Web Watch
Newspaper Cures Skin Rash
"It has been scientifically proven beyond any doubt that if you rub a copy of Washington Post Express on a rash, the skin ailment immediately and unconditionally clears." -- Anonymous Wikipedia entry.
The Facts
Thanks to an ingenious new tool designed by a Caltech graduate student, Virgil Griffith, it is now possible to figure out who has been rewriting Wikipedia entries to promote their ideological or commercial interests, or simply for personal amusement. Griffith's Wikiscanner tool allows readers to match changes in Wikipedia to the IP addresses of companies, political parties, and media organizations. Readers of the internet magazine WIRED have been voting on the "most shameful Wikipedia spinjobs." Here are some of the Factchecker's personal favorites. Readers are invited to submit their own.
| IP Address | Changes to Wikipedia Entry |
|---|---|
| POLITICAL | |
| Department of Homeland Security | Deleted references to 1963 drunken driving arrests of Dick Cheney |
| FBI | Deleted link to aerial imagery of Guantanamo Bay Naval Base |
| Democratic Party | Inserted claim that Rush Limbaugh is "idiotic" and his listeners are "retarded". |
| Republican Party | Changed reference to U.S. forces in Iraq from "occupying" to "liberating". |
| BUSINESS | |
| Wal-Mart | Deleted reference to Wal-Mart payings its employees less than competitors Inserted claim that average wage at Wal-Mart is "almost double" minimum wage |
| Pepsi North America | Deleted references to harmful health effects of soft drinks consumption |
| Circuit City | Inserted claim that Best Buy stock is "falling every day." |
| Subway | Inserted statement that Subway sandwiches are "delicious." |
| SOCIAL ORGANIZATIONS | |
| ACLU | Inserted claim that Pope Benedict is responsible for "molesting young boys and degrading women." |
| Baptist Bible College | Inserted claim that Satan is "a woman ... commonly called Lucy." |
| FOREIGN | |
| Syria | Inserted claim that MOSSAD was "principal suspect" in JFK assassination |
| Israeli embassy in Washington | Deleted reference to killing of seven Palestinians by Israeli artillery |
| Turkish treasury | Deleted reference to Armenian genocide. |
| MEDIA | |
| Al-Jazeera | Inserted claim that Wikipedia is "a Jewish propaganda site." |
| British Broadcasting Corp | Inserted claim that Tony Blair health problems due to "working out vigorously in the bedroom." |
| Washington Post | Inserted claim that wrapping sore joints in copies of Washington Post Express provides "immediate and permanent relief" for skin ailments. |
Pinocchio Test
For distortion of history, ridiculous claims, and shameless self-promotion, we make a joint award of four Pinocchios to the anonymous computer users at all of the above IP addresses. (About our rating scale.)
Posted on September 25, 2007 at 9:00 AM ET
| Category:
4 Pinocchios, History, Web Watch
Share This:
Technorati |
Tag in Del.icio.us |
Digg This |
What Are These Links?
Previous: Is Edwards "the Most Electable"? |
Next: Counting Civilian Deaths in Iraq
Posted by: William Teach | September 25, 2007 09:21 AM
I give up.
Posted by: zukermand | September 25, 2007 09:54 AM
I always wondered about wikipedia. In most schools, Wikipedia is not accepted as a reference on research papers, anad yet so many people use it as a reference. It makes you wonder about the future of interactive sites like this...
I think it should be a front page story in the washington post that zuckermand is giving up. Betcha he doesn't stick to it!
Posted by: jonas | September 25, 2007 11:54 AM
Amusing fluff.
Somebody else has done the job of Fact Checking Petraeus. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/24/AR2007092401929.html
Maybe you should ask Karen Young to assign Petraeus's Pinocchios?
Posted by: Judge C. Crater | September 25, 2007 12:17 PM
I'm going to fact-check the fact-checker.
"...it is now possible to figure out who has been rewriting Wikipedia entries to promote their ideological or commercial interests, or simply for personal amusement."
Actually, it's not.
More accurate would be to say:
"It's now possible to see from where people have been rewriting Wikipedia entries to promote their ideological or commercial interests, or simply for personal amusement."
Just because an edit comes from IP addresses assigned to a particular organization does not mean that the organization is the "who" that has made the change.
For overstating the power of this tool to a populace that may not fully understand how IP addresses work, I make an award of three pinocchios to this article.
Posted by: Fred | September 25, 2007 12:22 PM
I attend the University of North Dakota and am also a full time employee. We also are not allowed to use Wikipedia as a listed source in any research we do. One Professor, however, has said that it is acceptable to use Wikipedia as a starting point, paying particular attention to the sources at the bottom of each article. These sources are often very good and can be used.
Posted by: James Toso | September 25, 2007 10:42 PM
I would agree with Fred's basic point. While the IP may originate with some organization or other, and many of them may have been intentional by some official in some cases, most of them are probably some low level nobody who works there wasting time on his or her lunchbreak.
Also, "Syria"? That's a country. Is this supposed to mean it came from somewhere in the Syrian government, or just from a computer somewhere in the country of "Syria"?
Posted by: richard | September 25, 2007 11:59 PM
Wiki is a good place to find some quick info, and usually some links to specific articles. Depending on what you are looking at, it is a good reference, however, it should be taken with a large grain of salt, and certain issues should be researched elsewhere. It is not all bad, but, you never know, particularly when it comes to people and political issues.
Posted by: William Teach | September 26, 2007 08:27 AM
Did the fact-checker do research to make sure that The Washington Post Express does not have medicinal properties?
Posted by: Herbert | September 26, 2007 02:18 PM
I remember several months ago a piece on NPR (All Things Considered, possibly) that compared Wikipedia and Encylopedia Britanica (sp?) and found out they were about the same as far as reliability. Of course, you still need to use your best judgement, but Wikipedia seems to do a pretty good job editing out false and misleading information quickly, whereas once EB is printed, it can't be edited until the next volume is printed.
Posted by: tl | September 26, 2007 03:32 PM
What's wrong with Subway claiming their sandwiches are delicious? Fact Checker might devote themselves to claims of greater actual significance than that. In a back-handed way, you're simply asserting your own apparent subjective opinion as fact.
Posted by: creese | October 1, 2007 01:01 PM
Post a Comment
We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.
User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.
While not exactly new, it was amusing.