There’s a new service around, that’s going to cause some red faces. Built by Virgil Griffith, it’s called the WikiScanner. It tracks user edits to the online “encyclopedia” to the organisation or location where they originate.
For one, Diebold seems to be burnishing its image. At least, so it appears. A whole section about the criticisms on its voting machines disappeared because of an anonymous editor (Wikipedia permits anonymous edits?!) whose location has been traced to the organisation.
But they’re not the only culprits. There are more worrying (and spectacularly puerile) defacements that originate, among others, at the New York Times. Guess what? They don’t like Bush much over there, and don’t mind a little crudeness in describing Condoleezza Rice, either.
One can understand why companies and individuals might want to change what Wikipedia says about them. But why would an apparent journalist deface entries about others?
Update: Yup, it caused red faces, all right. The BBC ran a report hammering, amongst others, the CIA for its Wikipedia edits on the Iranian president. It should have thought to check, before someone else — the Biased BBC blog, no less — discovered that BBC staff had edited the entry on the American president. Granted, they changed only one letter, but it was a fairly important letter in his middle name, ‘Walker’. Tony Blair was a victim of immature insults too. Proving that it doesn’t buy this “do unto others” nonsense, a note about a BBC Trust report, which found ‘trendy left-wing bias’, was also whitewashed by a BBC staffer.