See Who's Editing Wikipedia - Diebold, the CIA, a Campaign = Plus KO VIDEO

[L. Coyote]

See Who's Editing Wikipedia - Diebold, the CIA, a Campaign
By John Borland Email 08.14.07 | 2:00 AM
http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/08/wiki_tracker


CalTech graduate student Virgil Griffith built a search tool that traces IP addresses of those who make Wikipedia changes.

On November 17th, 2005, an anonymous Wikipedia user deleted 15 paragraphs from an article on e-voting machine-vendor Diebold, excising an entire section critical of the company's machines. While anonymous, such changes typically leave behind digital fingerprints offering hints about the contributor, such as the location of the computer used to make the edits.

In this case, the changes came from an IP address reserved for the corporate offices of Diebold itself. And it is far from an isolated case. A new data-mining service launched Monday traces millions of Wikipedia entries to their corporate sources, and for the first time puts comprehensive data behind longstanding suspicions of manipulation, which until now have surfaced only piecemeal in investigations of specific allegations.

Wikipedia Scanner -- the brainchild of Cal Tech computation and neural-systems graduate student Virgil Griffith -- offers users a searchable database that ties millions of anonymous Wikipedia edits to organizations where those edits apparently originated, by cross-referencing the edits with data on who owns the associated block of internet IP addresses. .....

==================================
Olbermann: Who's Hacking Wikipedia?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x47870

[DaveJ]

1. Link to Wikiscanner

Not sure if anyone posted this lately, but it's really interesting...

http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/

Problem is, it feels like spying on fellow citizens, since a lot of the edits that I found from Wal-mart, someone was making edits to things like movies and video games too.

[L. Coyote]

2. We who edit Wiki anonomously know the IP is recorded.

Don't worry that you are spying. The info is recorded for good reason, and it is a great idea to have done so.

[Mabus]

3. I see a big difference

First I don't see it as spying. The people who contribute to the Wiki know that their IPs are being recorded. There's a difference between watching the movements of people who are either unaware or who have done nothing to garner the unwanted attention and someone who is putting something out into the public sphere for others to turn to for information.

[BurtWorm]

5. I basically agree with you about wikipedia editors, but...

is it now fair game to use a tool like the wikiscanner to "unmask" every "anonymous" or pseudonymous poster on the Internet? Do they have a right to remain pseudonymous or anonymous? Or not?

[Mabus]

6. I'd prefer to have anonymity

and I fully support anonymity. However, this is a "special" case in that the entries on websites like Wikipedia are for knowledge. They aren't supposed to be opinion and/or hit pieces. I would analogize it to looking at who wrote a textbook that is being used by others as a reference book. When Exxon rewrites its history (re: Exxon Valdez) to mitigate their role, the damage they did or to otherwise mislead people I think they should be outed.

[BurtWorm]

7. You're right about that. I feel the same way.

I'm only concerned that once that camel's nose is in the tent, the rest of it will follow, simply because the technology will be available. What's going to stop political and personal enemies on newsgroups, for example, from outing each other misapplying or adapting this technology?

I'm not arguing against outing the editors of Wikepedia. I think their identities are fair game. But I think the result of this tool being made available is less privacy on the Web--or the illusion of privacy on the Web's being made transparently false.

[L. Coyote]

8. All this tool did was facilitate a process anyone could do manually.

Nothing changed except the way it is accomplished. I have traced Wiki edit IPs manually before, to see who was trying to alter history. Now, the process is easier, that's all. And, we reap the benefits by knowing more about who is doing what in Wiki.

[Mabus]

10. I couldn't agree more

It can be viewed as a slippery slope but there are some major differences. For example, the IP addresses are logged on the wiki but they aren't always as easily available elsewhere. Moreover, with the wiki you can see not only the IP addresses but you can also track what changes were made to what entries so there is accountability. Both these functions allow tracking by the general public more than most other websites.

I agree with you though. Anonymity is a good thing and is used responsibly by many people. We should try to make sure that it isn't taken away from us and/or used against us.

[L. Coyote]

11. Editing Wiki from a coffee shop or motel, etc., provides some anonymity.

The IP is the ISP at the location. Most users are anonymous anyway, if the IP is their ISP. This impacts network users with identifiable IP blocks.

In the final analysis, there is less anonymity than people realize if someone really wants to follow a post, for example. But, they need the cooperation of the ISP to do so.

[Mabus]

12. Thankfully most of the cretins

were probably posting from work (Fox News) or their mom's basement. ;) What's also interesting is that you can track some people on and off the internet. Let's say that someone changes wiki entries at work and at their favorite coffee shop. You could figure out not only where they worked but also where they like to go for coffee by comparing the changes to the entries they make. If they are compulsive enough you could probably figure out their favorite haunts and figure out their schedule. It's creepy I know but I think it's possible.

I agree with your conclusions. People aren't as anonymous as they would like to think. And, just like when we were kids, one bad apple can screw it up for everyone else. If there is someone who is being a cyberpest website admins have been known to block rangers and/or blocks of IP addresses to keep one person out.

[lynnertic]

13. wouldn't you rather have the illusion of privacy on the web be made transparently false?

Would you rather have people think they're safe when they're not?

[IndianaJones]

4. are there people that take this wiki thing seriously? nt.

[L. Coyote]

9. YES, and the moreso when someone is writing stuff about you personally.

What are people writing about you in Wiki?

If someone tries to claim your work as their own, or writes something false about you, it is serious.

Simply erasing citations of people from Wiki is another tactic that is a serious breech of use.