Log In | Register
12 Votes
10 Comments
Credibility Of Wikipedia Takes a Dive After Wired Exposé, is Newsvine next ?
News Type: Event — Seeded on Wed Aug 15, 2007 1:47 AM EDT
Article Source: Alex Jones' Prison Planet.comadvertisement
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".
Published to:
- vladimer kerchenko's Column, All of Newsvine
- Groups: Activism, Old viners
- Regions: none
 | Wiki-Revise: CIA, Politicians, Microsoft Change Their Wikipedia Entries | ABC News | Wed Aug 15 | 0 |
| See Who's Editing Wikipedia - Diebold, the CIA, a Campaign | Wired News | Tue Aug 14 | 13 |
| See Who's Editing Wikipedia - Diebold, the CIA, a Campaign | Wired News | Tue Aug 14 | 5 |
| The CIA Edited Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Wikipedia Page | BBC News | Thu Aug 16 | 7 |
| Companies and party aides cast censorious eye over Wikipedia | Guardian Unlimited | Wed Aug 15 | 0 |
- Public Discussion (10)
- Public Discussion (0)
- Activism
- Old viners
What's this?
Who's leading the conversation?
This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user
has on the current conversation.
The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd
row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera).
Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group
is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the
left, in their corresponding group.
Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the
number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative
one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their
relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
7.0
3.8
{"commentId":947962,"authorDomain":"kerchenko"}
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.
{"commentId":947962,"threadId":"137892","contentId":"897434","authorDomain":"kerchenko"}
- 3 votes
#1 - Wed Aug 15, 2007 1:49 AM EDT{"commentId":948037,"authorDomain":"The-Voice-of-Reason"}
Well this isn't surprising...
{"commentId":948037,"threadId":"137892","contentId":"897434","authorDomain":"The-Voice-of-Reason"}
- 2 votes
#2 - Wed Aug 15, 2007 3:20 AM EDT{"commentId":948088,"authorDomain":"DeepThought"}
Newsvine 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.
{"commentId":948088,"threadId":"137892","contentId":"897434","authorDomain":"DeepThought"}
- 4 votes
#3 - Wed Aug 15, 2007 4:17 AM EDT{"commentId":948240,"authorDomain":"webweasel"}
Wikipedia blocks edits from Tor and other anonymous IP networks.
{"commentId":948240,"threadId":"137892","contentId":"897434","authorDomain":"webweasel"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":948422,"authorDomain":"DeepThought"}
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.
{"commentId":948422,"threadId":"137892","contentId":"897434","authorDomain":"DeepThought"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":950502,"authorDomain":"webweasel"}
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.
{"commentId":950502,"threadId":"137892","contentId":"897434","authorDomain":"webweasel"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":948348,"authorDomain":"partisanhack"}
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.
{"commentId":948348,"threadId":"137892","contentId":"897434","authorDomain":"partisanhack"}
- 2 votes
#4 - Wed Aug 15, 2007 8:56 AM EDT{"commentId":948645,"authorDomain":"SuperUnspecial"}
I 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.
{"commentId":948645,"threadId":"137892","contentId":"897434","authorDomain":"SuperUnspecial"}
- 3 votes
#5 - Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:06 AM EDT{"commentId":950524,"authorDomain":"webweasel"}
Indeed, 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.
{"commentId":950524,"threadId":"137892","contentId":"897434","authorDomain":"webweasel"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":951003,"authorDomain":"The-Voice-of-Reason"}
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.
{"commentId":951003,"threadId":"137892","contentId":"897434","authorDomain":"The-Voice-of-Reason"}
- 2 votes
#6 - Thu Aug 16, 2007 5:44 AM EDT{"canLink":false,"threadId":"137892","isPrivate":false}
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
Start Tracking
Stop TrackingCOMPANY STUFF:
LEGAL STUFF:
- © 2005-2009 Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine is a property of
