Wikipedia 'sentinel' quits after using alias to alter entries
Conflict-of-interest row forces out the Labour councillor who changed David Cameron's page
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
enlarge
A "guardian of the truth" on Wikipedia, the global internet encyclopedia, has been caught up in an embarrassing scandal after it was revealed that he created bogus online identities to change entries on the system.
David Boothroyd – a London councillor by day, a cyber policeman by night – has been forced to resign from Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee after his alias editing gave rise to a major conflict of interest.
The Labour councillor's fall from grace comes two years after he fought off stiff international competition to win a coveted seat on the 15-strong committee, which is responsible for settling hundreds of editorial disputes every day.
His membership of "ArbCom" was no longer tenable after it emerged that he had committed one of the most serious crimes in cyberspace: sockpuppeting – the use of multiple online identities to create the illusion of support for a point of view, person or organisation.
A log of publicly available page edits exposes several changes to Tory leader David Cameron's Wikipedia entry by Mr Boothroyd under the alias of Sam Blacketer, including changing the picture to one "not carrying saintly overtones".
Mr Boothroyd claims the whole thing was an "innocent oversight" and points to the numerous favourable corrections he has made to Mr Cameron's page.
Paul Williams, volunteers director at Wikimedia UK, the British arm of the American company, said: "Sock-puppeting is a very serious offence for anybody. But for someone on the Arbitration Committee it is even more so. It can result in a lifetime ban. The problem with Wikipedia is that you can hide behind user names, but there is an expectation that you don't write for self-interest. In this case there is a conflict of interest."
The online encyclopedia has been plagued with disputes since its launch in 2001 by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger. Initially hailed as a utopian vision – an encyclopedia for the people, by the people – it quickly attracted criticisms about the inaccuracy of its content. But with 13 million entries, Wikipedia is the world's largest online encyclopedia and the eighth most popular site on the web.
The committee adjudicates on all matters. From the trivial (whether J K Rowling's surname is pronounced "ow" or "oll") to the political (the geographical borders of Palestine). It can also ban people from writing on the site, a punishment which has been meted out to Scientologists who have tried to erase criticisms of their creed.
Mr Boothroyd said: "I can be a partisan when I want to be, but I can look at things objectively. I created different user names because people found out I was a Labour councillor and kept harassing me, accusing me of being biased. Getting a new name was a form of defence. I have never written to self-serve but I admit it was wrong, although an innocent oversight."
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
Wikipedia's success has led to many sites focused on its foibles. One such site, the "Wikipedia Review", was the locus of much investigation into the "EssJay" scandal in which a highly ranked administrator falsified academic degrees and lied to the New Yorker (tinyurl.com/22an3d). It also mocks Jimmy Wales's repeated denial of co-founder status to former employee and Wikipedia creator Larry Sanger (larrysanger.org/roleinwp.html) - now running rival site citizendium.org - by dubbing Wales the "Sole Flounder".
The combination of feuds and relentless focus on negatives associated with Wikipedia creates an obsession by some devoted Wikipedians about the evils visited upon them. Tensions can also be intensified by the fact that since Wikipedia supports accounts with no identity verification, nobody can ever be sure if a pseudonymous user's opinion is sincere or a sham. You could in theory have several such accounts (called "sock puppets"), and operate them to give the impression of having several supporters for one viewpoint. Abusing this facility is against policy, though preventing it is difficult".
Copyright the Guardian.
"I can be a partisan when I want to be, but I can look at things objectively"
with this one from the leader of his political party:
"I would not be here if I did not think I was the best person for this job."
Both these statements, apparently issued within hours of each other, betray a complete inability to recognise truth, observe impartiality or guard against making claims that are self-serving (which is baldly denied just three sentences later.)
How long is it going to take for such people to realise that the approach described as 'Appearance is Reality' is not only hopelessly wrong but completely discredited in the cold new light of day.
Or is your deliberately misleading statement within your rules . . ? . ?
Mine permit me to call it a porkie.
It is not democracy yet below the surface it is driven by the same impulse that makes a successful democracy a success (I do not count the present Brown regime as successful). A sense of civil participation, rules that remove self-interest, openness, debate, reward for those that contribute--barnstars and alike.
Would it not be nice if we got find away of getting that energy back into an internet rejuvenated democracy.
If New Labour had any *guts* they would have this spineless little cheat deselected as a Councillor. But New Labour have no guts at all.
Wikipedia's mistake was to trust someone who was apparently a respectable and honest man. Clearly they forgot that no-one who works for New Labour is honest or respectable - they're all a pack of filthy cheats, liars and warmongers.
Wiki seems to have earned a reputation for deceit where political issues are concerned. Talking of rodents, here is an article -
http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNK
where Solomon detailed the shenanigans of one Kim Dabelstein Petersen "...a Wikipedia "editor" who seems to devote a large part of his life to editing reams and reams of Wikipedia pages to pump the assertions of global-warming alarmists and deprecate or make disappear the arguments of skeptics."
Apart from contentious issues I find wiki good, especially as a starting point for researching so much science (as opposed to myth) I am curious about. Quoting it as a reference is very likely to draw ridicule.
"Any body:
(a) exercising functions of a public nature;
(b) directed to charitable purposes, or
one of whose principal purposes includes the influence of public opinion
or policy (including any political party or trade union)"
of which you are a Member or in a position of general control or management"
Boothroyd does not mention Wikipedia.
http://www3.westminster.gov.uk/docstore
Elswhere on the site, his political colleague and Socialist Party Candidate for the Eurpoean Parliaments London Constituency, keeps sinister "watchlists" of other editors that not ony flout Wikipedia Policy but also verge on cyberstalking, and yet remain "untoucheable".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Psych
Wikipedia was a wonderful utopian dream that could never work in the real world.
Because in reading a newspaper you have knowledge of who is behind it and can interpret the information provided.
A textbook is also a better bet, even though there may well be "errors" there is a greater chance that error or bias is stopped before publication.
The internet is not "locked down" and is always going to be dodgy.
So the very idea of sentinels is bonkers.
Start from there.
"The Tories have admitted a member of staff altered a Wikipedia entry on the artist Titian after a row between Gordon Brown and David Cameron.
During exchanges at prime minister's questions, the Tory leader mocked Mr Brown for talking of Titian at 90, when he said in fact he had died age 86.
"Shortly afterwards a Wikipedia user registered at Conservative HQ moved his date of death forward."
No lie too small for Pinnochio's staff . . .
Please consult the documentation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipe
Also, there are absolutely not hundreds of editorial disputes every day coming to Arbcom, Arbcom is the last step in dispute resolution, there are currently 7 active cases, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipe
They certainly won't rule on the pronunciation of J K Rowling , it's a content matter, they don't have the authority to do that, instead they'll put in place measures to prevent edit wars on the pronunciation (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipe
As for David Boothroyd , no (valid) concerns of biased editing under his new account have been raised , the edit you're referring to was a vandalism revert ! Nothing wrong with that, see the diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit
What's really wrong and made him resign from the committee is that he didn't disclose his previous account, which had been taken to Arbcom and had his administrator status removed (it's quite 'bad')... People can change, and his behavior under his new account was good (although he voted as an Arb on cases where he should have recused based on his prior history), proof is that he has been elected and remained in good-standing, but it was still a betrayal of the community confidence (and of course, he wouldn't have been elected if the community had known on his prior history).