In my experience, Wikipedia is often a good resource, especially for pop culture and computer tech terms. But since it is a fully community-operated enterprise, there are some pratfalls about relying on it for information, especially since some organizations use it as a marketing tool for themselves, attempting to control entries they're interested in.
This type of cybersquatting is quite widespread but up until now, difficult to track. That's changed however, with the creation of Wikiscanner, a search engine that allows you to see what organizations have been editing Wikipedia. You can, for instance, look up to see what Wikipedia users from different political groups, business, churches, and any other organization have been up to on the site. Early results are showing that many employees seem to have a habit of editing the entries of their own company/organization. You can also see that at least one person at the New York Times deliberately defaced Wikipedia's entry for George W. Bush with the words "jerk" inserted into the page repeatedly.
It's not completely foolproof, however, since Wikipedia only reveals your IP address if you edit a page without signing up for an account. Still, the data is interesting. Wikiscanner is being deluged with huge amounts of traffic right now but when things calm down, it should prove to be a very interesting research tool for us here at NB and for everyone in the blogosphere.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
wicapropaganda
August 14, 2007 - 14:44 ET by j17ghsGee ... what were the first clues that a source open to the public would create faux information? I'd have never guessed or suspected the motives of the people who start and fund it. Of course, try to change it and they will act Orwellian and accuse you of "Big Brother" censorship.
Propaganda
August 14, 2007 - 14:49 ET by GalvanicMy first exposure was the first time I ever entered Wikipedia and looked up "Al Gore." The text read like something concocted by his campaign manager, praising his high intellect -- even posting his alleged IQ. From then on, I've always taken the Wiki-data with a degree of skepticism.
wikignorance
August 14, 2007 - 14:55 ET by j17ghsEveryone knows Gore, Kerry, Dukasis et al. are brilliant and when they fail to act intelligent it is only perception of a stupid public that's to blame. These Demo-demons are just too smart for most of us idiots to comprehend. On the other hand, Bush, Reagan, Ford et al. are complete dumb asses and Nixon, Gingrich, DeLay are just plain mean. See how simple the political world is!?!
(By the way, when did the media drop "mean spirited" from its lexicon? Oh, yeah. When the Demo-dumbos lost the White House and Congress in 2000.)
One thing to remember is
August 14, 2007 - 15:26 ET by NetizenCainOne thing to remember is that the edits made "aren't necessarily the views of the company" - so to speak. Just because some employee at Company X made a comment doesn't add any weight to conspiracy theories. I looked up Chevron and found a ton of edits on Annie Lennox and The Pretenders. Does this mean that the Chevron Corporation is interested in pop music? A lot of folks are going to jump into this and mutate the 1% rule into a 'white washing' plot by businesses and organizations to manipulate data. I would only pay attention to systemic edits that show a pattern of abuse (Prophet Mohammad versus Mohammad). I'm still running some searches on CAIR, but unfortuanately, small organizations depend on their members to work from home so it would be impossible to tie them back in to Wiki edits without more cross-referenced information.
Wiki's own founder, Jimmy
August 14, 2007 - 16:22 ET by Del DolemonteWiki's own founder, Jimmy Wales, says that it shouldn't be relied upon as a reference source. Most of the editing abuse has come in the fields of politics and to a lesser extent the performing arts (like music).
But Google is just as bad-since it's also run by leftists, they will "filter" their search results so people can't get certain information. One example: it was a well-known fact that Bill Clinton refused to release his medical records. Yet a Google search on "President Clinton releasing his medical records" shows that on the first page alone, 60% of the "results" have nothing to do with that topic at all.
Pratfalls?
August 14, 2007 - 17:08 ET by CaringwhiteguyMatt
Pratfalls or pitfalls?
That would definitely be
August 14, 2007 - 17:10 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveThat would definitely be 'pratfalls'!
"Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa! There's still plenty of meat on that bone. Now you take this home, throw it in a pot, add some broth, a potato, baby you've got a stew goin'!" -- Carl Weathers
Wiki entertainment for the Conservative Mind
August 14, 2007 - 17:49 ET by Lame CherryI love Wikipedia because it is a propaganda tool. Once when I was researching a study of pornography I came across the most hillarious entry for a porn elite or dregs named Celeste from Minnesota. It must have been written by jilted sexual partner as it went into great details about her horrid existence in 3 marriages and something about a doctor now in Nevada she was with.
It did it all with facts in a most spiteful way without the liberal slack of "jerk". It only lasted a few days, but it was about as literal a definition of who most people are. It reminded me of Charleton Heston in Will Penny asking, "Yeah how was he really before he died".
For that reason I enjoy Wiki. It is fun reading how spiteful liberals can be and gleaning at the same time some facts. Wiki does an ok job most times in shutting down pages which find hateful people pasting things on in venting.......but for the liberals who refer to Bush as a "jerk".......the page is a monument to their pathetic existences.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
Wikipedia is a Joke and should never be used as an authority
August 14, 2007 - 20:45 ET by PopularTechThe fact that anyone takes it seriously in anyway is a sign of how little people understand how it works. It is a poor and consistently inaccurate reference and should never be used in any serious discussion with out independant research. At best, sometimes it may be the only reference for obscure topics but this does not make it an authority or even remotely accurate since it is impossible to obtain accuracy on something anyone can edit at will.
The Faith Based Encyclopedia
The Great Failure of Wikipedia
I Have the Power
Why Wikipedia Sucks (Video)
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
-
August 14, 2007 - 20:55 ET by dahliatraversAbsolutely correct. It was a shock the first time I came across a less than objective entry and then figured out something was very wrong with Wikipedia as a research source.
With this new partial fix, I'm supposed to take even more research time looking up who has been editing the entry I just clicked on to then try to make a determination how accurate and objective the entry is?? Thanks, anyway; an information website that encourages visitors to vet its entries is a non-starter as a source.
I couldn't agree with you more.
August 15, 2007 - 19:09 ET by Howard_BealeI like Wikipedia a lot. It's often the first place I go to when I
want to look up something. But it's never the last. It's unreliable
because practically anyone can post anything they want.
If I
read something in Wikipedia, I don't treat it as fact unless I
can verify it elsewhere, or at least look up the footnotes (if
provided).
FDR won the War on Terror in ten words
}}---> CBS same proven LIES
August 15, 2007 - 06:55 ET by Cool ArrowIn fact, 11 of the past 12 years have been the warmest worldwide since 1850. And, of course, warmer air impacts life both in the sea and on the land. - Daniel Sieberg 08/15/07 CBS News
No need to report the truth, huh Dan?
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
After studying piano at an
August 15, 2007 - 08:37 ET by ErgoDyneAfter studying piano at an Aspen music camp, Rice enrolled at the University of Denver, where her father both served as an assistant dean and taught a class called "The Black Experience in America." [4] At age 15, Rice began classes with the goal of becoming a concert penis.
More New York Times stunts.
I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it.
Nick Bilton is the guy (at
August 15, 2007 - 10:32 ET by ErgoDyneNick Bilton is the guy (at NYT) who made the changes mentioned.
Classy guy. </sarc>
I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it.
Lemme point out that
August 15, 2007 - 15:09 ET by ferrarimanf355Lemme point out that apparently, Fox News is doing this too. Uh-oh!
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/08/15/fox-news-caught-re-writing-wikipedia-history/
Uzumaki/Ayanami '08. Because a ninja and an Eva pilot can govern the nation better that what we have now...
That's your proof!?Daily
August 15, 2007 - 15:17 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveThat's your proof!?
Daily Kos says someone supposedly at FOX removed information provided by the totally unbiased, highly accurate, and widely respected (snicker) Media Matters?
"Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa! There's still plenty of meat on that bone. Now you take this home, throw it in a pot, add some broth, a potato, baby you've got a stew goin'!" -- Carl Weathers
It checks out...
August 15, 2007 - 19:04 ET by Howard_BealeI checked out the evidence provided with the link, and the editing definitely came from "Fox News Channel."
You can check it yourself in less than a minute.
FDR won the War on Terror in ten words
So what?
August 15, 2007 - 19:11 ET by LionKing"...removing substantially [sic] information provided by Media Matters."
Fox News changed the wiki entry for Brit Hume...let me see...Brit Hume works for whom?...There is an assumption that Media Matters provided salient information concerning Brit Hume. I find this a non-issue...DKOS does not seem nearly as outraged by the DNC altering Rush Limbaugh.