Huppenthal partisan vandalizes Wikipedia
The Wikipedia-editing saga continues.
Recently I reported how Arizona State Senator John Huppenthal was editing his own and other entries in the online encyclopedia Wikipedia to polish his own bio, suppress true but embarrassing information about himself and a political ally and skew issue articles in favor of his ideology. I noted how this was a violation of Wikipedia policies and, aside from being rather cheesy, was also downright unethical (deleting facts to suppress them from public knowledge, especially).
Since that report, the story has taken on a life of its own, as I noted here. As I reported here, my blog post received national attention and Senator Huppenthal responded, which response I commented on, as well.
The story is not going away, however, with another development this week.
It appears that a Huppenthal partisan (if not the Senator himself) has created an account under the user name of "Greenfields" on Wikipedia to carry on the vandalism of Wikipedia entries. Including the vandalism by "Greenfields" and the required corrections by watchdog editors, Huppenthal's entry has been edited 33 more times since this story first broke about a week ago.
After repeatedly deleting whole portions of Wikipedia articles embarrassing to Senators Huppenthal and Bennett, user "Greenfields" was warned to stop the vandalism. To hide the brewing controversy he had contributed to, "Greenfields" then deleted portions of Huppenthal's logs showing the discussion about these edits as well as portions of his own user logs showing the adonishments from Wikipedia's management to cease the vandalism. After multiple warnings, the user was blocked from further editing Wikipedia articles.
A few key aspects of this ongoing scandal:
a. The creation of the "Greenfields" account and the specific edits to the articles of John Huppenthal, Ken Bennett and Merit Pay (in some cases, making the exact same edits Senator Huppenthal made) make it clear that the user "Greenfields" is acting directly in Huppenthal's favor in response to the report I posted.
b. "Greenfields" was admonished repeatedly that his actions were in violation of Wikipedia policy and considered vandalism of the public database, yet continued to vandalize the online encyclopedia even after being told this.
c. The vandal also tried to suppress information about the controversy by deleting portions of the logs on Huppenthal's page that document the edits that were made and the discussion surrounding them.
d. "Greenfields" then tried to cover his tracks by accusing other users of vandalism and deleting portions of his OWN user page that documented repeated admonishments to cease his editing and vandalizing the entries.
e. After extraordinary patience by the Wikipedia management, the vandal was finally blocked indefinitely from making any further edits. On the page linked above, one of the managing editors made this admonishment to "Greenfields" prior to blocking him:
For those who aren't plugged in to the Internet very much, you may not appreciate the impact Wikipedia articles can have on informing folks. Many people use it as a first-stop for getting a quick glimpse at a subject, as the Wikipedia article is often one of the most prominent sources of information for given subjects on the Internet. Though it is user-editable, the entries tend to be reliable for such broad, non-academic research. Increasingly, people are using the Internet to research candidates for voter education. So editing a Wikipedia article does have a genuine impact on public information where public officials are concerned.
This is made all the more important in Senator Huppenthal's case because he has repeatedly refused to complete on-line surveys on where he specifically stands on key issues, such as the prominent NPAT survey by Project Vote Smart.
But don't take my word for it. As evidence of the importance of Wikipedia to voters, witness Senator Huppenthal's own prodigious efforts spent to polish his own bio and suppress information that was embarrassing to him. As well, witness user "Greenfield's" desperate attempts to carry on Senator Huppenthal's work, even to the point of trying to cover his tracks and suppress information about the conroversy. These people wouldn't be trying so hard to skew and suppress Wikipedia's information if they thought it was a trivial database.
This is the point at which it is appropriate, once more, to ask Senator Huppenthal whether he recognizes that attempting to delete and suppress information from a public database - information which is true, but embarrassing to himself - is acceptable or ethical by his standards. I believe most people would consider it to be clearly unethical, but Senator Huppenthal has yet to answer to this point and appears to not be bothered by it at all.
Also, does Huppenthal approve of user "Greenfields", whomever that may be, and his continued vandalism of Wikipedia on the Senator's behalf? Or his blatant attempted suppression of information about this controversy?
Does Senator Huppenthal know "Greenfields"? IS Senator Huppenthal, himself, "Greenfields"?
A clearer statement from the Senator is called for on these points.
Recently I reported how Arizona State Senator John Huppenthal was editing his own and other entries in the online encyclopedia Wikipedia to polish his own bio, suppress true but embarrassing information about himself and a political ally and skew issue articles in favor of his ideology. I noted how this was a violation of Wikipedia policies and, aside from being rather cheesy, was also downright unethical (deleting facts to suppress them from public knowledge, especially).
Since that report, the story has taken on a life of its own, as I noted here. As I reported here, my blog post received national attention and Senator Huppenthal responded, which response I commented on, as well.
The story is not going away, however, with another development this week.
It appears that a Huppenthal partisan (if not the Senator himself) has created an account under the user name of "Greenfields" on Wikipedia to carry on the vandalism of Wikipedia entries. Including the vandalism by "Greenfields" and the required corrections by watchdog editors, Huppenthal's entry has been edited 33 more times since this story first broke about a week ago.
After repeatedly deleting whole portions of Wikipedia articles embarrassing to Senators Huppenthal and Bennett, user "Greenfields" was warned to stop the vandalism. To hide the brewing controversy he had contributed to, "Greenfields" then deleted portions of Huppenthal's logs showing the discussion about these edits as well as portions of his own user logs showing the adonishments from Wikipedia's management to cease the vandalism. After multiple warnings, the user was blocked from further editing Wikipedia articles.
A few key aspects of this ongoing scandal:
a. The creation of the "Greenfields" account and the specific edits to the articles of John Huppenthal, Ken Bennett and Merit Pay (in some cases, making the exact same edits Senator Huppenthal made) make it clear that the user "Greenfields" is acting directly in Huppenthal's favor in response to the report I posted.
b. "Greenfields" was admonished repeatedly that his actions were in violation of Wikipedia policy and considered vandalism of the public database, yet continued to vandalize the online encyclopedia even after being told this.
c. The vandal also tried to suppress information about the controversy by deleting portions of the logs on Huppenthal's page that document the edits that were made and the discussion surrounding them.
d. "Greenfields" then tried to cover his tracks by accusing other users of vandalism and deleting portions of his OWN user page that documented repeated admonishments to cease his editing and vandalizing the entries.
e. After extraordinary patience by the Wikipedia management, the vandal was finally blocked indefinitely from making any further edits. On the page linked above, one of the managing editors made this admonishment to "Greenfields" prior to blocking him:
If you believe that untrue statements are being made in biographical articles, you need to discuss the verifiability (or lack thereof) of those statements on the talk page for the article. You've done nothing but repeatedly blank content without comment, accuse people who have made legitimate edits of vandalism, and revert legitimate edits repeatedly. All of this has been done in violations of several Wikipedia policies. If you work for - or are - either Senator Huppenthal or Senator Bennett, it is even more important that you have an open discussion with other Wikipedians on the topic, to ensure that the articles about them are kept truthful and verifiable. See WP:LIVING. Also, many of us dealing with your edits have shown a great deal of patience in waiting for you to discuss the issue, and I hope that you will return that respect by actually discussing it rather than continuing your pattern of poor edits.
For those who aren't plugged in to the Internet very much, you may not appreciate the impact Wikipedia articles can have on informing folks. Many people use it as a first-stop for getting a quick glimpse at a subject, as the Wikipedia article is often one of the most prominent sources of information for given subjects on the Internet. Though it is user-editable, the entries tend to be reliable for such broad, non-academic research. Increasingly, people are using the Internet to research candidates for voter education. So editing a Wikipedia article does have a genuine impact on public information where public officials are concerned.
This is made all the more important in Senator Huppenthal's case because he has repeatedly refused to complete on-line surveys on where he specifically stands on key issues, such as the prominent NPAT survey by Project Vote Smart.
But don't take my word for it. As evidence of the importance of Wikipedia to voters, witness Senator Huppenthal's own prodigious efforts spent to polish his own bio and suppress information that was embarrassing to him. As well, witness user "Greenfield's" desperate attempts to carry on Senator Huppenthal's work, even to the point of trying to cover his tracks and suppress information about the conroversy. These people wouldn't be trying so hard to skew and suppress Wikipedia's information if they thought it was a trivial database.
This is the point at which it is appropriate, once more, to ask Senator Huppenthal whether he recognizes that attempting to delete and suppress information from a public database - information which is true, but embarrassing to himself - is acceptable or ethical by his standards. I believe most people would consider it to be clearly unethical, but Senator Huppenthal has yet to answer to this point and appears to not be bothered by it at all.
Also, does Huppenthal approve of user "Greenfields", whomever that may be, and his continued vandalism of Wikipedia on the Senator's behalf? Or his blatant attempted suppression of information about this controversy?
Does Senator Huppenthal know "Greenfields"? IS Senator Huppenthal, himself, "Greenfields"?
A clearer statement from the Senator is called for on these points.
posted by Geo at 10:46 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home