Slashdot Mirror


Wikipedia Admin's Manipulation "Messed Up Perhaps 15,000 Students' Lives"

Andreas Kolbe writes: Recently, "ArbCom", Wikipedia's highest court, banned an administrator account that for years had been manipulating the Wikipedia article of a bogus Indian business school – deleting criticism, adding puffery, and enabling the article to become a significant part of the school's PR strategy. Believing the school's promises and advertisements, families went to great expense to send sons and daughters on courses there – only for their children to find that the degrees they had gained were worthless. "In my opinion, by letting this go on for so long, Wikipedia has messed up perhaps 15,000 students' lives," an Indian journalist quoted in the story says. India is one of the countries where tens of millions of Internet users have free access to Wikipedia Zero, but cannot afford the data charges to access the rest of the Internet, making Wikipedia a potential gatekeeper.

17 of 264 comments (clear)

  1. Anyone who believes Wikipedia by IWantMoreSpamPlease · · Score: 5, Insightful

    without further fact checking, is a complete idiot.
    Or as Ronald Reagan once said, "Trust, but verify."

    --
    So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
    1. Re:Anyone who believes Wikipedia by tpwade · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not hard to image that the families thought they had done their fact checking. From the summary: "tens of millions of Internet users have free access to Wikipedia Zero, but cannot afford the data charges to access the rest of the Internet". So a person, who is saving every last bit of money they can (i.e. not paying data charges) gets a flyer that says: "attend our awesome business school", and they "fact check" using the only source easily available to them: Wikipedia. It's easy to critisize them from our priveledge position in the west, with dozens, if not thousands of independent sources freely and easily available to us, but the situation is different elsewhere.

    2. Re:Anyone who believes Wikipedia by dave420 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They trusted two sources - the flier from the institution, and the Wikipedia article on it. So you are saying they should trust at least three sources? What if 2/3 of the sources agree, and one does not? Go for a fourth?

  2. caveat emptor by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Here in the US, colleges still send thick glossy booklets full of pretty pictures of campus locations students will hardly ever see in rare weather conditions with attractive and diverse people they'll never meet. Then we wonder why we have millions of non-STEM graduates serving coffee and whining about "student debt relief" for their useless degree(s). To me, all the "extra" college grads we have in the country are a much bigger deal than "just" 15K people getting a little wiser on how the world really works.

    1. Re:caveat emptor by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      One of the problems is this bit from TFS:

      India is one of the countries where tens of millions of Internet users have free access to Wikipedia Zero, but cannot afford the data charges to access the rest of the Internet, making Wikipedia a potential gatekeeper

      A bunch of poor people, with limited access to the internet, turn to one of the only sources of information they have.

      And it turns out that source isn't trustworthy.

      How is the consumer supposed to know otherwise when they have no access to better information?

      Yes, we all know that wikipedia isn't always an authoritative source. But for people who only can get to wikipedia through their basic cell phone plans .... that was the only source of information.

      Given the available sources of information, I'd like to see you arrive at a better conclusion.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:caveat emptor by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, it fucking wasn't. Are you fucking retarded? Information only comes on cell phones now? Really? idiot.

      Look, asshole.

      Think about this. The average person in India has very little access to things like the internet. They have cheap ass cell phone plans which give them free access to Wikipedia, and not much else. What the fuck do you think "Wikipedia Zero" is? It costs them nothing to access it, whereas a data plan might be a months pay. Which they might want to spend on food and housing.

      There are only so many places to try to glean information, and places to apply effort.

      So you can sit in your comfortable first world life and be a smug douchebag, or you can try to accept that people in poor third world countries have access to FAR less sources of information without it costing them dearly. Which means they place far more reliance on the sources they have.

      So go shove your attitude up your punk ass, and save me your bullshit.

      This notion that people have perfect access to information to make perfect choices is completely bullshit when the only sources they have available to them are dishonest, or would cost far more than they'd be able to afford without a better job like they were trying to find.

      Don't me such a smug little prick. Mostly it makes you sound like an idiot who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:caveat emptor by mongothesecond · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If Wikipedia is a necessary utility for the Indian population, wikipedia should charge or be funded by that government. Otherwise free is what it is, neighbor.

    4. Re:caveat emptor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The talk page for the school is extremely active, with archives going back to 2005, and hundreds of pages of discussion of the controversiality of the main page. Assuming "Wikipedia Zero" includes access to the talk page, everyone had access to enough information to see that something was fishy.

      I guess we need better education as to how Wikipedia works, with the recommendation to check the talk page if the topic is controversial.

  3. Most degrees from India... by OneSmartFellow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... are bogus as far as I can tell.

    I've worked with plenty of Indian engineers (mechanical, electronic, and software) over the past 30+ years, and my general impression is that at least 50% have no knowledge of the subject matter at all. As far as I could tell they simply purchased a document claiming they had a degree. So, this appears to be just another example.

    1. Re:Most degrees from India... by LWATCDR · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That is very unfair. It could be that just the ones that are willing to work for cut rate contractors have limited skill sets... Who would have guessed.
      India has a lot of very educated people in the tech fields. After all they have do have nuclear weapons, launch vehicles, and aerospace industry. All of which go very wrong very quickly without educated engineers working on them.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    2. Re:Most degrees from India... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We have Indian applicants for the web developer jobs we have open at the moment, and invariably they all seem to have achieved degrees with honours in less than 2 years, often more than one degree in the same time. I refuse to believe that any degree achievable in less time than an equivalent UK degree is worth anything, let alone two.

      And then, the number of those applicants who then claim to have achieved another major qualification in a London college or university in only a few months... Especially when you can link those London colleges to visa fraud stories in the national media.

      It would take a lot for me to take an Indian graduate at face value.

  4. Re:Well if Wikipedia said it, it must be true by thaylin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think the problem is that there is a lose affiliation. Wikipedia is responsible for what its employees, paid or unpaid do. The administrators are not just members of the general public, wikimedia gives them special privileges. The administrator in this case seems to have had an affiliation with the school, and was doing things at wikipeida to lie for/about the school.

    --
    When you cant win, ad hominem.
  5. Re:Well if Wikipedia said it, it must be true by Andreas+Kolbe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There are lots of Wikipedia admins who are social entrepreneurs of one form or another. This should be clear if you think about the fact that they are not getting paid for this. Sure there are idealists; but there are also lots of admins who get their reward out of the fact that they can use Wikipedia to influence public opinion – via the top Google search result – in line with their social, commercial or political agenda, and do so anonymously. No one should be surprised by this. You get what you pay for.

  6. Re:Maybe you should have read more than one senten by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The impoverished people living in rural areas, without affordable access to the Internet, and the people that can afford to send their kids to this school, are probably disjoint sets.

  7. Re:Maybe you should have read more than one senten by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The problem with your perspective is that you want one party to carry all the blame. Pointing out that someone made a stupid decision (your label of "blaming the victim") does not mean that the other parties do not have responsibility.

    Spread the blame to everyone that made poor choices: Indian Institute of Planning and Management, Wikipedia and those that enrolled without verifying their expectations.

    Victim idolizing has got to stop.

  8. Re:Maybe you should have read more than one senten by hairyfeet · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why EXACTLY is this a troll post mods? We are talking about poor people whose only access to online info is a Wikipedia under the control of scammers...I don't see how they can be seen as anything BUT innocent victims....yet we see post after post blaming them because they didn't have the wealth to do the research YOU take for granted...want to blame them for being dirty and brown while you're at it?

    If anybody should be considered trolls its those jackholes that always blame the victim, which sadly we see here every.single.time. there is a post here where somebody was preyed upon by somebody else.

    As for TFA...if Wikipedia has any kind of morals at all they would demand their name be taken off of Wikipedia Zero and the site shut down, since they obviously aren't willing to spend any of the millions Jimbo is constantly begging for to actually police the site, only acting AFTER the article was called out by the Indian press and judiciary.

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  9. Re:Maybe you should have read more than one senten by sjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Spoken like someone who can't even begin to imagine living somewhere that doesn't have ubiquitous communication with the outside world.