Federal drug agency tries to "clean up" its entry on Wikipedia, gets caught

erosion

erosion

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Oct 16, 2003
Messages
2,835
Federal Agency Cleans Up Its Own Wikipedia Entry
Ryan Grim, Politico
January 26, 2007

Wikipedia has come of age. The online user-created encyclopedia is now influential enough that the federal government feels the need to doctor it up.

In late August, someone with an IP address that originated from the National Institutes of Health drastically edited the Wikipedia entry for the National Institute on Drug Abuse, which operates within NIH. Wikipedia determined the edit to be vandalism and automatically changed the definition back to the original. On Sept. 18, the NIH vandal returned, according to a history of the site's edits posted by Wikipedia. This time, the definition was gradually changed, presumably to avoid the vandalism detector.

NIDA spokeswoman Dorie Hightower confirmed that her agency was behind the editing. She said in an e-mail that the definition was changed "to reflect the science."

A little more than science-reflecting was done to the site. Gone first was the "Controversial research" section that included comments critical of NIDA. Next went the section on the NIDA-sponsored program that grows marijuana for research and medical purposes. The next slice of the federal editor's knife left all outside references on the cutting-room floor, replaced with links to government Web sites.

Then the battle began. Over the next few weeks, Wikipedia users challenged the site's neutrality and took out the more egregious propaganda. Each time, the NIH editor would return. The fight left the article in tatters. Folks wondering what NIDA does now get four basic, non-controversial sentences followed by 10 links to federal Web sites. And at the bottom of the page is a plea from Wikipedia: "This article about a medical organization or association is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it."

UPDATE: Wikipedia users have now returned much of the original content and added a section about NIDA's editorial relationship with its own definition. Here's the link.

Link
 
governement enjoys using our hard earned tax dollars to spread its propaganda, and we should thank them for that, because, really, what else could millions and millions of dollars be used other than do deter people from smoking pot? (not just the wiki entry but the whole gov't anti-pot organization)

hmm... maybe homelessness, unemployment, the worst deficit in our country's history... but nah, those aren't important, lets stick to brainwashing the masses that a non-toxic, impossible to OD on drug that is safer than alcohol and tobacco is so bad that not a single person in our country, sick, dying or just a responsibile adult should be able to use it because of its horrific dangers.


/angry i hate the fucking gov'ts anti-pot progaganda that WE ALL PAY FOR rant
 
As a whole I just don't trust Wikipedia.

They try to get sources, and constantly improve, but in the end I just wouldn't consider them an authoritative source.

That being said, they usually aren't too far off, and have links to great sources.
 
Last edited:
n4k33n said:
Wikipedia caught them, restored the original content, and shamed them by publishing the whole scandal. I think they did pretty well.
Click to expand...


I agree, wikipedia is well monitored and the people who make sure things are accurate do a great job and pages with info that may be biased or contain things that aren't sure to be facts are listed as so, i find it to be very informative, helpful and reliable. could be because i've been snorting about a half gram of wikicaine a day but thats a whole 'nother story =D but seriously, i'm addicted to wikipedia
 
lurkerguy said:
As a whole I just don't trust Wikipedia.

They try to get sources, and constantly improve, but in the end I just wouldn't consider them an authoritative source.

That being said, they usually aren't too far off, and have links to great sources.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't use it as a primary source, but on the whole, its an excellent source.
 
It's definitely good for finding links to other primary sources, and for a basic overview of some topics. It's very good on some topics, weak on others. You've always got the risk that some information will be out of date (but on the other hand, at one point WP was updating pages on certain topics faster than the official sites were being updated).

I think we'll see more and more of this form of vandalism/editing - Microsoft just got pinged for it, and various Congressmen have been doing the same thing.
 
I did quite a lot on the drugs sections including outline of synthesis in certain cases, they didn't touch them...
 
Interesting article.

What's more interesting is that the community came out on top! :D But I agree with Simon, I think there'll be more of this brand of self-editorialising happening as we become more dependant on non-centralised forms of media.

But there's also a certain delicious irony, no? A certain reversal of the BigBrother era of logging every action and movement? The government agency got caught by a community's monitoring techniques and vigilance! Makes a pleasant change.
 
lurkerguy said:
As a whole I just don't trust Wikipedia.

They try to get sources, and constantly improve, but in the end I just wouldn't consider them an authoritative source.

That being said, they usually aren't too far off, and have links to great sources.
Click to expand...

Their science section was recently found to have less errors than Encyclopedia Britannica.
 
Wiki isn't perfect becsuse it's made by people but it's out best attempt at an open encyclopedia. Like I said, you can add quite a lot. Look at the dihydrocodeine page, specifically the chemistry bit.
 
Can they do this legally? Sure they're the government, but that doesn't give them power to do whatever they want.

As for me I like wikipedia, seems like the most reliable from websites I know.
 
excellent example of the future of democracy.. or the beginning of democracy if you want to look at it that way
 
Astavats said:
Can they do this legally? Sure they're the government, but that doesn't give them power to do whatever they want.
Click to expand...

Just because they're a government agency doesn't give them special treatment on Wikipedia. If I had a corporation, and somebody was badmouthing it on wiki, I could and probably might do the exact same thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top