Okay, I made up the part about illegal aliens. But, here's a report that claims "Wal-mart lobbyists have successfully waged a war against a fair viewpoint on Wikipedia's Wal-mart page." Apparently, hundreds of anonymous users are taking it upon themselves to keep the Wal-Mart Wikipedia page free from those leftist wackos who try to smear Wal-Mart's plutonium image of dedicated public service. (What are they thinking?) Anyway, it's a really interesting dilemma here that I think cleary demarcates the point where it's difficult (if not impossible) for Wikipedia to maintain a neutral point of view. My prediction is that in a few years (or months?) all pages with a strong corporate interest will suffer the "Propagandistic Wal-Mart Wiki Mis-Editing Syndrome," (or "I buy everything I need from gas stations and garage sales" for short).
Wal-Mart Hiring Illegal Aliens to Spread Wikipedia Propaganda
Submitted by platypus matt on April 28, 2006 - 11:48.
tags:
- platypus matt's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Slashdot
I saw a mention of this on Slashdot this morning as well. Some interesting discussion going on there.
Trusted Sources
I don't see how this is any different than a person editing a page about his or her self. We must expect that people and companies will want to protect an image. Wiki is an interesting problem, but it is no better or worse than the Web as a whole.
Last week, an LA Times columnist was suspended after he went around responding to posts about his articles -- using a number of false identities. His posts were quite colorful, especially on the right-leaning sites that had suggested mistakes in his columns. The LA Times has a policy against writers engaging in such debates online, especially anonymously.
Rumor has it, this same columnist updated his own Wiki entry. We all know that we never, ever try to put the best face on our histories!
We need to consider what we do and don't trust, and what we will allow students to cite in papers. We aren't always doing a good job teaching students to be critical -- especially of left-leaning media. Too often, we let them cite things we agree with less critically than we would respond to a paper citing Fox News.
What if Wal-Mart has some valid information? What if the left has valid information? How do we teach students to understand two sides can be "right" and "wrong" with their selective postings of facts?
- CSW
mindful skepticism
There is a paradigm taught in sociology that is referred to as "mindful skepticsm". Essentially, the idea is that every study or piece of data should be examined without automatically accepting as fact whatever conclusions may be offered. Instead, it should first be noted who produced the information, how they arrived at their conclusions, and what possible motivations they may have for the arguments they make. Only then can the information be evaluated effectively. I think this is something writers in other schools of study, particularly rhetoric, should adapt to their own writing processes.
Examining Data
I would also add to this that it's useful to look at citation in a negative way as well--what mechanisms are in place to prevent certain people from participating. I always like to bring this up in the context of Wikipedia. It's very fruitful to examine how gradually this new technology (wiki), which for awhile enabled a more public approach to knowledge, is slowly but surely losing its edge. After all, the same technologies that make it easy for an anti-Wal-Mart radical from Brooklyn to write a scathing rebuke of Wal-Mart makes it even easier for Wal-Mart to simply outsource an army from Bangalore to maintain a more positive (or even propagandistic) representation.
It'll be interesting to see how the Wikipedia governance will react as more and more corporate pages are taken over in this fashion. Will Wikipedia become little more than a cheap public image tool? Perhaps just one giant sales catalog?
I'm surprised that more of these corporations (or particularly smaller ones) haven't already taken the litigious route.