the place was considered haunted.