
On November 17th, 2005, an anonymous Wikipedia user deleted 15 paragraphs from an article on e-voting machine-vendor Diebold, excising an entire section critical of the company's machines. While anonymous, such changes typically leave behind digital fingerprints offering hints about the contributor, such as the location of the computer used to make the edits.
In this case, the changes came from an IP address reserved for the corporate offices of Diebold itself. And it is far from an isolated case. A new data-mining service launched Monday traces millions of Wikipedia entries to their corporate sources, and for the first time puts comprehensive data behind longstanding suspicions of manipulation, which until now have surfaced only piecemeal in investigations of specific allegations.
Wikipedia Scanner -- the brainchild of Cal Tech computation and neural-systems graduate student Virgil Griffith -- offers users a searchable database that ties millions of anonymous Wikipedia edits to organizations where those edits apparently originated, by cross-referencing the edits with data on who owns the associated block of internet IP addresses.
Many more are simple copy edits, or additions to local town entries or school histories. One CIA entry deals with the details of lyrics sung in a Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode.
With everything in the world today and the threat of terrorism at our doorstep, I am glad the CIA is working hard to edit our lyrics to a song in a Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode. Now I can sleep safe at night.
I know the sections relating to Monsanto and the Biotech Brigade had oodles of trouble staying put and more that a little, accurate dirty history has made its way into the light thanks to the world of users who do it right. Once upon a time not long ago the mention of Skull & Bones brought charges of conspiracy theory. Now we all know they are a Connecticut Corporation who may have conspiracy theory to test but not one of existence.
Not to side with corporations but disgruntled employees could be a danger on their lunch hour.
Wikipedia has improved in its methodologies since 1975, it is much better about flagging articles that have controversial editing.
It's far from a perfect system, but it's amazing how good it is. A good reminder about how much can be accomplished when we build systems based on trust.
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |