WikiScanner

Last updated
WikiScanner
WikiScanner screenshot.png
Screenshot of the website on August 22, 2007.
Type of site
Database tool
Available inChinese, Dutch, English, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Polish
Owner Virgil Griffith
Created byVirgil Griffith
URL wikiscanner.virgil.gr
Virgil Griffith's current page
CommercialNo
RegistrationNo
LaunchedAugust 13, 2007;16 years ago (2007-08-13)
Current statusOffline

WikiScanner (also known as Wikipedia Scanner) was a publicly searchable database that linked anonymous edits on Wikipedia to the organizations where those edits apparently originated. It did this by cross-referencing the edits with data on the owners of the associated block of IP addresses, though it did not investigate edits made under a username. It was created by Virgil Griffith and released on August 13, 2007. [1] [2]

Contents

In his "WikiScanner FAQ" Griffith stated his belief that WikiScanner could help make Wikipedia more reliable for controversial topics. [3] He also indicated that he had never been employed by the Wikimedia Foundation and claimed his work on WikiScanner was "100% noncommercial". [3] On December 21, 2012, a research group from Fondazione Bruno Kessler  [ it ] released an open-source clone of WikiScanner called WikiWatchdog.

By April 2013, attempts to run "WikiScanner Classic" from wikiscanner.virgil.gr returned to the WikiScanner home page, which identified itself as "WIKIWATCHER.COM"; and invoking "WikiScanner2 PreviewNew!" led to a "failure to load the page due to timeout" error. [4]

In 2007, Virgil Griffith said he had to take WikiScanner down, as it was costing him "several thousand USD per month." [5] He added below this on his WikiScanner webpage that as a grad student at Caltech in 2008 he developed with the aid of several undergraduates "a suite of Wikipedia-related tools known collectively as "WikiWatcher" which included: WikiScanner2 (Daniel), Wikiganda (Rishi), Poor Man's Checkuser, and BeaverScope," which he launched at the Hackers on Planet Earth (HOPE) conference that year. They used used "high-quality data" from Quova, and among them WikiWatcher "had some media successes, but when the summer was over there was no one to maintain the tools and they fell into disrepair." [5]

Design

The tool's database contained 34 million entries on anonymous edits (those by users who were not logged in to Wikipedia) between February 7, 2002, and August 4, 2007. [3] Griffith stated that the database was constructed by compiling the anonymous edits included amongst the monthly public database dumps of Wikipedia. He claimed to have connected the organizations to their IP address with the assistance of the IP2Location database, and through comparison had found "187,529 different organizations with at least one anonymous Wikipedia edit." [3]

WikiScanner only worked on anonymous edits, which are made under an IP address, not edits by anyone logged in under a username. It could not distinguish between edits made by authorized users of an organization, unauthorized intruders, or users of public-access computers that may have been using an organization's network. In discussing edits made from computers in the Vatican, computer expert Kevin Curran was quoted by the BBC as saying that it was "difficult to determine if the person was an employee or if they had maliciously hacked into the Vatican system and were 'spoofing' the IP address." [6]

The WikiScanner FAQ noted that edits could not be positively attributed to representatives of a company, only to a computer logged into a company's network. The FAQ went on to say there is no guarantee that an edit was made by an authorized user rather than an intruder. [3] The likelihood of such intrusions depended upon an organizations' network security; organizations such as the Vatican Library have public access terminals or networks. [7]

Media coverage and reaction


According to Wired, which first broke the story on 13 August 2007, most edits were "fairly innocuous". [2] Wired asked users to submit "The most shameful Wikipedia spin jobs", [8] which generated many news stories about organizations, such as the Al-Jazeera network, Fox News Channel, staffers of Democratic Senator Robert Byrd and the CIA, that had edited Wikipedia articles.

On August 21, 2007, satirist Stephen Colbert who had long featured stories about Wikipedia and its "truthiness" on his program mocked WikiScanner creator Virgil Griffith's ambivalent stance on anonymity on Wikipedia, declaring it the "right" of corporations and governments to participate in the democratic process of deciding what is and is not true on Wikipedia. [9]

According to the BBC from August 15, 2007, WikiScanner found that some editorial contributions to Wikipedia had originated from computers operated by the Diebold company, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, as well as the Vatican. [10] The Times reported that an IP address at the BBC had made edits to Wikipedia. [11] The BBC's Head of Interactive News, Pete Clifton published a blog on August 16 acknowledging the earlier omission, but characterized the BBC's edits of Wikipedia in this manner: "Some of the examples are pretty unedifying, but for every dodgy one there are many, many more uncontroversial edits where people at the BBC have added information or changed a detail in good faith". [12]

The Associated Press reported on August 15, 2007, that computers owned by the Church of Scientology had been used to remove criticism from articles about Scientology on Wikipedia, including edits to the article Cult Awareness Network. The Associated Press admitted that edits to Wikipedia had been made anonymously from its own computers, though the news organization did not describe the content of the edits. [13] In its story on WikiScanner, the New York Times too admitted that edits had been made from its own computers. [14] Wired.com reported that the office of former Republican Senator Conrad Burns had also edited critical passages. [2]

According to Maltastar.com from August 16, WikiScanner has shown edits by other large organizations, including Amnesty International, Apple Inc., ChevronTexaco, Coca-Cola, the British Conservative Party, Dell, EA Games, ExxonMobil, the FBI, The Guardian , Microsoft, MySpace, the National Rifle Association of America, Nestlé, News of the World , the New York Times , the Government of Portugal, the US Republican Party, Reuters, Sony, the United Nations, Walmart, and a dog breeding association. [15] The Canadian television network CTV reported edits by other organizations including Disney and the Canadian government. [16]

Reuters reported that CIA computers were used to edit an article regarding the 2003 United States invasion of Iraq, including editing a chart showing casualties. [17] CIA computers also edited the article for former CIA chief William Colby. [17] Reuters reported that an FBI computer edited an article on the United States prison at Guantanamo Bay. [17]

On August 24, 2007, headline reports in the Australian print and electronic media were made of anonymous edits to Wikipedia by staff in the Australian Department of Prime Minister & Cabinet in order to remove potentially damaging details from articles related to the Government. Information found using WikiScanner showed 126 anonymous edits from the department to articles on sometimes controversial issues and on government ministers. [18] [19] The department responded by saying that Prime Minister John Howard did not direct his staff to modify the articles, [20] and later that day the head of the department said that the changes were not made by anyone in his department or the Prime Minister's office, but by another user with the same Internet service provider. [21] Wikiscanner also identified Australian Department of Defence (DoD) employees as having made over 5,000 edits, prompting an unprecedented announcement from the DoD to block Defence staff from editing Wikipedia in case edits were interpreted as official comment. [22] [23]

On August 26, 2007, The Boston Globe published an editorial about Wikipedia, described as a "democratic fountain of facts" and related WikiScanner technology, reporting as among those companies found to have edited Wikipedia were Pepsi, Wal-Mart, ExxonMobil and Royal Dutch Shell, in which specific case "In 2005, someone using a computer inside Royal Dutch Shell, the oil company, rewrote a benign description of the company, claiming it is 'run by a group of geriatrics who find it impossible to make timely decisions and have an aversion to highly-profitable ventures.'" [24] The WikiScanner story was also covered by The Independent , which stated that many "censorial interventions" by editors with vested interests on a variety of articles in Wikipedia had been discovered. [25]

On December 18, 2007, Fortune magazine mentioned the use of WikiScanner in the 96th of its list of the "101 Dumbest Moments in Business", saying, "A Washington Post employee is found to have changed a reference to the owner of a rival paper from Philip Anschutz to Charles Manson, while someone at The New York Times added the word 'jerk' 12 times to the entry on George W. Bush." [26]

During the period of May 27 to June 4, 2008, edits originating from an IP address belonging to Industry Canada were made to the Jim Prentice (Federal Minister of Industry) article on Wikipedia. The edits included the removal of references to new copyright legislation and the addition of two passages about Prentice's recent accomplishments as Minister of Industry. [27] [28]

Wikipedia reaction

Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales spoke enthusiastically about WikiScanner, noting that "It brings an additional level of transparency to what's going on at Wikipedia" [13] and that it was "fabulous and I strongly support it." [29] The BBC quoted an unnamed Wikipedia spokesperson's praise for the tool in taking transparency "to another level" and preventing "an organisation or individuals from editing articles that they're really not supposed to." [10] In responding to the edits from the Canadian Ministry of Industry, spokesman for the Wikimedia Foundation Jay Walsh noted that neutrality of language and guarding against conflicts of interest are two of the central pillars of Wikipedia, adding that "The edits which should be trusted would come from people who don't possess a conflict of interest, in this case, it would be worthwhile saying that if someone is making edits from a computer within the government of Canada … if it was someone within that ministry, that would theoretically constitute a conflict of interest." [30]

Wales speculated on a possible warning to anonymous editors: "When someone clicks on 'edit,' it would be interesting if we could say, 'Hi, thank you for editing. We see you're logged in from The New York Times. Keep in mind that we know that, and it's public information' … That might make them stop and think." [14]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Wiki</span> Type of website that visitors can edit

A wiki is a form of online hypertext publication that is collaboratively edited and managed by its own audience directly through a web browser. A typical wiki contains multiple pages for the subjects or scope of the project, and could be either open to the public or limited to use within an organization for maintaining its internal knowledge base.

Open-source journalism, a close cousin to citizen journalism or participatory journalism, is a term coined in the title of a 1999 article by Andrew Leonard of Salon.com. Although the term was not actually used in the body text of Leonard's article, the headline encapsulated a collaboration between users of the internet technology blog Slashdot and a writer for Jane's Intelligence Review. The writer, Johan J. Ingles-le Nobel, had solicited feedback on a story about cyberterrorism from Slashdot readers, and then re-wrote his story based on that feedback and compensated the Slashdot writers whose information and words he used.

Some edits to the online encyclopedia Wikipedia by staff of the United States Congress have created controversy, notably in early to mid-2006. Several such instances, such as those involving Marty Meehan, Norm Coleman, Conrad Burns, and Joe Biden, received significant media attention. Others, such as those involving Gil Gutknecht, were reported but received less widespread coverage.

An anonymous post, is an entry on a textboard, anonymous bulletin board system, or other discussion forums like Internet forum, without a screen name or more commonly by using a non-identifiable pseudonym. Some online forums such as Slashdot do not allow such posts, requiring users to be registered either under their real name or utilizing a pseudonym. Others like JuicyCampus, AutoAdmit, 2channel, and other Futaba-based imageboards thrive on anonymity. Users of 4chan, in particular, interact in an anonymous and ephemeral environment that facilitates rapid generation of new trends.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Virgil Griffith</span> American computer programmer

Virgil Griffith, is an American programmer. He worked extensively on the Ethereum cryptocurrency platform, designed the Tor2web proxy along with Aaron Swartz, and created the Wikipedia indexing tool WikiScanner. He has published papers on artificial life and integrated information theory. Griffith was arrested in 2019 and in 2021 pleaded guilty to conspiring to violate U.S. laws relating to money laundering using cryptocurrency and sanctions related to North Korea. On April 12, 2022, Griffith was sentenced to 63 months imprisonment for assisting North Korea with evading sanctions and is currently in a federal low-security prison in Pennsylvania.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criticism of Wikipedia</span>

The free online encyclopedia Wikipedia has been criticized since its creation in 2001. Most of the criticism has been directed toward its content, community of established users, process, and rules. Critics have questioned its factual reliability, the readability and organization of its articles, the lack of methodical fact-checking, and its political bias. Concerns have also been raised about systemic bias along gender, racial, political, corporate, institutional, and national lines. Conflicts of interest arising from corporate campaigns to influence content have also been highlighted. Further concerns include the vandalism and partisanship facilitated by anonymous editing, clique behavior, social stratification between a guardian class and newer users, excessive rule-making, edit warring, and uneven policy application.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Reliability of Wikipedia</span>

The reliability of Wikipedia and its user-generated editing model, particularly its English-language edition, has been questioned and tested. Wikipedia is written and edited by volunteer editors who generate online content with the editorial oversight of other volunteer editors via community-generated policies and guidelines. The reliability of the project has been tested statistically through comparative review, analysis of the historical patterns, and strengths and weaknesses inherent in its editing process. The online encyclopedia has been criticized for its factual unreliability, principally regarding its content, presentation, and editorial processes. Studies and surveys attempting to gauge the reliability of Wikipedia have mixed results. Wikipedia's reliability was frequently criticized in the 2000s but has been improved; it has been generally praised in the late 2010s and early 2020s.

Freud Communications Limited is a public relations firm based in London. It was founded in 1985 by Matthew Freud. He is the great-grandson of the Austrian psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud, who himself was the uncle of Edward Bernays, the Austrian-American pioneer of public relations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Intellipedia</span> US Intelligence Community encyclopedia

Intellipedia is an online system for collaborative data sharing used by the United States Intelligence Community (IC). It was established as a pilot project in late 2005 and formally announced in April 2006. Intellipedia consists of three wikis running on the separate JWICS (Intellipedia-TS), SIPRNet (Intellipedia-S), and DNI-U (Intellipedia-U) networks. The levels of classification allowed for information on the three wikis are Top Secret Sensitive Compartmented Information, Secret (S), and Sensitive But Unclassified information, respectively. Each of the wikis is used by individuals with appropriate clearances from the 18 agencies of the US intelligence community and other national-security related organizations, including Combatant Commands and other federal departments. The wikis are not open to the public.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Block (Internet)</span> Restriction on accessing an online resource

On the Internet, a block or ban is a technical measure intended to restrict access to information or resources. Blocking and its inverse, unblocking, may be implemented by the owners of computers using software.

On 5 December 2008, the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF), a British watchdog group, blacklisted content on the English Wikipedia related to Scorpions' 1976 studio album Virgin Killer, due to the presence of its controversial cover artwork, depicting a young girl posing nude, with a faux shattered-glass effect obscuring her genitalia. The image was deemed to be "potentially illegal content" under English law which forbids the possession or creation of indecent photographs of children. The IWF's blacklist are used in web filtering systems such as Cleanfeed.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident</span> 2005 editorial controversy on Wikipedia

In May 2005, an unregistered editor posted a hoax article onto Wikipedia about journalist John Seigenthaler. The article falsely stated that Seigenthaler had been a suspect in the assassinations of U.S. President John F. Kennedy and U.S. Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy.

A series of incidents in 2009 led to Church of Scientology–owned networks being blocked from making edits to Wikipedia articles relating to Scientology. The Church of Scientology has long had a controversial history on the Internet and had initiated campaigns to manipulate material and remove information critical of itself from the web. From early in Wikipedia's history, conflict arose regarding the website's coverage of Scientology. Disputes began in earnest in 2005, with users disagreeing about whether or not to describe Scientology as an abusive cult or religion, and continued through the decade.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Vandalism on Wikipedia</span> Maliciously editing Wikipedia

On Wikipedia, vandalism is editing the project in an intentionally disruptive or malicious manner. Vandalism includes any addition, removal, or modification that is intentionally humorous, nonsensical, a hoax, offensive, libelous or degrading in any way.

Conflict-of-interest (COI) editing on Wikipedia occurs when editors use Wikipedia to advance the interests of their external roles or relationships. The type of COI editing of most concern on Wikipedia is paid editing for public relations (PR) purposes. Several Wikipedia policies and guidelines exist to combat conflict of interest editing, including Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

The Hillsborough disaster Wikipedia posts refers to vandalism edits on various Wikipedia articles, yet mostly the Hillsborough disaster article, via the use of British Government computers, causing a British Government scandal. On 24 April 2014, Oliver Duggan, in the Liverpool Echo, reported that users of computers that used IP addresses registered to the Government Secure Intranet had added derogatory and offensive material to Wikipedia articles, particularly the article about the Hillsborough disaster. The vandalism was quickly re-reported by other media, and subsequent reports highlighted other acts of vandalism, on various articles, originated by computers using those IP addresses. After an investigation by The Daily Telegraph and Wikipediocracy, the person behind the edits was identified as a "junior civil servant" within the UK government and was dismissed.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">CongressEdits</span> Social media bot

CongressEdits (@congressedits) is a social media bot account created on July 8, 2014 that posts changes to Wikipedia articles that originate from IP addresses within the ranges assigned to the United States Congress. The changes could be made by anyone using a computer on the U.S. Capitol complex's computer network, including both staff of U.S. elected representatives and senators as well as visitors such as journalists, constituents, tourists, and lobbyists. CongressEdits has been called a watchdog by NBC News.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Vault 7</span> CIA files on cyber war and surveillance

Vault 7 is a series of documents that WikiLeaks began to publish on 7 March 2017, detailing the activities and capabilities of the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to perform electronic surveillance and cyber warfare. The files, dating from 2013 to 2016, include details on the agency's software capabilities, such as the ability to compromise cars, smart TVs, web browsers including Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge, Mozilla Firefox, and Opera, the operating systems of most smartphones including Apple's iOS, and Google's Android, and computer operating systems including Microsoft Windows, macOS, and Linux. A CIA internal audit identified 91 malware tools out of more than 500 tools in use in 2016 being compromised by the release. The tools were developed by the Operations Support Branch of the C.I.A.

References

  1. ↑ Biuso, Emily (December 9, 2007). "Wikiscanning". The New York Times . Retrieved December 9, 2007. When Virgil Griffith, a 24-year-old hacker, heard reports that Congressional staff members had been caught altering Wikipedia for the benefit of their boss, he got to thinking of all the other kinds of spin occurring on the site.
  2. 1 2 3 Borland, John (August 14, 2007). "See Who's Editing Wikipedia - Diebold, the CIA, a Campaign". Wired . Retrieved September 15, 2012.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 Griffith, Virgil. "WikiScanner FAQ". Archived from the original on August 30, 2007. Retrieved August 18, 2007.
  4. ↑ "WikiScanner2 PreviewNew!". Archived from the original on September 22, 2010.
    Accessibility of WikiScanner can be checked on the web page Archived April 8, 2012, at the Wayback Machine
  5. 1 2 "Virgil Griffith's WikiScanner Page". Archived from the original on March 14, 2016.
  6. ↑ "Did Vatican alter Wikipedia info on Adams?". Belfast Telegraph. August 16, 2007. Retrieved May 18, 2009.
  7. ↑ "Rules for Readers in the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana" (PDF). Vatican Library. September 15, 2006. Archived from the original (PDF) on September 27, 2007.
  8. ↑ Poulsen, Kevin (August 13, 2007). "Vote On the Most Shameful Wikipedia Spin Jobs". Wired blogs. Retrieved August 17, 2007.
  9. ↑ The Colbert Report . Comedy Central. August 21, 2007
  10. 1 2 Fildes, Jonathan (August 15, 2007). "Wikipedia 'shows CIA page edits'". BBC. Retrieved August 16, 2007.
  11. ↑ Blakely, Rhys. "Exposed: guess who has been polishing their Wikipedia entries?". The Times . Archived from the original on May 17, 2009. Retrieved December 4, 2011.
  12. ↑ Clifton, Pete (August 16, 2007). "Wikipedia edits". BBC. Retrieved August 16, 2007.
  13. 1 2 "New online tool unmasks Wikipedia edits". Associated Press. August 15, 2007. Archived from the original on September 29, 2007. Retrieved August 16, 2007.
  14. 1 2 Hafner, Katie (August 19, 2007). "Seeing Corporate Fingerprints in Wikipedia Edits". The New York Times . Retrieved August 19, 2007.
  15. ↑ "Student's program sends PR chaos in Wiki-scandal". Maltastar.com. August 16, 2007. Archived from the original on December 25, 2007. Retrieved August 19, 2007.
  16. ↑ "Government computers linked to Wikipedia edits". CTV. August 16, 2007. Retrieved August 20, 2007.
  17. 1 2 3 "CIA and FBI computers used for Wikipedia edits". Reuters . August 16, 2007. Retrieved January 27, 2023.
  18. ↑ "PM's staff edited Wikipedia". Sydney Morning Herald . August 24, 2007. Retrieved August 25, 2007.
  19. ↑ Moses, Asher (August 24, 2007). "Government caught Wiki-watching". The Age . Melbourne. Retrieved August 25, 2007.
  20. ↑ "PM 'not behind Wikipedia edits'". Australian Broadcasting Corporation. August 24, 2007. Retrieved August 25, 2007.
  21. ↑ "PM's Dept denies making Wikipedia changes". Australian Broadcasting Corporation. August 24, 2007. Retrieved August 25, 2007.
  22. ↑ "PM's staff edit Wikipedia entries". The Advertiser. August 24, 2007. Retrieved August 24, 2007.
  23. ↑ "Defence blocks staff's Wikipedia access". Australian Broadcasting Corporation. August 24, 2007. Retrieved August 25, 2007.
  24. ↑ "Behind the e-curtain". The Boston Globe. August 26, 2007.
  25. ↑ Verkaik, Robert (August 18, 2007). "Wikipedia and the art of censorship". The Independent. London. Archived from the original on January 9, 2009. Retrieved September 17, 2012.
  26. ↑ "101 Dumbest Moments in Business - 96. WikiScanner". Fortune. December 17, 2007. Retrieved December 18, 2007.
  27. ↑ Nowak, Peter (June 4, 2008). "Government buffing Prentice's Wikipedia entry". Canada: CBC News. Retrieved June 4, 2008.
  28. ↑ Geist, Michael. "Prentice's Staff Scrubbing Copyright Controversy From Wikipedia Entry". michaelgeist.ca. Archived from the original on April 19, 2012. Retrieved June 4, 2008.
  29. ↑ Noyes, Katherine (August 15, 2007). "New Tool Outs Would-Be Wikipedia Tricksters". TechNewsWorld. Retrieved August 16, 2007.
  30. ↑ Cheadle, Bruce (June 6, 2008). "Copyright rewrite war rages on Prentice Wikipedia page". The Globe and Mail. Ottawa. The Canadian Press. Retrieved October 9, 2010.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.