WikiScanner: See Who Edits Wikipedia

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of the WikiScanner tool, which reveals the identities of individuals or organizations making edits to Wikipedia, including those from congressional offices, the CIA, and other entities. Participants explore the significance of these edits, the nature of Wikipedia as a collaborative platform, and the reliability of information sourced from it.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express skepticism about the significance of the WikiScanner findings, arguing that the essence of wikis is their openness to edits from anyone, which should lead to a convergence towards truth over time.
  • Others suggest that the revelations from WikiScanner enhance the value of Wikipedia by exposing the motivations behind certain edits, implying that transparency can be beneficial.
  • One participant questions why there is surprise regarding the edits made by organizations, suggesting that many people may have suspected such practices for a long time.
  • There are comments about specific edits made from CIA computers, with a humorous take on the use of taxpayer dollars for such activities.
  • Participants express curiosity about the extent of edits made by specific organizations, such as Fox News, indicating a desire to understand the influence of media on Wikipedia content.
  • Concerns are raised about the reliability of Wikipedia as a source, with some arguing that it should not be used for academic purposes without verification from other sources.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the significance of the WikiScanner findings. While some view it as a valuable tool for transparency, others question its relevance and emphasize the collaborative nature of Wikipedia.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved assumptions regarding the motivations behind edits and the standards Wikipedia employs for neutrality and tone, which some participants challenge.

Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
8,252
Reaction score
2,664
What edits on Wikipedia have been made by people in congressional offices, the CIA and the Church of Scientology? A new online tool called WikiScanner reveals answers to such questions [continued]
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/08/15/ap4023544.html

On November 17th, 2005, an anonymous Wikipedia user deleted 15 paragraphs from an article on e-voting machine-vendor Diebold... the changes came from an IP address reserved for the corporate offices of Diebold itself.
http://web2.commongate.com/tag/wikipedia+scanner

This appears to be the site, which is down right now.
wikiscanner.virgil.gr
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm not sure why this is noteworthy. The very point of wikis is that they may be edited by anyone, with any motivation, and yet will always gradually converge to a consensus of "the truth."

People focus far too much on individual edits, authors, and acts of vandalism, yet none matter on the whole.

- Warren
 
chroot said:
I'm not sure why this is noteworthy. The very point of wikis is that they may be edited by anyone, with any motivation, and yet will always gradually converge to a consensus of "the truth."

People focus far too much on individual edits, authors, and acts of vandalism, yet none matter on the whole.

- Warren

I think in this particular case, the edits reveal more information than they were meant to (with the help of logspying). This actually increases value of Wikipedia in my opinion.
 
I'm not really sure why anyone is surprised by this. Maybe it's just nice to have the evidence to back one's suspicions, but didn't most people suspect this to be the case for a long time?
 
tweaks to Wikipedia articles on TV shows being made from CIA computers.
You see what your tax dollars are paying for!? Procrastinating Spies!
 
I'm curious how much editing has been done by Fox News.
 
chroot said:
I'm not sure why this is noteworthy. The very point of wikis is that they may be edited by anyone, with any motivation, and yet will always gradually converge to a consensus of "the truth." - Warren

not "with any motivation", wikipedia has standards for tone, neutrality, etc
 
Chi Meson said:
I'm curious how much editing has been done by Fox News.
You're assuming that they have someone who can read :rolleyes:
 
Scanner Tracks Who's Changing What on Wikipedia
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12823729

Morning Edition, August 16, 2007 · You might have suspected it, and ignored it until now in your online life: Wikipedia isn't the most reliable reference. :smile: It's just often the first source to come up when you do an online search.

Now a new Web tool offers proof that you shouldn't use Wikipedia to write your school reports or compile biographical facts about your favorite singer (without checking elsewhere as well) because the company or the band you're researching is likely to have enhanced or polished its Wikipedia image.

It isn't illegal. The whole point of the online encyclopedia is that it is collaborative and multi-sourced. Wikipedia calls itself "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit," which is another way of saying it is not fact-checked. Or spin-checked, for that matter.
Interesting - but not surprising.
 

Similar threads

STOP: 0x0000008E (0xC000005, 0XBF04DF7B, 0xED924B18 0X000000000)
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
7K