Wikipedia's Editors Revealed

  • Thread starter Diego440
  • 27 comments
  • 1,550 views

Diego440

Born to browse
Premium
12,486
Venezuela
CCS
GTP_Diego
As most of us know, Wikipedia.org is an online encyclopedia edited by general users, who write articles on every imaginable subject. Since it is written by users, anyone can edit, delete and arrange the articles on Wikipedia.

However, one Virgil Griffith, an American student came up with a Wikipedia Scanner, a software program that reveals who has changed Wikipedia entries via their I.P. address and cross scans it with the I.P. directory of certain major corporations.

As soon as the software was launched on the internet, chaos erupted.
Among many revelations, Wikipedia Scanner reported that:

- Microsoft tried to cover up the XBOX 360 failure rate

- Apple edit Microsoft entries, adding more negative comments about its rival

- Bill Gates revenge? Microsoft edits Apple entries, adding more negative comments about its rival

- The Vatican edits Irish Catholic politician Gerry Adams page

- In the 9/11 Wikipedia article, the NRA added that "Iraq was involved in 9/11"

- Exxon Mobil edits spillages and eco-system destruction from oil spillages article

- FBI edits Guantanamo Bay, removing numerous pictures

- Oil company ChevronTexaco removes informative biodiesel article and deletes a paragraph regarding fines against the company

- Scientology removes criticism and negatives article from Scientology page

- Al Jazeera TV station adds that the foundation of Iraq was just as bad as the Holocaust

- Amnesty International removes negative comments

- Dell Computers deletes negative comments on customer services and removes a passage how the company outsources work to third world countries

- MySpace removes paragraph when their website was hacked

- EA Games deletes whole paragraphs of criticism about employment practices and business methods

- Dog breeding association deletes whole paragraphs about fatal attacks by dogs on humans

- US Republican Party changes the "Post-Saddam" section of the Baath Party article to a different account of the war, changing the language from "US-led occupation" to "US-led liberation"

- Fox News removes all controversial topics against the network from the Fox News page

- News of the World deletes a number of criticism against the paper

- Nestle removes negative comments on its business practices from its page

- UN address calls journalist Oriana Fallaci a racist ‘prostitute’

- Portuguese government removes entries about Prime Minister’s scandals

- DieBold, the company that controversially supplied computerised polling stations in the US elections, removes numerous paragraphs with negative comments

- Walmart removes criticism of outsourcing work. The retailer also changes negative paragraphs of underpaid workforce

- Sony removes harmful paragraphs against blu-ray systems

- Someone at Reuters calls Bush “a mass murderer”

- Coca Cola removes negative content about its effects

- British Conservative Party removes negative references of its MPs and deletes paragraph of the party’s old policies

- US University adds the “prestigious” adjective to its page

- Boeing edits from “Boeing is a leading American aircraft and aerospace manufacturer” to “Boeing is the leading American aircraft and aerospace manufacturer”

- MSN Search is “a major competitor to Google”. That’s what MSN added to their page

- BBC changes Blair's drink from coffee to vodka and his workout from the gym to the bedroom. Someone from the BBC also changes Bush’s page, changing the name from ”George Walker Bush” to “George Wan*** Bush”

- Someone from The Guardian edits the Wikipedia page of rival newspaper The Times. Originally in the article it is said that The Times sells more than The Guardian. After the edit, The Guardian sells more.


Griffith created the tool to "create minor public relations disasters for companies and organizations I dislike," he said on his web site. He admitted that it's impossible to be sure if the edits were made by someone working at one of the organizations, although the I.P. address reveals that they were made by someone with access to their network, he says.

Griffith came up with the idea when he "heard about Congressmen being caught for white-washing their Wikipedia pages," he said. "If the edit occurred during working hours, then we can reasonably assume that the person is either an agent of that company or a guest that was allowed access to their network," he wrote. He said he believes that anonymous speech is important for open projects like Wikipedia. The online encyclopedia works fine today for "non-controversial topics," he said, but tools like Wikipedia Scanner can help make the site more reliable for controversial topics, he said.

Source
 
- BBC changes Blair's drink from coffee to vodka and his workout from the gym to the bedroom. Someone from the BBC also changes Bush’s page, changing the name from ”George Walker Bush” to “George Wan*** Bush”

Hehe

Nothing better than being bored at work.
 
- BBC changes Blair's drink from coffee to vodka and his workout from the gym to the bedroom. Someone from the BBC also changes Bush’s page, changing the name from ”George Walker Bush” to “George Wan*** Bush”

heh.
This is the only one that really caught my attention. The rest are (sadly) predictable, but nonetheless provide an interesting view on the lengths companies will go to in order to protect their public image and identity. It's no surprise that these findings would cause a bit of an uproar.


...and Wikipedia's cover as a reliable source of information is blown.
 
That's a trip. Honest to God trip. But it's certainly to be expected.
 
an interesting view on the lengths companies will go to in order to protect their public image and identity. It's no surprise that these findings would cause a bit of an uproar.
I work for a company that is paid milliosn to track media mentions for companies so that they can manage their PR. None of this came as a surprise since I would do a transcript on a company one day and then have another the next day where their press statement directly quotes my transcript.


Quite honestly the PR business is a funny thing because you never know how much is trash from competitors and how much is trash from the company involved. I have seen stories vary headlines from outlet to outlet and one can sound like the company is the devil while the other makes them out to be a saint. The PR busines is very cut throat and can mean the life or death of a company sometimes.
 
Do you have a link for the website making these claims?

Edit: Oops, there it is. I know nothing about this particular website. I wonder if the article is posted elsewhere, on a website I can recognize as credible - because this strikes me way to much like a chain email.
 
Selected first page results for Google search of wikipedia scanner:

http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/08/wiki_tracker

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12823729

http://lifehacker.com/software/wikipedia/identify-anonymous-edits-with-wikipedia-scanner-289568.php

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22259259-2,00.html

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,136041/article.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6947532.stm
(sadly, they don't really address the aforementioned edits made by their own employees :sly:, but there is a quick mention in the final paragraph)

...etc.

Granted, not all these links go to that exact list, but they're recent and on topic.
 
It's tricky, without an official published list it would be easy for someone to add a company to the chain without any corroboration. I'm interested, but ironically, believing some of these is worse than trusting wikipedia (which I still think isn't that bad).
 
It's tricky, without an official published list it would be easy for someone to add a company to the chain without any corroboration. I'm interested, but ironically, believing some of these is worse than trusting wikipedia (which I still think isn't that bad).
You could always just use the Wikipedia Scanner and check it yourself. I know Gamepolitics and Joystiq were both making good use of it when EA was changing their site by removing mentions of the founder and making it sound like everything was the results of the current head of the company and they removed references of the EA Spouse scandal where someone claiming to be the spouse of an employee blogged about the hours employees were forced to work through.


The guy created the scanner and put it out there. I have a feeling this will make Wiki references in the Opinions Forums a bit more reliable as you can check where the information came from or discredit a reference by showing where it came from.
 
I have a feeling it will force many companies to edit wikipedia with non-company-owned IP addresses. Suddenly starbucks will be responsible for many corporate edits.
 
I have a feeling it will force many companies to edit wikipedia with non-company-owned IP addresses. Suddenly starbucks will be responsible for many corporate edits.
If they were really smart they would take advantage of McDdonald's new WiFi service. That would look a lot more like some prankster than a corporate employee doing it while grabbing his morning coffee.
 
I, as a past or current editor of Wikipedia, have never edited a single Lexus-related page or any of it's competitors while working for Lexus. I know you were worried, so now you can all rest easy.

Wikipedia has a policy against opinion-based content and neutrality is what you strive for in a good article. Sometimes this leads to extensive nitpicking, but every article is a work in progress. So if you bear in mind that the may be a slant, just like any other site or printed article, and scrutinize carefully, you can filter out the BS from information.

Not that anyone with half a brain couldn't figure out fact from opinion, anyhow. And if there isn't link a source, you have to use your BS detector.
 
I know that several people from my organization have edited our wiki pages - but I honestly think of that as a public service. Who has better, more up-to-date information about our efforts than us?

If GM edits the corvette page to correct a horsepower typo or add some background information/statistics/or even credits, that's a good thing.

I don't see this as a case of "Microsoft can't touch the Microsoft entry" or even "Microsoft can't touch the Apple entry". I see this as a case of "Microsoft has to be careful about trying to cover up ugly facts, or about trying to smear their competition".

But, as I mentioned before, there's always starbucks, or now McDonalds.
 
Ywah, but the bad thing is when companies edit their Wiki entries to delete information that could harm them. Say Microsoft moddifying their entries to say Vista has no problems.
 
Do you lot think companies and groups changing so many Wikipedia entries may start a war online, which could spread to the real world in many nations.

And then after the war has finished, leading to many libraries being, burned to the ground, it would head back to Wikipedia online, which means Wikipedia getting torn apart from the inside. Because of the great Internet Knowledge based war of 2007, all started by some companies and groups.
 
I take it with a grain of salt especially since it's editable by users. These aren't really surprising...

...and Wikipedia's cover as a reliable source of information is blown.

My college never supported it at least as a source and if you did use it you failed the assignment.
 
I believe now that machines IP addresses that are traced to major corporations should be barred from editing Wikipedia articles.
 
I believe now that machines IP addresses that are traced to major corporations should be barred from editing Wikipedia articles.
I think that is an extreme. Some people have Internet access provided by work.
 
Not to mention the fact that companies can legitimately edit wiki articles or that such a response is a total over reaction.
True, but since Wiki is a private entity they could opt to do that, so pointing out that it limits non-corporate related edits as well seemed like the better approach.


I want someone to go through and see mow much factual information was added by corporations. I bet it largely outweighs the biased information.

Heck it probably results in some of the pre-announced infor that can sometimes show up....and then disappear. This new software could cost a few insiders their jobs, now that I think about it.
 
+1

Researching anything on wikipedia often leads you to the discussion page. with tons of references, counter-references, arguments, bashing ("leftist propagandist!"... "corporate stoolie!") and complaints of vandalism.

I sometimes report vandalism to Wikipedia... and instead of correcting the article back to its original state, the vandalized section just vanishes.

There should be some middle ground of article stability and accessibility that'll prevent wholesale deletion of sensitive or offensive (by opinion) data from Wikipedia. It's a pain for an editor to write a good, factual piece only to have it edited and shortened by an editor with a different opinion or viewpoint.
 
While it is interesting, I don't think it comes as surprise to most people? Personally, I expected stuff like this went on as soon as I discovered Wiki.
 
Probably. This is just political/corporate s***slinging at it's finest. Companies will do anything for your dollar, including blatant misleading and censorship. Also, the government HATES when truths about it are revealed, hence the guantanamo bay edits...someone should periodically resubmit the deleted images and repair the text the FBI deletes...
 
Back