Congress Made Wikipedia Changes

Dr Occult writes "BBC news is reporting misuse of Wikipedia by politicians for 'polishing' their images. The article on President Bush has been altered so many times - not just from within Congress - that Wikipedia's volunteer monitors have had to block further 'editing'." From the article: "Wikipedia says the controversy raises questions about whether it is ethical for those with a vested interest in the subject to edit entries about it. It said the Congressional computer network has been blocked from editing for brief periods on a number of occasions in the last six months due to the inappropriate contributions."

Comments

Objective information?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there any genuinely objective information ANYWHERE in the world?

Re:Objective information?

[argStyopa]

BINGO.

"Wikipedia says the controversy raises questions about whether it is ethical for those with a vested interest in the subject to edit entries about it. "

My problem is with the term vested interest. The classification itself is pretty damn subjective.

How do you define the term? Are you ready to categorically conclude that someone editing a Congressman's bio page (for example) MUST be biased and incapable of objectivity if they work in a congressional office for one party or the other? Or (more shaky, in my opinion) are you simultaneously going to conclude that people WITHOUT formal affiliations are therefore entirely objective and editing altruistically? What if they actually donated $50 million to moveon.org or financed the publication of the Swift Boat book during the last campaign? Are they presumed to be objective? Or is objectivity defined in practical terms inveresely to how candid they are about their background?

Really, it becomes a "who watches the watchers" question, with infinite iterations.

Re:Objective information?

[hey!]

I think this question, while not precisely answerable, is worth a bit of thought.

The dictionary definition is somewhat less useful than what one might wish it to be. I believe what people are reaching for when they use "information" in this kind of context is this: that which makes us better informed. By informed I mean prepared to make decisions.

Armed with this, I'd say that "Is there any genuinely objective information?" is not the right question. The question should be, "Is there complete data needed to answer this particular question?" Leaving aside attempts to present data in a biased way, which is a form of hiding data, for practical purposes objective information is simply complete data. However in many complex questions, like "Should I vote for Marty Meehan?", it's not possible to have all the data. Perfect information is like absolute zero -- a benchmark you can approach asymptotically and for practical purposes reach, but never truly reach.

What tends to be most helpful is to have data which throws light on the question from different angles. For example, if you know that Alice is twenty years old, and Bob is fifty years old, you have sufficient data to know who will collect social security first. But you don't have sufficient to know who you'd rather have driving your children's bus; in absence of further data you might tend to choose Bob because older people are more responsible. However, if you found out that Bob was a drunk who never held a job for more than six months, and Alice was a Mormon teetotaller on the Olympic ski team, you might revise your decision.

Attempts to misinform people fall into two cateogries: asserting false data, and hiding true data. Everyone understands asserting false data is a lie. What is less well understood is that hiding relevant data is a lie, and hiding relevant metadata is a lie as well.

Understanding context is critical in being informed, and sophisticated liars manipulate your perception of context by hiding relevant facts, then they cover their tracks by hiding metadata. The reason that politicians mucking with Wikipedia is unethical is not that they are necessarily telling falsehoods; it's that they're sanitizing the data of anything which puts them in a bad light, and hiding the metadata that what you are looking at was prepared by the person being described.

I love the Wikipedia: it's far more useful than we have any right to expect. However, I've often felt what was missing is a kind of Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval -- or rather, the ability for independent reviewers to create their own Seals of Approval. When you looked at an article, you'd see a list of review authorities who blessed this version, as well as a list of authorities that have blessed alternate versions. If this were available, there'd be no reason to stop the White House from editing the President Bush bio; however when looking at the edited version I could see that there alternative versions blessed by the League of Women Voters, the Democratic Party, and the Socialist Worker's Party. Or when looking at a different version, I could see the one blessed by the RNC.

This scheme would provide critical metadata when evaluating an article. Individual authorities could establish a brand based on the review process, whether it's a society of American Historical Seal of Approval on the Andrew Jackson article, or the Christian Coalition's Seal of Approval on an article about the Roman Catholic Church.

Re:duh

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no objective information.

Any liberal arts major can tell you that.

And that's why they're not scientists.

Block 'em all.

[Caspian]

"It said the Congressional computer network has been blocked from editing for brief periods on a number of occasions in the last six months due to the inappropriate contributions."

Why not block ALL of *.gov, permanently? Perhaps with exceptions for certain scientific sites (e.g. nasa.gov, any "national laboratories", etc.)

Not just wikipedia

[Anonymous Coward]

The war in Iraq is about WMD.
The war in Iraq is a part of the global war against terror, it was never about WMD.
The war in Iraq is about liberating its people, it is about democracy and nothing to do with terrorism.

We salute revisionist government and it's retro-active position on history.

Re:all writing is...

[goldspider]

But in this case, history is being written by both victors and vanquished. As it turns out, both sides are just as likely to portray each other in a negative, less than truthful light.

Really. whats the big deal ???

[gorim]

I thought Wikipedia was designed to handle this sort of thing ?

Doesn't everyone who creates and edits articles have a vested interest ? Else why would they be spending time to do it ?

Lots of articles get "spinned" by non-politicians too, whether it is about politics or something else.

I wonder how many spins comes from .edu addresses ? Probably way more than from .gov addresses.

Re:The Venn Diagram of Statements

[smittyoneeach]

Wikipedia needs to decide whether it should accept those which fall in the middle overlapping area or reject them outright.

What's the value in passing the judgement?
I, for one, am interested in seeing the edit history of a political leader's entry. If it looks like the entry has had more plastic surgery than Liz Taylor, then that, itself, is an interesting data point.
Serve it up, and let the audience judge.
What about some kind of moderation, and a means of voluntarily selecting 'trusted' sources of moderation to apply? I might like a William F. Buckley, Jr. take on things one day, or CmdrTaco's take the next.
Half the time, 'who' is saying things is as important as 'what' was said.

Those with a vested interest

[QuietLagoon]

Wikipedia says the controversy raises questions about whether it is ethical for those with a vested interest in the subject to edit entries about it.

Some WikiPedia proponents say that the strength of WikiPedia comes from those who are knowledgeable about a subject, editing and contributing to articles on that subject.

Where does "knowledgeable about" end, and "vested interest" begin?

An interesting experiement...

[ursabear]

I believe that the Wikipedia is many things (most of them wonderful) - but is not a tome of absolute fact.

Wikipedia is a fabulous experiment in humanity and social interaction. It is without a doubt one of the most interesting things I've come across since I began using the Internet. I like looking things up in Wikipedia for two distinct reasons: 1) There is a huge body of knowledge out there in the minds of the world; 2) I enjoy reading the history of the given bits of information I read. It is particularly telling when one reads topics that are controversial or contemporarily historic. Many people, many opinions, many slants/spins on what is real and what is not.

Throw into the mix a sprinkling of morons, vandals, gleeful miscreants, politicians, PR people, and the ignorant, and you get a fabulous view of the brilliantly bizarre view of the public itself.

Don't take Wikipedia (and its contents) as fact. Take it as a social experiment. The views on the Bush administration in the public forums is extremely similar to the view of the Bush administration in Wikipedia.

Re:The Venn Diagram of Statements

[Curunir_wolf]

Personally, I like how the major parties filter out the lunatics.

Unfortunately, it also filters out voices of reason when it disagrees with both parties. There are a LOT of issues that the 2 parties agree on 99% of the time that are nevertheless wrong-headed and disagree with the opinions of most of their constituents. It means these issues are simply never discussed.

Need accountability? Remove anonimity!

[BAM0027]

Because Wiki is becoming more of an objective source of information, we need to hold those accountable who would distort or add subjectivity to it. That can't happen in an anonymous venue.

This is the great challenge for Wiki now, as I see it, how to meld the internet's spirit of anonymity with the _direct_ responsibility to others.

p.s. Once again, we see the corruption of politics...