The Signpost

In the news

SCOTUS hopeful edited bio, criticism from article subject

Contribute  —  
Share this
By Chaser and Tilman Bayer

U.S. Supreme court hopeful suspected of COI editing

In a 12 April post titled (somewhat sarcastically) Obama Supreme Court Short-Lister Supports Right to Edit Her Own Wikipedia Page, U.S. media blog Gawker observed that the Wikipedia entry about US jurist Leah Ward Sears, who was recently reported to be on president Obama's short list of possible nominees for next Supreme Court justice, appears to have been edited by herself, using the account User:Lwsears1992. Gawker highlighted an edit from 6 March 2009 inserting a mention of "her highly regarded record" (which however had originally been written by another user).

On his "The Wikipedian" blog, William Beutler (User:WWB) examined the edits further, calling the conjecture plausible ("it usually turns out that this type of account is exactly that person"), but arguing that, all in all, the article had been improved slightly by her edits (for example, by providing a photo of her). "While some of her edits were self-serving, they were of a mild sort. At most this was a venal sin, not a cardinal one."

Beutler, an employee of the American PR and marketing firm New Media Strategies who works as a consultant "on matters of Wikipedia", also mentioned several recent publications on the general problem of conflict of interest editing, including:

Victim of "IBM advocates" criticizes Wikipedia

In an article on web site The Cutting Edge News, entitled Wikipedia—The Dumbing Down of World Knowledge, U.S. author Edwin Black gave a lengthy overview of criticism of Wikipedia, including coverage of Larry Sanger reporting the Wikimedia Foundation to the FBI for allegedly distributing child pornography (see separate story). In the last part of the article Black describes his own unhappy experience with Wikipedia's coverage of himself and of the subject of a book of his. According to Black, "In recent days, IBM advocates on Wikipedia edited the “History of IBM” entry to gloss over, dilute, or outright delete the company's involvement. To accomplish this, coordinated revision on Holocaust history required deleting or vilifying my book, IBM and the Holocaust." One of his complaints about the article about himself appears to have been prompted by the simultaneous inclusion of the weasel words warning template and the Category:American Jews, which Black related as "such tags as 'weasel American Jew' being branded on my bio page", "which danced perilously close to hate speech". Black then mentions his efforts to uncover the real life identity of several Wikipedians, since he refused to deal with "an anonymous committee".

Black ends by posing the following question to his readers:

"As society careens into the unchartered roadways of the next rev of the Internet Age—called Web 2.0 by some—will mankind's itinerary be determined by the open vanguard of our best thinkers and writers democratized to include all who identify themselves or by the shouts and jeers of an anonymous, masked crowd operating in the shadows?"

Briefly

+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.
A P.S. to the second story: Thecuttingedgenews.com has published a follow-up article by a "senior correspondent" about some adminstrative actions related to the history of IBM article. Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]



       

The Signpost · written by many · served by Sinepost V0.9 · 🄯 CC-BY-SA 4.0