WikiScanner: See Who Edits Wikipedia

[Ivan Seeking]

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

 

[chroot]

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

 

[Pythagorean]

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.

 

[Moonbear]

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?

 

[Smurf]

tweaks to Wikipedia articles on TV shows being made from CIA computers.

You see what your tax dollars are paying for!? Procrastinating Spies!

 

[Chi Meson]

I'm curious how much editing has been done by Fox News.

 

[fourier jr]

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

 

[mgb_phys]

I'm curious how much editing has been done by Fox News.

You're assuming that they have someone who can read

 

[Astronuc]

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. 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.