Opinion | Let's talk about Wikipedia: The chaotic encyclopedia that anyone can manipulate

Tom Fowdy 2022.02.23 15:53:26

By Tom Fowdy

Wikipedia is perhaps the single most prominent and well-known resource of information on the Internet, undoubtedly a first point of reference so many people. A collaborative project which allows anyone to edit and update its pages, Wikipedia is undoubtedly a genius innovation which has outclassed the very time-consuming effort of classic encyclopedias, boasting approximately 6.4 million articles as of 2022. Surely the benefits of such a system outweigh its short-comings, right?

That depends of course, what topic you're talking about. Whilst few can deny the merits of Wikipedia's open-sourced system of contributions, it is equally easily to overlook how such a system can be prone to abuse, manipulation and agenda pushing, especially from those who have the time and determination to do so. Wikipedia can be a useful resource, but that doesn't necessarily make it an accurate or impeccable resource, and few would accept it as an acceptable reference in an academic paper.

And when it comes to articles of contemporary geopolitical interest, there is a big problem. Recently it has come to light that on topics related to China and its politics, the website is being dominated by a group of editors of who are using the encyclopedia to push an aggressive political agenda and have in turn systemically transformed all related articles into a one-sided, highly negative spin in what appears to be a broader campaign to manipulate public opinion against the country, whilst also gatekeeping what changes are acceptable and are not, bullying, harassing and even lobbying for the ban of dissenting voices.

Whilst on the surface it is easy to say "well just edit it back", anyone who knows the "politics of Wikipedia" will be aware this is easier said than done. Beyond the horizon of every day readership, the site is a tedious bureaucracy wherein editors with seemingly extraordinary amounts of time, wage effective "edit wars" to defend their positions on pages, utilizing the full force of the site's rules and bureaucracy to their own agenda to win their respective stance. For a normal person, the inner world of Wikipedia is tedious, time-consuming, frustrating and a hapless marathon.

Which of course is why is so alarming that a clique of users in particular have established this form of control over China related topics. One wonders that behind the anonymous names they are represented by, if there are certain interest groups or organizations at hand. Thus comes the figure known as "Amigao". Amigao edits topics related to China almost every single day. Statistics from the site shows that he makes over 9000 edits a year, of which involves egregiously changing China related topics relentlessly to suit his political agenda.

This user spans the entire website in a machine-like fashion removing any references to Chinese media outlets he can find, calling them "depreciated sources". He restyles the lead paragraphs of associated articles to emphasize negative information such as for example adding in links to things pertaining to Xinjiang, removes positive information about given things associated to China dismissing it as "self-promotion" and also aggressively reverts the edits of users who don't toe his line, and if necessary reporting them if they fall into the trap of violating the website's rules in the attempt to resist. Research from the Chollima report found that the account was first active around 2009, where it focused on US Republican topics, only to "sleep" for a long time and appear as vitriolic on China from 2019.

There are of course, other users who are part of this manipulative editing circle. Another, who goes back the name "Horsed Eyed Jack" or now known as "Horse Eye's back" appears to be a supporter of Taiwan, and similarly engages in extremely aggressive behaviour towards editors he deems to defy his agenda. What both users have in common is their ability to wage war using the Wikipedia rules and cement themselves as the "status quo". In June 2021, the site as a whole then (at Horse Eye's lobbying) implemented a "general sanctions regime" of which allows administrators to more readily ban people who attempt to challenge the Xinjiang narrative as presented.

These developments should all set off alarms given the influence and scale of Wikipedia as an often (lazy) first point of reference. People should be more distrusting of the website and its content, as well as those who are behind it. It is not unreasonable to theorize that certain think-tanks and organizations, who have the time and resources to devote themselves to such a tedious effort, may be involved in such malarky. But the first step of course is raising awareness of what is going on, and recognizing that the site cannot uphold the reputation it has when its content is being subject to manipulation by certain interest groups in the pursuit of politics.

The author is a well-seasoned writer and analyst with a large portfolio related to China topics, especially in the field of politics, international relations and more. He graduated with an Msc. in Chinese Studies from Oxford University in 2018.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of DotDotNews.

Opinion | Let's talk about Wikipedia: The chaotic encyclopedia that anyone can manipulate

Comment

Related Topics