Kid creates program that tells the identity of those editing certain wikipedia articles

[2Xtreme21]

Apologies if this is a repost. Searched "wikipedia."

Link to article.

As soon as the software was launched on the internet, chaos erupted.
Among many revelations, Wikipedia Scanner reported that:
- Microsoft tried to cover up the XBOX 360 failure rate

- Apple edit Microsoft entries, adding more negative comments about its rival

- Bill Gates revenge? Microsoft edits Apple entries, adding more negative comments about its rival

- The Vatican edits Irish Catholic politician Gerry Adams page

- In the 9/11 Wikipedia article, the NRA added that ?Iraq was involved in 9/11?

- Exxon Mobil edits spillages and eco-system destruction from oil spillages article

- FBI edits Guantanamo Bay, removing numerous pictures

- Oil company ChevronTexaco removes informative biodiesel article and deletes a paragraph regarding fines against the company

Continued...

It's scary and just furthers the stereotype against wikipedia as being that much more unreliable.


Link to site

 

[CasioTech]

this thread delivers. Somewhat.

 

[illusion88]

.gr .... thats Greece right?

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21

It's scary and just furthers the stereotype against wikipedia as being that much more unreliable.

Why? When someone vandalizes a page, people revert it. Actually, they have bots that are able to detect a lot of types of vandalism and auto-revert.

While these edits make a funny joke, it's not as if Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are sitting in their offices editing each other pages. All they know is who owned the IP address that made the edits (that's my understanding at least)

 

[pyonir]

This is how much this news has an effect on my life: .

 

[2Xtreme21]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21

It's scary and just furthers the stereotype against wikipedia as being that much more unreliable.

Why? When someone vandalizes a page, people revert it. Actually, they have bots that are able to detect a lot of types of vandalism and auto-revert.

While these edits make a funny joke, it's not as if Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are sitting in their offices editing each other pages. All they know is who owned the IP address that made the edits (that's my understanding at least)

You don't think if companies or people surrounded by controversy had free reign over Encyclopedia Brittanica they wouldn't put their own little spin in articles also, do you?

 

[James3shin]

WIKI is a recess/playground reference at best.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21

It's scary and just furthers the stereotype against wikipedia as being that much more unreliable.

Why? When someone vandalizes a page, people revert it. Actually, they have bots that are able to detect a lot of types of vandalism and auto-revert.

While these edits make a funny joke, it's not as if Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are sitting in their offices editing each other pages. All they know is who owned the IP address that made the edits (that's my understanding at least)

You don't think if companies or people surrounded by controversy had free reign over Encyclopedia Brittanica they wouldn't put their own little spin in articles also, do you?

Brittanica is a print encyclopedia. If an error makes it into print, it can't be corrected seconds later by screeners.

That said, wikipedia entries should certainly be scrutinized more carefully when dealing with a controversial topic.

 

[alkemyst]

yeah contrary to popular belief wiki can be a terrible source esp on a popular entry that has been subtley altered.

 

[Cattlegod]

Is maltastar reliable?

 

[athithi]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21

It's scary and just furthers the stereotype against wikipedia as being that much more unreliable.

Why? When someone vandalizes a page, people revert it. Actually, they have bots that are able to detect a lot of types of vandalism and auto-revert.

While these edits make a funny joke, it's not as if Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are sitting in their offices editing each other pages. All they know is who owned the IP address that made the edits (that's my understanding at least)

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if they did

 

[LordMorpheus]

someone replaced all instances of "Franzibald" with "Fagzibald"!!

All we have is an IP range, it could have been anyone.

 

[BoomerD]

Last semester I had 2 instructors who promised a ZERO on any paper turned in that used wikipedia as a reference...even if they cited numerous other works...

 

[namelessentity]

I don't really understand why Wikipedia lets users alter data if it's not accurate. If it's designed to auto-revert then it should have like a 15 minute delay in updates to prevent false information even being visible.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
Last semester I had 2 instructors who promised a ZERO on any paper turned in that used wikipedia as a reference...even if they cited numerous other works...

Good :thumbsup: I've said this so many times here... no matter how reliable Wikipedia is or is not, it is not an acceptable source for a research paper. Sweet criminy, I remember writing a paper in the 6th grade, and the teacher said we could use ONE encyclopedia and we had two have to non-encyclopedia sources, and to get used to that because after the 6th grade we could never use an encyclopedia as a source again. Ever. A research paper should use primary and secondary sources. An encyclopedia article IS essentially a research paper. There is something seriously wrong with our students if they don't understand why Wikipedia should not be used for schoolwork (except to lead you to real sources - feel free to use the bibliography section in an encyclopedia article for the same purpose).

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: namelessentity
I don't really understand why Wikipedia lets users alter data if it's not accurate. If it's designed to auto-revert then it should have like a 15 minute delay in updates to prevent false information even being visible.

Not really practical, and not really necessary. Most edits aren't vandalism.

Suppose one guy edited an article, then another guy edited the same section of the article within the 15 minute period before the update occurred. You'd have to have someone manually handle the merge.

 

[Dessert Tears]

I don't quite understand the fuss. The edit information is there, but apparently no one bothered to look.

Seeing Corporate Fingerprints in Wikipedia Edits, New York Times
The address information was already available on Wikipedia, but the new site makes it much easier to connect those numbers with the names of network owners.

There are several lookup (including WHOIS) links generated by Wikipedia available 2 clicks (+1 for the lookup itself) from the main article.

Borrowing a page from mugs's book, Wiki != Wikipedia. Wikipedia is-a wiki, but not vice-versa.

Originally posted by: LordMorpheus
someone replaced all instances of "Franzibald" with "Fagzibald"!!

All we have is an IP range, it could have been anyone.

Heh. Wikipedia makes the exact IP address public, so one could match an edit against a known subscriber (cable modem, etc).

Originally posted by: BoomerD
Last semester I had 2 instructors who promised a ZERO on any paper turned in that used wikipedia as a reference...even if they cited numerous other works...

No encyclopedia (tertiary source) should be acceptable. This point comes up in every Wikipedia thread ... Beating a dead horse.

 

[Leros]

Originally posted by: namelessentity
I don't really understand why Wikipedia lets users alter data if it's not accurate. If it's designed to auto-revert then it should have like a 15 minute delay in updates to prevent false information even being visible.

What if the newly added/changed content (say within the last 48 hours) was colored differently? That way you would be slightly wary of that part of the article.

 

[flxnimprtmscl]

I <3 wikipedia. No one with a brain actually relies on that site for any information anyway. Wikipedia is information by idiots for idiots.

 

[sygyzy]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21

It's scary and just furthers the stereotype against wikipedia as being that much more unreliable.

Why? When someone vandalizes a page, people revert it. Actually, they have bots that are able to detect a lot of types of vandalism and auto-revert.

While these edits make a funny joke, it's not as if Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are sitting in their offices editing each other pages. All they know is who owned the IP address that made the edits (that's my understanding at least)

It's truly scary that you are the AT Wiki champion.

 

[Dessert Tears]

Originally posted by: Leros
What if the newly added/changed content (say within the last 48 hours) was colored differently? That way you would be slightly wary of that part of the article.

This behavior can be simulated using the history diff. This is an interesting idea, but I think it would be more distracting than useful. For example, an editor could make a non-consensus edit knowing that even if his/her version did not stand, the consensus version would be highlighted as recently edited and suspect.

 

[illusion88]

Originally posted by: LordMorpheus
someone replaced all instances of "Franzibald" with "Fagzibald"!!

All we have is an IP range, it could have been anyone.

Penny-arcade FTW!

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21

It's scary and just furthers the stereotype against wikipedia as being that much more unreliable.

Why? When someone vandalizes a page, people revert it. Actually, they have bots that are able to detect a lot of types of vandalism and auto-revert.

While these edits make a funny joke, it's not as if Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are sitting in their offices editing each other pages. All they know is who owned the IP address that made the edits (that's my understanding at least)

Hmmm....

Gates/Jobs Teleconference:

Gates: hehe, check it out Jobs!
Jobs: You ah heck!!! Take THIS!!
Gates: rofl, you pwnt me there....hey, Wiki editing is small potatoes...wanna do something more fun?
Jobs: Sure.. What?
Gates: I'll pick a random Windows User and we'll just mess around with their Files!
Jobs: Oh ya, that'll be great!!!
...............

 

[TheTony]

The most controversial edits discovered via WikiScan's cross referencing can be found here.

 

[Eli]

lol, that's kinda whack.