Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-04-22/In the media
UK political editing; hoaxes; net neutrality
UK political editing
Wikipedia appears to have been drawn into the drama of the upcoming (May 7), hotly contested UK general election.
On April 21, The Guardian, a centrist, liberal newspaper, reported that British Conservative Party co-chairman Grant Shapps had been "accused of editing Wikipedia pages of Tory rivals", using Wikipedia account Contribsx:
| “ | Wikipedia has blocked a user account on suspicions that it is being used by the Conservative party chairman, Grant Shapps, "or someone acting on his behalf" to edit his own page along with the entries of Tory rivals and political opponents. | ” |
The story was soon picked up by the Daily Mail, channel4.com and many others. The following day (April 22) the Liberal Democrats' Nick Clegg was reported in The Guardian to have made political capital of Shapps' embarrassment:
| “ | Nick Clegg has mocked Grant Shapps after Wikipedia blocked a user account over suspicions that it is being used by the Conservative party chairman “or someone acting on his behalf” to edit his own page and those of rivals.
The deputy prime minister said he believed Shapps’s denials but then suggested the contested account going by the name of “Contribsx” could have been run by Michael Green—the alter ego used by Shapps to write a series of get-rich-quick guides. |
” |
Hours later though, conservative The Daily Telegraph shot back, alleging that the administrator who had accused the Tory co-chairman of deceptive Wikipedia editing and blocked the account—Wikimedia UK employee and former Wikipedia arbitrator Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, Richard Symonds—is a committed Liberal Democrat activist, as indeed are several of his Wikimedia UK colleagues. (Symonds denied the personal accusation in a subsequent Guardian interview.)
On Wikipedia itself, Risker had requested an arbitration case by that time. Within less than a day, this request reached ten accepts and one recuse, making an arbitration case inevitable. The arbitration case request was the subject of a report in the International Business Times on April 22. The case has now been opened. It will be held entirely in camera, with email evidence submissions accepted until 7 May (the date of the UK election).
Dan Murphy of The Christian Science Monitor, commenting on the story from the other side of the Atlantic, looked at the bigger picture (April 22), focusing on Wikipedia's susceptibility to spin from all sides in an article titled "Did leading UK politician edit his Wikipedia page? Possibly, but the problem goes deeper."
Shapps has forcefully denied the claims that he or someone authorised by him was behind the account's edits, telling the BBC on April 22 that the allegations were "categorically false and defamatory. It is the most bonkers story I've seen in this election campaign so far."
Shapps's past (acknowledged) Wikipedia editing had previously attracted The Guardian's attention in 2012 (see previous Signpost coverage). Media interest in the story shows no sign of abating, with the Daily Mail and The Times publishing articles in the small hours of April 23: "Wikipedia official who accused Shapps is a Lib Dem: Online administrator once described himself as 'Liberal Democrat to the last'", "Lib Dem behind Wikipedia meddling claims". City A.M. then reported that the "Lib Dems deny involvement in Grant Shapps Wikipedia case" and The Conversation followed a few hours later with a piece by Dr. Taha Yasseri, who identified himself on Chase me's talk page as a former Wikipedia administrator and checkuser, writing that "Wikipedia sockpuppetry is a problem, but baseless accusations are no better". A.K.
Wikipedia hoaxes
The Washington Post and The Daily Telegraph both ran stories on Wikipedia hoaxes last week.
The Telegraph's Jamie Bartlett asked, "How much should we trust Wikipedia?" (April 16), noting that a hoax made up by a friend about the origin of the butterfly swimming stroke had recently come to be quoted in a reputable newspaper (the Guardian, as Ianmacm pointed out in the discussion on Jimmy Wales' talk page).
The Washington Post's Caitlin Dewey provided another in-depth write-up of the Jar'Edo Wens hoax (April 15, see previous Signpost coverage) along with coverage of a recent breaching experiment by Gregory Kohs of Wikipediocracy and MyWikiBiz.
Dewey thinks there is a numbers problem at the core of Wikipedia:
| “ | There are 4.8 million pages on the site’s English version, but only 12,000 veteran editors. That works out to roughly 400 pages per volunteer—far more than at any other time in the site’s history. [...] The site’s editor base has atrophied since 2007, and today’s editors are largely young, white, Western men. It’s no coincidence that, in Kohs’s vandalism experiment, an error on an obscure New York canal was corrected, while lies about Ecuadorian customs, Indian legends and Japanese history were not. Likewise the Wiki-troll Jagged85, who meddled with articles about Islamic history for years; it was only when he messed with a video game page that he finally got kicked off. A.K. | ” |
For more Signpost coverage on hoaxes see our Hoaxes series.
Wikimedia: violating net neutrality?
IBNLive wonders about "Wikipedia Zero: Is Wikimedia violating net neutrality in 59 countries?" (April 17).
| “ | Wikipedia Zero has been launched in 59 countries with 67 operators and Wikimedia estimates that "400 million people can now access Wikipedia free of data charges." This might appear to be incongruent with Wikimedia's public positioning as a supporter of net neutrality. "We support net neutrality, and believe it is crucial for a healthy, free, and open Internet," a post on the official Wikimedia blog says. In its defence, Wikimedia distinguishes its zero-rating program as non-commercial and highlights its operating principles that prohibit any exchange of payment and exclusivity. [...] These principles, according to Wikimedia, "are designed to balance the social impact of the program with Wikimedia's other values, including our commitment to net neutrality." The foundation says that it sees free access to resources such as Wikipedia as a "social justice issue," and "it is absolutely in the interests of the public to use the Internet to provide free access to education, knowledge, medical information, or other public services." Wikimedia believes that Wikipedia Zero can serve as a model for others to follow. Mark Zuckerberg also echoes similar sentiments, "net neutrality is not in conflict with working to get more people connected. These two principles—universal connectivity and net neutrality—can and must coexist," he says. |
” |
This discussion comes in the context of a major Indian net neutrality campaign that has seen Mark Zuckerberg embattled in India, and which has led to widespread condemnation of zero-rated services such as Airtel Zero and Facebook's Internet.org. Internet.org generally includes free Wikipedia access—although not under the official Wikipedia Zero umbrella.
Even so, Wikipedia Zero has had its share of mentions in the context of this debate. DNA India for example listed Wikipedia Zero among services flouting net neutrality in its piece "Net Neutrality: Whose internet is it anyway?" (April 19):
| “ | The principle of net neutrality means allowing equal access to every website or app by an internet service provider (ISP). The term was coined by American academic Tim Wu in 2003, and gained wide recognition in the debate in the US that unfolded with service provider Comcast throttling traffic at BitTorrent. This ensued in the decision taken by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to have an open internet in 2010. In India, without a debate, the issue of net neutrality has been widely flouted by ISPs over the years. ISPs routinely offer preferential services to bigger organisations in tie-ups. Some examples include Facebook's Internet.org, Aircel's Wikipedia Zero and its free access to Facebook and WhatsApp, Airtel's free access to Google, and Reliance's free access to Twitter. | ” |
The Indian Express, too, criticised Wikipedia Zero when it commented that "Not just Airtel Zero: Facebook to WhatsApp, everyone has violated Net Neutrality in India" (April 14):
| “ | Aircel and Wikipedia: In 2013, Aircel had announced that it will offer free access to Wikipedia on mobile phones. The partnership is currently valid for 3 years.
Wikipedia might be an instant go to for many of us, but that still doesn't justify why it should be free of charge on a particular network, when accessing other sites means incurring data charges for users. |
” |
| “ | Indian journalist Nikhil Pahwa has responded to Zuckerberg's editorial, by pointing out research after research that shows zero services around the world universally tend to do badly for the people who use them. It all seems to amount to economic racism—exploiting the poor in under-developed parts of the world to become your customers under the guise of some apparent charitable purpose. While offering them a shoddy, stunted version of the real thing. As Vijay Shekhar Sharma, founder of payments app PayTM, puts it: "It's poor internet for poor people".
In perfect irony, Zuckerberg talks about seeing the wonder of a kid in a remote Indian village discovering the power of the internet. The upshot being that if Zuckerberg—himself a child prodigy—ever was brought up on internet.org, he couldn't have ever built a Facebook. |
” |
India's savetheinternet campaign for net neutrality had by April 20 resulted in close to one million emails from Indian citizens to the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI).
The campaign was galvanised by a YouTube video made by Indian stand-up comics collective AIB. The video, which encourages viewers to write to TRAI demanding strict adherence to the net neutrality principle, has to date received over 2.5 million views. A.K.
In brief
- Fight over monkey image continues: Amateur Photographer reports (April 21) that David Slater, whose photography project in Sulawesi resulted in the famous "monkey selfie" that made headlines last year, will initially focus on pursuing infringers in the UK, having been warned that court action in the United States could be prohibitively expensive. Slater was quoted as saying, "Trust me, I am trying my best to pursue this matter, if not for me then for the benefit of the photographic community. One thing seems certain—photographers will have their online images stolen often in the coming years. If they fail to serve justice, high-profile cases like mine will only promote even more theft, especially from the US." There was no comment from the Wikimedia Foundation on the matter. A.K.
- Big Think: In a "Big Think" video (uploaded April 10), Harvard law professor Jonathan Zittrain talks about "Why Wikipedia Works Really Well in Practice, Just Not in Theory", and discusses an idea to deal with Wikipedia's shortage of good-faith editors: significantly expanding Wikipedia's population of student editors. A.K.
Discuss this story
UK political editing
Hello everyone. The Telegraph article - and the other articles based off it, including this one - are inaccurate, but as a volunteer I simply do not have the time or expertise to argue with the hundreds of editors about taking them down. Instead I have done an interview with the Guardian which answers the allegations and obfuscations that Mr Shapps has made. It can be read here: Wikipedia volunteer who blocked 'Grant Shapps' account: I stand by my decision. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 23:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Net neutrality
....What? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Either elaborate upon your brazen declarations or stop using irrelevant pop. buzzwords because you want to seem like a hepcat. Just do your job, please. Thanks.
Yes. I agree with all of this, save the medical information thing that shouldn't be mentioned here, as Wikipedia is supposed to NOT be advocating its medical advice as something that you should follow, for obvious reasons.
Aside from that, though, what you say is true here. The Web has made it thankfully a lot easier for people to get the information they need, and that's a very good thing.
But still, these statements make me think that someone with some rabble-rousing agenda has snuck into the Wikimedia Foundation. That's no good, and could cause a lot of problems in the future.
Alternatively, someone just used a bad choice of words. I hope that that's all it is. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 23:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia hoaxes
The quote from Caitlin Dewey is excellent, and I still think that one of the obvious opportunities for alleviating the problem continues to be ignored: there should be a worldwide distributed group of . These would be the people who would bring Wikipedia's coverage of, say, "Ecuadorian customs, Indian legends and Japanese history" up to speed. These are the people who would notice that a "Wiki-troll ... meddled with articles about Islamic history" long before he finally "messed with a video game page". They would voluntarily include their real names and university affiliations on their user page (that is, they would consent as a condition of employment, like any terms of service where "by continuing you consent"), and their entire contribution history would be publicly viewable and critiqueable (a feature Wikipedia already has for every user), so there would be no mysterious/unnoticed/untracked/under-the-radar paid editing involved. As for who they would be: They would mostly be underpaid adjunct professors who happen to be competent in the topics at hand (such as "Ecuadorian customs, Indian legends and Japanese history"), but possibly also university students studying those topics, if they meet some requirements of aptitude and good faith. Both of those populations include many people who would love to build Wikipedia coverage if they could make a paying job out of it. As for who would fund their payroll: rich philanthropists could set up endowments for this, and also, anyone could donate garden-variety donations to it (crowndfunding), if anyone ever got serious about building it. Now, the main reason this idea never gets anywhere is because it begins with the phrase "people who someone pays to edit Wikipedia". Bam, radioactive poison, already killed, never get a fair hearing. But this idea is so obvious and so NOT paid advocacy that it's painful that no one takes it seriously or discusses it. — ¾-10 15:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One reason that's frustrating is that the university project is not some crazy BS without precedent. Crowdsourcing and it could coexist, with crowdsourcing as the main basis. Say 98/2 ratio. Nupedia and Citizendium failed because they tried to rely too hard on the university-project-like idea. They left out the crowdsourcing aspect (say, a 0:100 ratio) and thus failed. Wikipedia succeeded because its basis is crowdsourcing. But does that mean that Wikipedia must remain 100:0 and never be 98:2?
By the way, I realize that although this comment started out as a reply to User:Llywrch, it became an argument to anyone listening, which amounts to a brick wall. Duly noted, but again, "That's the very point about why it's frustrating." — ¾-10 00:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]