Slashdot Mirror
Wikipedia Could Block 67 Million Verizon Customers
An anonymous reader writes "A particularly nasty Wikipedia vandal has forced a discussion to take place over whether to block edits from an address range used by over 67 million Verizon customers. Verizon has not responded to abusive Wikipedia users on their network before, even though the abusive Verizon users have released private information (phone numbers, etc.) of numerous individuals, and made countless threats that have also been reported to law enforcement. Wikipedia has done something similar in the past with users on the AOL network, which used proxy servers and thus allowed vandals to continue disrupting the site. Discussion is also taking place on alternate solutions to deal with abuse from this Verizon user, named 'Zsfgseg' on Wikipedia. If a block of millions is enacted, Verizon could potentially change how they assign IP addresses, or be forced at least to address a PR nightmare."
I can't edit Wikipedia from my iPhone on AT&T. Can you?
The link forwards to a conversation between Wikipedia admins. It seems like there is just one user being a prick. Why not just require user registration for IPs that come from Verizon? Hell, why not require registration for every edit on Wikipedia? I love the idea of being able to make anonymous edits, but seriously wouldn't it make their lives easier by just requiring it for everyone?
If it's not something that can be handled in the courts, (being a dick hasn't been made illegal, last time I checked) then Verizon may well open themselves up to a lawsuit for helping Wikipedia with this "wrongdoing".
In fact, this isn't even vandalism. Using chalk on a sidewalk is not considered vandalism because it washes away and isn't permanent. The same could be said about Wiki edits that can easily be undone. Close the system to anonymous edits or STFU.
You might be surprised how responsive they are if their users start to complain. As one of the staff on an IRC network (one of the five largest IRC networks at the time, although that still isn't saying much), we got AOL to pay attention to abusers by banning the whole network. It took less than 24 hours of AOL users telling AOL "Hey, GamesNet is saying they can't get AOL to respond to abuse reports" before AOL got in touch with the network and explained how to expedite abuse reports.
Yeah, if Wikipedia does something stupid and bans Verizon users without explaining why or what the users can do, Wikipedia won't get very far. Personally, I think Wikipedia has more clue than that. It didn't take all that much for that IRC network to get appropriate attention on the chronic abusers.
I hope he/she is getting in all the laughs now, because when they finally do decide to p0wn him/her, it won't be funny anymore.
Who would "they" be? If this fuckwit is even in the U.S. I'd be surprised. He could be pretty much anywhere: sure, the activity is coming from an address assigned to Verizon, but we may find it belongs to some poor schmuck who had no idea his computer was being used to proxy vandal traffic.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
For example, the very controversial editor JayJG did not get elected into the Arbitration Committee, too many people opposed (including me) and others got more votes - so Wales appointed him to it. Great, if you want Wikipedia to favor JayJG's line on Middle East politics, which is what he was always POV edit warring over.
Another example - look at the history of the Wikipedia Review page on Wikipedia. It was blocked from creation by the power users there, and an article could not be created until mid-2008. OK, you say it is not notable enough (although thousands of other less popular websites have articles - although Wikipedia doesn't allow you to cite other relative articles as evidence for relevancy, one of their bizarre rules of this type). Well mention of the existence of Wikipedia Review, linking to it and so forth was banned for years on the Criticism of Wikipedia page. It's a real sign of the cultishness of the admins that the Criticism of Wikipedia page forbid links, or even mention, to the most prominent forum for criticism of Wikipedia. I guess they finally relented, but by that time a lot of the critics (like me) left. Look over that page's history and the discussions and archived discussions.
These things are fairly out in the open, there are a lot of other biases that are harder to point to so obviously. I should also say that someone who spends there time editing the pages on say, quantum mechanics, may never run into these problems, and for them Wikipedia is working quite nicely. It is just when someone has perhaps a different point of view then Jimbo Wales on Ayn Rand, or on JayJG on the Middle East, and so on down the line for the rest of his lieutenants that this becomes obvious. But if one is interested, look into the JayJG Arbcom appointment, look into the blocks from mention of Wikipedia Review on the Criticism of Wikipedia page etc. As I said, there is a cultish quality to Wikipedia, I posted about this on Slashdot before and you get replies from some admins, like "You are one of THOSE PEOPLE! An ENEMY of WIKIPEDIA! A VANDAL/SOCKPUPPET/WHATEVER!" It is the same cultish thing as banning mention of Wikipedia Review that existed before - if Wikipedia is open, why are people critical of Wikipedia on Wikipedia Review considered "enemies"? I should mention I was once blocked for some hours - for criticizing Essjay, who was an administrator who lied about his credentials, and used to refer to his non-existent credentials when edit warring over different articles. This was reported in the mainstream press (about Essjay, not me). I posted to his page that he should be ashamed of himself and I was blocked by an administrator for that for 24 or 48 hours, I forget. So yes, I am one of those "vandals" who was blocked from Wikipedia.
From TFA, looks like it's discussing a soft block...which would mean that Verizon customers could still edit, they would just have to do so from an account. No doubt all those Verizon customers will Really Suffer when they have to use/create a login to wikipedia...a login which is really nearly as anonymous as the ip editing. <gasp!>
This is not true, actually.
The chalk does not wash away easily, and it is vandalism. Such as in this case where Microsoft got in trouble for chalk advertisements. IIRC, IBM got in trouble for a similar stunt in New York City.
"UR FAIR USE RATIONALE IS NO GOOD!"
*removes professional headshot, posts shitty cell phone picture of a celebrities' shoulder*
"Here is a headshot I took with my DSLR, fill flash and $10,000 lens."
"UR PICTURE IS NO GOOD!"
*reverts edit to shitty cell phone photo*
"UR FAIR USE RATIONALE IS NO GOOD!"
"Well the photo comes from government archives and originated in the SS, so I don't think anyone is going to..."
"UR FAIR USE RATIONALE IS NO GOOD!"
*nominates photo for deletion*
Rinse. Repeat.
I know many of them are either admins or obsessive super-editors who have ingratiated themselves into the community, but damn.
ability for "vandalism" is directly tied to being net neutral. being net neutral as an isp is taking money and providing a pipe. just looking up who the person is or what he does on the net is a breach of that. that's how it goes. neutrality is a bitch if banhammer is your answer.
if he really is doing severe things it's easy enough to call the cops on him. THE ISP IS NOT THE POLICE! THEY DO NOT HAVE POLICE POWERS! they literally should not be able to look at their logs and give information on that to some random 3rd party - yes wikipedia is just a random 3rd party.
personal, clever, hurtful insults would be the only thing that would stop him/her from this habit anyways(proven method). the cops way would take years and years provided he is not doing anything else illegal.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
... Free speech is the cornerstone of democracy, but that does not mean that wikipedia must suffer. If the only thing they need was identification to block someone from editing, would that really be infringing on your freedom of speech? Freedom of speech means your right to say whatever you want without censorship, it does not mean you are free from the effects of your speech nor that your speech won't have any repercussions. There is moderation in democracies as well as on the web, after all - otherwise everyone would be free to spread racial slurs, hate speech and so forth. Luckily, this is not the case.
no, wikipedia isn't about free speech, its about informed and sourced speech. if you want free speech, go with uncyclopedia.wikia.com, and post willy nilly.
Apparently it's not just the title that's misleading. From TFA:
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
work for the TSA. And then molest airline passengers. And children.
Parent got modded Troll for the priest comments, but the TSA comment might not be far off. On TV this morning (NBC Today Show), I saw the head of the TSA get grilled about the new pat downs, and Matt Lauer asked him about exemptions for children. The TSA head said they would not pat-down children aged 12 or younger. That means he thinks it's perfectly acceptable to molest children 13-17 as long as it's done in the name of airline security. If a TSA agent follows orders for the 13-17 year-old range, there's got to be something wrong with the agent. Radiation during puberty, molestation, or only taking land/sea vehicles for vacations: your children have a choice.
Agree with your two latter points, but curious..
The fact that it is 67 million IPs versus 67 million customers means that it could potentially INCREASE the number of customers impacted, based on the presumption that more than one user (via NAT) is in a given location served by a single IP address.
Wouldn't that make the theoretical (theoretical since, as many have already pointed out, the assumption is that the vast majority of Wikipedia users are not making edits..) impact greater? I looked at those ranges in bluetack, and I think it is fair to say that the majority of those users potentially impacted are Verizon customers, with a smattering of Comcast and others.