The Washington Post, the most widely circulated newspaper in the U.S. capital, published several insightful pieces about Wikipedia in the space of a few days.
Gebelhoff acknowledged that Wikipedia does suffer at times from the "mean-spiritedness seen in the darker corners of the Internet" (like
Facebook and
Twitter), but focused on the benefits that can accrue when ideologically opposed Wikipedia editors talk through their differences as they construct articles. He observed that while Wikipedia does not strive to be an "experiment in democracy", it has an "essentially democratic" characteristic. (Oct. 19)
Chris Alcantara of the Washington Post described Wikipedia editors' efforts to select the best images to depict U.S. presidential nominees.
Chris Alcantara dove into the particulars in yet another piece, "
The most challenging job of the 2016 race: Editing the candidates’ Wikipedia pages." Describing Wikipedia as producing what amounts to an "election guide", Alcantara summarized Wikipedia editors' efforts to choose the most appropriate photos to illustrate articles on U.S. presidential nominees Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, and presented graphics summarizing the frequency of edits to a number of presidential candidates' Wikipedia biographies, in several election cycles. The article featured interviews with several Wikipedia editors.
Hillary Clinton article vandalized more than usual: As
widelyreportedin the media, the article on
Hillary Clinton (as well as the one on
Bill Clinton) was briefly vandalized on October 13. Though the vandalism was reverted within minutes (according to an official Wikipedia statement), and subsequently oversighted, the fact that it contained female nudity and text saying her election would mean nuclear war caught wide attention. (Oct 13)
Not so neutral!:
The Heartland Institute, a conservative think tank,
posted an article on the same day as the first Washington Post piece above calling Wikipedia "broken, biased, and corrupt". Their primary concern appears to be editing disputes over the Institute's own article, which is part of a long-running debate. (Oct 19)
Are you ready for some football?: English
football magazine FourFourTwohighlighted four Wikipedia editors who keep football (soccer to Americans) pages up to date. (Oct 19)
Wikipedia is not Wikileaks: Democratic member of Congress
Sheila Jackson Leemistakenlyblamed Wikipedia instead of
WikiLeaks for the recent release of
emails from the Hillary Clinton campaign. The two organizations are completely unrelated, as one can see from reading the WikiLeaks article. Just a regular slip of the tongue, it appears. (Oct. 22)
Area politician article vandalized: Unlike the Hillary Clinton article, where vandalism was quickly reverted, a New York state legislator's article was vandalized to say he "has been on the public dole for more than three decades", and this edit was not caught for almost three days, as
reported by local media. (See
diff.) The article appears to average only
50 views per day, so the delay in being caught, though regrettable, does not seem surprising. (Oct 22).
Paid editing to go: The Registerspotted a car in London with full-coverage advertising for paid BLP reputation services. (Oct 24)
Anonymous edits from political staffers: In Australia, "The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet has ordered the heads of the Defence, Foreign Affairs and Trade, Health, Agriculture and Parliamentary Services departments to urgently investigate possible breaches of government IT policy and report back in a week."
An investigation was launched after discovery that public servants and staffers had made "tens of thousands" of Wikipedia edits. Some were mildly amusing or otherwise innocuous, but others were offensive and potentially embarrassing to public officials. (Oct. 26)
Do you want to contribute to "In the media" by writing a story or even just an "in brief" item? Edit next week's edition in the
Newsroom or contact the
editor.
Discuss this story