See Who Is Whitewashing Wikipedia

Decius6i5 writes "Caltech grad student Virgil Griffith has launched a search tool that uncovers whitewashing and other self-interested editing of Wikipedia. Users can generate lists of every edit to Wikipedia which has been made from a particular IP address range. The tool has already uncovered a number of interesting edits, such as one from the corporate offices of Diebold which removed large sections of content critical of their electronic voting machines. A Wired story provides more detail and Threat Level is running a contest to see who can come up with the most interesting Wikipedia spin job."

Comments

I expect that people will talk about this

[spun]

It's important to get the word out about this kind of thing, and it seems you are trying to downplay the importance of it. Maybe we aren't surprised it is happening, but we still want to know the specifics. Your cynicism and moral relativity do nothing but attempt to excuse those who disseminate propaganda. You lump them in with people trying to make honest contributions. You use the word truth as if it were not related to objective, external reality. I don't find that insightful at all.

wikipedia's edit section

[Mr. Paperless]

well its good to know abut this new edit section of wikipedia. I'm happy if ever i need to feel like changing anything useful, i would have a right to make this instantly. efact paperless office

What? Me Grandstand? I never...

[spun]

Oh wait, I do that all the time. Now I feel like I was just being a dick, and I apologize.

Re:How are they different from groupthink?

[religious freak]

Holy crap, that is retarded. How about REALITY as a verification of science?

You probably want to check it one of these days...

Wikipedia is dead and doesn't yet know it.

[rickb928]

And neither do most of you. It's over.

If the concept of a community-edited 'encyclopedia' makes sense, you only had to wait until so many editors began to insert their own subjective rants into articles intended to be factual and objective.

We will need to overhaul Wikipedia:

- A front-page, factual, objective wiki, intended to be so, and carefully moderated. Editors will wait to see their contributions be checked and verified by the 'community', a group that gains reputations as fair and objective.

- A back-page, no-holds-barred, subjective wiki, intended to permit editors to wax on about whatever they can make stick. No fairness here.

Of course, the 'back-page' wiki will really jut be a blog, but that's what's happened to Wikipedia anyways.

The defacing of articles in Wikipedia will either force Wikipedia to go even further than they have to control editing, or give up.

And the most important feature of an 'encyclopedia', be it the World Book, Britannica, or Wikipedia, is the reputation of the editors (and by extension the authors of articles). Without a reputation for quality work, why bother to reference any such work(s), not knowing of you're reading genuine data, or someone's own subjective rants?

I cannot rely on Wikipedia for much right now. Many articles are in small part factual, and then devolve into long exposes of *all* sides of issues, statements, and 'facts'. As an example, most articles on religious matters add so many different viewpoints and contradicting opinons that getting the bare facts can be hard, if not impossible. In particular, it wasn't long ago that virtually all articles on the Bible turned into determined efforts to discredit the Bible. Not helpful when most failed to offer any support for veracity of the Bible. And my first complaint resulted in rejecting my request for more supportive material - justified by one editor as immaterial, the Bible was, in his words, 'a known and proven fraud'. So much for objectivity. I hear it's better now, but I go to various Bible societies and publishers instead. I get better info.

It's just over. Kinda sad, but inevitable.

Re:TFA Interesting

[Mister Whirly]

+5 Funny. Wish I had mod points, hilarious read. Your biting sarcasm is spot on.