Difference between revisions of "Information Vandalism"
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
=== Prevention === | === Prevention === | ||
==== Autonomous Agents ==== | ==== Autonomous Agents ==== | ||
| − | One of the most important tools that Wikipedia employs to keep the wiki protected from vandalism is autonomous agents. Autonomous agents are intelligent agents that act according to guidelines given by an owner but without direct interference from the owner. Wikipedia employs autonomous agents by using bots to edit, review, and detect possible vandalism. One of the bots Wikipedia employs is ClueBotNG. By using predefined instructions, the bot looks for inappropriate language, maintain proper style and formatting, and other behind the scenes type of work<ref>https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-18892510</ref>. There hundreds of bots employed by Wikipedia, and although they have a high success rate for correcting errors, they sometimes flag false positives which results in further review. | + | One of the most important tools that Wikipedia employs to keep the wiki protected from vandalism is autonomous agents. Autonomous agents are intelligent agents that act according to guidelines given by an owner but without direct interference from the owner. Wikipedia employs autonomous agents by using bots to edit, review, and detect possible vandalism. One of the bots Wikipedia employs is ClueBotNG. By using predefined instructions, the bot looks for inappropriate language, maintain proper style and formatting, and other behind the scenes type of work<ref>https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-18892510</ref>. There are hundreds of bots employed by Wikipedia, and although they have a high success rate for correcting errors, they sometimes flag false positives which results in further review. |
==== Rules and Policies ==== | ==== Rules and Policies ==== | ||
| − | In efforts to keep the "anyone can edit" policy sustained, Wikipedia maintains a number of rules, | + | In efforts to keep the "anyone can edit" policy sustained, Wikipedia maintains a number of rules, policies, and guidelines to help maintain a smooth running of the website. Some of the most fundamental policies include formatting and content rules for all articles. These include length and styling rules along with what should be covered in each of the articles created. Also, one of the major rules on Wikipedia is the transparent change history. All changes are documented by users and thus can be easy to identify where vandalism is originating from and taking appropriate action against certain users <ref>Conway, Paul. “Wikipedia as an Infosphere.” 12 Mar. 2019, Ann Arbor, Michigan</ref>.Additionally, there is a hierarchy on Wikipedia that allows for more control, the more involved and trustworthy you are with the project. |
== Notable Instances == | == Notable Instances == | ||
=== John Seigenthaler, Sr. === | === John Seigenthaler, Sr. === | ||
| − | John Seigenthaler, Sr. was a prominent writer and political figure in the United States who served as the editorial director of USA Today from 1982 to 1991. In 2005, an anonymous user vandalized Seigenthaler's Wikipedia page with false information about Seigenthaler being a suspect in the | + | John Seigenthaler, Sr. was a prominent writer and political figure in the United States who served as the editorial director of USA Today from 1982 to 1991. In 2005, an anonymous user vandalized Seigenthaler's Wikipedia page with false information about Seigenthaler being a suspect in the Kennedy assassinations. This vandalism went unnoticed for four months and lead to Seigenthaler filing a lawsuit for defamation against Wikipedia <ref>https://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/wikispeedia/wpcd/wp/j/John_Seigenthaler%252C_Sr..htm</ref>. This case of vandalism was a shocking insight into how incorrect information can stay up for large periods of time if it is not occurring on popular pages and has lead to Wikipedia implementing more policies to insure against these types of incidents. |
[[File:Hillsborough.jpg|220px|thumbnail|right|The Hillsborough Disaster was a human crush that took the lives of 96 people]] | [[File:Hillsborough.jpg|220px|thumbnail|right|The Hillsborough Disaster was a human crush that took the lives of 96 people]] | ||
=== Hillsborough Disaster === | === Hillsborough Disaster === | ||
| − | The Hillsborough Disaster was a human crush that occurred in 1989 during | + | The Hillsborough Disaster was a human crush that occurred in 1989 during a football match between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest. The disaster was responsible for the death of 96 civilians. As a result of ineffective pressure control in the football stadium, an influx of fans was in the stadium and resulted in a severe crushing <ref>https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-19545126</ref>. In the aftermath of the disaster and as increasing scrutiny came upon law enforcement, revisions were made to the Hillsborough Disaster Wikipedia page in order to shift the blame. Statements such as "Blame Liverpool Fans" and others appeared on the page. After investigations by the Liverpool Echo, the source of comments was found to be connected to the government <ref>https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/hillsborough-wikipedia-insults-added-government-7029881</ref>. The vandalism was done in order to shift public perception, and for a brief moment worked. The power that this vandalism had was enlightening and was a red flag about the necessary monitoring that must be in place on wikis. |
== Ethical Issues == | == Ethical Issues == | ||
=== Governance === | === Governance === | ||
| − | There are many debates about the construction of how Wikipedia and other wikis are governed and edited. Wikipedia currently employs a hierarchical control structure that gives more power to those who have shown dedication and trust with their work on | + | There are many debates about the construction of how Wikipedia and other wikis are governed and edited. Wikipedia currently employs a hierarchical control structure that gives more power to those who have shown dedication and trust with their work on the wiki. One of the major issues with the way Wikipedia is governed is less than 10 percent of its users of female <ref>https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/10/how-wikipedia-is-hostile-to-women/411619/</ref>. There have been several reports of harassment against female editors, and the current control is well in the hands of the male population. With this type of bias, the debate about how Wikipedia defines itself becomes much more interesting. The definition, as stated on their website, "Wikipedia is a free, open content online encyclopedia created through the collaborative effort of a community of users known as Wikipedians. Anyone registered on the site can create an article for publication." This type of definition is concerning for many since readers assume they are getting a holistic article without much bias. However, this is not the case and is a major reason why vandalism on the site has more severe consequences. |
=== Unsafe is Safe === | === Unsafe is Safe === | ||
| − | As Wikipedia and other wikis have, the success of their approach has been noticed. The "invisible hand" approach taken by these wikis has allowed for a product that stays for the most part, well regulated. Unfortunately, vandalism continues to take place and some major instances of it have caused serious problems. There are many pundits that feel that Wikipedia and other prominent wikis need to have more restrictions | + | As Wikipedia and other wikis have, the success of their approach has been noticed. The "invisible hand" approach taken by these wikis has allowed for a product that stays for the most part, well regulated. Unfortunately, vandalism continues to take place and some major instances of it have caused serious problems. There are many pundits that feel that Wikipedia and other prominent wikis need to have more restrictions or a stricter editorial process in place. On the other side, is the belief that wikis are unique because of the self-regulation and changing this structure makes it no different than other media or information source in existence. In Jonathan Zittrain's ''Lessons of Wikipedia,'' it is discussed how Wikipedia structure is similar to the traffic policy of the Dutch city Drachten. In Drachten, all traffic signs and rules have been removed and as a result, the number of fatalities and injuries due to traffic accidents has decreased. Zittrain argues that Wikipedia is in a similar situation in that with fewer rules and direct editing, the net result is a product that has well-researched, thorough articles without much bias at all. However, without the proper vandalism protection or constant monitoring of the articles, it is concerning to many that Wikipedia has become the de facto source for information globally. |
== References == | == References == | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[Category:2019New]] | ||
Revision as of 12:12, 19 March 2019
Information Vandalism is the willful destruction or defacement of public or private information. In the same vein as vandalism is the destruction of public or private property, information vandalism is the equivalent but towards information. Information Vandalism can take the form of adding, deleting or modifying text, pictures, and other content. The result of this vandalism is degrading, misleading, or for the purpose of satire. The prominence of information vandalism is correlated with wikis and their popularity. Wikis and other collaborative editing sites are where information vandalism originates, but other websites and media company will perpetuate information. As wikis rise in popularity, the importance of regulating their content as well as preventing this vandalism has shown to be incredibly important. Celebrities, companies, politicians, and others have become the victim and these acts, and their consequences can have serious effects.
Contents
Wikipedia
Background
As the world's largest wiki and the 5th most popular site both globally and in US, Wikipedia controls a tremendous amount of information [1].More and more people rely on Wikipedia for information and as it gains more trust among readers, it is vital that the wiki stays up to date and accurate. Over time, Wikipedia has been the source of major information vandalism incidents. Having both a large network while also being a trusted source, has made it a great target for vandals to infiltrate. Wikipedia has incorporated systems to both combat vandalism while also prevent attacks from happening to begin with.
Prevention
Autonomous Agents
One of the most important tools that Wikipedia employs to keep the wiki protected from vandalism is autonomous agents. Autonomous agents are intelligent agents that act according to guidelines given by an owner but without direct interference from the owner. Wikipedia employs autonomous agents by using bots to edit, review, and detect possible vandalism. One of the bots Wikipedia employs is ClueBotNG. By using predefined instructions, the bot looks for inappropriate language, maintain proper style and formatting, and other behind the scenes type of work[2]. There are hundreds of bots employed by Wikipedia, and although they have a high success rate for correcting errors, they sometimes flag false positives which results in further review.
Rules and Policies
In efforts to keep the "anyone can edit" policy sustained, Wikipedia maintains a number of rules, policies, and guidelines to help maintain a smooth running of the website. Some of the most fundamental policies include formatting and content rules for all articles. These include length and styling rules along with what should be covered in each of the articles created. Also, one of the major rules on Wikipedia is the transparent change history. All changes are documented by users and thus can be easy to identify where vandalism is originating from and taking appropriate action against certain users [3].Additionally, there is a hierarchy on Wikipedia that allows for more control, the more involved and trustworthy you are with the project.
Notable Instances
John Seigenthaler, Sr.
John Seigenthaler, Sr. was a prominent writer and political figure in the United States who served as the editorial director of USA Today from 1982 to 1991. In 2005, an anonymous user vandalized Seigenthaler's Wikipedia page with false information about Seigenthaler being a suspect in the Kennedy assassinations. This vandalism went unnoticed for four months and lead to Seigenthaler filing a lawsuit for defamation against Wikipedia [4]. This case of vandalism was a shocking insight into how incorrect information can stay up for large periods of time if it is not occurring on popular pages and has lead to Wikipedia implementing more policies to insure against these types of incidents.
Hillsborough Disaster
The Hillsborough Disaster was a human crush that occurred in 1989 during a football match between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest. The disaster was responsible for the death of 96 civilians. As a result of ineffective pressure control in the football stadium, an influx of fans was in the stadium and resulted in a severe crushing [5]. In the aftermath of the disaster and as increasing scrutiny came upon law enforcement, revisions were made to the Hillsborough Disaster Wikipedia page in order to shift the blame. Statements such as "Blame Liverpool Fans" and others appeared on the page. After investigations by the Liverpool Echo, the source of comments was found to be connected to the government [6]. The vandalism was done in order to shift public perception, and for a brief moment worked. The power that this vandalism had was enlightening and was a red flag about the necessary monitoring that must be in place on wikis.
Ethical Issues
Governance
There are many debates about the construction of how Wikipedia and other wikis are governed and edited. Wikipedia currently employs a hierarchical control structure that gives more power to those who have shown dedication and trust with their work on the wiki. One of the major issues with the way Wikipedia is governed is less than 10 percent of its users of female [7]. There have been several reports of harassment against female editors, and the current control is well in the hands of the male population. With this type of bias, the debate about how Wikipedia defines itself becomes much more interesting. The definition, as stated on their website, "Wikipedia is a free, open content online encyclopedia created through the collaborative effort of a community of users known as Wikipedians. Anyone registered on the site can create an article for publication." This type of definition is concerning for many since readers assume they are getting a holistic article without much bias. However, this is not the case and is a major reason why vandalism on the site has more severe consequences.
Unsafe is Safe
As Wikipedia and other wikis have, the success of their approach has been noticed. The "invisible hand" approach taken by these wikis has allowed for a product that stays for the most part, well regulated. Unfortunately, vandalism continues to take place and some major instances of it have caused serious problems. There are many pundits that feel that Wikipedia and other prominent wikis need to have more restrictions or a stricter editorial process in place. On the other side, is the belief that wikis are unique because of the self-regulation and changing this structure makes it no different than other media or information source in existence. In Jonathan Zittrain's Lessons of Wikipedia, it is discussed how Wikipedia structure is similar to the traffic policy of the Dutch city Drachten. In Drachten, all traffic signs and rules have been removed and as a result, the number of fatalities and injuries due to traffic accidents has decreased. Zittrain argues that Wikipedia is in a similar situation in that with fewer rules and direct editing, the net result is a product that has well-researched, thorough articles without much bias at all. However, without the proper vandalism protection or constant monitoring of the articles, it is concerning to many that Wikipedia has become the de facto source for information globally.
References
- ↑ Conway, Paul. “Wikipedia as an Infosphere.” 12 Mar. 2019, Ann Arbor, Michigan
- ↑ https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-18892510
- ↑ Conway, Paul. “Wikipedia as an Infosphere.” 12 Mar. 2019, Ann Arbor, Michigan
- ↑ https://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/wikispeedia/wpcd/wp/j/John_Seigenthaler%252C_Sr..htm
- ↑ https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-19545126
- ↑ https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/hillsborough-wikipedia-insults-added-government-7029881
- ↑ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/10/how-wikipedia-is-hostile-to-women/411619/
