- What is SharePoint 2010? Vision and Reality
view comments - Knowledge Management in 2012? Probably Dead
view comments - Myths & Realities of Drupal
view comments - iPad 3 vs. New Samsung Tablet: War Starts in February
view comments - 5 Signs Your Company Doesn't Get Social Business
view comments - 5 Critical Steps to SharePoint Information Architecture Planning
view comments - Is There A Business Case For Using SharePoint as an Enterprise CMS?
view comments - Alfresco Enterprise 4: Social, Collaborative, Mobile, Cloud Connected Content Management
view comments
Editing Out Wiki Censorship
Know what happens when the honor code of the Internet is broken? Apparently nothing.
When WikiScanner, a program that allows users to track the source of computers used to make changes to the online encyclopedia, revealed that people using computers at the CIA and FBI edited entries in Wikipedia, it caused quite a stir — covered in brief by Angela Natividad.
WikiScanner found that while CIA computers were editing entries on the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, the FBI was busy removing aerial and satellite images of the U.S. prison for terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. But beyond violating Wikipedia's recommended guidelines, there have been no direct consequences for the parties involved.
Wikipedia's conflict of interest (COI) policy states that “an incompatibility between the purpose of Wikipedia to produce a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia, and the purposes of an individual editor […] involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote yourself or the interests of other individuals, companies, or groups.”
Wikipedia strongly discourages COI edits, but admits that next to a blocked account and possible “embarrassment for the individuals” the only real punishment that results is that misleading entries can be quickly revised by another editor.
That'll show the Feds!
Seriously, what are the implications for promoting yourself within open source media? Why shouldn't government agencies try to push their agenda? Why shouldn't someone be able to make their Wikipedia entry more appealing than another's, even if it means bending the truth a little?
In a way, open source technology is like being able to perform your own cosmetic surgery. However, what starts out innocently enough with just a whitening of the teeth, for example, can soon escalate into major changes: Brad Pitt's nose and Angelina Jolie's lips. A few more operations and you don't even recognize the original article.
Moderation people, moderation.
But since Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and encyclopedias are in the business of maintaining a “neutral, verifiable” account of events, perhaps there's something to this conflict of interest policy. Wikipedia was never intended to be a venue for propaganda. And to use open platforms as a means to propagate a personal or organizational agenda does nothing but degrade the resource for everyone else.
The point of a wiki is to let people collaborate and contribute. The best history is that left to the masses to dissect and discuss, not dictated or mandated by the powers that be.
Featured Events View all
| Add event
|
RSS
- Feb 22, 2012 – Intelligent Content Palm Springs 2012
- Feb 26, 2012 – SPTechCon - Sharepoint Conference San Francisco 2012
- Feb 28, 2012 – (Webinar) How to Build Great Mobile Websites
- Mar 6, 2012 – Get Social with Microsoft & Telligent in Dallas
- Mar 8, 2012 – Get Social with Microsoft & Telligent in New York
Who's Hiring? View all
| Post a job
|
RSS
- Web Content Manager in Newport Beach at Orange County Museum of Art
- Principal Business Consultant in Paris at Saba
- Director of Customer Success Management in Nova Scotia at Radian6
- Software Engineer -- Media Solutions in Bucharest at Adobe
- Technical Writer in Charleston at Blackbaud
- Interaction Designer in Maryland at Inmedius
- Project Manager in London at Brandworkz
- Sales Director, Consumer Electronics at Synacor

Receive
the Free CMSWire Newsletter
Email It