Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Manipulating Wikipedia
THE BBC reports that Wikipedia is investigating the PR firm Bell Pottinger's edits on a number of entries that appear to be related to their clients. I suspect that these attempts at manipulation go on more often than we suppose.
Between April and June 2008, a number of edits were found to have been made on the entry for Alexandra Palace, by 'editor' "davidloudfoot". The thrust of the edits were to remove references to the opposition to the sale of our charity's building and to remove information about that sale.
The attempts at censorship were quickly spotted, reversed and – thanks to Wikipedia's comprehensive history (of edits) section – exposed for posterity. One imagines that a 'professional' PR firm would employ a bit more subterfuge when doing a PR job, in hiding the true identity of the 'editor'.
Might the Wikipedia editor davidloudfoot bear any relationship to the then general manager of Alexandra Palace, David Loudfoot, who was protégé of the disgraced long-time general manager Keith Holder?
Tags for Forum Posts: editor, edits, manipulat*, wikipedia
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Justin Guest on
-
Clive, this is quite an interesting issue. I met a guy a while back, lovely but barking mad. He told me a story about Wiki and how he has a theory that a lot of history is being laid down at the moment- the internet is poorly policed and once information gets out there it becomes received wisdom with little critical attention.
To put the theory to the test he spotted an opportunity after the North Korean shelling of the Yeonpyeong Island a year ago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeonpyeong). He decided that the island was known for its kumouuri crab. So he added this to the relevant Wiki page “Yeonpyeong Island is renowned for its kumouuri, a specialty spiced crab”. The statement was unattributed. The papers covered the shelling and (as he told the story) the relevant journalists did their homework.... on Wikipedia. So, the Telegraph reported the next day how the island was renowned for its Kumouuri crab! Bingo, the statement was now attributed to a quality source, the Telegraph.
If what he says is true, and why would it not be, this is now a fact! And this is how history is being written...
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
That sort of thing may well happen, Justin. But there are an equal number of stories where Wikipedia is, if anything, over-policed by people with attitudes from hell. For a local example, take a look at the history section of Harringay Station. In adding this section the only way I was able to get a woman (acting with no authority and little experience) off my back was to completely over-reference the section. You can see from the talk section how collaborative she was.
You might also note in the talk section two warnings about removing images which didn't have the required permission.
Wikipedia is far from perfect, but it's a wonderful repository of information that's a lot more heavily policed by other users and admins than you might think.
In general, the same rules apply for using it as for using any other reference source. When I use it, I don't blindly accept it as a source. I'll check if it's sourced and seek to confirm important facts through a second reliable reference. The journalists in your story should have done the same as a matter of course.
-
Permalink Reply by Liz on
-
Some of the articles are written by the authorities on the subject. The Jean-Jacques Rosseau was written by the JJR society, for example. Surprised that the Korean unattributed statement wasn't jumped on by the admins, having seen what Hugh had to put up with while writing something about a small corner of London.
-
-
Me too, I know Wiki has had examples of very heavy oversight, but I guess (if his story is true) they cannot micro manage...
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
Wikipedia is one of the web's most used websites but I suspect most users don't notice the "View History" tab at the top right of each page that shows a history of revisions to the page.
I think one needs to use it with some cirumspection. One former TV journalist I know says he won't touch it and rejects if completely, which I think is an extreme view. You have to bear in mind the contentiousness of the subject you're looking up.
A discussion of a chemical compound is unlikely to be contentious and likely to be a highly useful introduction to the subject. The entry concerning Gerry Adams led to a bitter battle, with editors deleting and then reinstating assertions of his former membership of the IRA.
I was partly brought up on the Encyclopedia Britannica which was revised several years apart between editions. That is absoultely fine for most articles, especially historical ones, where the facts don't change.
What's impressive about Wikipedia is, because it's a collaborative effort, updates can and are made on a daily basis. For example, I looked up the Lockheed Martin RQ-170 Sentinel drone in Wikipedia yesterday.
I was impressed to see that the article was fully up to date with the news that one of them was somehow brought down (in one piece) in Iran and referenced a BBC news story. The Iranians claim that, using electronics, they hijacked the plane in mid-flight and brought it to land safely (although the undercarriage is hidden in the Iranian TV shots. Which if true, is of some interest.
-
Permalink Reply by StephenBln on
-
Hugh wrote: the only way I was able to get a woman (acting with no authority and little experience) off my back was to completely over-reference the section
Wasn't me in drag.
I gave up on Wiki a long time ago, although I started many North London pages.. Long term Wiki authors tend to be pushy 'anorak' types who continue to delete 'others' additions..
-
-
No, you were always a reasonable Wikipedian. I think we e-met over the Manor House article didn't we?
-
-
Ah, there's the 'cop out' - I don't belong to that 'long term' group..
Yes, we did meet on the Manor House page.. and very glad I am too.. It opened a door to my past and enabled me to communicate with and meet some very interesting people
*grovel over*
-
-
If only Wikipedia was more like Diderot and d' Alembert's Encyclopedia, much more fun to read
-
Permalink Reply by Old-Age-Emporium(OAE) on
-
I have always re(v)(f)erenced Wikipedia as I do the Bible. They're both highly collaborative efforts, mirroring a fairly run-of-the-mill culture from Tower of Babel to Harringay Ladder, genuflected to by many, sent up by even more, added to by Tom, Dick and Harry, canonised and junked over the years, over-referenced here, under-referenced there, taken literally by many a fool, both inspired by Divine Beings called Jimmy who aren't above passing the collection plate/begging bowl from time to time. And what the hell's the point of a Bible if you can't manipulate it for your own purposes or quote from it in a sermon or pub quiz to vanquish your enemies or win a bit of applause or a bottle of Jameson?
Clearly the only way to read either of them is with a Lot , or even a Lot's Wife, of Salt.
Next week: the Koran
-
-
Even the devil* can quote Wikipedia to his purpose.
*[PR companies]
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
