BBC News Story

Wikipedia, as most of us know, is a free access online encyclopaedia that is written, edited and re-edited by it's readership. The core of its uniqueness is that if any reader knows better than the original author about a particular subject, they are free to amend the entry to improve its accuracy, add useful relevant information, etc. It is moderated to minimise abuse, prevent mischievious entries and edits, etc.

In December last year, the British scientific journal Nature found that scientific entries were at least as likely to be correct and accurate as those found in the Encyclopedia Britannica, so the Wikipedia system works.

Today's news story, however, tells how the Wikipedia biographies of several prominent US Congress members have been amended by their staff to remove some unflattering facts, put positive spins on others, etc. Similarly, attempts to put defamatory lies on some other Congressional profiles have been traced back to the offices of their political opponents.

As the article says, the profile of President GW Bush has had to be frozen by the moderation team because it was subject to so many attempted revisions form both acidly vituperative opponents and cloying sugar-coating supporters.

Questions for debate:
Does this represent an abuse of the open principles of Wikipedia, or is it fair use?

How should Wikipedia deal with this problem, if it is one?

Wikipedia is a unique idea, perhaps the current apex of the internet. It is wholly comprised of user-submitted content as well as links, external sources, and internal links to related material. A truly astounding work.

Does this represent an abuse of the open principles of Wikipedia, or is it fair use? How should Wikipedia deal with this problem, if it is one?
Here's the thing: when something like politics is in the public domain and freely edited by anyone passing by, it is going to be subject to these kinds of things. Who is to say which version of the "truth" is correct?

Wikipedia does have editorial control over revisions to articles. It exercises it more strictly on some topics than others. I think it is appropriate that they do so when it comes to current political figures to head off the "spinning" that is bound to occur.

If partisan folks (99% of Americans) are able to slant the "facts" in the Wikipedia, how on earth could anyone wonder if it's considered fair? Besides, it's proven that there's a few innacuracies in their system. Personally, I think it's deliberate, to what extent and where it leads to I don't know.

Does this represent an abuse of the open principles of Wikipedia, or is it fair use?

Yes. The whole idea is for Wikipedia to be subjective like encyclopedias. Just the facts. Now obviously that's much easier to do in an article about Sodium Chloride or the migratory patterns of the illusive, but beautiful, North Canadian Red Stripped Woodchuck. The point is this is all done on the honor system; and let's face it: the honor code and politics were never meant to go hand in hand.

How should Wikipedia deal with this problem, if it is one?

The only way it can deal with the problem is to either freeze articles so no changes can take place or to remove or edit wording that is opinionated.

I personally feel like this is a slap in the face of everything that could be good about the internet. Humanity can't go one place without ruining anything it seems. We all know that Wikipedia can be edited and that you can say anything and change anything to whatever you want; but seriously folks, that's the kind of stuff a 13 year old does for kicks.

Questions for debate:
Does this represent an abuse of the open principles of Wikipedia, or is it fair use?

I think it is fair in this case because it is primarily a problem coming from both sides. I know by previous experiences that if Wikipedia were to unfreeze his article it would be either vandalized or inflated by either side. Now, I would not say the same thing if it were just Republicans wailing on "liberal bias."

How should Wikipedia deal with this problem, if it is one?

I think it has done the right thing, but only with this article and should not expand the freezes.

As a related tangent, I have to say it's an interesting idea and pretty neat to boot, but I don't think it ought to be referenced as authoritative or anything. Freezing it from editing seems ideal on the surface, but it would put it in the same problem we always face each day. Who's to say what definitive accounting of history is correct?

Does this represent an abuse of the open principles of Wikipedia, or is it fair use?

I don't think that this is an "abuse" of anything, rather it is good PR and reputation management. I think many internet users do not know that Wikipedia is not a real encyclopedia and, therefore, take as fact all that they look up on the site. There is just as good of a chance that an opponent is smearing a Rep's reputation on this site than a staff member is improving a reputation.


How should Wikipedia deal with this problem, if it is one?

I think Wikipedia should make it more clear on the site that much of what is written on these entries is not 100% accuarate.