Isabella Carter
Wikipedia has been the subject of numerous academic analyses and public criticisms regarding ideological bias, particularly in its English-language edition. A 2015 study revealed that negative content about current US senators was more likely to be removed and at a faster rate than positive content, indicating an editorial bias in Wikipedia entries related to active politicians. This bias was not observed in the pages of retired or deceased senators. Research has also shown that Wikipedia is susceptible to neutrality violations due to editor bias, with disputes among editors predominantly arising from political topics. The platform's internal policy mandates a neutral point of view, aiming for fairness and proportionality. However, articles with smaller edit volumes by fewer or more ideologically homogeneous contributors are more likely to reflect editorial bias. This has been observed in several instances, including the 2020 British Columbia general election, where partisan editors sought to polish their preferred candidate's Wikipedia page while tarnishing their rival's. Similar instances have been noted involving UK MPs, US Congressional staff, and pro-Israel activist groups, among others.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Partisan edits | Involves adding subtle language denigrating a candidate or erasing negative content about them |
| Includes adding positive or favourable information and removing undesirable information, including pejorative statements or broken campaign promises | |
| May involve creating new pages or editing existing ones | |
| May involve using sockpuppet accounts | |
| May be carried out by individuals with a stake in the election or political campaign | |
| May be more likely to occur on pages of active politicians | |
| May be more likely to occur on pages with smaller edit volumes by fewer or more ideologically homogeneous contributors | |
| May be less likely to occur on pages with larger numbers of editors with opposing ideological views | |
| May be less likely to occur as editors become more experienced | |
| May be less likely to occur when editors collaborate with those of differing views | |
| Editors' behaviour | Editors are slightly more likely to contribute to articles with an opposite slant to their own |
| Editors with political affiliations tend to contribute more frequently to voices aligning with their political orientation | |
| Editors do not always exhibit polarized editing behaviour and may collaborate with political opponents | |
| Editors are vigilant in reverting blatant cases of vandalism |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
- Political campaign Wikipedia pages edited by politicians themselves
- Political campaign Wikipedia pages edited by campaign managers
- Political campaign Wikipedia pages edited by partisan groups
- Political campaign Wikipedia pages edited by non-governmental organisations
- Political campaign Wikipedia pages edited by the public
Political campaign Wikipedia pages edited by politicians themselves
Political campaigns have evolved to include the internet as a core element, with politicians using social media for marketing and dialogue with voters. Wikipedia, as a widely used online encyclopedia, has become a target for political campaign edits, with the intention of influencing public opinion and, ultimately, election results.
Wikipedia pages of political candidates have been manipulated by various actors, including the candidates themselves, their campaign staff, and partisan supporters. One notable example is the case of Joe DeSantis, the campaign communications director for American presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, who made changes to Gingrich's Wikipedia article in 2012. DeSantis removed negative details, such as Gingrich's extramarital affairs, financial expenditures, and ethics charges, while also attempting to follow Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines by suggesting edits on discussion pages.
In another instance, UK Labour MP Chuka Umunna was accused by the tabloid The Sun of using the Wikipedia username "Socialdemocrat" to create and edit his own page before his election in 2007. While Umunna denied the allegations, sources close to him suggested that a member of his campaign team might have been responsible. Similarly, former senator Jim Walsh admitted to editing his Wikipedia entry in 2015, removing controversial comments he had made about gay people and the Marriage Equality referendum.
In addition to individuals editing their pages, politicians have also paid for conflict-of-interest editing. For example, in 2023, U.S. presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy paid a Wikipedia editor to remove information allegedly to appeal more to conservative voters. These actions by politicians themselves or their close associates can have a significant impact on public perception and the integrity of information available to voters.
Beyond direct edits by politicians, their campaigns, and paid agents, there is also a trend of partisan supporters engaging in "inauthentic editing." During the 2020 British Columbia general election, editing activity spiked on the Wikipedia pages of contending party leaders, with partisan British Columbians polishing the page of their preferred candidate and tarnishing that of their rival. These edits often involved subtle language changes or the removal of negative content, making it challenging to identify and address.
The manipulation of Wikipedia pages by politicians, their campaigns, and partisan supporters raises concerns about the reliability and objectivity of information presented to the public. While Wikipedia has guidelines and a community of editors working to maintain accuracy and address conflicts of interest, the continuous evolution of political campaigning strategies poses a challenge to these efforts.
Who Can See Political Donations?
You may want to see also
Political campaign Wikipedia pages edited by campaign managers
Political campaign Wikipedia pages are often edited by campaign managers or partisans, who may have a conflict of interest and engage in "inauthentic editing". This can involve adding subtle language to denigrate a candidate or removing negative content to create a more positive impression. For example, in 2012, Joe DeSantis, the campaign communications director for Newt Gingrich, made changes to Gingrich's Wikipedia article, including removing details about Gingrich's extramarital affairs, financial expenditures, ethics charges, and controversial political positions. Similarly, in 2006, Morton Brilliant, the campaign manager for Cathy Cox, resigned after adding negative information to the Wikipedia entries of her political opponents.
In other cases, politicians or their staff have been directly involved in editing their Wikipedia pages. For instance, Labour MP Chuka Umunna was accused by the UK tabloid The Sun of using the Wikipedia username "Socialdemocrat" to create and edit his own page before his election in 2007. While Umunna denied the allegations, sources close to him suggested that a member of his campaign team may have been responsible. In 2015, former senator Jim Walsh admitted to editing his own Wikipedia entry, claiming that he removed "erroneous comments" made by "gay lobby groups."
Beyond individuals, organized groups have also engaged in partisan editing of Wikipedia pages. In 2008, the pro-Israel activist group Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) launched a campaign to alter Wikipedia articles to support the Israeli side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They instructed pro-Israeli editors to disguise their interests and misuse their administrative powers to suppress pro-Palestinian editors. In 2013, an investigation revealed that the Wiki-PR company had edited Wikipedia pages for paying clients using an "army" of sockpuppet accounts, and in 2015, a similar scandal involving blackmail and fraud was uncovered.
The issue of partisan editing is not unique to Wikipedia and extends to other online platforms. For example, in 2018, a gathering was held in Tehran between Iran's Ministry of Culture and chief editors of the Persian Wikipedia, raising concerns about potential censorship and government influence. Additionally, in 2022, a dispute broke out among Wikipedia editors over the definition of an economic recession, with right-wing critics accusing Wikipedia of aligning with the Joe Biden administration.
To address these concerns, Wikipedia has implemented various measures. It encourages users to discuss edits on talk pages and provides guidelines for conflict-of-interest situations. Wikipedia's internal policy emphasizes a neutral point of view, aiming for fair representation of significant viewpoints published by reliable sources. Studies have shown that Wikipedia articles edited by a large number of editors with opposing ideological views can achieve neutrality. However, articles with smaller edit volumes by fewer or more ideologically homogeneous contributors are more likely to reflect editorial bias.
Mail Privileges: Perks Politicians Get from the Government
You may want to see also
Political campaign Wikipedia pages edited by partisan groups
Political campaign Wikipedia pages are indeed edited by partisan groups, individuals, and politicians themselves. There are numerous instances of such incidents, with some being more successful than others. Partisan editing techniques range from the addition of subtle language denigrating a candidate to the complete erasure of negative content, thereby altering the public record. For example, in 2012, Joe DeSantis, the campaign communications director for Newt Gingrich, argued for and made changes to Gingrich's Wikipedia article. DeSantis' initial efforts were aimed at removing negative details, including Gingrich's extramarital affairs, financial expenditures, ethics charges, and controversial political positions. Chuka Umunna, a Labour MP, was also alleged to have created and edited his own Wikipedia page, although he denied these claims.
In 2008, the pro-Israel activist group Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) launched a campaign to alter Wikipedia articles to support the Israeli side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They suggested that pro-Israeli editors pretend to be interested in other topics until they became administrators, after which they could misuse their powers to suppress pro-Palestinian editors and promote pro-Israel editors. Some participants in this project were banned by Wikipedia administrators. In July 2022, a dispute broke out among Wikipedia editors over the definition of an economic recession, with right-wing critics accusing Wikipedia of aligning with the Joe Biden administration's definition.
Wikipedia has an internal policy stating that articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing all significant points of view fairly and proportionately, based on reliable sources. However, research shows that Wikipedia is prone to neutrality violations due to editor bias, with disputes among editors predominantly arising on the subject of politics. A 2015 study focusing on the English edition of Wikipedia examined the removal of positive or negative information in biographies of US senators and concluded that a significant editorial bias exists in Wikipedia entries related to current US senators.
Despite these concerns, Wikipedia largely works, and intentionally distorting it is challenging. Vigilant users and anti-vandal bots swiftly revert blatant cases of vandalism. Additionally, the shared identity of being a Wikipedian might outweigh potentially divisive aspects of personal identity, such as political affiliation, leading to more collaborative editing than on other social platforms.
Text Messages and DNC: What's the Deal?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
$10.73 $16.99
Political campaign Wikipedia pages edited by non-governmental organisations
Political campaigns have been around for as long as there have been informed citizens to campaign among. In democratic societies, political campaigns often refer to electoral campaigns, where representatives are chosen or referendums are decided. In modern politics, the most high-profile political campaigns are focused on general elections and candidates for head of state or government.
Wikipedia, being a public platform, has been used as a tool for political campaigns. There have been various incidents of political editing on Wikipedia, with edits made to Wikipedia pages of politicians and political parties by campaign managers, politicians themselves, or their staff. These edits often involve removing negative information or adding favourable details. In 2012, for instance, Joe DeSantis, the campaign communications director for American presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, made changes to Gingrich's Wikipedia article, including removing details about Gingrich's extramarital affairs, financial expenditures, and ethics charges. Similarly, in 2007, UK Labour Party MP Chuka Umunna was alleged to have used a Wikipedia username to create and edit his own page, although he denied the allegations.
Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) are generally defined as nonprofit entities that operate independently of governmental influence, although they may receive government funding. NGOs are often involved in advocacy, campaigning, and influencing social and political outcomes. They deal with issues related to human rights, women's rights, children's rights, and specific causes.
While there is no direct evidence of NGOs editing political campaign Wikipedia pages, there have been instances where NGOs have been accused of using misinformation in their campaigns and employing complex forms of censorship. For example, in 2018, there was a meeting between Iran's Ministry of Culture and chief editors of the Persian Wikipedia to discuss protecting Wikipedia pages of Iranian officials from "attacks and campaigns." This collaboration raised concerns about the potential for censorship within Iran's propaganda apparatus. Additionally, in 2023, the right-wing Israeli think tank Kohelet Policy Forum was criticised for allegedly using sock puppet accounts to skew its Wikipedia page.
Furthermore, some NGOs have been accused of preserving imperialism and functioning as extensions of foreign policy instruments of Western countries. These accusations highlight the potential for NGOs to engage in political campaigning and influence public perception through various means, including the manipulation of information on platforms like Wikipedia.
In conclusion, while there may be indirect evidence and accusations surrounding NGO involvement in editing political campaign Wikipedia pages, there is a lack of specific examples or incidents directly linking NGOs to such activities.
Political Campaign Donations: Can 501(c)(3)s Accept Them?
You may want to see also
Political campaign Wikipedia pages edited by the public
Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit. While this open-editing model has its benefits, it also makes Wikipedia susceptible to biased or false information, particularly when it comes to political campaign pages.
There have been numerous instances of political campaign Wikipedia pages being edited by partisans, often with the intention of portraying a candidate or party in a positive light while removing negative information. For example, in 2012, Joe DeSantis, the campaign communications director for American presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, made changes to Gingrich's Wikipedia article, including removing details about Gingrich's extramarital affairs, financial expenditures, ethics charges, and controversial political positions. Similarly, in 2006, a series of U.S. Congressional staff edits were revealed, in which political aides attempted to whitewash Wikipedia biographies of several politicians by removing negative information and adding favorable content.
In some cases, political campaigns have coordinated efforts to manipulate Wikipedia pages. In 2008, the pro-Israel activist group Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) launched a campaign to alter Wikipedia articles to support the Israeli side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They instructed pro-Israeli editors to disguise their true intentions and manipulate the administrative powers to suppress pro-Palestinian editors. In 2020, during the British Columbia general election, editing activity spiked on the Wikipedia pages of contending party leaders, with partisan editors seeking to polish their preferred candidate's page and tarnish that of their rival.
While Wikipedia has policies in place to prevent biased editing, such as the "Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia," it can be challenging to enforce these rules consistently. Vigilant users and anti-vandal bots play a crucial role in identifying and reverting blatant cases of vandalism or partisan editing. However, more subtle forms of bias, such as the addition of subtle language to denigrate a candidate, may be more difficult to detect.
The issue of ideological bias on Wikipedia has been the subject of academic analysis and public criticism. Studies have found that Wikipedia articles with smaller edit volumes by fewer or more ideologically homogeneous contributors are more likely to reflect editorial bias. Additionally, research has shown that editors are slightly more likely to contribute to articles with an opposite slant to their own, indicating that debates on Wikipedia often involve editors with differing views. While Wikipedia strives for neutrality, the dynamic nature of its content and the varying motivations of its editors present ongoing challenges in maintaining unbiased political campaign pages.
Donating to the DNC: Quick and Easy Steps
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Yes, there have been several instances of partisan editing on Wikipedia. For example, in 2012, Joe DeSantis, the campaign communications director for Newt Gingrich, made changes to Gingrich's Wikipedia article to remove negative details. In 2018, a meeting was held in Tehran between Iran's Ministry of Culture and chief editors of the Persian Wikipedia to discuss protecting Wikipedia pages of Iranian officials from "attacks and campaigns." Leading up to the 2020 British Columbia general election, there was a spike in editing activity on the Wikipedia pages of contending party leaders, with partisan British Columbians polishing the page of their preferred candidate and tarnishing that of their political rival.
Techniques of partisan editing can range from adding subtle language that denigrates a candidate to completely erasing negative content. Partisan editors may also add positive or glowing tributes to the Wikipedia pages of politicians. In some cases, editors with political affiliations may avoid making edits themselves and instead suggest changes on discussion pages, which has been a more successful approach in the past.
Wikipedia has an internal policy stating that articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing all significant points of view fairly and proportionately, without bias. Vigilant users and anti-vandal bots also help to swiftly revert blatant cases of vandalism. However, a study in 2015 found that negative content on Wikipedia pages of current U.S. senators was more likely to be removed and at a faster rate compared to positive content, indicating the presence of editorial bias.
