Chris Henning wrote a humorous piece last week speculating on Wikipedia edit wars between the staff of John Howard and Peter Costello.
This week we find that parliamentary staff from the PM’s Department actually have been editing articles of interest to the Government on Wikipedia.
It’s not just the staffers of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet:
WikiScanner also identifies employees of another department, Defence, as the most prolific Wikipedia contributors in Australia.
[…]
The only Australian organisations responsible for more edits than Defence were internet service providers. But their numbers are inflated because they include edits made by the providers’ thousands of users, in addition to staff members.
That really is quite mindboggling, and the Department of Defence is moving swiftly to block access to Wikipedia from the Department’s computers.
Other curious - though apparently non-political - edits by [the Prime Minister’s] department employees include adding sentences on various sites, including the additions “Freemasonry is the work of Satan”, “Mormonism is the work of Satan” and “Jesus is god”.
Although most of the edits made by employees of Defence and Prime Minister and Cabinet were legitimate additions to articles that did not involve the Government, a Defence spokeswoman said action was needed because the edits could be interpreted as official comments.
Indeed.
This sort of revelation and reaction is exactly what the creator of WikiScanner hoped for when he created the site.
WikiScanner removes much of the anonymity Wikipedia contributors have long enjoyed by tracing the unique digital fingerprint left by everybody who uses Wikipedia. It has helped uncover self-serving contributions from hundreds of sources, including the CIA, the Vatican, the Republican Party, the United Nations, the US Senate and the US Democratic Party’s congressional campaign committee.
“My intention was to create a massive fireworks display of public relations disasters for all the world to sit back and enjoy,” WikiScanner’s creator, Virgil Griffith, told the Herald.
I’m certainly enjoying the show.
Presumably the edits made by DoDers were related to personal interests? The story is a tease because while it says that DoD staff edited pages on the 9/11 Truth Movement and the Pentagon Papers, it doesn’t say what the changes were. For? Against? Correcting facts? Planting disinformation?
“Freemasonry is the work of Satan.” Yes, but that’s only because that what’s they want you to think.
Current JH pic at Wikipedia NSFW. Wonder how long its last.
This is very confusing.
I distinctily recall several RWDBs assuring their readers that Wikipedia is authored by Toronto school students in the thrall of the Canadian socialist teachers’ cabal and culture war conspiracy.
And now this…
These Canadians have been blown off the boards by the likes of the CIA and the Vatican.
Whom does one trust?
Seems to have been fixed quick smart, Amanda. The level of smug in the current JH pic would appear to be within toxic guidelines.
Hi,
Doesn’t this just point to a raw, doubtful feature of the Wiki: anonymity…?
I’ve noticed that occasionally, when reading a Wikipedia item concerning a topic I know a little about, I’ll be puzzled by the slant, or disagree mildly with the emphasis, or sources cited. I assume others have similar experiences. But at least I have the opportunity to complain, or post a ‘correction’ - my opinion versus the anon author’s.
If authors were not permitted to choose anonymity, this might assist the reader in weighing up pros & cons of material presented in entries…..
Too cumbersome?
Well, in the excellent “Dictionary of Scientific Biography”, circa 1970s, printed in US, I believe every contributor is identified by initials. Makes them accountable (and contactable by pedants, helpers etc.) I think this occurs in other printed encyclopaedias, dictionaries of biography, etc.
Of course a sneaky bureaucrat could choose a nickname, assume a disguise, etc. Just like we bloggers choose a pseudonym.
Any suggestions?
I expect Wikipedia will have to deal with this, as it’s getting more publicity every day: CIA authors etc.
cheerio
From the link.
“Hannah (Howard’s receptionist): Look, they’ve added a new section. “Favourite animal: rodent.”
I wish to state categorically that the Hannah referred to ain’t me or my dog.
Sheesh!
The Trouble with the Web
John Howard decided to embrace the internet through YouTube at the same time as funding internet filtering. Two ironies:
If you search “John Howard” on YouTube videos there are nearly 1000, most of which are attacking him. Even made one myself: ‘About John Howard’
If you use Safe Eyes, one of his net blockers, it won’t let you do YouTube video searches.
Controlling information is not just a matter of fixing the spin.
For more see: Labor View from Broome http://laborview.blogspot.com/
Other funny examples from the Courier Mail.
Wikipedia is a fantastic resource - I use it every day, but with “caveat lector” in mind. It only works because anyone can edit it. I’ve done it myself when I was aggrieved by an obviously false entry - and I wasn’t even it’s subject.
I can imagine if, for instance, I was a scientist who developed some technology and saw it completely misreported and mangled by successive contributors. I’d feel compelled to correct those mistakes too.
WikiScanner is a great tool - openness and accountability are the keys to any Wiki. The mistake is to think that only certain contributors have barrows to push, because by definition everyone who edits Wikipedia is an interested party. So what’s their interest?
Obviously the truth of an article is more important than who contributes what, but that’s any Wiki’s greater problem - whose truth? Who gets to decide what mutually exclusive version of reality gets top billing? They’re still figuring that one out.
Decided to take some action about these Howard staffers. Apparently this story originates with Nicola Roxon. I’ve e-mailed her to see if she has a list of the Howardian changes which, if I get it, I will circulate nationwide, with suggestions people change back to more accurate versions. The more pople who do this, the less able the Howard staffers will be able to cope.
I also think its a good idea that articles on Wikipedia be credited by initials. I’ve only used it for the American Revolution, and then, very sparingly, but those entries seem okay as long as one is aware of the various historiographical debates going on in the profession.
Members of the ADF and the Dept of PM&C have opinions?! Bugger me with a fish fork. It was never like that in my day!
“Poo bum dicky wee wee�
How about that? Finally, Department of P.M. and Cabinet are starting to make a bit of sense.
Hilarious contribution from Lord Downer on AAP:
Fed: Wikipedia is anti-government, Downer says
Wikipedia Downer
By Steve Larkin
ADELAIDE, Aug 24 AAP - The online encyclopedia Wikipedia is
anti-government, Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer says.
“My sort of recollection of Wikipedia sites is they are a bit,
sort of, a bit anti-government, they are sort of a bit negative
about people in the government,” Mr Downer said today.
“That is my recollection of them, so maybe we should fire people
up to edit them - but I know they have editorial control at
Wikipedia so it probably wouldn’t help.”
He has a sort of recollection about wikipedia sites, but none about cables relating to the sale of wheat to Iraq.
Of course.
Re concerns about anonymity. Editing is in fact anonymous if you decide to create an account. Edits from people who don’t have an account are simply labelled by their IP addresses. And of course IP addresses can be tracked back to a school, department, company, etc.
With accounts, only a very select group of users and administrators will ever track your IP addresses; they are given this power to track “sockpuppets,” that is people who abuse multiple accounts to create a false sense of consensus or agreement.
Bottom line: editing is anonymous if you get an account, so please do and contribute to this great project!
“Poo bum dicky wee wee� sounds like a Downer edit.
Haven’t has such a good laugh in a while.
Ah, Lord Downer, the shining light in a veritable galaxy of stars.
Reply to Darryl Mason. If you want to check the accuracy of media reports on Wickipedia entry editing yourself, just go to:
Reply to Darryl Mason. If you want to check the accuracy of media reports on Wickipedia entry editing yourself, just go to:
wickiscanner.virgil.gr
Lord Downer at his best.
“Wikipedia can be edited by anyone shock”, “Revealed - Politician changes own Wikipedia entry to be more flattering”, “Vatican edits Wikipedia entries on Catholic Church, saints and abortion”, “Employees roaming internet and editing Wikipedia in work time!”, “Wikipedia contributors get involved in anal & stupid battles over entries”
Aren’t most of these revelations … well … bleeding obvious? I think the transparency is fine, although I’m surprised not to find a more civil-libertarian line here on an employees right to anonimity, to not be outed in the newspaper. But it’s Wikipedia, for heavens sake! If there was an entry on me, I’d get in and edit it!
Hands up, those folks who like their taxes being spent on public servants salaries when they are employed to polish the political image of personalities in the executive government.
If Ratty wants Wikipedia to reflect more closely his own personal vanities, let him pay for it out of his own pocket.
Has anyone produced any evidence to demonstrate that is what was happening here, Katz? Like an order or instruction to someone to carry out edits? A range of IP addresses is a pretty crude and broad tool to be using to frame a specific allegation of misuse or impropriety.
That’s worse!
I’d be appalled that my taxes paid the salaries of public servants while they acted on the belief that Ratty’s reputation was worth protecting.
Those public servants should be sacked, unless, of course they could demonstrate that they were obeying orders to pander to Ratty’s vanity.
I want names, and I want them now!
Probably the same ones that edited the entry on Star Trek about the food eaten by Vulcans. You just can’t get good help these days….
Public Service Trekkies would be paragons of urbanity in comparison with Public Service Ratty panderers.
In the interests of preserving the reputation of Trekkies, they whould be given the opportunity of defending themselves against your serious accusation against them.
Names must be named.