The Signpost

File:Author imagining a wikipedia book.jpg
Disinformation report

"Wikipedia and the assault on history"

Contribute  —  
Share this
By Smallbones

The moving finger writes; and, having writ...

Placeholder alt text
The Hoffman Wobble ... yesssss
Image prompting: Bri

The cover of this month's Harper's Magazine shows a computer screen with a Wikipedia page (complete with the trademarked puzzle globe) with the headline "Wikipedia and the assault on history" and the byline "By Ben Lerner [edit]". But that article is fictitious, our encyclopedia does not have an article with that name, not yet anyway. But first a warning: to address the serious questions raised by the Harper's article (more properly titled The Hofmann Wobble – Wikipedia and the problem of historical memory), which is a combination of fact and fiction in the form known as autofiction, I try my hand for the first time at literary criticism.

Ben Lerner's 8,700-word short story centers on a description by the author-protagonist-narrator of their editing of Wikipedia. Lerner, or his protagonist-narrator, describes in detail how he established a network of hundreds of sockpuppets and meatpuppets, and not one, but two, administrators under his thumb. His employers were a non-profit institute of linguistics in Berkeley, California, and a young West Coast tech billionaire who wants to save sea turtles. The institute and the love of sea turtles may well be fictional, but Berkeley and the billionaire may be relevant facts.

Lerner is a bright star in the U.S. literary world. Pay close attention to the details of his life. You will see them again. He was born in Topeka, Kansas, where his parents were psychologists at the Menninger Institute. His mother, Harriet Lerner, is a well known feminist psychologist. He graduated from Topeka High School where he led the debate team. At Brown University, he graduated with a BA in political science, then a masters of fine art in creative writing, becoming a poet in the process.

He was awarded a Fulbright fellowship (2004) to research and write about Spanish Civil War poetry in Madrid. He was awarded a Guggenheim fellowship in 2013, and in 2015 a prestigious MacArthur fellowship, which is sometimes called a "genius grant". He is a Distinguished Professor at CUNY's Brooklyn College, and has been called "the most distinguished autofictionist in America".

He's written three award winning books of poetry, and is the first poetry editor in Harper's 173-year history. His novels include Leaving the Atocha Station (2011), 10:04 (2014), and The Topeka School (2019).

His novels are written as autofiction, which combines the two formats of factual autobiography and fiction. Of course, these two have been combined for as long as they have existed, but as Lerner practices the form, autofiction has a very specific meaning. The structure of the story appears to be the main known facts of his life over a given period. The details are likely fictional, as he reimagines what happened during that time, reliving what could have happened, or what should have happened.

For example, his first novel, Leaving the Atocha Station, follows a young Kansas poet named Adam Gordon in Madrid 2004, on a grant to write about Spanish poetry. These facts are consistent with what we know about Lerner's life. Adam, his narrator, drinks, smokes weed, chases women and explains this life in ways that could be fact or fiction. Then a terrorist bomb explodes in Atocha Station — a historical fact — and Adam reacts to it in ways that might be entirely fictitious.

His third novel, The Topeka School, was one of three finalists for the 2020 Pulitzer Prize in fiction. Adam Gordon is one of three narrators in this autofiction prequel to his other two novels. Adam again lives the same life as Lerner. He is a student at Topeka High School leading the debate team, his parents are psychologists at a prestigious foundation, his mother is a famous feminist. The structural elements of the novel are given by Lerner's life, only the details may be fiction.

The Hofmann Wobble

Lerner's new short story about Wikipedia is not very short. It is not divided into sections, but I'll analyze it in three: introduction, body, and request and replies.


The narrator is unnamed, only occasionally called "New Media Fellow" or "NMF". He is traveling from the U.S. East Coast to Berkeley, California, in 2006, a trip that likely echoes a trip Lerner must have taken in 2005 or 2006 to Berkeley, where he lived for about a year while teaching at the California College of the Arts. NMF was a new media fellow at an unnamed linguistic institute in Berkeley for about a year. Oddly, this period of Lerner's life is seldom mentioned in short biographies, but it was mentioned in the first version of the article Ben Lerner in early 2006 and it stuck there for 18 months, until Lerner accepted a position at the University of Pittsburgh.

On NMF's drive through Utah he runs over a swarm of Mormon crickets. Did Lerner run over a similar swarm on his way to Berkeley? I suspect not. The swarm is useful to Lerner as a metaphor throughout the story, perhaps referring to Wikipedia's editors and readers. By the third sentence of the story NMF is telling the reader that the facts as given are not necessarily true. NMF tells us "I remember, wrongly, that I was listening to a book on tape, a work by a prominent linguist ..." and then continues describing the tape he wasn't listening to as if he had. This telling us that he is not telling us the truth is a tic that is repeated throughout the story. Clearly, The Hofmann Wobble is Lerner's usual autofiction mix of truth and fiction. The main events are true, the details may not be.

After arriving in Berkeley, the NMF starts at the institute without really knowing what a new media fellow does, but that's OK — neither do the people at the institute. He meets a new girlfriend — a high school teacher — and she introduces him to Wikipedia, and how her students use and abuse it. As she lies in his bed, he spends the rest of the night in his underwear typing, and learns most of what he needs to edit Wikipedia (clearly fiction).

Body of the story

NMF practices his new skills on articles about the institute and its director, Dr. Hofmann, as well as her favorite bugbear, "tax relief". He creates a PowerPoint and presents it to the director and new colleagues, concluding:

What we need, what I'm going to establish, is an ever-expanding phalanx of Wikipedia editors to create, reframe, and defend these pages, which are treated by more and more of the human population as both encyclopedia and news source.

Throughout this section, NMF displays a very good knowledge of how Wikipedia works. He characterizes its writing style as "suspiciously coherent if not particularly well-written", but "so easy to edit that a failing student in summer school could do it." He knows about redirects, disambiguation pages, and the steps needed to win an argument on talk pages. He knows the importance of building an account's reputation:

So I started building up an identity and edit history for MormonCricket, who I decided would have little in common with me (this is a fake version of the fake identities I actually made in the real version of the project I'm fictionalizing).

NMF then builds his phalanx of sockpuppets, creating distinct identities for each, and editing from distinct locations around Berkeley so that they do not all have the same identifying IP addresses. (This sockpuppeting technique is somewhat old-fashioned, but still in use even though it is now almost certain to end in the sockpuppets being caught). That method doesn't scale very well, so he recruits friends who don't live in Berkeley as meatpuppets, instructing them on how to edit and !vote in RfCs and even RfAs (to select two administrators). Lerner even goes so far in his fiction as to create opposing editors complete with user names that veteran editors might think they recognize. For example I thought I recognized User:ProudMarine, but there is no editor with that exact name. NMF also refers to specific controversial articles, writing that they contributed to the controversy.

NMF is eventually hired away from the institute by "one true billionaire — a 97 percent fictional man." About this time NMF's perception of facts, of truth itself, begins to shift back and forth, a "cognitive fragmentation". He creates a name for this phenomenon, "the Hofmann wobble". He outlines the strategy he'd use to write a Wikipedia article on the concept and make it stick.

Under the billionaire's generous patronage, NMF's editing empire and influence grows, but he notices that he is not alone in his practice of these dark arts. In fact, the field is becoming overcrowded — and he loses his enthusiasm. The billionaire's interest also fades, and NMF moves on to get a job in the real world.

This is the key section to understand how much Lerner knows about Wikipedia. User:MormonCricket was no newbie. Lerner knows Wikipedia in detail. While the names have been changed, much of the detail rings true. I only wonder how much editing time it took him to gather this knowledge.

A request and two replies

On the final page, Lerner changes the narrator, writing under his initials "bl" (presumably as Lerner himself). He starts with what appears to be a confession.

bl: I've written a short story—or a kind of fictional essay (it's based on a real project of mine but all the facts have been altered)—about a young man's efforts to manipulate Wikipedia for the good (so he thinks) through the construction of multiple online identities.

Perhaps he's just trying to fool us again, but if this statement is not sincere, then nothing in the story is true.

He quickly summarizes his story and requests ChatGPT to give it meaning "because you represent the end of Wikipedia, I want to give you the last word."

ChatGPT's reply is Lerner's final fiction. The silk purse of Lerner's flashy prose cannot be transformed into the sow's ear of ChatGPT prose. Artificial Intelligence's major weakness is its complete ignorance of meaning, so it cannot be expected to give meaning to Lerner's story. So I interpret the reply from "ChatGPT" as a dumbed down version of Lerner's own proposed meaning.

The young man realized that, like the swarming crickets, the vastness of information was beyond any individual's control….

He had fought passionately for his cause, attempting to counter right-wing frameworks and promote suppressed truths. But in his quest, he had lost sight of the fundamental nature of information—the essence of knowledge itself. It was not about dominating or manipulating, but about empowering and illuminating.

My reply to Lerner is that this conclusion looks self-serving, casting himself as an idealistic searcher for the truth about truth. Running a phalanx of sockpuppets damages Wikipedia and our empowering of editors to help illuminate the truth for our readers.

Lerner's use of the literary form of autofiction makes it easy to see that the general outline of his story is true, even though the details may not be. Veteran editors who may have been directly hurt by his sockpuppets are inevitably planning their response, either off-Wiki or on-Wiki.

If, indeed, Lerner did run a sockfarm, there's not much that we can do about it now, other than accept that large sockfarms have been around a long time on Wikipedia, and vow that we'll stop others in the future. If we were to dedicate a large task force to investigate Lerner's possible sockfarm, we might be able to determine whether it really existed or how much damage it did. But what then? There would be no point in blocking socks that are by now over a decade old. Any damage to the text of our articles should have long since been corrected.

Instead, we should thank Lerner for (almost) being honest with us. For demonstrating once again that large sockfarms exist, and are dangerous, and that we have to do something about it. He might help us now by coming forward and telling the unadulterated truth about what he has done. We could ask him to write an article for The Signpost addressed directly to Wikipedians. Or perhaps ask him to make the keynote address at the next Wikimania.

But let's not let it happen again.

In this issue
+ 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.

Just the idea of running a sock farm seems exhausting. I doubt anyone could do it sustainably without funding and lots of help. Just imagine the page-owners who would flock to check the linkbacks and categories and all the other stuff your pages need to continue to exist. I am sure dedicated disinfo trolls would agree, and they rarely make new pages but just manipulate existing ones. Just pondering the problem makes feel sorry for the paid trolls (of which there are many, I am sure). Jane (talk) 11:11, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I would suggest the real power over notability and noteworthiness has shifted to the boutique public relations firms who offer to compose and submit news articles on potential clients' small businesses to major publications considered reliable at WP:RSP as freelance work. One such firm offered to do that for me about five months ago, for which they would charge $5,000 only if they were able to secure publication. Sadly there was no incentive to secure articles in multiple reliable sources or to secure the publication of certain facts or approximations thereof about which I might be particularly concerned. While the offer obviously intrigued me, I doubted a Wikipedia article would do much for my sole proprietorship consultancy LLC with a very low traffic business card website. I'm willing to share further details with reputable disinformation researchers, Signpost writers, or the like. Sandizer (talk) 11:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sady that seems to be a common approach (sort of like the common scam phone calls that still exist though fewer people have landlines these days). Wikipedia articles are only really needed for academici whose institutions add that to their list of qualifications. It's ironic, because those are the places that seem to dislike Wikipedia the most (probably because they get a lot of trash articles). I don't think other occupations require it and for small businesses it can be very hard to remove negative content, so it may even be detrimental. Kind of scary even. Jane (talk) 13:55, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jane023: I also feel sorry for the low level "newby socks" who wander into that job, probably simply because the need some quick money and "paid sock" seems like a job that any literate person could do. In reality, they're probably less likely to be successful than most "good faith newbys" around here. See the essay in this issue. If they don't have previous experience editing here, they are bound to fail in a few months. Who's to blame if not the paid socks themselves? The people who hire them, both the ultimate client (who might not exactly know they are breaking our rules - but should be able to guess) and the employer, the folks who put the clients and socks together. To a lesser extent, I blame the WMF who don't often spread the word that undeclared paid editing is a real threat to Wikipedia. Other people who could let the world - including the clients and newby socks - know what's going on include some Wikipedians who are able to get the word out, but don't; and some in the mass media who will write about vandals and amateur socks on Wikipedia, but don't take the next step. Sorry, if I'm getting angry about this again. Anybody who has good information on socks should feel free to email me thru the Wikipedia email system (e.g. on my user page) for those who are signed up for the Wikipedia email system. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:23, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you liked the tip that emerged from WikipediaSucks, SB. (Thank globally-banned Strelnikov.) It was the 14-hour days the unreliable narrator put in and the gut reactions his farming fictions were sure to engender which made me think "hysterical memory" a likely resonance... do see the New Yorker (§, §) if only for the lanternflies (another plague of low-costs?) -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 18:05, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SashiRolls: I hadn't seen the mediocracy website's take on it until I read your note. I can't dispute their conclusions, but will say that I think there would be a lot of false positives doing a complete investigation of this. And a complete investigation might take more effort than the Wiki-PR one did. I found out about the Harper's story on Google News (search for Wikipedia) on the day after our last issue. So I was a bit behind them. For now I'll be happy that this article is done and can be checked by future Wiki historians in our archives. My guess on their reaction when 1st reading it will be like mine was "they confessed to what?!". Of course if anybody has any evidence for a possible followup story, I'd love to see it. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:41, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't confuse WPO with WS: two totally different sites. You gave me the impression I'd introduced you to the story last month. My mistake. :) -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 19:50, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well I didn't disabuse you of the notion that you introduced me to it. I'd just read it, so what would have been the point? Quite strangely, while trying to process that huge text I was thinking of Wikipedia as being governed by The System of Doctor Tarr and Professor Fether, and when you mentioned the kind doctor I just had to poke a bit and see what you knew.
I hadn't seen WS before - it's too depressing for me in any case - as is WO. Is the idea that people who aren't civil enough to join WO get to move on to WS? Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After reading Lerner's "fiction" I find myself frustrated. This sort of behavior does the project – and the trust within – no good. Even this weasel confession is lacking any awareness of the harm done. Ckoerner (talk) 20:27, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think It was not about dominating or manipulating, but about empowering and illuminating. pretty much sums up the harm done Aaron Liu (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is for real, really, and how to make that stick. The short story was a funny reading with layers upon layers of slightly reframed 'facts', crossreferenced whitin the framework of the fiction. Linguistics, post-structuralism, why not a Ontological turn, wikipedia as a "Borgesian" Multiverse?

Why not? me screaming to the universe, is that going against the common [who?] misconceptions on what is for real? What do you feel? I am fine thank you. I may have Acquired a taste for ambiguity on the way.--Andrez1 (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]


On December 18, 2023 [1]WBUR's radio show Here & Now's reporter Scott Tong interviewed Lerner on the same topic as this article. (rebroadcast by NPR and its member radio stations). It's difficult to say how much Lerner confirmed or denied my conclusions, we weren't exactly on the same page, but pretty much on the same chapter. For example, he mentioned how he first learned about Wikipedia, but left out the part about his new girlfriend, the student who abused Wikipedia was in Lerner's class. He talked about methods to manipulate an article, e.g. establishing "primacy" (what is placed at the top of an article) and framing. The interview does suffer from switching back and forth between the reporter's point of view, Lerner's current and former points of view, and the story's narrators's point of view, much like the Harpers story does. By the end of the interiew you might feel that your conclusions about the article are strengthened, or that new questions have been raised. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heard. Hindsight is easy, there is little in that interview that legitimizes a reading of the original short story as a confession.
Mistaking fiction for fact and setting off a moral panic in search of culprits; What did this story trigger in some readers?
Underlying premises in the WP universe's view of knowledge, the view of neutrality, how a so-called fact is bound to the person who understands and his framework. And can be reframed. (Given a non-essentialist point of view.) It was not thought along those lines.
Could it be that to the one who has a hammer, everything looks like nails?Andrez1 (talk) 17:27, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The best evidence of a confession is above, but I'll repeat it:

bl: I've written a short story—or a kind of fictional essay (it's based on a real project of mine but all the facts have been altered)—about a young man's efforts to manipulate Wikipedia for the good (so he thinks) through the construction of multiple online identities.

Could that be any clearer? The interview just adds a few details, plus gives him an opportunity to say something like "sorry, it was just a joke." Which he didn't do. Instead, he says (approx.) the he "was just conducting an experiment."

Adding:I thought I should document that approx. quote. It's really about framing with the interviewer stating (at about 20 seconds) Wikipedia's rules "led one enterprising journalist to test just how much one editor could manipulate entries." Obviously referring to Lerner, never denied by Lerner. That frame carries through the entire interview. version with timer

So, naturalists observe, a flea
Hath smaller fleas that on him prey;
And these have smaller still to bit 'em;
And so proceed ad infinitum.
Thus every poet, in his kind,
Is bit by him that comes behind.
Jonathan Swift, On Poetry: A Rhapsody (1733)

Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you have earlier stated: "WBUR's radio show Here & Now's reporter Scott Tong interviewed Lerner on the same topic as this article." The angel given, the framing; was also the same.
Lerner never denied. Why should he? How could he? He have produce a piece of fiction and is helpful in giving clues on how it is written and how it may make sense to a reader.
Have you stopped beating your wife? The two journalists Tong & Smallbones does not take no for an answer.
Lets go for the details, there must be something here(?/!). I have seen that film before! Dejavue, Blowup all over again? Andrez1 (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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