Online Tool Reveals Who Edits Wikipedia
Brian Bergstein of the Associated Press reports on an online tool that traces the sources of Wikipedia edits.
The free Scanner grabs the Internet Protocol addresses used in anonymous Wikipedia edits in the past five years. By combining that with public information about which IP addresses belong to whom, the Scanner reveals Wikipedia changes made from computers assigned to a bevy of organizations. . . .
Many examples are being tallied at http://wired.reddit.com/wikidgame — a page run by Wired News, which reported earlier on WikiScanner.
Some examples listed on the Wired News web page include*:
FBI removes aerial images of Guantanamo.
Wikipedia's entry on President Bush "IS TAINTED BY POLITICAL BIAS THAT HAS NO PLACE IN WIKIPEDIA," shouts an unbiased critic ... from the Justice Department in Washington D.C.The Defense Intelligence Agency thinks it's their job to classify writers. In this case, some spook wants us to believe that Maureen Dowd is a man hater.
Diebold removing all criticism and contreversy [sic] about them
The US Department of Energy thinks we made the right decision in using military force to search for WMDs in Iraq because if Iraq had them, then it would have been the right decision to use military force to find them.
Over two years after the invasion of Iraq, someone from the Republican party edited the entry on the Baath Party from "In June 2003, the US-led 2003 occupation of Iraq occupying forces in Iraq banned the Ba'th party" to "In June 2003, the US-led 2003 occupation of Iraq liberating forces in Iraq banned the Ba'th party."
Focus on the Family Edits: here they pretty much erase all reference, biased though it might be, to their being part of the christian right.
Somebody at the National Rifle Association wants us to think that Iraq was involved in the planning and/or execution of 9/11. They've got proof!
* Note: these are user-submitted examples. There is no indication that the changes are the policy of any of the entities listed above or that the user analysis is correct.
For an overview of internet privacy, see a slightly outdated 2006 CRS Report.
Written By:Me On August 16, 2007 12:25 PM
I don't understand why it is significant that highly interested parties would edit wikipedia entries. That seems implicit in the whole concept of a user edited encyclopedia, and should be balanced out by edits from other interested parties such as opposition candidates and organizations.