The news report tells about an American student who developed a program to identify who is editing specific wikipedia entries. The results, while not completely shocking, are certainly illuminating. Here are a few interesting examples:
- Microsoft tried to cover up the XBox 360 failure rate;
- Apple and Microsoft add negative comments to the other's articles;
- Fox News removed all controversial topics relating to the network from the Fox News article;
- The FBI edited the Guantanamo Bay entry and removed numerous photos;
- Wal-Mart removed criticisms of its outsourcing of jobs and the wages it pays its employees.
The moral of the story: anybody can edit a wikipedia entry, and sometimes its entries are equal parts propaganda and information. The information found there should be used with caution and we should always keep in mind that the people editing articles inevitably have an agenda. All information sources are subjective - there is no such thing as true objectivity.
8 comments:
I saw the article you referenced a couple of days ago and meant to send it to you. Oops. :-)
What's kind of funny to watch is the (ongoing) debate between Ben Witherington and Mark Goodarce on the usefulness of Wikipedia. Witherington makes some good points, but he overstates them just a bit (which is not outside of his norm). Goodarce offers an insightful way of interpreting Wikipedia as well as a message of hope concerning its content.
I saw this article come up a couple of days ago using StumbleUpon. My question is, who is MaltaStar and why is this tiny little island the only news source thats reporting it?
I'm slightly skeptical (although I wouldn't doubt any of it). The program just seems a little far fetched to me.
Then again, I'm a skeptical person anyway.
-Dj
CSS - I'll have to check out the exchange, as I've only seen Witherington's initial post. I tend to use Wikipedia as a source for information on cultural topics, and occasionally for the background of a current political issue, but I do not think it is a valid academic source of information - on my initial reading that seemed to be Witherington's primary concern.
DJ - Actually, I have no trouble believing this is true. For someone with the "know-how," I doubt it would be difficult to track the IP addresses for the people editing individual articles, and to see which parts of the articles they were editing. But, to help bolster MaltaStar's report:
Virgil Griffith's website (the student who created the program): http://www.virgil.gr/
Story in Wired: http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/08/wiki_tracker
Story in USA Today (from an AP writer): http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/internetlife/2007-08-16-tool-unmasks-wikipedia-edits_N.htm
Ah good! Thanks for the links!
With the internet today, you can never be too sure of sources. This helps things.
-Dj
A computer programmer friend of mine has told me that wikipedia is a great source for seriously techie info. I also find it is good for very obscure information because the only people that care enough to post know at least enough for a very basic encyclopedia article.
Interesting about the techie info - makes sense though.
I hope I've not come across as saying that Wikipedia is bad - I think its a fantastic resource. I simply think this story shows that it needs to be used with care - particularly where the interests of large corporations or government are concerned.
Mark Goodacre's comments (pointed out by Carl above) are helpful - he notes that often the articles on some subjects are quite helpful, and reminds us that Wikipedia itself does call for citations to back up claims made in the articles. I would still say, as a former academic, that it is not a suitable site for academic research. But when I want information on a piece of pop culture (the storyline of a book or tv series, sports information, etc) or even the background of a particular political issue (see my recent article on Bush's "signing statements," which links to a Wikipedia article) it can be very useful. Even then, however, one must be aware that whoever wrote the article is likely writing with a particular perspective in mind.
Here's the link to Goodacre's comments, for anyone interested:
http://ntgateway.com/weblog/2007/08/new-testament-scholars-on-wikipedia.html.
For those who don't know, Mark Goodacre is a New Testament scholar who currently teaches at Duke University.
Post a Comment