How Much Do You Trust Wikipedia?

[J-Mac]

Seven years ago at dinner, I mentioned something I had read on wikipedia and my 12-year-old piped up and said, "I edit postings there all the time!" And after dinner he proved to me that he did. He is 19 now and I just asked him if he remembered that incident and he just snickered and walked away. Just sayin'.

-Joe Hone (January 05, 2013, 06:57 PM)

While that is true indeed, I have noticed lately that there is a heckuva lot more oversight of changes now than in the past. Whenever a change is made to a page without noted and what I think they call "notable" references, it is either held out until such is provided or deleted altogether. So apparently someone is trying!

Jim

[KynloStephen66515]

It all depends...but I also like bacon...

[TaoPhoenix]

Heh then there's this:
Bicholim Conflict

http://www.dailydot....nflict-hoax-deleted/
" Up until a week ago, here is something you could have learned from Wikipedia: 

From 1640 to 1641 the might of colonial Portugal clashed with India's massive Maratha Empire in an undeclared war that would later be known as the Bicholim Conflict. Named after the northern Indian region where most of the fighting took place, the conflict ended with a peace treaty that would later help cement Goa as an independent Indian state.

Except none of this ever actually happened. The Bicholim Conflict is a figment of a creative Wikipedian's imagination. It's a huge, laborious, 4,500 word hoax. And it fooled Wikipedia editors for more than 5 years."

 

[Edvard]

For some reason, that strikes me as deplorable and completely awesome at the same time.

[f0dder]

Seven years ago at dinner, I mentioned something I had read on wikipedia and my 12-year-old piped up and said, "I edit postings there all the time!" And after dinner he proved to me that he did. He is 19 now and I just asked him if he remembered that incident and he just snickered and walked away. Just sayin'.

-Joe Hone (January 05, 2013, 06:57 PM)

...and unless he edited to something relevant, the defacement is gone in ~5min.

There's automated bots reverting stuff that's clearly spam, and there's people checking "newly edited" all the time.

[Renegade]

Sigh...

http://en.wikipedia....&oldid=566903734

Note the highlight there.

Info for the changing IP address:

Spoiler

[Querying whois.arin.net]
[whois.arin.net]

#
# ARIN WHOIS data and services are subject to the Terms of Use
# available at: https://www.arin.net/whois_tou.html
#


#
# Query terms are ambiguous.  The query is assumed to be:
#     "n 156.33.241.5"
#
# Use "?" to get help.
#

#
# The following results may also be obtained via:
# http://whois.arin.ne...alse&ext=netref2
#

NetRange:       156.33.0.0 - 156.33.255.255
CIDR:           156.33.0.0/16
OriginAS:       AS3495
NetName:        USSAA
NetHandle:      NET-156-33-0-0-1
Parent:         NET-156-0-0-0-0
NetType:        Direct Assignment
RegDate:        1991-12-03
Updated:        2007-04-05
Ref:            http://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-156-33-0-0-1

OrgName:        United States Senate
OrgId:          USSAA
Address:        2 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE, N.E. 6TH FLOOR
City:           WASHINGTON DC
StateProv:      DC
PostalCode:     20510
Country:        US
RegDate:        1991-12-03
Updated:        2011-09-24
Ref:            http://whois.arin.net/rest/org/USSAA

OrgTechHandle: NOC143-ARIN
OrgTechName:   NETWORK OPERATIONS CENTER
OrgTechPhone:  +1-202-224-4186
OrgTechEmail:  [email protected]
OrgTechRef:    http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/NOC143-ARIN

OrgAbuseHandle: NOC143-ARIN
OrgAbuseName:   NETWORK OPERATIONS CENTER
OrgAbusePhone:  +1-202-224-4186
OrgAbuseEmail:  [email protected]
OrgAbuseRef:    http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/NOC143-ARIN


#
# ARIN WHOIS data and services are subject to the Terms of Use
# available at: https://www.arin.net/whois_tou.html
#
   

And a link for another source identifying the IP address:

http://whois.arin.ne...NET-156-33-0-0-1/pft

[wraith808]

http://en.wikipedia....er_talk:156.33.241.5

That's more telling than anything...

[Renegade]

http://en.wikipedia....er_talk:156.33.241.5

That's more telling than anything...

-wraith808 (August 03, 2013, 10:57 AM)

Holy f*&^ing tip of the iceberg Batman!

http://en.wikipedia....f_edits_to_Wikipedia

I've got a feeling that article barely scratches the surface. No evidence (as of yet), but I'd bet on it.

[app103]

Seven years ago at dinner, I mentioned something I had read on wikipedia and my 12-year-old piped up and said, "I edit postings there all the time!" And after dinner he proved to me that he did. He is 19 now and I just asked him if he remembered that incident and he just snickered and walked away. Just sayin'.

-Joe Hone (January 05, 2013, 06:57 PM)

If he was anything like I was at the age of 12, the quality would have been top notch and quite reliable.

[40hz]

Seven years ago at dinner, I mentioned something I had read on wikipedia and my 12-year-old piped up and said, "I edit postings there all the time!" And after dinner he proved to me that he did. He is 19 now and I just asked him if he remembered that incident and he just snickered and walked away. Just sayin'.

-Joe Hone (January 05, 2013, 06:57 PM)

If he was anything like I was at the age of 12, the quality would have been top notch and quite reliable.

-app103 (August 03, 2013, 12:50 PM)

+1! Ditto.

[J-Mac]

Damn - do you know what is truly sad? That I am not even a little bit shocked or surprised by any of this.

Jim

[Renegade]

More scandal for Wikipedia:

http://www.techdirt....gainst-socking.shtml

Wikipedia Fights Back Against Socking

from the sock-it-to-them dept

The idea that Wikipedia is dying has become one of the Internet's recurrent stories. Because something used by so many people every day is completely free and dependent on the selfless dedication of relatively few individuals, there is perhaps an underlying fear that it will disappear, and it will be our fault for not supporting it better. However, alongside major issues like the need for an influx of new contributors from more diverse backgrounds, one of the lesser-known challenges Wikipedia faces is the rise of "socking", or sock puppetry. Here's how Wikipedia defines the term:

The use of multiple Wikipedia user accounts for an improper purpose is called sock puppetry (often abbreviated in discussion as socking). Improper purposes include attempts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, or otherwise violate community standards and policies. The term comes from sock puppet, an object shaped roughly like a sock and used on the hand to create a character to entertain or inform. In Internet terminology it is an online identity used for deception.

[40hz]

^Are we at all surprised?

Whenever two or more have gathered together in hopes of accomplishing something worthwhile, it's only a matter of time before the jerks show up and try to take it over.

 

[J-Mac]

This concept (sock puppets) has been a known problem at Wikipedia for years now. Wonder why is this news now?

Jim

[Renegade]

This concept (sock puppets) has been a known problem at Wikipedia for years now. Wonder why is this news now?

-J-Mac (October 26, 2013, 12:48 PM)

My guess is that they've just been able to catch & out some of them.