And one should be surprised by this?

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
And one should be surprised by this?

No kidding. Politicians, non-profits, advocacy groups, and individuals have been doing it for some time. Some controversial topics are moderated--any changes have to be reviewed before being posted. However, if I recall correctly, there was a minor scandal about one of the volunteer staff who was doing this. One needs to read anything in Wikipedia with a careful eye for bias. I've found it most useful for an assemblage of facts--some of which I check with other sources, just to be sure.

I've made a few edits, myself, mostly in a couple of articles about mystery writers to add characters or other details.

Mr Griffiths makes two rather big assumptions:

(1) That because a company changes information in its favour that the new information is somehow less accurate than the old. Sometimes, this so-called information is merely "opinion" or reflects the bias of the writer. The edit from "US-led occupation" to "US-led liberation" is a classic example: whether it's an "occupation" or a "liberation" depends strongly on your viewpoint and the spin you want to put on it; that someone from the US government prefers a positive rather than negative interpretation is not surprising, nor does it inherently mean that spin is incorrect.

(2) That because the information is changed from a company IP address during work hours that it is somehow an "official" or "sanctioned" act. Does Mr Griffiths *seriously* believe that all internent use during work hours by MS or Apple employees represents official policy?

Finally, according to the article, Mr Griffiths has created the tool specifically to generate bad press for companies he dislikes. It's not about objective facts-checking, but rather an attempt to embarrass companies who might - surprisingly - object to (possibly false) negative reviews of themselves in a public database that purports to be objective and factual.

OMFG! I can't believe these companies have engaged in such scandalous behavior! How could anyone allow this to happen? I am shocked that Apple would stoop to this level! This completely undermines the validity of Wikipe...

Oh, wait, this is Wikipedia we're talking about?

A while ago, some people posted some (truthful) comments about an mmorpg. The owners didn't like it, so they edited it, over and over again.
Finally, the page was deleted.

Oh, but this is only the half of it. If only we knew the number of pedophiles editing Wikipedia articles related to children (and pedophilia, too), sexual addicts editing human sexuality articles, right (or left) win wackos editing the biographies of subjects contrary to their views), staunch atheists editing religious articles...the list goes on. Then there are the hoards of pages patrolled by tribes of ardent adherents of the article subject who will not let anything but glowing information enter. Wikipedia is a nightmare and the globe and Web will be the far better for it when it finally meets its already overdue demise.

just because an employee adds negative comments on the competition doesn't mean the “company” did it. Apple and Microsoft are huge and any employee behind their network will show as microsoft or apple. As for removing user or employee negative comments… Thats something else…

A bit more via this blog entry on Apple and Wikipedia entries:

http://www.graphicstart.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=18

It is not just US companies, it is human nature. For instance, you can see here that HSBC (UK) has been busy with some edits:

http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?ip2=193.108.72.0-76.255

And Nokia (Finland) too:
http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?ip1=192.100.122.0-125.255

So what?

That is what Wikipedia offers. If I was Apple and I saw Macbookpro written so instead of MacBook Pro, then I would likely make the change too.

It is when people (people are behind companies) use slander, lies and the likes is when it is un-acceptable. Thus, this is a great tool to monitor Wikipedia. Ethics are ethics. Heck, anyone company with half a brain would do this down at the library or local internet cafe anyway...

Anyone got one for Digg.com? (I swear Apple is digging all things Apple there!)

- http://www.graphicstart.com

This is actually not correct. maltastar.com does _not_ give any examples that "Apple edit[s] Microsoft entries, adding more negative comments about its rival". He makes claims in his article that Apple does that, but doesn't give any actual examples. So all we have is his interpretation of an edit that we haven't actually seen.

However, if you look at edits made from IP addresses owned by Apple, you will find that the vast, vast majority is absolutely unrelated to Apple, or to computers in general. And I would say that there is a huge difference between "Apple edits" and "someone with an IP address owned by Apple edits".