http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0107/2460.html

Quote :

"Federal Agency Cleans Up Its Own Wikipedia Entry By: Ryan Grim January 26, 2007 02:13 PM EST Wikipedia has come of age. The online user-created encyclopedia is now influential enough that the federal government feels the need to doctor it up. In late August, someone with an IP address that originated from the National Institutes of Health drastically edited the Wikipedia entry for the National Institute on Drug Abuse, which operates within NIH. Wikipedia determined the edit to be vandalism and automatically changed the definition back to the original. On Sept. 18, the NIH vandal returned, according to a history of the site's edits posted by Wikipedia. This time, the definition was gradually changed, presumably to avoid the vandalism detector. NIDA spokeswoman Dorie Hightower confirmed that her agency was behind the editing. She said in an e-mail that the definition was changed "to reflect the science." A little more than science-reflecting was done to the site. Gone first was the "Controversial research" section that included comments critical of NIDA. Next went the section on the NIDA-sponsored program that grows marijuana for research and medical purposes. The next slice of the federal editor's knife left all outside references on the cutting-room floor, replaced with links to government Web sites. Then the battle began. Over the next few weeks, Wikipedia users challenged the site's neutrality and took out the more egregious propaganda. Each time, the NIH editor would return. The fight left the article in tatters. Folks wondering what NIDA does now get four basic, non-controversial sentences followed by 10 links to federal Web sites. And at the bottom of the page is a plea from Wikipedia: "This article about a medical organization or association is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it." UPDATE: Wikipedia users have now returned much of the original content and added a section about NIDA's editorial relationship with its own definition. Here's the link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Institute_on_Drug_Abuse"

I met the anonymous user who busted this open last night. Interesting guy.

1/26/2007 3:41:30 PM

Nothing shocking coming out of NIDA's Ministry of MisInformation, I see.

1/26/2007 3:48:41 PM

cant you go onto wikipedia and look back at all the previous edits and versions? i know you can on ncaawiki.com

1/26/2007 3:55:50 PM

there's been dozens (probably thousands) of cases where people or organizations have been found editing their own wikipedia entries to shed themselves in a better light, or to hide some information. Is each of these cases considered censorship, or is it just called that because the government is doing it? Because this is a government organization, does it make it worse for them to edit/censor their wikipedia entry than a private citizen or a corporation or other organization to edit their own?

i'm not arguing either way. just posing a thought experiment

[Edited on January 26, 2007 at 4:18 PM. Reason : d]

1/26/2007 4:17:41 PM

it violates wikipedia's rules

you're not allowed to edit it if there is a conflict of interest

1/26/2007 4:24:12 PM

Not referring to the NIDA article in particular, but if you do feel that a Wikipedia article is biased against you or making erroneous claims, then what means do you have within the rules to dispute the claims in an article? Do you post on the discussion section and plead your case? Just curious.

Also, this really shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. I'm sure companies, individuals, governments, and PR agents around the globe are already screwing with articles left and right.

[Edited on January 26, 2007 at 4:37 PM. Reason : Second paragraph]

1/26/2007 4:36:39 PM

there are forums, from what I understand

they weren't addressing false claims though

they were removing factual information that they felt portrayed them in a negative light

-in related news, Microsoft recently attempted to pay a wikipedia contributor to edit an article in their favor

^ it's not surprising - it is just goes directly against the stated goals and protocols of the wikipedia project

[Edited on January 26, 2007 at 4:39 PM. Reason : a benevolent project, I think]

1/26/2007 4:38:25 PM

i guess if theres disputable content, wikipedia's idea is to present both sides...whereas some of the people who have articles about them might know (or claim) something is false and want it removed

i'm more fo the "present both sides" perspective...but wikipedia can kinda do what they want...not only is it their site (even if it talks about you), they can also lock pages

1/26/2007 4:39:08 PM

i dont see how its censorship.

its more of a flaw in the design.

1/26/2007 4:48:32 PM

Its not a flaw. teh system is working fine.

look at the entry and the history, and youll see that the entry has been restored to the original pre-edited version, with an addendum on the government controversy.

essentially, the employees didnt have the time or resources available to re-edit the entry every single day.

1/26/2007 4:54:34 PM

a censor is "a person who is authorized to read publications or correspondence or to watch theatrical performances and suppress in whole or in part anything considered obscene or politically unacceptable" (Princeton Wordnet)

were, then, the changes not the work of a censor?

1/26/2007 4:55:35 PM

what type of legal verbage does wikipedia use to assure that nobody can ever sue them for libel?

1/26/2007 4:56:29 PM

I dunno, I don't work for them nor am I a lawyer (or even a student of law)

I wish I worked for Wikipedia though

1/26/2007 5:02:13 PM

God-damn hippies are always bitching about the government.

There is no censorship going on. It sounds more like a disagreement between druggies and the people who run the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

1/26/2007 5:08:10 PM

god damn patriots always bitching about the government

1/26/2007 5:11:35 PM

People/groups edit their own wikis all the time. The articles can be edited back. That's how wikis work. No censorship.

1/26/2007 5:15:05 PM

yeah, its hardly censorship, if anyone can censor the censors.

1/26/2007 6:25:24 PM

it's still an act of suppression

the fact that wikis are democratic in nature doesn't make the agency's act any less suppressive

1/26/2007 6:33:13 PM

Current second sentence of the definition:

Quote :

"George Bush used the NIDA to get free drugs. Specifically, he uses the NIDA to get free Crack."

Recorded for posterity. This kind of childishness doesn't help the cause, folks.

[Edited on January 26, 2007 at 8:04 PM. Reason : 2nd and 3rd sentence, k?]

Also:

Quote :

"By the year 2010, the NIDA aims to provide free drugs to all Iraqis in order to keep them "high as a muthafucker" and quash sectarian violence. "

[Edited on January 26, 2007 at 8:05 PM. Reason : censorship vs vandalism, WHO WILL WIN]

1/26/2007 8:03:56 PM

ahaha theres no way wikipedia could ever have as many mods as users/posters

1/26/2007 8:07:57 PM

i like wikipedia. the collaborative nature means that even governmental agencies have as much of a voice as citizens.

or vice versa.

see how it works?

that said, if anyone uses Wikipedia for any type of serious research, you're either insane or stupid.

1/26/2007 8:12:27 PM

^ Well yeah. It's an awesome source for information. But all information that could have the slightest hint of controversy should be taken with a grain of salt. It's a bit like watching CNN and Fox News. If you know CNN in the past have been liberal and Fox News in the past have been conservative, watching them are fair game as long as you recognize that fact.

I know Wikipedia in the past have said they've caught congressional staffs changing their boss' homepage to reflect "changing commitments". Nice to see the government continue doing their rendition of 1984.

1/28/2007 8:26:14 PM

Quote :

"were, then, the changes not the work of a censor?"

In my eyes censorship would be if the us government forced wikipedia to change an article and keep it that way.

The ability to change an article to remove negitive content and add self serving content is one failing of a publicly editable document.

Wiki's may be democratic, but facts aren't.

1/29/2007 5:05:45 PM

the govt is trying to cover their asses.....WTF is new

1/30/2007 3:37:40 AM