Shady wikipedia editing business(to our detriment)

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

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


jp
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

User avatar

Joined: 9 Sep 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2

10 Sep 2007, 11:05 am

monty wrote:
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.


Thanks! I found the list I was looking for. Amazing to see how the article changes over time.

jp



sarahstilettos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Sep 2007
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 847

10 Sep 2007, 12:10 pm

All I want to add is that I actually used the wikipedia entry to confirm I had aspergers - people had pointed it out to me that I might, and somehow looking at the wikipedia page seemed like the least traumatic way I might find out. So for that reason I think its so important that its accurate.

Can anyone link a discussion thread we might want to participate in?



richardbenson
Xfractor Card #351
Xfractor Card #351

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,553
Location: Leave only a footprint behind

10 Sep 2007, 12:15 pm

LadyMacbeth wrote:
That's what happens when you make an encyclopedia open to the public to edit.
50% good idea 50% not so good of an idea


_________________
Winds of clarity. a universal understanding come and go, I've seen though the Darkness to understand the bounty of Light


jaleb
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Dec 2006
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,714
Location: Kentucky

10 Sep 2007, 12:23 pm

FoxNews did a story on this a few weeks ago, about wikipedia being edited, how just about anyone can do it and say whatever they want no matter how unfounded it is.


_________________
NT mom of two ASD boys

"Be kinder than necessary,
for everyone you meet is
fighting some kind of battle".


mechanima
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

10 Sep 2007, 12:27 pm

To be fair, 90% of Wikipedia really IS accurate. It shouldn't work but it does. It is only very occasionally you get a problem like this because it takes a lot of time and effort to gain that degree of control over an article and very few people would have the time or the motivation to do it.

There is another "rogue editor" on the AS articles, Soulgany, who seems determined to promote a tiny new "victims of Aspies" agenda ("chance would be a fine thing" sez you :roll: ) . But, mercifully, he seems to also have a life and doesn't ever get very far.

I think in this case there is a single, otherwise very good and fair, editor who is driven by a need to control everything around them at all costs. She probably, essentially, means well, but the AS article, with all those individualist Aspie editors who go into fast meltdown at the sight of a mind game, and yet never seem to stay down, or submit, must feel like a red rag to a bull and bring out the worst in her.

I suspect, and hope, that she has finally realised that she really did go too far and has withdrawn. The thing is now to fill the gap and make sure there are ALWAYS fair, impartial, Aspie editors watching the AS articles, keeping the lunatic fringe OUT and the most up to date, balanced, verifiable information IN.

M



monty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

10 Sep 2007, 1:50 pm

jaleb wrote:
FoxNews did a story on this a few weeks ago, about wikipedia being edited, how just about anyone can do it and say whatever they want no matter how unfounded it is.


LOL - someone from a Fox news IP address also edited the wikipedia entry on Fox news to remove information that was critical, and to double their popularity according to the ranking statistics.



jaleb
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Dec 2006
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,714
Location: Kentucky

10 Sep 2007, 8:57 pm

monty wrote:
jaleb wrote:
FoxNews did a story on this a few weeks ago, about wikipedia being edited, how just about anyone can do it and say whatever they want no matter how unfounded it is.


LOL - someone from a Fox news IP address also edited the wikipedia entry on Fox news to remove information that was critical, and to double their popularity according to the ranking statistics.


to give them proper credit, in the story they did admit that someone from FoxNews also did some of the editing also, they were talking about Israel in the story so go figure!


_________________
NT mom of two ASD boys

"Be kinder than necessary,
for everyone you meet is
fighting some kind of battle".


tortoise
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 31 Oct 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 117

10 Sep 2007, 11:57 pm

Here is a contrarian viewpoint.

There is no clinically proven medication that significantly decreases the symptoms of ASD. While the posting of a picture of a drug on the article may be construed by some as a means of the pharmaceutical industry to control the article, in reality it is ludicrous to believe that other editors on that article would let that stand, especially on the ASD article. Nor would other editors let ideas stand such as medication cures ASD. You have to be able to cite your sources and let them stand up to the scrutiny of the community. This fact seems to be neglected in all discussions on this topic.

Some Wikipedian editors get attached to certain articles, myself included. Some of the articles are of very poor quality and editors like myself feel almost a sense of duty to improve them. It's hard to explain but let me simply say that a poor article on a topic that interests me, irks me. Recently I made 18 edits in two days. That is at double or triple the rate of the SG edits. In fact, I have made a 1/2 dozen edits on this post alone. Does this mean I am "shady"? How was it determined how much time was actually spent by SG editing when this information is not posted on Wikipedia? Where did the 37 hour figure come from? Some of my edits are done in a minute or less. I'll usually spend part of my lunch on checking an article and if I see a quick way of improving it, I will. When I double check my edit I may see a further edit and make further corrections. Do you see how one can quickly make numerous edits on an article? I love information and I love working with information does that make me a pharma manipulator?

Really some people need to get a grip on their overactive imaginations and propensity to imagine conspiracy theories when mostly likely they are simply observing normal behaviour. How about this simple explanation. Perhaps SG has a child with ASD and another mental disorder. Perhaps this particular drug helped her son and she wishes to let others know that this drug really helped her son.


_________________
"The test of tolerance comes when we are in a majority; the test of courage comes when we are in a minority". - Ralph W. Sockman


Last edited by tortoise on 11 Sep 2007, 6:15 am, edited 1 time in total.

juliekitty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jun 2006
Age: 58
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,540

11 Sep 2007, 12:08 am

jaleb wrote:
FoxNews did a story on this a few weeks ago, about wikipedia being edited, how just about anyone can do it and say whatever they want no matter how unfounded it is.


Next up on Fox News -- there is NO TOOTH FAIRY!!



Fedaykin
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

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

11 Sep 2007, 2:16 am

tortoise wrote:
Here is a contrarian viewpoint.

There is no clinically proven medication that significantly decreases the symptoms of ASD. While the posting of a picture of a drug on the article may be construed by some as a means of the pharmaceutical industry to control the article, in reality it is ludicrous to believe that other editors on that article would let that stand, especially on the ASD article. Nor would other editors let ideas stand such as medication cures ASD. You have to be able to cite your sources and let them stand up to the scrutiny of the community. This fact seems to be neglected in all discussions on this topic.


I've found that sadly, you can almost always find some researcher to quote supporting some obviously flawed view in support of your argument. The trend many of us have been noticing is that editors arrive at the AS page with a clearly negative view of AS and pick sources of questionable credibility to support their description of it while actively removing those of researchers presenting a positive view, like Baron-Cohen. The AS-haters are very happy to quote the Swedish researcher Gillberg, who caused the greatest research scandal in Swedish history when he didn't want to share his data and instead destroyed it all after the supreme court ordered him to hand it over. On the talk page, SandyGeorgia refers to Gillberg as "very reliable" over and over.. That's not something you do from an unbiased scientific position, but rather something you do to boost the image of the source you like.

Quote:
Some Wikipedian editors get attached to certain articles, myself included. Some of the articles are of very poor quality and editors like myself feel almost a sense of duty to improve them. It's hard to explain but let me simply say that a poor article on a topic that interests me, irks me. Recently I made 18 edits in two days. That is at double or triple the rate of the SG edits. In fact, I have made a 1/2 dozen edits on this post alone. Does this mean I am "shady"? How was it determined how much time was actually spent by SG editing when this information is not posted on Wikipedia? Where did the 37 hour figure come from?


SandyGeorgia averages 100 edits / day. The 37 / 65 hour work schedule was extracted by looking at what seemed to be non-stop edit work. Behind an edit is obviously this work:

1) Navigate Wikipedia to arrive at the stuff you're going to work on.
2) Read what's there already or what's new, what other people have added.
3) Enter your own edit.

If there is someone adding an edit every 10 minutes, it's a pretty clear case of full-time work. Judging by the log, this account had spent not less than 37 hours out of 65 doing editing.

Quote:
Really some people need to get a grip on their overactive imaginations and propensity to imagine conspiracy theories when mostly likely they are simply observing normal behaviour. How about this simple explanation. Perhaps SG has a child with ASD and another mental disorder. Perhaps this particular drug helped her son and she wishes to let others know that this drug really helped her son.


Yep, naturally that makes her make it a full-time job editing Wikipedia and even try to directly advertise products. I find it quite unlikely that someone spending most of their weekdays editing would not have made a business out of it. Face it, full-time professionals are taking control of Wikipedia, it's become a lucrative way for businesses to market their products. These highly active editors are like PR agencies, it's simple market mechanics for them to turn into professionals.



mechanima
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

11 Sep 2007, 4:25 am

tortoise wrote:
Really some people need to get a grip on their overactive imaginations and propensity to imagine conspiracy theories when mostly likely they are simply observing normal behaviour. How about this simple explanation. Perhaps SG has a child with ASD and another mental disorder. Perhaps this particular drug helped her son and she wishes to let others know that this drug really helped her son.


I suspect that if SG has a child with an ASD someone should call CPS considering the 14 hours per day she spends on neglecting that child and editing Wikipedia! :? I would also imagine that "letting others know" what "really helped" one's son, was a little problematic in terms of objectivity let alone the Wikipedia Policy that calls for a "Neutral Point of View"?

It's is far more likely that coping with people's reactions to the Tourette syndrome she announces she has, has given her a compulsion to impose control on her environment at all costs. Editing Wikipedia for 14 hours a day would seem to me indicative of nothing more sinister than the OCD that so often accompanies Tourette syndrome, and having nothing else to do.

While I would absolutely dismiss any suggestion that she is an agent of some sinister "Big Pill", I would equally dismiss any suggestion that her behavior is even remotely normal - unless perhaps for extreme lifestyle Dominants indulging in consensual edgeplay? :roll:

M



tortoise
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 31 Oct 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 117

11 Sep 2007, 6:42 am

I've found that sadly, you can almost always find some researcher to quote supporting some obviously flawed view in support of your argument. The trend many of us have been noticing is that editors arrive at the AS page with a clearly negative view of AS and pick sources of questionable credibility to support their description of it while actively removing those of researchers presenting a positive view, like Baron-Cohen. The AS-haters are very happy to quote the Swedish researcher Gillberg, who caused the greatest research scandal in Swedish history when he didn't want to share his data and instead destroyed it all after the supreme court ordered him to hand it over. On the talk page, SandyGeorgia refers to Gillberg as "very reliable" over and over.. That's not something you do from an unbiased scientific position, but rather something you do to boost the image of the source you like.

I'll respond to one issue at a time as I have time.

On Wikipedia one should look for secondary sources for information. By secondary sources Wikipedia means newspapers like the NYT or national institutions such as the NIMH. The reason that Wikipedia wants secondary sources is because these secondary sources have fact checkers and consequently the information that they distribute is more balanced, more accurate and less extreme. A good secondary source would certainly trump a research paper or even a researcher. Research papers should always be quoted in a paper in a qualified manner and generally only extraordinary recent research papers that have examined new information or major quality review papers should be used as citations. Single reseach papers used as citations are a red flag for me. Typically the editor does not have a neutrel point of view. Their are many other pitfalls to using single research papers as a source for Wikipedia.

The major problem with quoting research papers or researchers is that one paper or one researcher may have a minority or even fringe viewpoint. Don't forget that a minority viewpoint can be given on an article as long as this viewpoint is not given undo weight. This is the other factor that should be considered. You or SG shouldn't be looking at all of this through the prism of AS haters or AS lovers. This already is a clearly a biased viewpoint. Instead with regards to Wikipedia, before I edit I always start on a topic by looking to see what excellent secondary sources say on the topic even if that viewpoint strays from what I believe. I have been accused of many things on Wikipedia but sometimes I think other editors are surprised by my edits. When I tackle a topic I do a lot of research and often my edits appear to be one sided. This is usually because the articles that I work on are onesided. While restoring balance in an article, I'll also insert information that I have discovered to make the article better, this information can support the "other side". To an outsider it appears that I may have "switched sides". In reality my goal is always to improve an article.


_________________
"The test of tolerance comes when we are in a majority; the test of courage comes when we are in a minority". - Ralph W. Sockman


jaleb
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Dec 2006
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,714
Location: Kentucky

11 Sep 2007, 7:19 am

juliekitty wrote:
jaleb wrote:
FoxNews did a story on this a few weeks ago, about wikipedia being edited, how just about anyone can do it and say whatever they want no matter how unfounded it is.


Next up on Fox News -- there is NO TOOTH FAIRY!!


great, I suppose Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny will be next!


_________________
NT mom of two ASD boys

"Be kinder than necessary,
for everyone you meet is
fighting some kind of battle".


mechanima
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

11 Sep 2007, 8:56 am

tortoise wrote:
When I tackle a topic I do a lot of research and often my edits appear to be one sided. This is usually because the articles that I work on are onesided. While restoring balance in an article, I'll also insert information that I have discovered to make the article better, this information can support the "other side". To an outsider it appears that I may have "switched sides". In reality my goal is always to improve an article.


This is just a suggestion, but I think you will find that if you ever decide to treat editors with AS with equal weight, and the same respect, that you give to any NT editors, instead of dismissing them as though any NT opinion, especially yours, self evidently trumped anything they might have to say, they might start to feel you were more impartial?

I also doubt very much if any part of Wikipedia regards "National Institutions such as NIMH" that are frequently loaded with agenda and political bias and without an iota of fact checking or editorial control as "reliable sources".
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS :
In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.

Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text.


M



Zwerfbeertje
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 6 Sep 2007
Age: 123
Gender: Male
Posts: 362

11 Sep 2007, 11:00 am

tortoise wrote:
....Recently I made 18 edits in two days. That is at double or triple the rate of the SG edits.


No-no, she made 40000 edits in 20 months, that's almost 70 per day, on average.

Quote:
How about this simple explanation. Perhaps SG has a child with ASD and another mental disorder. Perhaps this particular drug helped her son and she wishes to let others know that this drug really helped her son.


That would have been the worst possible reason. In that imaginary case she should have realized that a testimonial can never be considered a neutral, scientific base for doing that. Let alone argue about citing and quoting and maintaining their precious NPOV. As a Wiki-editor you should know that.

Personally I think she got a bit carried away with writing a Featured Article.