Ars Technica reports on congressional staffers who were given orders to go into Wikipedia and tamper with the representatives’ entries.
From Ars Technica:Congressional staffers edit boss’s bio on Wikipedia
This alone makes for a pretty interesting story, but it’s only the tip of the iceberg. Further investigation by the newspaper and by Wikipedia staff found that more than 1,000 edits had been made to Wikipedia entries by House staffers over the last six months alone. Because all changes emanating from the House come from a single IP address (a proxy), it’s hard to trace specific edits back to individuals, who can plausibly deny making them. Not all of these were malicious (though someone from the House did write that Rep. Eric Cantor “smells of cow dung”), nor were they all white-washes. But enough of them were problematic that Wikipedia launched a full investigation and found that Senate staffers were tempted in equal measure.
People seem quick to reassert the ‘Wikipedia is unreliable’ line in response to these cases, but they almost always have a happy ending. In this case, the representative who first got caught received a nasty little note on his entry:
Wikipedia: Marty Meehan
On 18 July 2005, U.S. Rep. Marty Meehan’s staff made controversial changes to his Wikipedia article. These edits consisted of, among other things, removing verified facts that portrayed him in a bad light. On January 27, 2006, Matt Vogel, Meehan’s chief of staff, admitted to authorizing a replacement article on Meehan published on Wikipedia, with a staff-written biography. This ran afoul of internal Wikipedia guidelines.
I think these cases, rather than undermining the goals of projects like Wikipedia, actually reinforce a healthy skepticism and a loyalty to the truth.
Hey I thought that editors on the Wiki could do so annonymously? I think that once they remedy that issue and require accountability on the parts of their editors then you will see a greater loyalty to the truth.
It is anonymous in the sense that you don’t have to say who you are, or register, or use your real name. But they can always trace the IP, and its not hard to figure out when that IP comes from Congress.
I don’t think annonymity is that big of a deal. If anything, as I said, it reinforces the need to check on who is saying what, and whether it is accurate. Just because a name is attached to an article doesn’t make it any more reliable, and removing annonymity might foster an underserved sense of accuracy. The truth is the truth no matter who says it.
Sure but people will be more inclined toward being truthful when they have to put their name/ reputation on the line. After that it must still endure the court of public interpretation, where I’m sure there is a joke about James Frey in there somewhere.
How topical. I dont know, but a quick look around the MSM sees a lot of people willing to put not only their name but also their face behind a boat load of bullshit.
Wikipedia is a useful resource, and it will remain a useful resource as long as people use it appropriately. No one should trust it as infallible, but no one should trust any source as infallible. Wikipedia is better than just about any other resource on the web, and nearly as good as any printed encyclopedia. I don’t see anonymity hurting the equation much at all.