Log In | Register
The credibility of the online encyclopedia
Wikipedia has taken another dive after a newly developed
software program exposed how the CIA, corporations like
Diebold and others routinely edit entries to bury criticism
and manipulate the truth.
In our
previous investigation, we revealed how a group
of trolls were engaged in a concerted campaign to erase
the 9/11 truth movement, along with a host of other
controversial subjects, out of cyber existence by voting
to delete pages about subjects and individuals that
obviously warrant a page on Wikipedia.
Examples we cited included such manifestly
provable "conspiracy theories" as "List
of Republican sex scandals," "People questioning
the 9/11 Commission Report" and "Movement
to impeach George W. Bush".
Credibility Of Wikipedia Takes a Dive After Wired Exposé, is Newsvine next ?
Article Source: Alex Jones' Prison Planet.com- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (10)
It appears the democratizing of information can be a double-edged sword.... it depends on who wants their version of the truth to be known bad enough to rule.
- 3 votes
#1 - Wed Aug 15, 2007 1:49 AM EDTNewsvine won't be next. IP addresses on Wikipedia are public, they are hidden on Newsvine. Also, I don't know how accurate these tracking services will be in future. Most people involved in these edits will simply use a proxy from now on.
- 4 votes
#3 - Wed Aug 15, 2007 4:17 AM EDTWikipedia blocks edits from Tor and other anonymous IP networks.
- 3 votes
Wikipedia blocks edits from Tor and other anonymous IP networks.
There are ways around that. A proxy that forges the X-Forwarded-For header will do the trick.
- 2 votes
The easiest is to just have people make the changes from home or via a VNC (or somesuch) connection to home.
Blocking the anonymous nets and open proxies help keep the petty vandals down. Organizations trying to whitewash Wikipedia will probably just start buying IP blocks under different names.
This all involves a bit more technical savvy then I would normally give to big corp Windows wankers. I'm sure they'll figure it out eventually.
- 1 vote
Newsvine makes no bones about sponsoring people with opinions, whereas Wikipedia makes an effort to provide objectivity.
I think that the Wired article is highly overblown. in the instance of Diebold, for example, the article seems to be monitored much more carefully and for certain articles like the one on fascism there is more monitoring and tagging of content as needing more references or being controversial.
To the point of our discussions on NV, when Wikipedia's citizen-editors have doubts about a piece they're clearly flagged to the community. I think that this makes a big difference. Wikipedia is a live reference that works towards a dynamic version of the truth, and I think that it's very valuable for what it is.
- 2 votes
#4 - Wed Aug 15, 2007 8:56 AM EDTI don't think wikipedia will lose any credibility. I don't think most people actually care, they read something and that's enough, and if the source gets questioned most people will think "yeah, but that was probably in the other articles, not the one's I read, and even if I did read one, how bad could it be?"
If it does, people could always go use Citizenduim.org a fork from wikipedia where there's supposed to be some expert oversight.
- 3 votes
#5 - Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:06 AM EDTIndeed, it's not all that big a deal. Wikipedia is still evolving and has a thriving community. Discussions will take place, policies will be made and software will be written to deal with this sort of abuse.
- 1 vote
Newsvine makes no bones about sponsoring people with opinions, whereas Wikipedia makes an effort to provide objectivity.
Exactly so the threat of losing credibility for allowing people to post opinions cannot apply to Newsvine.
- 2 votes
#6 - Thu Aug 16, 2007 5:44 AM EDTYou're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
