Shady wikipedia editing business(to our detriment)

Post Reply New Topic

Several people have noticed lately that the Asperger's page on Wikipedia has been hijacked by people painting a negative view of the syndrome. The worst offender has to be this SandyGeorgia editor who even went as far as adding a picture of a bottle of risperidone to the page, a clear product placement, and claimed it was standard treatment for AS. Somehow, Gillberg's unfounded view that AS is comorbid with antisocial personality disorder is found on the page as well, though haven't looked up just who added it. He stands pretty much alone in this hateful portrayal of us and hasn't been able to support his view with facts. Anyway.. As I looked at the editing history of SandyGeorgia, I realized there must be a business behind this account. Have a look at

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?lim ... =&month=-1

This is a partial summary of last week's edit log:

18:41 4th sep - 5th sep 5:08
(10:27h)

4th of sep:

16:17-16:29
14:39-15:20
13:11
12:01-12:39
4:29-5:24

3rd sep 22:50 - 4th sep 3:26
(4:36h)

3rd of sep:

16:10-20:48
13:14-13:48
03:01-06:02
2nd sep 23:37 - 3rd sep 01:05
(1:28h)

2nd sep:
21:52-22:08
11:47-20:16

So.. During the time from 11:47 2nd sep to 5:08 5th sep, 65.5 hours in all, this account spent something like 37-38 hours editing Wikipedia, something I can't see any single person doing, especially not since it's mainly during weekdays and it's in the US.

Since the work schedule practically proves that it's not just a private person, and the account has been used for pharmaceutical product placement, I can't help but to believe that these companies are funding edits such as these.

It appears that wikipedia editing business is a business today, editors that learn all the formalities surrounding the system and who get involved in the wiki politics become propaganda resources, something companies wanting to sell a product or a view can utilize. I feel Wikipedia shouldn't pretend to be an impartial encyclopaedia, but merely a primer on topics that might not reflect the truth. People shouldn't take it quite that seriously when there might be ulterior motives involved or controversial topics are covered. The service is lovely for quickly browsing topics though of course.

Have you contacted the people who manage Wikipedia to tell them about this?
I know other websites who use wiki description of asperger syndrome, so it is important that the wiki people are informed of this abuse of their facility.

Thanks for bringing this up

It's good that you've brought this to our attention.

Looking over the past few days the tide seems to have turned somewhat, as the editor who had dominated the page seems to have vanished.

It was very refreshing to see 5 or six editors take over the article's talk page with some serious and civilised discussions about what form the article should take over the weekend. There is a really good dynamic starting to happen, but I would say that the more editors join that, the better and stronger the article will now become.

M

I’ve see this same dynamic mention frequently in other forums on topics unrelated to AS (e.g. Anchors for yachts, Iraq war etc.). It’s a terrific problem for Wiki and is threatening to destroy its credibility. As the database increases it will be impossible to restrain the greedy self-interested pimps who corrupt it. Wiki will have to expend fabulous resources to defend against this menace. What I think will happen is Wiki will yield to pressure from special interest “donors” to allow favorable spin or “product endorsement by inclusion” in their articles in order to get the money they need to do this. It's the death of their creditability when that happens.
BTW I read recently revisions to several articles, Iraq war among them, were tracked to CIA and FBI servers. It was either API or Reuters who did the investigation.

Someone just developed a software tool that traces computer IDs to corporations and government agencies to try to uncover tampering and propaganda abuses. I will check on that to see if we can learn anything of this person.

I have had problems with another wiki page for another condition that I have - it was one paragraph when I found it, I expanded it to a full article. Since then, I have given up. Wikipedia is mob rule. Sometimes the results are OK, but sometimes not. The more financial incentives or ego involved, the more things will be manipulated.

The discussion area is the place to challenge things if we want to fight. If enough people stand up and challenge something like you describe, it could be removed and locked down. But it isn't easy. It takes patience and determination and professionalism - the rules of wiki are that if you call an idiot an idiot, you will be marginalized and lose (even if the person is wrong and foolish). Because of the 'encyclopedia' dreams, it is good to provide citations for everything.

In the long run, I think the the best approach is to create quality alternative sites to wikipedia where the membership agrees on something, and get that site listed in wikipedia, try to keep wikipedia from being too wrong.

OK, here is the online tool:

http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/

I will try it out.

It doesn't look like they make the IPs public if the person has an account. Hmm.

I've noticed this about Wikipedia too. Is there any way to get past versions of the article on wikipedia. In particular the section on social interaction had 25 characterstics which people with AS may have. These are 3 of them:

- Lack of embarrassment - although persons with AS have an intellectual understanding of shame and embarrassment, they are unable to grasp concepts on an emotional level.

- Lack of appreciation of humor - although they may grasp jokes at an intellectual level, and rarely even excel at making jokes, they fail to appreciate its emotional worth. Sometimes, their smiles and laughter may appear unnatural.

- Financial imprudence - although some people with AS can manage their own finances, they usually appear to be careless or even reckless, with money. In most cases they require the assistance of others in managing their own finances and making financial decisions.

These probably aren't the best ones but these are the only ones I could find - from wiki's discussion board, someone had wrote about them cos they were not happy with them. I found these particularly useful for knowing stuff about my own behaviour. Anyone here have them by any chance?

Thanks,
jp

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.

editors have had many problems with SandyGeorgia in the past. Something needs to be done. Her commits should be reverted... We have the advantage of numbers but we need to act on this advantage!

You know I’m thinking with all the high level literacy, computer/internet savvy, real world experience and gifted intelligence on this forum, maybe it’s time to form a WP committee to interact with Wiki. I know running a committee of WP members would be like trying to herd cats, but I think the stakes are high enough to make that possible. I don’t think the forces of darkness manipulating Wiki would stand a chance when faced with the unrelenting assault of a few OCD Aspies!

I've read that Wikipedia is actually about 90% accurate. It's mostly topics that are controversial (for example "President Bush") or in which a company stands to make a profit on (for example, medication for AS...) that get messed with.

That's what happens when you make an encyclopedia open to the public to edit.