Talk:WikiScanner/Archive 1

Archive 1

BBC News Article

Interesting that the BBC News article mentions vandalism allegedly from a computer on the CIA network, but not vandalism coming from its own IPs. Took just a couple of minutes to find this constructive edit: [1] Halsteadk 20:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

See Criticism_of_the_BBC#Editing_of_Wikipedia. Iceage77 21:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Great stuff, hopefully I found this before The Times did! I see that the BBC has added a note to the bottom of their story acknowledging that Wikipedia users had contacted them. Halsteadk 11:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Darn it, looks like they were ahead of me as your edit to that page preceded mine on this one! Never mind! Halsteadk 13:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Put the Times story into the article with a cite. Also did some technical fix-ups on the footnotes and links. By the way, I put a paragraph about Wikipedia Scanner into the Criticism of Wikipedia article. Casey Abell 13:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The BBC only added a very innocuous note to their story about their own editing of Wikipedia. But they did link to a blog, "Biased BBC", which was much more scathing in its evaluation of those edits. My guess is that further comment on the BBC's editing of Wikipedia will soon appear in other media, especially in Britain. The temptation to jab at the sacred Beeb is much too strong. Casey Abell 18:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Added a quote from Clifton's blog entry to give the Beeb's side of the story. Casey Abell 19:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Lots of inlinks

Before re-redirecting, please consider the number of 'What links here' to the article. Also, as I said in my edit summary, it's the sole subject of multiple major news org articles. ←Ben^B4 21:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That might be so, but it is completely redundant when a single sentence in the Griffith article suffices. Also it doesn't matter "what links here", when there is an appropriate redirect, which there was. Quatloo 21:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Given the rate at which the discoveries it has facilitated are being described in the press, I'm confident the article will expand quickly. ←Ben^B4 21:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur that it's notable enough, given the number of sources, for its own article. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 22:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Notable

This service, program, and concept is much more important than the author. It has always seemed like an odd "oversight" that similar tools are not built-in to WP. -69.87.204.172 13:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This thing is getting some pretty extensive media coverage all of a sudden, I don't see why it should be merged with the author's article, especially as a lot of people are going to be looking for this article soon. --72.14.99.245 20:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to WikiScanner

Isn't this the name Griffith gave the tool? Cyrusc 21:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

If so, I support this eventually, but for now this is how it's being referred to in the 70+ major news stories. ←Ben^B4 22:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Future structure of the article

Suggestion for an eventual layout, once we get enough meat on the article: (1) technical description of the tool, (2) outside reaction, (3) Wikipedia insider reaction. The stuff on outside reaction should be balanced with comments on any anonymous editing of Wikipedia by the news organizations doing the reporting. I've already tried to do that with the BBC and the AP.

As for a redirect to WikiScanner, it's fine with me as long as the article history is preserved. This is the kind of article where we especially can't afford to lose anything in the history. Casey Abell 21:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I second Casey's points. I don't know how to redirect the edit history, but think the redirect should be effected asap. Two questions: 1) Who is paying attention to whether potentially sensitive information is "disappearing" from WP as a result of this news? 2) Shouldn't we organize a WP task force ASAP to use this tool ourselves?

129.237.2.74 22:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV in examples

There are potentially hundreds of thousands of examples of interested parties providing edits. We may cheerfully expect a certain amount of edit warring over which examples to provide and which deserve the most prominence. The BBC article mentions some crude vandalism from a CIA machine before similarly crude vandalism from a DCCC machine, and then some more content-related edits from Vatican and Diebold machines. It seems to me that the latter TYPE of edit is more significant. What would be a good standard or policy for providing examples? rewinn 00:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Depends on how long we want the article to stretch. Examples are already found in the cites for an interested reader. The real problem is keeping the list of editing organizations reasonably compact and NPOV. There's a real opportunity for POV-pushing by slanting the list of Wikipedia editors one way or the other, or by treating one group of editors as "more significant" than another group.

Right now the article seems reasonably balanced, with mentions of editing by many types of organizations from all parts of the cultural and political spectrums. But this article could easily degenerate into a bashfest against organizations of one particular political or cultural variety. This article will get heavy scrutiny because WP Scanner is a hot story. We have to be extra-careful about NPOV and reliable sourcing. Casey Abell 13:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This article could seriously use information on the distinction between edits that are o.k. and those that are not (whether crude vandalism or subtle advocacy.) Are there any official wikiPolicies or commentaries from ethicists? rewinn 04:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Important to Wikipedia's Future

Shouldn't there be a link to this story on the Main page? It would reduce the potential for perception that Wikipedia is hiding this or not taking it seriously.

This is a great tool for seeking out bias, but I still have serious misgivings about allowing "anonymous" editing.
wcf Facts are stubborn. Comments? 00:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't suppose any of the stories mentioned that if an editor logs in with a user name, they are hidden from this scan? It's a fun tool, but it's really only going to catch the tip of the iceberg, and less than that now that the clueless have been warned. AndroidCat 01:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

That was a major omission in an NPR piece on this that aired either Wednesday or Thursday (don't recall which day) ... that there are different levels of anonymity and that once you've a user name, it takes special tools (checkuser) to take a look under the hood to get your IP address. It was presented, unfortunately, as "look, now you can find out where anyone is editing from on Wikipedia". --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Strange

Strange that since the revelations about the CIA have come to light, the Wikipedia Scanner web page "cannot be found".

Hopefully not, it is quite likely it is temporarily down due to the high level of interest it has generated. Halsteadk 10:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing ... the site has become known to the general public as related to salacious bits, so I'm not surprised that the site would have buckled under pressure of the masses (myself included) trying to get a peek. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Really not that useful

Are political organisations or PR departments involved in internet manipulation in both corporations and states stupid enough to post from official IP's ? Doubtful. Its fairly easy to create a private IP or even to create a user profile that will gain credibility and later enforce manipulative changes.--Lion25 11:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Most people, frankly, don't know the difference between IP and teepee; it's not surprising that people sitting behind firewalls in their organizations believe that they surf anonymously. To the individual, which is what matters to most individuals, there is anonymity because the connection can't usually be traced back to a specific user (as editing maps to firewall proxy IPs in many cases or to a group of addresses in a dynamic allocation pool). So an employee could potentially edit with personal anonymity while bringing their organization into an uncomfortable position of looking like they're trying to write or re-write history. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course, the tool only stops naive employees, it shouldn't let delude us into thinking that any potential serious manipulation by PR depertments in states or corporations is going to be stoped by this in any way.--Lion25 12:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep checking the job sites for "Wiki Spinner" positions and contracts. :) AndroidCat 15:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Such sensitive operations are conducted by organisations and agencies that conduct their own recruitment.--Lion25 18:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Durova/The dark side. There's nothing new under the sun. Durova^Charge! 07:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think it is really useful. Yes, companies will probably be moire careful about gaming Wikipedia in the future, and they can subvert the Scanner quite easily by having employees post from home or the internet cafe across the street or the public library, etc. But it allows us to catch the people who have already done this, and look at those articles they've edited to advance an agenda, and undo their edits. Wandering Star 20:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Virgil Griffith was hired by Wikipedia to create Wikipedia Scanner

I noticed this news story: http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?at_code=428814

Why is it that no other news stories have picked up on this fact? Wikipedia created the Wikipedia Scanner to hide the effects of the SlimVirgin scandal, and to separate themselves from the manipulation of Wikipedia by the CIA and other intelligence agencies.

Surely this is important to include?

OhMyNews is a "citizen journalist" site, meaning anyone can write an article. It is the equivalent of a random message forum or IndyMedia site -- anything goes, nothing vetted or checked. "Facts" on OhMyNews should not be used as citations. Quatloo 23:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, the most important aspect of this is the Wired Blogs user input of Wikipedia lies:

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/08/vote-on-the-top.html

Surely these are the things that get to the crux of the issue? 123.2.168.215 11:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Has there been any confirmation by reliable sources that WP Scanner was funded by Wikipedia? Right now there's only an allegation by ohnynews, not commonly regarded as reliable. I'm not going to get into an edit war over this, but please provide more solid evidence from other sources that WP Scanner was funded by WP itself. Casey Abell 13:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I see you've now changed the wording to Wikimedia Foundation. Are there any reliable sources for this new wording? Wikipedia and the Foundation are two separate but related entities. As I wrote above, we have to be very careful about reliable sourcing for this article because it's a hot topic in the media right now. Please provide reliable, independent sources to back up the speculation in ohmynews. Thanks. Casey Abell 14:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

An editor who is an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation has removed the anon's assertion(s) about funding. I assume the case is closed unless new evidence in reliable sources comes to light. Casey Abell 15:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Final note

The anon editor who left these messages about Wikipedia Scanner has now retracted and apologized for his allegations about the database tool's funding. See his talk page. Casey Abell 17:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Spoofing

An anon editor made a reverted edit about Wikiscanner's inability to distinguish edits made by somebody spoofing an organization's IP address. While the tone of the edit was unencyclopedic, the criticism is real. I have included a reliably sourced version of the criticism.

In fact, this strikes me as a real weakness of the tool. Wikiscanner operates only from a data dump of WP edits. If WP's own system didn't detect the spoofing, there's no way that Wikiscanner could distinguish a spoofed edit from the mere record of the IP address in Wikipedia's data dump. I can see hackers trying to embarrass organizations by spoofing their IP addresses in vandalistic or apparently COI edits on Wikipedia, and then leaving those records to be picked up by Wikiscanner from Wikipedia's periodic database dumps. Casey Abell 20:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Strikes me that I just committed a WP:BEANS violation. But it's a pretty obvious weakness of Wikiscanner and has already been noted in published, reliable sources. Casey Abell 20:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thinking about this a little further, I'm really wondering about the Vatican and other organizations that might have libraries with computers available for public use. Anybody could use those computers and make anonymous edits to Wikipedia that would be marked with an IP address from the organization. Admittedly, if the edits were obviously vandalistic, WP might warn the organization about such use. But if the edits were more subtle, WP might blandly accept them. Wikiscanner would then be helpless. The data dump would just show edits from the Vatican or wherever and Wikiscanner would be none the wiser.

There might be more discussion about this weakness over the next few weeks, and maybe even some questionable examples. If so, I'll add reliably sourced material to the article, and eventually might split out a separate "Criticism" section. Casey Abell 21:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Spoofing is remarkably difficult in this situation. One would have to be able to modify the Time Warner Telecom router connecting the wikipedia.org servers to the net. Can you cite a reliable source which discusses such spoofing attacks against systems where the attackers had no control over the inbound router? ←Ben^B4 21:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh sure, the tough part is getting WP to accept spoofed IP addresses. But if a hacker managed the feat, Wikiscanner would be helpless, since it operates only from WP data dumps. There is no way for Griffith's tool to distinguish a spoofed edit from a legit edit, since it sees only a simple record of the IP address.

And, of course, there's always the possibility of an unauthorized outsider gaining access to an organization's systems and making anonymous WP edits with no spoofing necessary on the Wikipedia end, as the expert quoted in the BBC article noted. WP would have no way of knowing that the outsider was unauthorized, and Wikiscanner would obviously be helpless with only the data dumps. The organization's IP address would be on those edits and nobody would be the wiser.

I think public-access computers are another real danger. The Vatican edits that people have discussed always seemed suspect to me – and apparently to the expert the BBC quoted. Why would officials in the Vatican care about eliminating unfavorable material from Gerry Adams' entry? Although nominally a Catholic, Adams is hardly a fervent member of the church, at least if his WP bio is to be believed. The Vatican has lots of museums and libraries. Do they have any public-access computers? Anybody could make anonymous edits from them, with a Vatican IP address on the edits.

Anyway, reliably sourced material about the weakness of Wikiscanner operating only from the data dumps is already in the article. If more such material crops up, I'll add it. Casey Abell 22:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Malta Star article

Some editor cut and pasted a whole article from the Malta Star. That process violates the copyright laws. I removed the wording from the article because of the obvious rip off of the Malta Star author.--Getaway 04:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Re-added after re-writing. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 13:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I converted this long list to a paragraph of prose and moved it to the "Media reaction" section, and cited the source in a footnote. Lists like these could swamp the article and become heavily POV. It's obvious that thousands of organizations added anonymous edits to WP – we can't single out every one for criticism. The possibility for endless lists and partisan ax-grinding is too great. Let's try to keep the article reasonably compact and NPOV. Casey Abell 15:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I think NPOV is best retained by having as long a list as possible as long as thier edits were disruptive. The lenght meens that we end up mentioning groups of many nationalites and political theories, and are not singleing out american edits or right wing ones or whatever POV is not given enough space (or too much). ^{(Hypnosadist)} 16:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The organizations are still mentioned in the article, but a long bulleted list no longer takes up a lot of space. I disagree about turning this article into nothing except an endless bulleted list of organizations that have edited Wikipedia anonymously. I think the best compromise is to include a representative sample of organizations in a prose treatment, as the article does now. Casey Abell 16:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Another possibility is to split out a separate list article: List of organizations that have edited Wikipedia anonymously. Trying to keep that sucker compact and NPOV would be a real chore, though. Not to mention that you'd have to put in qualifications about possible IP address spoofing, unauthorized use of an organization's computers, public-use computers, etc. Casey Abell 16:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

From my clicking around in Wikiscanner, I think I discovered that it does not track editors who have registered accounts with Wikipedia. Those users have their IP addresses shielded. It's only the "anonymous" users who are publicly visible! I can tell for sure once Wikiscanner allows searching by Wikipedia article. The Sanity Inspector 02:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

That's right. Wikipedia actually encourages editors to register to gain greater privacy. Casey Abell 13:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Do we need this article?

Currently my debating skills are a little bit in ice, so I don't dare to throw this thing into AfD. So, here's an informal, tentative question for friendly, non-pressure-filled debate: Do we really need this article? Yeah, the Press loves it, but I'm a bit worried about the wikipediacentricism. Where are the Implications that Justify Its Existence? No offense intended for folks writing these tools, but I don't see how WikiScanner is anything but the same old "people from organisation X causes ruckus in Wikipedia". So, any real reason to have a news-summary article around, when it could be covered concisely and in more encyclopaedic fashion in some other article? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that we don't want too much navel-gazing. But the subject meets any reasonable notability test, with tons of references in reliable, third-party sources. Also, any attempt to delete the article might look like an embarrassing cover-up. Casey Abell 16:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Notable for the reasons given by casey as well as it goes to the historical record of wikipedia itself and how in its growth it interreacts with other organisations. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 16:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

At the rate of 30 edits per day and having been claimed by two wikiprojects, I'm betting the community thinks it's useful. It's very nice to have a place to see what the news media thinks are the important potential conflicts of interest. ←Ben^B4 16:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfair weight

I think having this as the second sentence is unfair weight. "The Associated Press reported that Griffith wanted "to create minor public relations disasters for companies and organizations I dislike."[3] I read many articles with him and most don't say this is the most important reason he made the scanner like this Wiki article argues. ΞBMEDLEYΔSUTLERΞ 03:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Where's the major part on Fox news too? That is covered in so many stories. ΞBMEDLEYΔSUTLERΞ 04:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Fox News is mentioned in the article, and a reference is given to Fox News Channel controversies. Again, we have to be careful not to make this article a hatchet job on particular organizations. Remember, somebody with a different political viewpoint from yours could whale away at The New York Times in the article.

As for the comment on Virgil Griffith, I don't regard it as unfavorable at all. Griffith seems rather pleased that his tool has created "minor public relations disasters." The New York Times quotes him:

Mr. Griffith said he "was expecting a few people to get nailed pretty hard" after his service became public. "The yield, in terms of public relations disasters, is about what I expected."

Doesn't sound like he's upset. Casey Abell 13:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I'm not comfortable with the general direction of your edits to the article. For instance, you give detailed accounts of CIA and Republican Party edits, but don't give details for the Democratic Party and New York Times edits. This is exactly what I was afraid would happen, with editors attacking organizations they dislike. I am reverting some of your edits to restore the difficult balance we are trying to achieve in the article. Please remember that editors from the other side could do the same thing you've done. Casey Abell 13:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, another editor has posted this edit summary: "Why are all of the articles mentioned here only mentioning conservative incidents, when it is clearly a nonpartisan activity?" Well, the article already did mention edits from computers of the Democratic Party, the New York Times, the BBC, Amnesty International, the Guardian, the United Nations – all organizations that would not normally be considered "conservative." This is the problem with keeping the article balanced, and why long lists of organizations give me trouble. I sort of wish we could keep the names of any organizations out of the article, but that's clearly impossible. All we can do is try not to slant too far one way or the other, though we probably won't make anybody completely happy. Casey Abell 22:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

"long lists of organizations give me trouble" Long (preferably complete) Lists are the only way to get NPOV otherwise you get selection bias (why is A listed and not B), by mentioning every group we have a source for we are not adding any bias at all. Especially if we go further and show the diffs we have sources for, we can let the reader make his mind up as to if the edits are bad. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 23:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

There's no way we'll ever have a complete or even mostly complete list of organizations. Griffith estimates that nearly 200,000 organizations have at least one anon edit. So we'll never be able to include more than a tiny sample of organizations in the article, and there's a real problem in keeping that sample balanced. Sure, we have to list some organizations, but the opportunity for POV pushing by slanting the sample one way or the other is great. Oh well, nobody ever said NPOV was easy. Casey Abell 12:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Casey not all of those 200,000 organisations has wikipages, notability still applies and we have infinite space to add those notable groups that do edit wikipedia. I also do not think the list is biased at the moment because it covers such an range of political philosophies as well as many companies and special interest groups. 13:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hypnosadist (talk • contribs).

I agree the list is pretty NPOV now. But if we want to create a really long list of organizations, I would suggest a separate list article (see my comment above). That way we can keep this article reasonably compact. By the way, why was the page protected? Casey Abell 21:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

We don't need a list article YET but if we doubled the number of groups who have edited then we might need it. As to the protection i don't know but i think there was some minor vandalism. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 21:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

the article and joking

I'm starting to see a few small jokes on this page. We need to fix it up. Especially since it was on the Colbert Report! This guy is my hero!!! User: labohemianartist 10:46, 21 August 2007)

Protected edit request: Change of screenshot

{{editprotected}}

Please change Image:WikiscannerScrsht.jpg to Image:WikiScanner screenshot.png. Also, update the date on the caption to August 22. You might want to just reduce the protection on the page to "semi". —Remember the dot ^(talk) 16:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Y Done, and I noticed while making the change that the page protection has been reduced to semi-protection already, courtesy of RockMFR. Nihiltres^(t.l) 20:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! —Remember the dot ^(talk) 21:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Links to controversy sections of other articles.

Is it neccessary or prudent to have "see also" links to some of the articles accused of editing WP? It would appear that this boarders on undue weight by specifing some organizations and companies when edits were made from hundreds if not thousands of IP addresses associated with various companies and organizations. Arzel 04:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think the only link that should remain is Criticism of Wikipedia. The Scientology link looks like an real problem. I can't believe we have such a POV title as Scientology versus the Internet. There have been persistent attempts to dump on Scientology in this article. But I've edited the article so much that I don't want a WP:OWN accusation. I'll let other editors decide questions of due weight. Casey Abell 23:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Then read Scientology versus the Internet and understand. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 01:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I have read the article. It should be called Scientology online controversies or some other similarly NPOV title. Casey Abell 17:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to see another comment before acting. I have removed the links to other sites, I believe they violate WP:UNDUE and possibly WP:NPOV. The obvious question to ask, is why some are relevant and others are not? For those that feel the need to include, please illustrate why it is relevant. Arzel 23:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Again the best way to NPOV is through inclusion not exlusion, hence any group that has edited, that has a "criticism" article should be listed, why only wikipedia? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 01:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

There are several problems with including links to other articles regarding this topic. Because of WP:SELF it is not yet apparent if Wikipedia edit should be included within their parent articles to begin with. This is the basic issue of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV in that much of the criticism to this point has been targeted against a few specific entities. The author of the tool himself stated that a purpose of the tool was to embarrass. Many of the edits appear to be quite innoculous. I suspect many were in response to what those entites felt were unfair criticism or charaterisation in their respective articles. Editors here may view that as sanitation of the articles, but regardless of what people feel, the edits (from what I have seen) have either been reverted when incorrect or accepted when innouculous. In further response to the the issue of WP:SELF the edits themselves are a circular creation of controversy. The controversy exists because wikipedia exists, and articles on entities are supposed to be about the entity, not about the entities relationship on wikipedia. Additionally, much of the news relating to the controversal edits themselves comes from entites which are already critical of them to begin with, which begs the question are these issues really controversal to begin with? I submit that they are not, especially in the context that any damaging changes by annoymous editors is quickly reverted anyway resulting in a futile attempt by the annoyn. Adding on top of all this is the disclaimer that even the author has put forth. It is impossible to know for certain that the entity in question is completely responsible for the edits to begin with. One can be reasonably sure they are, but an encylopedia doesn't rely on what is reasonably true, only what is WP:VERIFY true. So I put forth, is Wikipedia a gossip page or an encyclopedia of verfiable facts? Arzel 02:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Were an encyclopedia this is why we have things called sources which this article uses. Now the OR you are pushing Arzel should not be added or used as a reason to remove info as it is just that Original Research. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Completely agree on the WP:UNDUE problems this article is prone to. I have just shortened an extremely long section on the Australian government, which received far more mention than any other organization in the article. Please, let's stop grinding axes here. Casey Abell 17:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

To quote the appropriate section of WP:UNDUE: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." Please keep this in mind before adding many paragraphs slamming a particular organization. Also please keep in mind that a proponent of an opposing viewpoint could add many paragraphs slamming an organization you may support or favor. Thank you. Casey Abell 17:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

To deal with your request i'm going to add detail on all editors i can find with examples of their edits so the reader can make up their own mind if the edits are bad or not. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

This is asking for endless edit wars, as people with viewpoints opposed to yours add more detail about organizations they don't like – and which you favor. I ask you to reconsider this counterproductive approach. The article doesn't need to become a battleground if we keep mentions of specific organizations as brief and NPOV as possible. Please, let's keep the article as compact and neutral as we can. There are hundreds of thousands of anonymous edits from tens of thousands of organizations. You can't possible provide detail on every one, and any selection will be seen as POV and contentious, leading to endless trench warfare. I don't think this what anybody wants. Casey Abell 17:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Brief =/= NPOV, infact it means that groups that have edited heavilly and disruptively are treated the same as groups that have edited once or in the case of BC HYDRO against the wishes of the group. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 20:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

By who's definition do you define heavilly and disruptively? Arzel 20:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Simple we quote the changes, so most people would think that changeing George W Bush's middle name to W*nker is disruptive, we don't say it is. But we have to differenciate between groups like BC HYDRO who see edits from their site as a violation by thier staff of internal rules and groups like Amnesty who have deleted the criticism section of their articles completely as an attempt to whitewash themselves. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 03:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll answer that question: by the definition of whoever is edit-warring on the article to slam the particular organization they love to hate. Hypnosadist's suggestion would lead to an unmanageable, slanted, embarrassing article. I again call on him to reconsider his counterproductive proposal. Casey Abell 21:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I left the following note on this issue on Casey's talk page about the Australian media reports for a personal response (sorry about the big chunk of italics). Other people's input also welcome.

OK, so you've removed my researched and fully referenced info on the Aust news reports from the WikiScanner article, which gave both the media reports and the government response. This was not "grinding axes" nor "slamming an organization" as you suggest on the talk page. I'm not sure what's not neutral about giving both sides of a story, but you may be able to explain.

Unfortunately what's now left is meaningless blather which is incorrect. I don't mind the stuff being improved, or shortened for that matter if it keeps its meaning, but now it's silly.

For example you've written "...prompting restrictions by the government on the editing of Wikipedia from its computers". Quite untrue. It was the Defence dept that blocked editing, not 'the government'. This is a huge difference. The government itself has not banned editing, and workers in other government depts can still edit.

Someone else has now copy and pasted my paragraph from the Department of Defence (Australia) article into here to fill the gaps, but it's out of context in this article. So what was a well written and referenced paragraph is now meaningless and incorrect.

The significance also is that this story prompted a government response from the highest office in the land, which I can see in no other media story (the BBC get to have a whole paragraph and blockquote response on their edits, but the editing, media reports, and response from the Dept of the PM in Aust is insignificant?). Also I cannot see where any other country ascribing to free speech has had a Gov dept block their employees from editing Wikipedia.

Therefore I don't think your claims of WP:UNDUE are correct; this is significantly different from the other media stories, and a paragraph about it would not seem to be overkill to me. Please explain otherwise. --jjron 13:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I've replied to jjron on his talk page. Frankly, I'm tired of the effort to keep this article reasonably compact and balanced. My guess is that the article will quickly become a battleground for partisans of various sides as they slam organizations they don't like. I won't edit the article any more. Casey Abell 14:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Australian Stories

This story about edits by the Aussie Government and others [2] could be usful. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 04:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Article in Vancouver Sun, 2007-08-25

The article appears on page 1 of today's The Vancouver Sun: Chad Skelton, “Mayor's Wikipedia page gets flattering edit from his staff”. The story says that through Wikiscanner, the newspaper learned that someone with a City of Vancouver IP edited the article Sam Sullivan to remove embarrassing (but mostly true) information. It turns out some of the edits were confirmed to be made by Anna Lilly, a former spokeswoman of Sullivan. Also the article mentions that someone from an IP address belonging to BC Hydro “edited the Wikipedia page, List of ethnic slurs -- adding in a slang term for South Asians who wear turbans.” The newspaper quotes a Hydro spokeswoman as saying that adding ethnic slurs to Wikipedia was definitely in violation of the corporation's policies for at-work Internet use. --Mathew5000 15:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Changing the layout

I think that the Media coverage and reaction should have most of the info moved out to a new section called Edits to Wikipedia. This would be broken into two sections, Governmental/Political edits and Edits by Companies and NGO's. This would then give us room to add detail about the edits themselves and like the ADoD thing the reactions of the groups themselves. This would leave the Media Coverage section to deal with the PR effects on those that have anon edited wikipedia. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree completely for reasons I have given above. This section would be an open invitation to endless edits wars as proponents of opposing viewpoints add more and more detail about organizations they don't like. The NPOV and undue weight issues with such a section are enormous, considering that there are hundreds of thousands of anonymous edits for proponents of particular viewpoints to choose from. At most I would support a separate article listing organizations in as brief and NPOV manner as possible, though there would be severe problems with possible selection bias even in a separate article. Casey Abell 18:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

If the problems with NPOV are so insurmountable we may as well stop editing wikipedia now. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 20:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

You're the guys that wanted this can of worms opened. This article does not make any sense unless it focuses on the political and other repercussions of the software, not the software itself. The actual code is relatively simple and does not require more than a line or two to describe. All interest is in the reactions. Quatloo 18:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

This article can be free from endless edit wars if everybody keeps one simple thing in mind: If you're tempted to bash an organization you don't like, remember that there's another opposing editor just waiting to bash an organization you do like. That should keep the worms under control (wink). Casey Abell 18:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of August 26, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: The "Technical description" section is quite confusing; reword it and clean it up.

2. Factually accurate?: Good.

3. Broad in coverage?: Needs a lot more content, both in depth and in breadth. A description of the history is needed, and a detailed description of how it works would help.

4. Neutral point of view?: Good.

5. Article stability? A recent edit war has occured between CaseyAbell and QuackGuru.

6. Images?: Good.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far.

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the "edit war" I was supposedly involved in consisted of my substituting neutral language about Jimbo Wales' role in the founding of Wikipedia. That neutral language says Jimbo "played a central role in the founding of Wikipedia", a statement nobody can reasonably disagree with. The object of my change was to avoid the ridiculous and irrelevant "founder/co-founder" edit wars about Jimbo that have plagued other Wikipedia-related articles. If my substitution of this neutral language was an "edit war", then I plead guilty.

Frankly, I think far more serious edit wars are coming for this article, as partisans slam organizations they don't like. But I'm outa here. Casey Abell 14:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Supposed edit wars aside, I don't think this article can properly be considered stable for a while yet. If it is stable, it's because it isn't keeping up with the news, because WikiScanner-related media coverage is still pouring in. I'm very impressed with what's been done so far, though. It was helpful while I was putting together the Signpost article. Thanks!--ragesoss 17:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

27 Aug 07 Update on Australian Fallout

This is article from the Daily News that updates the Australian situation. You can view it here: Is it true or did I read it on Wikifable? that criticizes both Wikipedia and the Sydney Morning Herald. For inaccurate postings. I haven't got time right now to work it into this article, but I think that it should be mentioned. Cheers!--Getaway 18:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Added info on this, also lead to me cleaning up BLP violations on the authers page. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 03:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to do a bit of work on this again and cut down on the emphasis on this article from this biased, unreliable writer. For example the Dept of Prime Minister and Cabinet's own website says Dr Peter Shergold is still secretary, while Akerman quotes Dr Tony [sic] Shergold as "former" secretary. This is an indication of the accuracy of his reporting. --jjron 14:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Good work with that catch, bit of a bitch when your complaining about SMH's accuracy of reporting and us. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 16:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. OK, further to this, coincidentally perhaps Australia's most highly respected political journalist Michelle Grattan just had an article in The Age last Friday with a significant focus on (yes) Peter Shergold - see here. So we can safely say that he is definitely still secretary (head) of department. Now the article says nothing about the Wikiscanner issue, but on reading it you could be forgiven for believing that he may speak out to protect the Department and the PM on this, even if they were involved in the affair. However, I'm happy to leave his ABC referenced denial of involvement (it's pretty clear he has denied involvement, and the article here currently gives both sides). --jjron 15:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia reaction

I realize that Jimmy is the public face of Wikipedia but is there any Wikipedia reaction outside Jimmy? Any formal statements from the foundation (while some people might think that Jimmy's personal statements count, I think a distinction should remain between Jimmy's personal views and him in his role as Foundation spokesperson)? Anyone else working at the foundation? Any general users? I personally hate the idea of tracking someone's personal info when they edit Wikipedia, even if they are editing from a coporate address, but hey as an anonymous user, I doubt my personal opinion represents Wikipedia in any way, shape or form —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.227.246 (talk) 17:14, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Meme?

This article has been added to Category:Internet memes. This is not discussed in the article or here; I suggest that if it is not referenced it should be removed.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree and i've been bold. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 03:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

"Wikipedia Scanner"?

As far as I know, WikiScanner is not short for 'Wikipedia Scanner' just as Wikipedia is not short for Wikiwiki Pedia. The program is simply called 'WikiScanner'. Romanpoet 19:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

"Wikipedia Scanner" was the former name, wasn't it? Most of the early news reports refer to it by that name, and the site itself uses this name as the title of the search results page. --- RockMFR 19:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

'Wikipedia_Scanner' what was the MySQL database was called when before I deployed it. Yes, it's true that Wikipedia Scanner was in the <title>, but that was just me being rushed and not noticing the <title>. I prefer the name WikiScanner. --- Romanpoet 21:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I've changed it to say "also known as" instead of "short for" in order to completely sidestep the issue of whether this is an official name. --- RockMFR 19:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Subtle non-neutrality?

This article does not read neutrally to me. What is the purpose of this paragraph, for example?:

"According to Maltastar.com, WikiScanner uncovered edits by other large organizations, including Amnesty International, Apple Inc., ChevronTexaco, Coca Cola, the British Conservative Party, Dell Computers, EA Games, Exxon Mobil, the FBI, The Guardian, Microsoft, MySpace, the National Rifle Association, Nestlé, News of the World, the New York Times, the Government of Portugal, the US Republican Party, Reuters, Sony, the United Nations, Walmart, and a dog breeding association.[11] The Canadian television network CTV reported edits by other organizations including Disney and the Canadian government.[12]"

This says nothing substantive, in my opinion. The word "uncovered" implies some misdeed. The two paragraphs immediately above and below this one describe suspicious editing activity from company IPs, lead to an unstated sense that the organizations mentioned here have also done something wrong.

Same with

"According to the BBC, WikiScanner found that editorial contributions were made on Wikipedia which originated at computers operated by Diebold company, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Vatican.[7] The Times reported that an Internet address of the BBC itself had made edits to Wikipedia.[8]"

I would suggest cutting these unnotable facts, which only support the shocking conclusion that "people on computers in big organizations have edited the ENCYCLOPEDIA THAT ANYONE CAN EDIT", and focus on the controversial examples. –Outriggr ₪ 09:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the point of the whole thing was that some people were shocked by precisely that. Hornplease 09:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats the point i was making to Casey but she fails to understand, so much information has been removed from those passages they are now unencyclopedic. Outrigger the malta star article has more detail on those edits, giving that detail will allow our readers to make up their own minds. Uncovered can be changed to "shown". 12:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC) ^{(Hypnosadist)} 12:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Changed uncovered. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 12:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, when you think about it, it is true that Wikipedia prides itself on being the "Encyclopedia that Anyone Can Edit." However that doesn't necessarily justify that a multi-billion dollar corporation editing it's own article to cover up "Health Risks." It only adds to fear and distrust as far as it can go on the internet. BurningAfterTheDawn 03:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC) No, the notion that "anyone can edit" wikipedia is being twisted disingenuously here. If I work at the CIA I certainly cannot edit pages related to the CIA -- that is a vanity edit. Plain and simple. Malicious editors are banned from wikipedia all the time, surely they are part of "anyone" and they can't edit it. Wikiscanner *does* expose misdeeds, as it exposes people editing articles when those people have blatant conflicts of interest, especially in the case of "vanity edits." 184.74.182.190 (talk) 18:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Amazon.com scanner?

Is there one? Or perhaps there will be one? I mean scanning reader comments on wellknown controversial books by Michael Crichton or Ann Coulter etc. Maybe if there does become a trend to scan well known online forums (like Slate, RedState, Daily Kos) and on blogs, then Wikipedia will have articles on each scanner or on them all as a set.-Rich Peterson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.86.14.87 (talk) 04:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it still up?

I've tried in IE and Firefox, but it won't work. Ii was wondering if anyone else noticed it. Let me get the message it gives real quick.Yamakiri 21:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Warning: Unknown: failed to open stream: Permission denied in Unknown on line 0

Fatal error: Unknown: Failed opening required '/web/wikipedia/docs/index.php' (include_path='.:/usr/local/lib/php') in Unknown on line 0

Yamakiri 21:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I just used it because of own questions about who was editing and article and all returns were 1.5 years old and older. The page seems to say it's still working for new IP spying suggestions, but can one request an article scan? This article might try to explain that, assuming some WP:RS can be found for it - dang them WP:RS sometimes! :-) Carol Moore 00:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Hi Carolmooredc. WikiScanner is still up, but the live database is from August 2007. However, there is a new WikiScanner that's ready for release. It just needs to clear some legal issues and you can resume your joyful WikiScanning :) Romanpoet (talk) 05:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Goodie. I assume it will be somehow referenced or linked from this article and I can find out about it pretty much as it happens :-) Carol Moore 13:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

'Full Frontal Scrutiny' Web Site Exposes the Work of Front Groups

• 'Full Frontal Scrutiny' Web Site Exposes the Work of Front Groups, January 29, 2008.

Briefly discusses WikiScanner, someone might want to add this to the article. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

New features

There are some new features (some of which I don't think Jimbo would be happy about). Like "poor man's CheckUser and "possible sockpuppetry." I wonder how they do this and more importantly, does it fall within the boundaries of Wikimedia's privacy policy--Ipatrol (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)