Tag: wikipedia
NYPD Caught Airbrushing Wikipedia Article About Eric Garner

NYPD Caught Airbrushing Wikipedia Article About Eric Garner

Did Eric Garner have his “face” shoved to the ground, or his “head”? Which sounds better?

These are the kind of details that the NYPD has been quietly amending in a series of Wikipedia pages focusing on police brutality and overreach, according to a detailed report by Capital New York.

The Wikipedia article on the “Death of Eric Garner” was subject to several instances of narrative adjustment, as reported by Capital:

  • “Garner raised both his arms in the air” was changed to “Garner flailed his arms about as he spoke.”
  • “[P]ush Garner’s face into the sidewalk” was changed to “push Garner’s head down into the sidewalk.”
  • “Use of the chokehold has been prohibited” was changed to “Use of the chokehold is legal, but has been prohibited.”
  • The sentence, “Garner, who was considerably larger than any of the officers, continued to struggle with them,” was added to the description of the incident.
  • Instances of the word “chokehold” were replaced twice, once to “chokehold or headlock,” and once to “respiratory distress.”

Wikipedia pages are constantly in flux, the product of endless revision and re-revision by myriad volunteers, and all changes are recorded in a page’s edit history. If an anonymous user makes changes to any entry, the edits will be logged and tagged with the user’s IP address. Capital identified no fewer than 85 unique addresses making changes, which were registered to NYPD computers.

Among the other articles the NYPD made revisions to were entries on the Civilian Complaint Review Board, which investigates complaints against the Department; the controversial “stop-and-frisk” policy; and the 2006 incident in which Sean Bell was shot 50 times by police while unarmed.

According to the site’s policies, all edits must be made from a neutral vantage point, based on reliably sourced information. The article on Garner’s death has since been placed under semi-protected status, meaning unregistered users cannot make changes, a standard response when a page has been subject to a “significant amount of disruption or vandalism from new or unregistered users.”

The NYPD is not the first institution to meddle with the world’s most relied-upon reference site. In 2007, computers belonging to the FBI and CIA were caught tweaking articles about the Iraq War and Guantánamo Bay.

Capital has a more comprehensive list of the revisions here.

Watch Out Hill Staffers, @congressedits Is Tweeting All Of Your Wikipedia Edits

Watch Out Hill Staffers, @congressedits Is Tweeting All Of Your Wikipedia Edits

Congressional staffers can no longer edit Wikipedia pages in their spare time at work without their changes being tweeted to the world. A new Twitter bot, @congressedits, tracks all anonymous edits to Wikipedia made from congressional IP addresses. So far, the bot has tweeted 97 times and has over 21,000 followers.

Web developer Ed Summers was inspired to create @congressedits after learning about Parliament WikiEdits, which tracks edits coming from the British Parliament.

“The simplicity of combining Wikipedia and Twitter in this way immediately struck me as a potentially useful transparency tool,” Summers wrote on his blog.

Summers posted the code for the Twitter bot to GitHub so others could create similar bots, all in the spirit of transparency and community.

“The truth is, @congressedits has only announced a handful of edits, and some of them are pretty banal. But can’t a staffer or politician make a grammatical change, or update an article about a movie? Is it really news that they are human, just like the rest of us?” he wrote. “I created @congressedits because I hoped it could engender more, better ideas and tools like it. More thought experiments. More care for our communities and peoples. More understanding, and willingness to talk to each other. More humor. More human.”

So far, @congressedits hasn’t caught anything particularly controversial (maybe because staffers now know that the bot exists). The edits range from pop culture pages (like those of It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia and Step Up 3D) to pages about journalists (BuzzFeed’s Ben Smith is a Smirnoff ice enthusiast!) to JFK conspiracy theories.

Someone on the Hill called former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld an alien lizard.

Rumsfeld

A staffer added this entire paragraph to Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS)’s page, “Congressman Huelskamp has become an independent, national conservative leader in Congress for his unwavering commitment to Constitutional government, reduced spending and over-regulation, fighting waste and corruption, defending traditional values and civil liberties, stopping ObamaCare, and ensuring accountability and transparency in Congress.”

Huelskamp

And someone found it incredibly important to mention that The Heritage Foundation’s Brian Darling bred “rare long haired cats” as a child.

darling

This isn’t the first time that the public has tracked the Hill’s activity on Wikipedia. In 2012, BuzzFeed’s Andrew Kaczynski did a search of the House of Representatives’ IP address on Wikipedia, and found a few hilarious edits.

The staff of Allen West, a Republican representing Florida at the time, removed a mention of the time that he called the entire Progressive Caucus “Communists.” Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS)’s office got rid of his entire “controversies” section. And Rep. Gregg Harper (R-MS)’s staff deleted any mention of the time he said he “hunted liberal, tree-hugging Democrats.”

As more Twitter bots are created, they’ll start to play an important role in holding politicians accountable. It’s already happened in Russia. @RuGovEdits, a bot launched to monitor the Russian government, caught that someone edited a Wikipedia page about plane accidents. The page had originally said that the Malaysia Airlines flight MH-17 was shot down “by terrorists of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic with Buk system missiles, which the terrorists received from the Russian Federation.” The editor changed it to say that the plane “was shot down by Ukranian soldiers.”

Screenshot: Twitter

Interested in U.S. politics? Sign up for our daily email newsletter!

Adrianne Wadewitz, Scholar Who Helped Diversify Wikipedia, Dies At 37

Adrianne Wadewitz, Scholar Who Helped Diversify Wikipedia, Dies At 37

By Elaine Woo, Los Angeles Times

LOS ANGELES — When Adrianne Wadewitz became a Wikipedia contributor 10 years ago she decided to use a pseudonym, certain that fellow scholars at Indiana University would frown on writing for the often-maligned “free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.”

But Wadewitz eventually came out as a Wikipedian, the term the encyclopedia uses to describe the tens of thousands of volunteers who write and edit its pages. A rarity as a woman in the male-centric Wikipedia universe, she became one of its most valued and prolific contributors as well as a force for diversifying its ranks and demystifying its inner workings.

Her goal was “empowering everyday Internet users to be critical of how information is produced on the Internet and move beyond being critical to making it better,” said Alexandra Juhasz, a Pitzer College professor of media studies who worked with Wadewitz to address gender bias in Wikipedia.

Wadewitz, who trained scores of people, particularly women, to participate in Wikipedia as editors, died April 8 in Palm Springs, California, 10 days after sustaining head injuries in a fall while rock climbing in Joshua Tree National Park, said her partner Peter B. James. She was 37.

A postdoctoral fellow at Occidental College’s Center for Digital Learning and Research, Wadewitz worked with faculty and students to use technology and the Internet effectively in the classroom. As a campus ambassador for Wikipedia, she also tackled widespread skepticism about the online source’s trustworthiness and biases.

An expert on 18th-century English literature, she merged her interests in Wikipedia, where she wrote articles on famous writers like Jane Austen and Mary Wollstonecraft and pioneering female rock climbers like Steph Davis and Lynn Hill.

Legendary in the Wikipedia world, Wadewitz had more than 50,000 “edits” or contributions to her credit. She also was the author of 36 “featured” articles, the highest distinction bestowed by other Wikipedians based on accuracy, fairness, style and comprehensiveness.

“She was one of the top 10 editors in terms of producing a lot of high-quality content,” said Sue Gardner, executive director of Wikimedia Foundation, the San Francisco-based nonprofit that operates Wikipedia. “Wikipedia is full of brilliant, talented people. She really stood out.”

Wadewitz did not fit the profile of the typical Wikipedia editor. According to a 2011 Wikimedia Foundation survey, only 9 percent of more than 100,000 Wikipedians are women, and of those, 22 percent reported that editing for Wikipedia was “an unpleasant experience.”

When Wadewitz emerged from behind her moniker (she initially identified herself as “Awadewit”) she was greeted by a range of responses from other Wikipedians that spurred her to think about the website’s gender gap.

“When I used my real name, all of a sudden there was a lot of commentary,” she told a Scripps College audience earlier this year. “‘Oh, you’re a woman’ or ‘You can’t really be a woman’ or ‘You don’t write like a woman.’ Or all of a sudden my arguments were not taken as seriously or were judged as hysterical or emotional. … So I got much more interested in why this was happening.”

She began to cast herself as a bridge between Wikipedia and a distrustful public that regarded the online encyclopedia as unreliable and error-prone. She began leading workshops called “edit-a-thons” where she took participants on a tour of the website and explained how entries are produced, vetted and constantly updated and revised.

“Archivists take Wikipedia with a grain of salt,” said Liza Posas, archivist and librarian at the Autry National Center, who attended Wadewitz’s workshop for the L.A. as Subject research alliance. “You think there’s a troll behind the screen and don’t know what’s going on, what’s the accountability. She walked us through this great unknown, Wikipedia land. She put us at ease.”

She also pointed out the encyclopedia’s shortcomings. The website’s gender gap has been the subject of much discussion as critics like Wadewitz have pointed out disparities not only in the number of female Wikipedians but in the treatment of women subjects and decisions about who or what is worth including. On the day Prince William married Kate Middleton, for example, an entry about Middleton’s vaunted wedding gown was nominated for deletion, prompting pro and con comments from editors. Even Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales leaped into the fray, noting that the website had more than 100 articles on Linux operating systems and perhaps needed more stories on famous dresses.

In another example, Wadewitz wrote about sharply different interpretations of a plot point in an 18th-century novella, with one characterizing an incident as rape and another as a case of a female character who “succumbs to her desires.” Both viewpoints could be valid, but only one could be included in the plot summary, a problem Wadewitz said shows that “who writes Wikipedia matters.”

“Wikipedia needs to recruit women, yes, but, more importantly, it needs to recruit feminists,” she wrote on her blog last year. “And feminists can be of any gender.”

Wadewitz was born Jan. 6, 1977, in Omaha and grew up there and in North Platte, Nebraska. The only child of the Rev. Dr. Nathan R. Wadewitz, a Lutheran pastor, and Betty M. Wadewitz, a nurse and attorney, she earned a bachelor’s degree in English literature from Columbia University in 1999 and a doctorate from Indiana University in British literature in 2011.

Her parents survive her along with James, a photographer.

When she first began taking rock-climbing classes she “felt silly because I could not do basic exercises that seemed effortless for other people,” she wrote last year in an essay, “What I Learned as the Worst Student in the Class.” In time she celebrated her successes, such as the first time she balanced on a small foothold.

“For me, one of the most empowering outcomes of my year of climbing has been the new narrative I can tell about myself. I am no longer ‘Adrianne: scholar, book lover, pianist, Wikipedian.’ I am now ‘Adrianne; scholar, book lover, pianist, Wikipedian, and rock climber.’”

Flickr via Giulia Forsythe

James O’Keefe Blames Shadowy Forces for Wikipedia Mistakes

Conservative propagandist James O’Keefe thinks that liberal billionaire George Soros edited his Wikipedia page to include a common misconception about his criminal record. In an interview with The Awl yesterday, O’Keefe claimed that the only reason people think he’s a criminal is “because they read Wikipedia,” which is “edited by George Soros, who edits out my innocence pertaining to the felony.”

O’Keefe, best known for deceptively edited videos targeting ACORN and NPR, was arrested last January after dressing as a telephone repairman and entering the offices of Senator Mary Landrieu. He was originally charged with tampering with Sen. Landrieu’s phones, a felony, but that was dropped after he agreed to plead guilty to entering her offices on false pretenses, a misdemeanor. [The Awl]