Wiki Thyself

wikipedia3.jpgIn a recent incident on Wikipedia, Adam Curry, a former MTV VJ, was accused of editing an entry on Wikipedia on podcasting to enhance his role in the origins of podcasting. According to a CNET article:

Essentially, Curry is accused of anonymously editing out information in the article that discusses some others’ roles in the creation of the technology while at the same time pumping up his own role.

In particular, he was said to have entirely deleted sections of the article, which addressed innovations originally talked about by Technorati principal engineer Kevin Marks.

“At the first Harvard BloggerCon conference,” in 2003, the original Wikipedia language began, “Kevin Marks demonstrated a script to download RSS enclosures to iTunes and synchronise them onto an iPod, something Adam Curry had been doing with Radio Userland and Applescript.”

But then an anonymous user–who was traced back to Curry via the IP address–deleted the Marks section.

According to another CNET article, Curry believed that the information he deleted was wrong. It wasn’t, and Curry admitted making a mistake. The CNET article raises the issue of whether people should be permitted to create or edit entries on issues where they have a personal interest:

Wales [the creator of Wikipedia] said he’s not sure how to approach the question of whether people should be allowed to post on subjects in which they have a personal interest.

“That’s an interesting philosophical issue,” Wales said. “Because on the one hand, particularly with things like podcasting, the people involved are people who know a lot about it, and on the other hand, when people are editing something they’ve been personally involved in, it can be hard for them to be neutral.”

He added that traditionally, Wikipedia has discouraged users from participating in such entries and asks them to be mature and serious when they do.

“But we don’t have a rule about it, because it’s too hard to enforce, and it may not be a good idea.”

I agree. First, as Curry says in the article, he should be “allowed to have an opinion of the facts and change Wikipedia to represent my viewpoint.” Second, how could a no-self-interested posting rule possibly be enforced?

Perhaps the answer is to restrict anonymity on Wikipedia. Because Curry was traced back to his edits, he’s been shamed across the Internet:

In the blogosphere, however, Curry is getting beaten up. . . .

But Curry bristles at the accusation that he was intentionally trying to deprive anyone of due credit.

“That I’m trying to inflate my role in the history of podcasting is a mean-spirited claim,” he said, “and not based on the facts of my (Wikipedia) edits and entries. But the meme took, and now I’m the asshole of the week.”

As one who is against Internet shaming, I’m wary that eliminating anonymity might facilitate the shaming of people who seek in good faith to clean up incorrect information about themselves on Wikipedia. Indeed, for the Seigenthaler defamation incident on Wikipedia, I suggested that he could just correct the false information himself.

Perhaps there’s an easy work-around — people could just have a friend create or edit an entry. I’ve always wanted to have a Wikipedia entry for myself . . . filled with glowing praise, of course. Hmmm . . .

Related Posts

1. Solove, Curtailing Anonymity on Wikipedia

2. Solove, Fake Biographies on Wikipedia

3. Solove, Suing Wikipedia

4. Solove, Wiki Your Papers?

5. Solove, A Victory for Anonymous Blogging

6. Solove, Is Anonymous Blogging Possible?

7. Solove, Using Lawsuits to Unmask Anonymous Bloggers

8. Solove, Seeking Justice Against Bad Businesses – Blogosphere Style

9. Solove, Of Privacy and Poop: Norm Enforcement Via the Blogosphere

10. Solove, Internet Shaming Redux: The Case of the Stolen Cell Phone

You may also like...

5 Responses

  1. Mike says:

    I’ve always wanted to have a Wikipedia entry for myself …

    I realize you’re kidding, but The Volokh Conspiracy has one.

  2. John Gilmore says:

    While we’re at it, let’s prevent people who have ANY KNOWLEDGE about a subject from editing Wikipedia entries about that subject.

    Wikipedia won’t let me edit ANY entries, because I run a Tor server on my computer. They run a secret blacklist, but why should I be surprised? Blacklists are in fashion like they haven’t been since the 1950s — for Internet censorship, for spam, for air and train travel, even for transit riders. I guess this generation (including its judges) needs to feel some real totalitarianism before it will figure out (again) why that’s such a stupid idea. Luckily, there are many power-hungry control freaks who are in the process of giving us exactly the lesson we need.

  3. Paul Gowder says:

    John: does wikipedia block you (which would be insane) or does it block all Tor users? (How does Tor work, anyway? Does it just slap one big IP address onto all users?

  4. Rick says:

    They block all Tor users.

  5. Wikipedia Irony: Jimmy Wales Edits His Own Entry

    A story in Wired reveals that Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, has been editing his own Wikipedia entry: Public edit logs reveal that Wales has changed his own Wikipedia bio 18 times, deleting phrases describing former Wikipedia employee Larry…