Wal-mart's Wikipedia War

An anonymous reader writes "Whitedust is running an article which claims that lobbyists for Wal-mart have successfully waged a war against a fair viewpoint on Wikipedia's Wal-mart page. From the article: "Although Wikipedia maintains a 'Neutral Point of View' (NPOV) policy, the Wal-mart page is highly biased. Additionally, all criticism has, contrary to policy, practice, and the general opinion of those concerned, been moved to a Debates Over Wal-mart section. Even that page has noticeable resistance to negative points of view about Wal-mart."

Comments

This was bound to happen.

[suso]

As someone who runs a City Wiki, I always felt that what makes a reference wikis work is that there are more people interested in having a NPOV article than people who have a financial interest at stake. However as companies and politicians become more familiar with the wiki movement and the whole anonyminity of it, they are more likely to see how easily you can edit articles as another PR platform and seek to control it. With the resources and ability to dedicate even a full time team to making sure the Wikipedia article keeps them in a good light, I fear we're entering the age where people who are interested in a NPOV are outmanned by those with a profit interest. After all, for years spammers have nearly outmanned those whole try to filter it.

The problem with information sources for a localized wiki like Bloomingpedia though is that since it is on a much smaller scale, its easier to obscure facts because there are not as many industry watchdogs paying attention to companies and organizations. You have to get the information by working for the company or accept the information that a company provides on its website or product brouchures.

Re:This was bound to happen.

[Anonymous Coward]

I fear we're entering the age where people who are interested in a NPOV are outmanned by those with a profit interest.

I generally agree with your overall comments, but I do have issue with the statement above. Really, you should say that those "who are interested in a NPOV are outmanned by those with an agenda". Profit is only one aspect and generally implies that it's people like Walmart (and other companies) who are really the "bad guys". In the referenced article, the author even mentions that at one point the Walmart page was highly critical of the company. Fact is, many people (who are not Walmart corp competitors) have various personal interests that are negative towards the company (justified or not). The key is to make sure that the pendulum doesn't swing too far in EITHER direction. If most of the news posted about Walmart is negative (and after all, isn't that the nature of news, if Walmart was humming along not doing anything too bad, then you'd hardly hear anything about them), then does a wiki page that simply accumilates these news articles then also biased towards the negative? Does the NPOV imply that any negative comments should be "evened out" by positive? Sticky issue this, but plese retain a NPOV when it comes to those who would attempt to subvert the wiki concept, it's people/orgs with alterior motives, profit or not.

Re:This was bound to happen.

[uradu]

> The key is to make sure that the pendulum doesn't swing too far in EITHER direction.

As the previous poster wrote, neutral reporting doesn't imply any sort of balance. Just do a quick sanity check at the extremes: how would you keep the Wikipedia page on the Nazi regime balanced--by giving equal coverage to their progressive stance on animal rights or their smart fashion sense? Neutral reporting means listing all known and provable facts, and if the final tally of "good" and "bad" doesn't balance, well, that's real life.

Nothing to see here

[AKAImBatman]

An interesting article perhaps, but his conclusions need some work. Here's what I found in a quick investigation:

• The Unionization issue can be found on the Wal-Mart Employee and Labor Relations page, which is linked to from the Debates over Wal-Mart page.
• The Walmart article is definitely NPOV. It presents the cold facts with practically no commentary or spin. If I had any complaint about it, it would be that it's poorly written. The topics jump around, the facts are presented suddenly and without order, and the grammar is atrocious. What it needs is a good rewrite.
• His point concerning the number of edits fails to prove anything. If you look at the History for the Rain Forest article, you'll find a similar number of edits. 99% of them are vandalism.

All in all, I can't find any hard evidence to support his claims, and the remaining evidence he presents seems to be nothing more than, "I think this page should be more critical of Wal-Mart, therefore there must be lobbists at work!" While that's a nice sentiment, it doesn't make for a smoking gun.

Re:Nothing to see here

[phlegmofdiscontent]

I think this shows the differences in how people perceive "neutral". After all, some people think Fox News is fair and balanced while others say NPR is fair and balanced. Likewise, maybe some PR hacks for Wal-Mart really do believe they're being neutral and the author of TFA thinks the Wikipedia article isn't neutral enough. I'm not taking any sides on the issue. Probably the only way to be really neutral is to read as much as you can on the issue from both sides and try to cut through the bullshit, and really, most people don't have that time.

Re:Nothing to see here

[gvc]

A news organization's purpose is to inform, not to proffer an opinion.

I think you mean should be. Traditionally, US media's purpose has been neither; it has been to profit. Fox news is breaking new ground in pushing a particular point of view. I guess it is profitable, too.

Re:Nothing to see here

[DerekLyons]

A news organization's purpose is to inform, not to proffer an opinion.

I think you mean should be. Traditionally, US media's purpose has been neither; it has been to profit. Fox news is breaking new ground in pushing a particular point of view.

Breaking new ground? Hardly. Having a definite slant/POV/opinion to broadcast is an old (as in 'right back to the origins of mass media in the 16-1700's') tradition. The idea that the media should be 'neutral, fair, and balanced' (or at least seem to be) is very new - since WWII.

Re:Nothing to see here

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Did NPR report that US deaths in Iraq hit a 2-year low in March?

Following which it immediatelty jumped up in April.

Or did they report there was a "civil war" in Iraq? One of those is factually true, the other is not.

What do you mean? Someone gets to officialy declare "a civil war"? Or is it based on the amount of armed militias, sectarian gangs, and random thugs blowing things up and killing people by the hundreds? In the first case, no civil war was ever fought, ever as there are no valid, legitimate "sides" to "officialy" declare it, before it starts. If it is the other, a "civil war" is simmering in Iraq.

Which of them makes one "better" informed? I guess it's a matter of opinion.

Not emphasising one, versus the other (which is your whole beef here) does impact the listener's information. However it pales in comparison with simple partisan hackery which places like FOX and much of the corporate media represent. The point is that none of the so called "news" organizations should engage in either. No careful selection of news items to fit an agenda, but far more importantly a severe separation of "news" from "opinion". There are many privileges granted to newsmen in exchange for their supposed allegiance to truth, not to the bottom line. If they are unable to fulfill their part of the bargrain, all their privileges should be revoked and the so-called "news" channels severely penalized by FCC via revoking their licenses and granting the bandwith to real news organizations.

Re:Nothing to see here

[Jon Luckey]

According to Richard Miniter's book, Disinformation, there has been found:

...

Found: 17 chemical warheads--some containing cyclosarin, a nerve agent five times more powerful than sarin

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3861197.stm

"But the US military said the agent was so deteriorated it posed no threat."

"But the US military said that while two of the rockets tested positive for sarin, traces of the agent were so small and deteriorated as to be virtually harmless."

How much of a 'MASS' could one hurt with these 'WMDs'? Makes me suspect Minter's book is self-descriptively titled.

How about having an open mind?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it just possible that, on the whole, Walmart's contribution to society has been good?

I'm not saying Walmart are saints or anything, but it seems like many people are starting with the assumption that Walmart is bad and then trying to find evidence that supports their prejudice. C'mon. Have an open mind. Maybe Walmart isn't the great satan afterall.

Re:How about having an open mind?

[Catbeller]

No, an open mind in the face of overwhelming fact is willful refusal to pass judgement, not a lack of bias.

It is NOT BIAS to conclude that a thing is true. In this case, Wal-Mart has indeed made a policy of annihilating unions, shutting down entire stores to do so. It has crushed suppliers into a no-win situations. It has dropped wages overall. It has pumped manufacturing overseas. It has passed health care costs onto the taxpayers. These are things that are real. They are not opinions. That the earth orbits the sun, that hemoglobin carries oxygen, that heat in ocean water powers hurricanes, these are not opinions.

"Bias" is not refusing to provide both "points of view" if there is only one justifiable point of view. The "bias" meme has destroyed the news coverage in the U.S., rendering it worthless for sane evaluation of reality. There will always be a well-funded tiny group of businessmen who are willing to provide an instant astroturf group that will provide the "other side" of any economic or political issue, even if they have to invent a set of pseudofacts to spout. As long as the "bias" meme runs its course in the new media, the talking heads will provide both "sides" in a sprightly debate. Since the pro-business side is well funded and quite well manned, they not only create a debate where none is justified, they wear down and exhaust the quite unfunded and unmanned "other side" representing reality.

I heard a little story about Al Gore the other week. After the 2000 election, you may recall that he took a teaching position at Harvard (I think) at the school of journalism. You may also recall he left after a short time. Turns out he was lecturing the students about this very "bias" meme. He told them that it was their journalistic duty to not only to provide different points of view, but to *provide context* about those points of view -- taking a stand about the falsity of an argument. That their job was not to provide a forum for two "sides" to talk, but to question and point out that one side's arguments were actually not true if that was the case -- and this is important, not to provide a forum for false information if the information was indeed false. Apparently the students, all of which have signed on the Goldbergian "Bias" meme, revolted and wouldn't listen, and Gore eventually surrendered and left, defeated by the bias meme.

The thing to take away from that is that even Harvard's school of journalism is graduating a class of fake journalists who won't call a lie a lie, and will go on providing forums for liars to lie, and call themselves non-biased thereby. That's the best of the breed. And they will suck as journalists, and the liars will hold dominion for decades.

I Don't See It...

[EXTomar]

Wikipedia isn't supposed to be biased for (and here is the part many miss) or against. Hence the "NPOV stance" they try to enforce. If citing buisness stats and other corporate information is "bias" then they have a skewed definition of bias. After reading the article, it seems that any information about Wal-Mart that isn't a critism as automatically biased and suspect. That is just as bad a POV as being a "sunshine and rainbow fanboy".

In short, Wikipedia is not the place to have a diatribe on the goods or evils of any topic, even the much vaunted Wal-Mart. I simply don't see what the complaint is here. Are they disappointed they can't argue about Wal-Mart on Wikipedia? Well Wikipedia isn't the place to do that. That has nothing to do with bowing to presure from Wal-Mart. Chaning a link from "Wal-Mart Corporate Communication Page" to "Wal-Mart Propaganda Site" is not a legitamite edit nor is it NPOV.

Negative is not necessarily bias

[Epistax]

Unless I've been living under a rock, Wal-Mart is, without a shred of bias, bad by many objective definitions of the word. No positive argument can be made in its defense without resorting to logical fallacies. Are there people out there who think that the article on slavery is biased against it, and that it needs to take a neutral view highlighting the benefits? What is the difference I am missing?

Re:Seems Fair to Me

[DaHat]

You accuse a poster of nativity and yet you make a statement like:

> Walmart isn't about fair competition. It is about monopolistic bullying. They can and do anything they want.

We've all heard the phrase "Jack of all trades, master of none"... Did you know that it pretty well describes Wal-Mart?

Sure they've often got many lower prices than competing stores and because of their bulk buying power can command even lower prices from manufacturers... that doesn't mean that they can do it all though.

I cannot speak for you... but when I end up going into Wal-Mart looking for something I usually end up being quite disappointed because I am looking for something very specific and they do not have it. Where do I find it? A specialty store.

Believe it or not that isn't very uncommon. While a grocery store stocks plenty of general food if you are looking for a specific cut of steak for instance, likely you'll have to go to a specialty butcher to get it instead.

Why is such a thing so surprising or so bad? Wal-Mart's inability to compete fully across the board leave huge opportunities for skilled people and companies to fill in those niches.

BTW... care to define 'fair competition' for the class?

Re:Seems Fair to Me

[smchris]

I personally think Wal-Mart is one of the best corporations out there. A company that provides value and offers cheap products to everybody? The horror!

Troll? Dunno. Don't ever underestimate a person's ability to be uninformed. My stepfather is a lifetime Democrat and retired union blue collar worker. He'll drive 70 miles one-way in a rural area to a WalMart for the selection and prices. As far as I can tell, he doesn't spend a lot of time connecting the stuff on the shelves with teenage Asians working in factory conditions he wouldn't have tolerated.

Re:Lost my respect with 9/11 article

[Paladin144]

Links to conspiracy articles, including some that claim the U.S. government was directly responsible, were contained within the core of the article.

So? A lot of the available evidence points to a possible conspiracy within the government. Wikipedia is supposed to have a Neutral Point of View (NPOV). That includes highlighting theories and evidence that you don't agree with. Since when did you have a right to scrub the entry "clean" for the rest of us. Where do you get off deleting opposing points of view?

9/11 is messy business. Give us the facts, give us the evidence, give us theories (both mainstream and alternative) and let us -- the reader -- decide. That fact that your deletions/modifications were overturned indicates to me that the system was working.

Walmart bashing is really just anti-capitalism

[Benjamin Shniper]

What have we learned?

Walmart is nothing but a free company in a capitalist society. Those complaining about Walmart are really complaining about capitalism itself.

Yes, walmart prices some American manufacturers out of business. But that is allowing a switch from manufacturing to service based economy. And, thanks to low prices at places like Walmart, more Americans than ever are able to own a house, and stock that house with Tvs, DVDs, Mp3 players and Cell Phones - even at the salary paid by Walmart!

Yes, Walmart buys Chinese. In fact, it is China's leading trading partner and is giving China a real capitalist change from within - a growing middle class in China is coming up. Millions have benefitted there, and I fail to see how this is a bad thing for anyone.

Yes, Walmart doesn't give the very best health benefits. But it beats having unemployment and medicaid. And if Walmart wasn't providing "low paying" jobs, we'd be paying for them in taxes, instead of collecting tax revenue from them.

I checked the Walmart page and Walmart was called "The great satan" in the first line. Why? Because they decided to sell inexpensive, yet usable goods to a mass market?

I rarely shop there, don't work there, don't own stock - but I'm glad they exist. Because they show, better than anything, the hypocracy of anti-capitalist whiners. You know the type - those who complain that they are entitled to everything the world has to offer, for free from the government.

Walmart has shown that the goverment need not provide every citizen with a DVD player. Instead, Walmart has shown the real way for every American who wants a DVD player to get one - is to make it cheaply and sell it cheap enough.

And that's really why people hate Walmart - it shows that capitalism does what utopian socialism never could.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0451191145/103-48 86274-2659010?v=glance&n=283155

-Ben

Re:Walmart bashing is really just anti-capitalism

[Garse Janacek]

There are a lot of fallacies in this post. First, big-picture economic effects of Wal-Mart can be worrying, but a lot of people object to small-picture "they treat their employees like slaves" issues. Capitalism is great at making some processes more efficient, but this should not translate into "The person with the most money can treat people however he wants." So a lot of your comments don't address what is really bothering some people.

But, more specifically:

Walmart doesn't give the very best health benefits. But it beats having unemployment and medicaid.

False duality. The choices are not 1. Wal-Mart exists, lots of people have low pay and bad health benefits, and 2. Wal-mart does not exist, those same people are all unemployed. There is also 3. Wal-Mart gives better health benefits.

And if Walmart wasn't providing "low paying" jobs, we'd be paying for them in taxes, instead of collecting tax revenue from them.

Big red flag here: first, you're pretending that the only options are for Wal-Mart to exist in its current form, or not at all. Wal-Mart would still be making piles of money even if it was a little nicer to its employees, and a little more reluctant about large-scale sweatshop labor. Certainly, fixing all of people's complaints about Wal-Mart would seriously damage their business, but this is not an all-or-nothing question.

Second, you pretend that if Wal-Mart didn't exist, the rest of the world would be exactly the same except that everyone who works at Wal-Mart now would be unemployed and living off the state. This completely does not follow. If Wal-Mart didn't exist, things would be different in all kinds of ways -- some other entity or entities would be filling the economic niche that Wal-Mart does now (albeit probably in a different way), thereby providing jobs for many of the same people. It is more or less impossible to say for certain what the overall effect would have been on the economy or people who would have been Wal-Mart employees. You'll notice that when Wal-Mart moves in somewhere, a common effect is for lots of small shops to go out of business, thereby causing unemployment -- so many of the people who end up working at Wal-Mart already had jobs, and your "we would be paying for them anyway" claim is bunk.

Now, I know a lot of people say that these small shops were less efficient and therefore deserved to be put out of business. I disagree strongly, but I won't press the point. I'm just trying to say that you're making a couple of leaps in your argument that don't really follow -- if Wal-Mart didn't exist, it is not at all clear that this would magically increase everyone else's tax burden. Also, people who are "anti-Wal-Mart" aren't typically saying "Wal-Mart should completely vanish from the face of the Earth," they're saying that Wal-Mart is engaging in unacceptable behavior, and should stop. This is very much not the same thing.

I checked the Walmart page and Walmart was called "The great satan" in the first line. Why? Because they decided to sell inexpensive, yet usable goods to a mass market?

Well, no, because the extremists on both ends go too far. This doesn't invalidate the concern that the pro-Wal-Mart extremists (i.e. the people Wal-Mart is paying) are winning.

Because they show, better than anything, the hypocracy of anti-capitalist whiners. You know the type - those who complain that they are entitled to everything the world has to offer, for free from the government.

This seems like something I'd see in a troll comment, and is a complete straw-man... opposing Wal-Mart's business practices is not the same as saying I should have everything for free from the government. I find a lot of Wal-Mart's behavior (treatment of employees, manipulation of eminent domain via kickbacks, heavily anti-competitive behavior) extremely ethically troubling. What does this have to do with the government, or what I should receive from them? This is entirely a

also wrong

[Ender Ryan]

The purpose of a _Company_ is to make a profit. The purpose of a _News_ organization, by definition, is to inform. If a supposed news organization isn't doing that, it's not really a news organization.

Providing a particular slant along with the news, if the slant is overwhelming enough to create the vast distortions perpetrated by the likes of Fox News, then said organization isn't really informing, rather, they are misleading.

Afterall, sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken :) You can say it does, pretend it does, demand that it does, get legislation passed that says it does, but it doesn't.

There is ALWAYS bias.

[paraax]

However even the facts you choose to present, order presented in, and context can exhibit bias.

Two facts given in the article:

• 2004: Wal-Mart employees in ... Quebec, Canada vote in favour of becoming the first unionized Wal-Mart in North America.
• Five months later, Wal-Mart announces that it would close the store, citing poor sales.

These are two verifiable facts. The facts make Wal-Mart look bad. Now assume we remove the second fact, or move it into a list of stores which have been closed, so that its no longer easily connectable. All the facts are still present, but Wal-Mart in that case comes out looking neutral or good.

There is always bias. Even when sticking to the facts. I think the idea here is that one sides point of view is being systematically repressed by eliminating even the mention of facts and controversy. This is not in the interest of a healthy public debate.