Shady wikipedia editing business(to our detriment)

Page 1 of 4 [ 60 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Fedaykin
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 21 May 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 314
Location: Sundsvall, Sweden

10 Sep 2007, 5:02 am

Several people have noticed lately that the Asperger's page on Wikipedia has been hijacked by people painting a negative view of the syndrome. The worst offender has to be this SandyGeorgia editor who even went as far as adding a picture of a bottle of risperidone to the page, a clear product placement, and claimed it was standard treatment for AS. Somehow, Gillberg's unfounded view that AS is comorbid with antisocial personality disorder is found on the page as well, though haven't looked up just who added it. He stands pretty much alone in this hateful portrayal of us and hasn't been able to support his view with facts. Anyway.. As I looked at the editing history of SandyGeorgia, I realized there must be a business behind this account. Have a look at

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?lim ... =&month=-1

This is a partial summary of last week's edit log:

18:41 4th sep - 5th sep 5:08
(10:27h)

4th of sep:

16:17-16:29
14:39-15:20
13:11
12:01-12:39
4:29-5:24

3rd sep 22:50 - 4th sep 3:26
(4:36h)

3rd of sep:

16:10-20:48
13:14-13:48
03:01-06:02
2nd sep 23:37 - 3rd sep 01:05
(1:28h)

2nd sep:
21:52-22:08
11:47-20:16

So.. During the time from 11:47 2nd sep to 5:08 5th sep, 65.5 hours in all, this account spent something like 37-38 hours editing Wikipedia, something I can't see any single person doing, especially not since it's mainly during weekdays and it's in the US.

Since the work schedule practically proves that it's not just a private person, and the account has been used for pharmaceutical product placement, I can't help but to believe that these companies are funding edits such as these.

It appears that wikipedia editing business is a business today, editors that learn all the formalities surrounding the system and who get involved in the wiki politics become propaganda resources, something companies wanting to sell a product or a view can utilize. I feel Wikipedia shouldn't pretend to be an impartial encyclopaedia, but merely a primer on topics that might not reflect the truth. People shouldn't take it quite that seriously when there might be ulterior motives involved or controversial topics are covered. The service is lovely for quickly browsing topics though of course.



girl7000
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Mar 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 659
Location: Somewhere in the Atlantic

10 Sep 2007, 5:06 am

Have you contacted the people who manage Wikipedia to tell them about this?
I know other websites who use wiki description of asperger syndrome, so it is important that the wiki people are informed of this abuse of their facility.

Thanks for bringing this up :)



CockneyRebel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2004
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,289
Location: Stalag 13

10 Sep 2007, 5:16 am

It's good that you've brought this to our attention.



Fedaykin
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 21 May 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 314
Location: Sundsvall, Sweden

10 Sep 2007, 5:16 am

girl7000 wrote:
Have you contacted the people who manage Wikipedia to tell them about this?
I know other websites who use wiki description of asperger syndrome, so it is important that the wiki people are informed of this abuse of their facility.

Thanks for bringing this up :)


The wikipedia business seems so complex, so many guidelines for editing, politics etc etc.. Seems I'm getting in over my head trying to achieve anything there, I'd face professionals.. Though perhaps I should consider it since I've got spare time now. I'm also a bit worried that I'd get too emotionally attached with what's put there so I end up even less able to get a career going than now.

There is one of us fighting there, a guy called Zeraeph, but my impression is that he's on the recieving end of the politics, helpless in the face of the businesses. They've even got guidelines telling you to always "assume good faith" even when it's obvious that it's not the case, and you can get blocked/banned if you call out users over stuff they add.



mechanima
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Nov 2005
Age: 66
Gender: Female
Posts: 524

10 Sep 2007, 6:17 am

Looking over the past few days the tide seems to have turned somewhat, as the editor who had dominated the page seems to have vanished.

It was very refreshing to see 5 or six editors take over the article's talk page with some serious and civilised discussions about what form the article should take over the weekend. There is a really good dynamic starting to happen, but I would say that the more editors join that, the better and stronger the article will now become.

M



Kit
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 94

10 Sep 2007, 7:50 am

I’ve see this same dynamic mention frequently in other forums on topics unrelated to AS (e.g. Anchors for yachts, Iraq war etc.). It’s a terrific problem for Wiki and is threatening to destroy its credibility. As the database increases it will be impossible to restrain the greedy self-interested pimps who corrupt it. Wiki will have to expend fabulous resources to defend against this menace. What I think will happen is Wiki will yield to pressure from special interest “donors” to allow favorable spin or “product endorsement by inclusion” in their articles in order to get the money they need to do this. It's the death of their creditability when that happens.
BTW I read recently revisions to several articles, Iraq war among them, were tracked to CIA and FBI servers. It was either API or Reuters who did the investigation.



monty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Sep 2007
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,741

10 Sep 2007, 8:02 am

Someone just developed a software tool that traces computer IDs to corporations and government agencies to try to uncover tampering and propaganda abuses. I will check on that to see if we can learn anything of this person.

I have had problems with another wiki page for another condition that I have - it was one paragraph when I found it, I expanded it to a full article. Since then, I have given up. Wikipedia is mob rule. Sometimes the results are OK, but sometimes not. The more financial incentives or ego involved, the more things will be manipulated.

The discussion area is the place to challenge things if we want to fight. If enough people stand up and challenge something like you describe, it could be removed and locked down. But it isn't easy. It takes patience and determination and professionalism - the rules of wiki are that if you call an idiot an idiot, you will be marginalized and lose (even if the person is wrong and foolish). Because of the 'encyclopedia' dreams, it is good to provide citations for everything.

In the long run, I think the the best approach is to create quality alternative sites to wikipedia where the membership agrees on something, and get that site listed in wikipedia, try to keep wikipedia from being too wrong.



monty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Sep 2007
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,741

10 Sep 2007, 8:09 am

OK, here is the online tool:

http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/

I will try it out.

It doesn't look like they make the IPs public if the person has an account. Hmm.



jp
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

User avatar

Joined: 9 Sep 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2

10 Sep 2007, 8:30 am

I've noticed this about Wikipedia too. Is there any way to get past versions of the article on wikipedia. In particular the section on social interaction had 25 characterstics which people with AS may have. These are 3 of them:

- Lack of embarrassment - although persons with AS have an intellectual understanding of shame and embarrassment, they are unable to grasp concepts on an emotional level.

- Lack of appreciation of humor - although they may grasp jokes at an intellectual level, and rarely even excel at making jokes, they fail to appreciate its emotional worth. Sometimes, their smiles and laughter may appear unnatural.

- Financial imprudence - although some people with AS can manage their own finances, they usually appear to be careless or even reckless, with money. In most cases they require the assistance of others in managing their own finances and making financial decisions.

These probably aren't the best ones but these are the only ones I could find - from wiki's discussion board, someone had wrote about them cos they were not happy with them. I found these particularly useful for knowing stuff about my own behaviour. Anyone here have them by any chance?

Thanks,
jp



monty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Sep 2007
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,741

10 Sep 2007, 8:33 am

To view earlier versions, look under the 'history' tab. There may be hundreds of edits or versions. If you are lucky, the person clearly labeled the edit where that list of traits was added, and another person clearly labeled the removal of the list. If not, it will take some time to browse, but it still should be there.

You don't necessarily have to view every revision - if the list that you are talking about was up for a while, it will be present on multiple versions of the page.



alex
Developer
Developer

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jun 2004
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,214
Location: Beverly Hills, CA

10 Sep 2007, 8:47 am

editors have had many problems with SandyGeorgia in the past. Something needs to be done. Her commits should be reverted... We have the advantage of numbers but we need to act on this advantage!


_________________
I'm Alex Plank, the founder of Wrong Planet. Follow me (Alex Plank) on Blue Sky: https://bsky.app/profile/alexplank.bsky.social


Anubis
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Sep 2006
Age: 135
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,911
Location: Mount Herculaneum/England

10 Sep 2007, 9:03 am

jp wrote:
I've noticed this about Wikipedia too. Is there any way to get past versions of the article on wikipedia. In particular the section on social interaction had 25 characterstics which people with AS may have. These are 3 of them:

- Lack of embarrassment - although persons with AS have an intellectual understanding of shame and embarrassment, they are unable to grasp concepts on an emotional level.

- Lack of appreciation of humor - although they may grasp jokes at an intellectual level, and rarely even excel at making jokes, they fail to appreciate its emotional worth. Sometimes, their smiles and laughter may appear unnatural.

- Financial imprudence - although some people with AS can manage their own finances, they usually appear to be careless or even reckless, with money. In most cases they require the assistance of others in managing their own finances and making financial decisions.

These probably aren't the best ones but these are the only ones I could find - from wiki's discussion board, someone had wrote about them cos they were not happy with them. I found these particularly useful for knowing stuff about my own behaviour. Anyone here have them by any chance?

Thanks,
jp


I'm good with finances, I have a reasonable sense of humour, and I understand and feel embarrassment.

Wikipedia should remain neutral and factual, people shouldn't be allowed to advertise things on it. I don't edit alot personally, I just fix the odd factual inaccuracy and spelling/grammar mistake.


_________________
Lalalalai.... I'll cut you up!


Kit
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 94

10 Sep 2007, 10:04 am

You know I’m thinking with all the high level literacy, computer/internet savvy, real world experience and gifted intelligence on this forum, maybe it’s time to form a WP committee to interact with Wiki. I know running a committee of WP members would be like trying to herd cats, but I think the stakes are high enough to make that possible. I don’t think the forces of darkness manipulating Wiki would stand a chance when faced with the unrelenting assault of a few OCD Aspies!



beyondtheinfinite
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 6 Sep 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 123
Location: Colorado

10 Sep 2007, 10:15 am

I've read that Wikipedia is actually about 90% accurate. It's mostly topics that are controversial (for example "President Bush") or in which a company stands to make a profit on (for example, medication for AS...) that get messed with.



LadyMacbeth
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,091
Location: In the girls toilets at Hogwarts, washing the blood off my hands.

10 Sep 2007, 10:38 am

That's what happens when you make an encyclopedia open to the public to edit.


_________________
We are the mutant race!! !! Don't look at my eyes, don't look at my face...


mmaestro
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Aug 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 522
Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA

10 Sep 2007, 11:01 am

LadyMacbeth wrote:
That's what happens when you make an encyclopedia open to the public to edit.

Yes, it's quite sad - create something for the betterment of humanity, founded on the principle that people will, for no reason other than to further the availability of information, work hard, and a small group of self-interested idealogues, corporations, and government entities will wreck it. I have nothing but contempt for those people, but sadly there's little you can do about it.
FWIW, last year they did do a survey of the accuracy of wikipedia, though, and it was slightly more accurate overall than the Encyclopedia Britannica. The problem articles are the ones people get passionate about or which may turn a profit (plus the occasional piece of vandalism because some neanderthal thinks doing so is "funny").


_________________
"You're never more alone than when you're alone in a crowd"
-Captain Sheridan, Babylon 5

Music of the Moment: Radiohead - In Rainbows