(Go: >> BACK << -|- >> HOME <<)
Jump to content

Vandalism on Wikipedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ClueBot NG (talk | contribs) at 08:09, 20 December 2010 (Reverting possible vandalism by 186.114.155.70 to version by Lincolncooper. False positive? Report it. Thanks, ClueBot NG. (137449) (Bot)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Vandalism of a Wikipedia article

On Wikipedia, vandalism is the act of editing the project in a malicious manner that is intentionally disruptive. Vandalism includes the addition, removal, or other modification of the text or other material that is either humorous, nonsensical, a hoax, spam or promotion of a subject, or that is of an offensive, humiliating, or otherwise of a degrading nature.

Throughout its history, Wikipedia has struggled to maintain a balance between allowing the freedom of open editing and protecting the truth and accuracy of its information when false information can be potentially damaging to its subjects[1]. Vandalism is easy to commit on Wikipedia due to the fact that anyone can edit the site[2]. Founder Jimmy Wales is very much aware of the fact that the open editing policy allows the addition of false information[3].

Most vandalism is committed on impulse, often by the bored and malicious[3]. Frequent targets of vandalism include articles on hot and controversial topics and current events[4][5]. In some cases, people have been falsely reported as having died. This has notably occurred to U.S. Senators Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd (now both deceased)[6].

Fighting vandalism

Padlocks of different colors are placed on pages to indicate they are protected at some level. The most common is the silver padlock, indicating that the page can only be edited by auto-confirmed accounts. Note that this is for display purposes only, and not to mark the protection of this page.

The are various measures taken by Wikipedia to prevent or reduce the amount of vandalism. These include:

  • Reverting the vandalism by restoring the article to the last version before the vandalism occurred[4]. The majority of vandalism on Wikipedia is reverted quickly. There are various ways in which the vandalism gets detected so it can be reverted:
    • Incidental discovery: A reader who comes across the vandalism by chance can revert it. This is often the case[7].
    • Recent change patrol: Wikipedia has a special page that lists all the most recent changes. Some editors will monitor these changes for possible vandalism[7].
    • Watchlists: Any user can watch a page that they have created or edited or that they otherwise have interest in knowing if it has been edited. This enables other users to know if a page has been vandalized[7].
    • Bots: In some cases, the vandalism is automatically reverted by a bot that can automatically detect the act and will revert it and warn the vandal with no human intervention[7].
  • Locking articles so only established users, or in some cases, only administrators can edit them[4]. Semi-protected articles are those that can only be edited by those with an account that is considered to be auto-confirmed, that being that it is at least 4 days old and has made at least 10 edits. Fully protected articles are those that can only be edited by administrators. Protection is generally instituted after one or more editors makes a request on a special page for that purpose, and an administrator familiar with the protection guidelines chooses whether or not to fulfill this request based on the guidelines.
  • Blocking and banning those who have repeatedly committed acts of vandalism from editing for a period of time or in some cases, indefinitely[4]. Blocking is not considered to be a punitive action. The purpose of the block is simply to prevent further damage[8]. Editors are generally warned prior to being blocked. Wikipedia employs a 4-stage warning process up to a block. This includes[9]:
  1. A welcome notice that assumes good faith
  2. The second act does not assume good faith and is an actual warning
  3. The third act warns the user to stop
  4. The fourth warning is a final warning, stating that any future acts of vandalism will result in a block
  5. After this, other users may place additional warnings, though only administrators can actually carry out the block

In 2005, Wikipedia started to require those who create new articles to have a registered account in an effort to fight some vandalism. This occurred after inaccurate information was added to Wikipedia in which a journalist was accused of taking part in Kennedy's assassination[2].

Wikipedia has experimented with systems in which edits to some articles, especially those of living people, are delayed until it can be reviewed and determined that they are not vandalism, and in some cases, that a source to verify accuracy is provided. This is in an effort to prevent inaccurate and potentially damaging information about living people from appearing on the site[10][11].

Notable acts of vandalism

  • In 2006, comedian Steve Colbert vandalized the article elephant publicly on the air. This resulted in Colbert being blocked from editing, and a lot of elephant-related articles being protected[12].
  • In 2006, Rolling Stone Magazine printed a false story from which they learned the information from an act of Wikipedia vandalism. Their article's title stated that Halle Berry was set to ruin her reputation[13].
  • Professional golfer Fuzzy Zoeller sued a Miami company whose IP-based edits to the Wikipedia site included negative information about him[14].
  • Soon after the death of Steve Irwin in 2007, the stingray article was vandalized, stating that stingrays "hate Australian people."[4]

See also

References

  1. ^ http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/2009/0825/wikipedia-testing-new-method-to-curb-false-info
  2. ^ a b http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8425-wikipedia-tightens-editorial-rules-after-complaint.html
  3. ^ a b http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4502846.stm
  4. ^ a b c d e http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10432042
  5. ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2006/jun/18/wikipedia.news
  6. ^ http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/01/28/2476045.htm?section=world
  7. ^ a b c d Broughton, John (2008). Wikipedia: the missing manual. p. 122. ISBN 10:0-596-51616-2. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  8. ^ Broughton, John (2008). Wikipedia: the missing manual. p. 134. ISBN 10:0-596-51616-2. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  9. ^ Broughton, John (2008). Wikipedia: the missing manual. pp. 130–31. ISBN 10:0-596-51616-2. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  10. ^ http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/wikipedia_tests_approval_system_reduce_page_vandalism
  11. ^ http://news.ebrandz.com/miscellaneous/2009/2824-wikipedia-plans-to-enforce-new-editing-policy-to-thwart-vandals-.html
  12. ^ http://www.tvsquad.com/2006/08/01/did-colbert-hack-wikipedia-video/
  13. ^ http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Rolling_Stone_prints_story_based_on_Wikipedia_vandalism
  14. ^ http://www.tomshardware.com/news/golfer-sues-wikipedia-vandalism,4377.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vandalism_on_Wikipedia&oldid=403316402"