PDA

View Full Version : Wikipedia and the art of censorship


Varaj
08-18-2007, 04:00 PM
Interesting read.
http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article2874112.ece

It was hailed as a breakthrough in the democratisation of knowledge. But the online encyclopedia has since been hijacked by forces who decided that certain things were best left unknown.
By Robert Verkaik
Published: 18 August 2007

The secret of Wikipedia's phenomenal success is that anyone can edit the millions of comments, facts and statistics published on the pages of the world's most popular online encyclopaedia. But that of course is also its greatest weakness.

The chance to rewrite history in flattering and uncritical terms has proved too much of a temptation for scores of multinational companies, political parties and well-known organisations across the world.

If a misdemeanour from a politician's colourful past becomes an inconvenient fact at election time then why not just strike it from the Wikipedia record? Or if a public company is embarking on a sensitive takeover why should its investors know of the target business's human rights abuses?

Now a website designed to monitor editorial changes made on Wikipedia has found thousands of self-serving edits and traced them to their original source. It has turned out to be hugely embarrassing for armies of political spin doctors and corproate revisionists who believed their censorial interventions had gone unnoticed.

Some of the guilty parties identified by the website, such as the Labour Party, the CIA, Republican Party and the Church of Scientology, are well-known for their obsession with PR. But others, such as the Anglican and Catholic churches or even the obscurely titled Perro de Presa Canario Dog Breeders Association of America, are new to the dark arts of spin.

The website, Wikiscanner, was designed by Virgil Griffith, a graduate student from the California Institute of Technology, who downloaded the entire encyclopaedia, isolating the internet-based records of anonymous changes and IP addresses.

He matched those IP addresses with public net-address services and helped uncover the world's biggest spinning operation.

Mr Griffith says: "I came up with the idea when I heard about Congressmen getting caught for white-washing their Wikipedia pages. Every time I hear about a new security vulnerability, I think about whether it could be done on a massive scale and indexed. I had the idea back then, I've been busy with scientific work so I sat on it until a few weeks ago when I started working on the WikiScanner."

Wikipedia says Mr Griffith has found something they had long suspected. A Wikipedia spokes-man said: "Wikipedia is only a working draft of history, it is constantly changing and so relies on volunteers editing the pages. But deliberate attempts to remove facts or reasonable interpretation of facts is considered vandalism. We are dealing with this kind of thing all time, so that our volunteer workers are changing edits back when we think they should be changed. But it's not perfect, it is just more transparent than some people realise."

Wikiscanner has analysed a database of 34.4 million edits performed by 2.6 million organisations or individuals since 2002.

Although it is not known who made each individual edit, or how senior that person was within any organisation, Mr Griffith says it is fair to link the change to the owner of the computer's IP address.

Exxon Mobil and the giant oil slick

An IP address that belongs to ExxonMobil, the oil giant, is linked to sweeping changes to an entry on the Exxon Valdez oil spill of 1989. An allegation that the company "has not yet paid the $5 billion in spill damages it owes to the 32,000 Alaskan fishermen" was replaced with references to the funds the company has paid out.

The Republican Party and Iraq

The Republican Party edited Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath Party entry so it made it clear that the US-led invasion was not a "US-led occupation" but a "US-led liberation."

The CIA and casualties of war

A computer with a CIA IP address was used to change a graphic on casualties of the Iraq war by adding the warning that many of the figures were estimated and not broken down by class. Another entry on former CIA chief William Colby was edited to expand his cv.

The Labour Party and careerist MPs

An anonymous surfer at the Labour Party's headquarters removed a section about Labour students referring to "careerist MPs", and criticisms that the party's student arm was no longer radical.

Dow Chemical and the Bhopal disaster

A computer registered to the Dow Chemical Company is recorded as deleting a passage on the Bhopal chemical disaster of 1984, which occurred at a plant operated by Union Carbide, now a wholly owned Dow subsidiary. The incident cost up to 20,000 lives.

Diebold and the dubious voting machines

Voting-machine company Diebold apparently excised long paragraphs detailing the US security industry's concerns over the integrity of their voting machines, and information about the company's chief executive's fundraising for President Bush. The text, deleted in November 2005, was very rapidly restored by another Wikipedia contributor, who advised the anonymous editor, "Please stop removing content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism."

The Israeli government and the West Bank wall

A computer linked to the Israeli government twice tried to delete an entire article about the West Bank wall that was critical of the policy. An edit from the same address also modified the entry for Hizbollah describing all its operations as being "mostly military in nature".

The dog breeders and fatal maulings

A dog breeders association in America removed references to two fatal maulings of humans by the Perro de Presa Canario dogs in the US. In 2001 a woman was attacked and killed by two Presa Canario/Mastiff hybrids in the hallway of her apartment building in San Fransisco. Last year a pure-bred Presa Canario fatally mauled a woman in Florida.

The gun lobby and fatal shootings

The National Rifle Association of America doctored concerns about its role in the increase in gun fatalities by replacing the passage with a reference to the association's conservation work in America.

Discovery Channel and guerrilla marketing

A source traced to Discovery Communications, the company that owns the Discovery Channel, deleted reference to company's reputation for " guerrilla marketing".

MySpace and self-censorship

Someone working from an IP address linked to MySpace appears to have been so irritated by references to the social networking website's over-censorial policy that they removed a paragraph accusing MySpace of censorship.

Boeing and a threat to its supremacy

Boeing has made it clear that it is not just one of the world's leading aircraft manufacturers, but is in fact the leading company in this field.

The church's child abuse cover-up

Barbara Alton, assistant to Episcopal Bishop Charles Bennison, in America, deleted information concerning a cover-up of child sexual abuse, allegations that the Bishop misappropriated $11.6 million in trust funds, and evidence of other scandals. When challenged about this, Alton claims she was ordered to delete the information by Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori.

Amnesty and anti-Americanism

A computer with an Amnesty International IP address was used to delete references accusing the charity of holding an anti-American agenda.

Dell computer out-sourcing

Dell removed a passage about how the company out-sourced its support divisions overseas.

Nestle and corporate criticism

Someone from Nestle removed criticisms of some of the company's controversial business practices, which have all subsequently been re-added.

The FBI and Guantánamo

The FBI has removed aerial images of the Guantánamo Bay Naval base in Cuba.

Scientologists and sensitivity

Computers with IP addresses traced to the Church of Scientology were used to expunge critical paragraphs about the cult's world-wide operations.

News International and the hypocritical anti-paedophile campaign

Someone at News International saw fit to remove criticism of the News of the World's anti-paedophile campaign by deleting the suggestion that this amounted to editorial hypocrisy. The original entry reminded readers that the paper continued to "publish semi-nude photographs of page three models as young as 16 and salacious stories about female celebrities younger than that."

Oliver Letwin and his great disappearing act

An edit linked to the Conservative Party IP address expunged references to The MP Oliver Letwin's gaffe during the 2001 general election when he reportedly said he wanted to cut "future public spending by fully 20 billion pounds per annum relative to the plans of the Labour government" . The accompanying paragraph, explaining that when his own party failed to support the move he took a low profile on the election campaign, was also removed.

Ancalagon
08-18-2007, 05:16 PM
I would have been *astonished* if this hadn't been going on, but I am delighted they are being exposed.

I hope the media picks up this story and start throwing eggs at people's faces.

Ergeheilalt
08-19-2007, 01:01 AM
I like that they actually called a spade a spade where the Scientology is involved. :D

Atticus_of_Amber
08-19-2007, 01:29 AM
I like that they actually called a spade a spade where the Scientology is involved. :D

I'm no fan of Scientology, but I still don't see why it gets tagged with that word and other institutional religions don't. I don't see a huge difference between Scientology and the more avaricious ("give until it hurts!") "prosperity gospel" evangelical mega-churches or even the more avaricious and practices of some of the less savoury elements of the Catholic Church.

Varaj
08-19-2007, 05:47 AM
I'm no fan of Scientology, but I still don't see why it gets tagged with that word and other institutional religions don't. I don't see a huge difference between Scientology and the more avaricious ("give until it hurts!") "prosperity gospel" evangelical mega-churches or even the more avaricious and practices of some of the less savoury elements of the Catholic Church.


That's because you are an anti-religious fanatic.*


*And this is coming from the guy that argues that Mother Teresa did more harm than good.

Atticus_of_Amber
08-19-2007, 06:07 AM
That's because you are an anti-religious fanatic.*


*And this is coming from the guy that argues that Mother Teresa did more harm than good.

What am I not seeing? Why is Scientology a "cult" but Hillsong not?

EDIT: For that matter, why wasn't Mother T's Missionaries of Charity a cult? Numerous former nuns have testified to some pretty disturbing practices by the Order that would have gotten it called a "cult" if it hadn't been a part of the Roman Catholic Church.

Frankly, I think Scientology gets a unfairly hard time when its conduct is compared to that of many institutions in our society that are usually considered respectable.

Varaj
08-19-2007, 06:13 AM
What am I not seeing? Why is Scientology a "cult" but Hillsong not?

EDIT: For that matter, why wasn't Mother T's Missionaries of Charity a cult? Numerous former nuns have testified to some pretty disturbing practices by the Order that would have gotten it called a "cult" if it hadn't been a part of the Roman Catholic Church.

Frankly, I think Scientology gets a unfairly hard time when its conduct is compared to that of many institutions in our society that are usually considered respectable.

Get back to me when either Hillsong or the Missionaries of Charity break into government offices, kidnap people and regularly make death threats.

Atticus_of_Amber
08-19-2007, 06:30 AM
Get back to me when either Hillsong or the Missionaries of Charity break into government offices, kidnap people and regularly make death threats.

Ok. Those are not accusations I've heard with respect to Scientology. Certainly not with respect to the Australian branch. But I wouldn't be surprised.

However, it has to be said that the Catholic Church was kidnapping Jewish children who'd been secretly baptised by their Christian nannies well into the first decade of the 20th century. And representatives of the Catholic church were making death threats in Spain well into the 1940s...

EDIT: And major texts of the Islamic religion mandate death threats (indeed, more than threats) against apostates - or, in the liberal version, apostates who are so rude as to then become critics of Islam. Suddenly Scientology's attitude to ex-members doesn't seem so unusual... And I see Muslim's regularly issuing death threats against "blaspeming" cartoonists.

Varaj
08-19-2007, 06:34 AM
Ok. Those are not accusations I've heard with respect to Scientology. Certainly not with respect to the Australian branch. But I wouldn't be surprised.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_McPherson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Snow_White
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Freakout
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_%28Scientology%29

EDIT: And major texts of the Islamic religion mandate death threats (indeed, more than threats) against apostates - or, in the liberal version, apostates who are so rude as to then become critics of Islam. Suddenly Scientology's attitude to ex-members doesn't seem so unusual... And I see Muslim's regularly issuing death threats against "blaspeming" cartoonists.

I got Darkfire pretty mad at me when I said I put Islam and Scientology in the same boat. :)

Catholics have done lots of bad things before. The main difference is the underlining reason for the the respective groups. Scientology and Islam are primarily social control mechanisms cloaked in religion. Catholics are secondarily a social control mechanism cloaked in religion.

Atticus_of_Amber
08-19-2007, 06:36 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_McPherson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Snow_White
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Freakout
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_%28Scientology%29

Yikes! I wasn't aware of that.

It seems Scientologist are as evil as old school Catholics ... or many modern Muslims.

EDIT: Scientology's "Fair game" law looks a lot like many Islamic scholars' approach to apostacy, for example. Except, and this is particularly nasty, it seems to extend to friends and family of the "apostate" Scientologist. I'm pretty sure that there aren't even Arab Muslim scholars who'd go that far, at least in print.

I'll say this. That reading has moved Scientology from "kooky religions worth laughing at" to "potentially as bad as the worst of them" on my radar. Thanks.

Atticus_of_Amber
08-19-2007, 06:43 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_McPherson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Snow_White
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Freakout
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_%28Scientology%29



I got Darkfire pretty mad at me when I said I put Islam and Scientology in the same boat. :)

But they so clearly *are* in the same boat. Indeed, Scientology's attitude to its apostates is pretty much the same as the more moderate forms of Islam - you can leave the faith so long as you don't ever publicly criticise the faith.

Catholics have done lots of bad things before. The main difference is the underlining reason for the the respective groups. Scientology and Islam are primarily social control mechanisms cloaked in religion. Catholics are secondarily a social control mechanism cloaked in religion.

I'm not at all sure what you mean by this last part...

Varaj
08-19-2007, 06:57 AM
I'm not at all sure what you mean by this last part...


I mean Islam and Scientology are built from the ground up as method for social control. That is what they are designed to do. Christianity is not built up from the ground up to control society. It easily moves into that role and is often used for it but it isn't the primary function of Christianity.

Atticus_of_Amber
08-19-2007, 07:03 AM
I mean Islam and Scientology are built from the ground up as method for social control. That is what they are designed to do. Christianity is not built up from the ground up to control society. It easily moves into that role and is often used for it but it isn't the primary function of Christianity.

Weeeelllll, not from the ground up, no. But from pretty close to the ground up. A huge amount of what we now think of as Christianity was created or codified after Constantine made it the official religion of the Empire - as a method of social control.

Varaj
08-19-2007, 07:03 AM
Weeeelllll, not from the ground up, no. But from pretty close to the ground up. A huge amount of what we now think of as Christianity was create or codified after Constantine made it the official religion of the empire - as a method of social control.

Thus the secondary. ;)

Atticus_of_Amber
08-19-2007, 07:09 AM
Thus the secondary. ;)

Yeah, but it's so close to primary its almost misleading to call it secondary.

The Christianity that existed before Constantine and his successors adopted it a as means of social control is almost unrecognisable as Christianity. For a start a huge number of doctrines we'd now consider long-dead heresies were vibrant parts of the mainstream. In many places, women appear to have been priests or at least had major leadership roles. We didn't have the four synoptic gospels but several competing accounts of Jesus' life as well as the whole Gnostic mystical writings mixed all in as part of the mainstream. In a very important sense, Constantine and his successors created what we think of as Christianity almost as much as Paul did. And there can be very little doubt that Constantine and his successors were creating it as a means of social control.

Varaj
08-19-2007, 07:17 AM
Yeah, but it's so close to primary its almost misleading to call it secondary.

The Christianity that existed before Constantine and his successors adopted it a as means of social control is almost unrecognisable as Christianity. For a start a huge number of doctrines we'd now consider long-dead heresies were vibrant parts of the mainstream. In many places, women appear to have been priests or at least had major leadership roles. We didn't have the four synoptic gospels but several competing accounts of Jesus' life as well as the whole Gnostic mystical writings mixed all in as part of the mainstream. In a very important sense, Constantine and his successors created what we think of as Christianity almost as much as Paul did. And there can be very little doubt that Constantine and his successors were creating it as a means of social control.

I don't disagree with that but I think it is fair to say that the protestant reformation moved social control back to a secondary position.

The Winslow
08-19-2007, 08:28 AM
I don't disagree with that but I think it is fair to say that the protestant reformation moved social control back to a secondary position.

I don't know if I would say that, today, Christianity is used for social control more in Catholic countries than in Protestant countries...

Dr. Paragon
08-19-2007, 09:02 AM
Guys please quit threadcrapping about religion. This thread is about the
"Selective Editing of Wikipedia".

TiQuinn
08-19-2007, 09:06 AM
Guys please quit threadcrapping about religion. This thread is about the
"Selective Editing of Wikipedia".

Is it really threadcrapping when the original poster is one of the ones doing the alleged threadcrapping?

Dr. Paragon
08-19-2007, 09:14 AM
Yes, but one should be polite when trying to get things back on track.
Hence the word "Please".

Varaj
08-19-2007, 10:15 AM
Yes, but one should be polite when trying to get things back on track.
Hence the word "Please".

We had natural topic drift. I don't see you adding anything into the discussion. All you are doing is saying, "don't talk about what you were." If you don't like the direction add to the discussion to change it instead of just bitching. :p

The Winslow
08-19-2007, 10:51 AM
Back on topic? (http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Wikipedia_Admin_Gallery)

Dr. Paragon
08-19-2007, 11:55 AM
CNN Video Article about Wikipedia being abused. (http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/tech/2007/01/30/long.trust.wikipedia.cnn)

Varaj
08-19-2007, 02:20 PM
CNN Video Article about Wikipedia being abused. (http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/tech/2007/01/30/long.trust.wikipedia.cnn)

There you go.

Did you know abuse of Wikipedia was one of the "justifications" behind conservapedia. The main abuse of course is they let "evolutions" on wikipedia.

Harry
08-19-2007, 11:46 PM
Speaking of altering things on the web...

Just saw this elsewhere - a list by Random House of the 100 best modern novels. The novels are listed side by side with a Reader's Choice list. Two agendas are strikingly apparent on the reader's side:

http://www.randomhouse.com/modernlibrary/100bestnovels.html

The Winslow
08-20-2007, 07:32 AM
Ayn Rand and Ron Hubbard?

Keeper of Secrets
08-20-2007, 08:19 AM
Anyway . . . about the Wiki editing . . .

I am kind of torn on it. My general inclination is to be pissy that this is happening. On the other hand, isn't editing it the ultimate in democratization of views?

In all fairness, I have no idea what nuances are being edited and if it is a matter of people putting in an explanation of what went on or completely eliminating it.

At the risk of sounding wishy-washy (and gaining PWD's ire by coming off as 'Egalitarian') Wiki is hardly a government document. It is open for changes by anyone. If you write an article that explains abuses in the Church against children, can someone else come around change it and want their view seen?

In the end, I agree that it damages the integrity of Wiki. (Though would anyone here cite it in an academic paper anyway?) The bad news is that anyone can alter these articles. The good news is that there are enough watchdogs out there to expose it.

Janos
08-20-2007, 11:34 AM
Though would anyone here cite it in an academic paper anyway?

As much as I would cite any other encyclopedia (using either is a bad idea in a professional academic paper anyway).

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2005/12/15/Wikipedia-review051215.html

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060323-6442.html

Droid101
08-20-2007, 11:44 AM
Whenever I am reading Wikipedia, and I come across an article where someone put an entire section in that basically says "I refute the consensus, here's a plug for my book that explains my position," I delete that section.

I guess that makes me evil.

BOZ
08-20-2007, 06:04 PM
no, that's what you're supposed to do. :)

it's a good thing that wikipedia keeps all documentation of edit histories and the like - that way they can actually trace these abuses!

Utrecht
08-20-2007, 06:55 PM
In all fairness, I have no idea what nuances are being edited and if it is a matter of people putting in an explanation of what went on or completely eliminating it.


What I have an issue with is the umbridge people are taking with the political elements being editied. To often I have found that Wiki's have feelings being played off of as facts.

For example one persons Liberation is anothers occupation - is it bad that it edited? Or should both views be represented?


In the end, I agree that it damages the integrity of Wiki. (Though would anyone here cite it in an academic paper anyway?).

I use it for general research on non-politcal topics - and have used it in internal white papers.

BOZ
08-20-2007, 06:57 PM
wikipedia is supposed to use neutral language - thus it should call the US operations in Iraq neither Liberation nor Occupation, but more like... "US operations in Iraq".

the article, however, should note that the Bush administration considers it liberation, while detractors consider it occupation, but the article should not make a value judgement one way or the other.

Utrecht
08-20-2007, 07:03 PM
wikipedia is supposed to use neutral language - thus it should call the US operations in Iraq neither Liberation nor Occupation, but more like... "US operations in Iraq".

the article, however, should note that the Bush administration considers it liberation, while detractors consider it occupation, but the article should not make a value judgement one way or the other.

I agree - so why does the article make a point of calling out both the Bush administration and Israel, while not hitting on many leftist causes....(Amnesty International was about the only one)

The article just felt off as if there was more than the wiki edits being called out here.