What You Read on Wikipedia is Often Written by the Subject Themselves, Wikipedia Scanner Reveals   - 3,172 Views, 1 Comment

Summary: A new Wikipedia scanning program written by Virgil Griffith has revealed that organizations who have entries in Wikipedia are editing their entries themselves, removing unflattering facts and commentary in order to show themselves in a more flattering light. This of course means that relying on a Wikipedia entry for unbiased fact reporting on a subject can be like relying on a press release from the organization themselves.

Previous Article « About the AIM Pages Invite from the AIMPagesInvite Buddy
Read Next Article » National Archives Makes Universal Newsreels Available to Public through Amazon

  Follow Anne on Twitter

Many people rely on Wikipedia for a quick info lookup on the Internet - in fact many
consider Wikipedia an authoritative source, even citing it in editorial, journalistic, and even legal writings.

Now a new Wikipedia scanning program written by Virgil Griffith has revealed that organizations who have entries in Wikipedia are editing their entries themselves, removing unflattering facts and commentary in order to show themselves in a more flattering light. This of course means that relying on a Wikipedia entry for unbiased fact reporting on a subject can be like relying on a press release from the organization themselves.

It has always been the case that anybody can edit a Wikipedia entry. Some people know this, but rely on Wikipedia for authoritative information anyways. But the vast majority of people out there may not realize it, or else assume that there is some sort of error or truth checking that ensures the reliability of the data in the Wikipedia entries. Unfortunately, that’s not so.

Now Griffith’s Wikipedia Scanner has shed a bright light on that dark spot of Wikipedia, and some big name organizations are crawling out from under the rocks, and have been busted as self-dealing by editing their own entries.

The Wikipedia Scanner works by noting all IP addresses associated with editing of a particular entry, and then determing who controls those IP addresses. Often the edits are by the general public, but in some instances, the IP addresses are under the sole control of the organization which is themselves the subject of the entry.

Diebold, makers of electronic voting machines, is perhaps the most egregious player in this Wikiscandal - at least that has been uncovered so far - as Griffith made public that they had edited the Wikipedia entry about Diebold to delete 15 paragraphs of information that was critical about their electronic voting systems. Electronic voting is a very hot topic right now, as the results from various states show that the systems are subject to error and gaming.

Diebold is by no means the only one guilty of polishing up their Wikipedia entries, however. Big names such as Walmart, Microsoft, and even the CIA have all edited their own entries, usually for the better.

In fact, Wikipedia Scanner users are actively encouraged to submit their own findings of organizational self-dealing (the Wikipedia Scanner - a simple web page interface - is free). So far users have turned up entries which have been self-edited by the likes of Pfizer, Raytheon, Exxon, the Rand Corporation and the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

You can access and use the Wikipedia Scanner here.

And let us know what you find!

  Follow Anne on Twitter

Previous Article « About the AIM Pages Invite from the AIMPagesInvite Buddy
Read Next Article » National Archives Makes Universal Newsreels Available to Public through Amazon

Get a FREE summary of the week's articles every Friday!
(You can stop it any time!)
    *We never share your email address with anyone

Email Address:
Date of first visit:
How you found us:

Be sure to watch for the confirmation email!

Subscribe
to The Internet Patrol on your cell phone    Email the link for this page to a friend!

Read more:

»  Golfer Fuzzy Zoeller Sues to Find Out Who Said Mean Things About Him on Wikipedia

»  Journalists Caught Using Wikipedia as Primary Source

»  What is Bluejacking?

»  Bebo Spam

For additional similar stories check out our archives on Society

 

1 Comment »

  1. If I want to review a business I wouldn’t go to their web site. I would try to find a group, or other non-related entity and apply a little critical thinking. When a business or individual has access information about themselves, why would they not change it? In some cases they are probably justified. I’ve seen many entries at Wikipedia that I know are wrong, and limits the credibility of everything else.

    Comment by Hal — 8/18/2007 @ 2:36 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

Warning! All comments which contain URLs and are clearly just spam to generate a link back to the URL will be deleted on sight. Don't bother wasting your time!

If you are going to include a URL in your comment,
please keep it under 25 characters in length,
or use TinyURL to shorten it before including it in your comment.

Line and paragraph breaks are automatic, your email address is never displayed.
HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

(required)

(required)


If you have not posted a comment here before, we apologize for having to ask you to enter the letters and numbers you see in the image above to validate your comment, but we are being attacked by thousands of comment form spams every day! You only need to do this once; once you have successfuly posted a comment here you will not be asked to do this again. Thank you for your understanding!

 
 This article first appeared on 8/15/2007
The Internet Patrol
Patrolling the Internet for You!