.
If this article were a Wikipedia entry, you could change it if you didn’t like it. Anyone who disputed its veracity, didn’t like its wording, or just downright disagreed with it could simply log in and edit this whole page from top to bottom.This is what happened to the Wikipedia page of Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin in the days leading up to and the days following her nomination to the election ticket.
Sarah Palin’s nomination to be John McCain’s running mate was announced on August 29, 2008. In the two whole years leading up to that date, her Wikipedia page was edited about 1000 times. In the single week that has elapsed since, it has been edited nearly 4000 times.
Online logs of edits, stored in Wikipedia’s archive, reveal that mysterious users with names like ‘Young Trigg’ and ‘Ferrylodge’ have spent hours at a time poring over every comma and every fact on Mrs Palin’s page, tidying up and clarifying her information like virtual housekeepers.
Speculation abounds as to the identity of these wikipedian editors, whose overwhelmingly favourable edits suggest they are the work of partisans, if not insiders.
The user 'Young Trigg' – Trig is the name of Mrs Palin’s youngest son – admitted to being a volunteer in the McCain campaign, but denied working for Sarah Palin, despite many of his edits being made in the hours before her nomination was announced.
The user 'Ferrylodge' has also edited Sarah Palin's page, as well as the pages of Republicans John McCain and Mitt Romney, as well as the encyclopaedic entries for Republican policy stalwarts such as ‘Abortion in the United States’ and ‘Fetal Pain’. But there is no evidence to suggest that he is a party insider, or anything more than an enthusiastic amateur.
But Sarah Palin (pictured above in a widely-circulated fake picture) is not the only one to have received a Wikipedia makeover.
Two years ago, the page about prospective First Lady Cindy McCain was very sparse, with mention of her adopted Bangladeshi daughter buried among other biographical information. Two years on, now that her husband is running for President, and now that her adopted daughter has been rather shamelessly paraded to the Republican faithful, her Wikipedia page is a lengthy treatise on the many successes of Cindy Lou Hensley McCain, and the adoption of Bridget McCain has its own proud section.
Wiki-policing
Further digging into the bowels of Wikipedia reveals an entire sub-community of online users with weird and wonderful usernames who hold sprawling discussions (pictured, right) about where semi-colons should go on Barack Obama’s page or the quality of the photos on John McCain’s.
Many of these users are self-appointed guardians of truth and neutrality who police the pages of Wikipedia looking for disreputable sources or informational vandalism. Some of these mysterious truth-defenders have been scrupulously editing the pages of both Republicans and Democrats, apparently without bias.
One user, the seemingly neutral ‘Justmeherenow’, has been editing the pages of Barack Obama, John McCain and Sarah Palin, adding Obama family photos, helpful maps of Alaska, and links to McCain campaign articles.
Another user, ‘Kelly’, has been defending the neutrality and reliability of both Sarah Palin’s page and that of one time Democrat candidate John Edwards, so much so that she has received an award from fellow wikipedians for her persistence.
A bewildering array of jargon crops up in all these forums and debates. 'Young Trigg' was accused by some of being a ‘sockpuppet’. This is not, as it may seem, a slightly cute, rather arcane insult, but is rather a term denoting someone who creates an online identity “for the purposes of deception within an internet community”, as the glossary explains.
And the glossary goes on. And on.
‘Astroturfing’, for example, is the act of creating the impression that something or someone has more support that it really has by creating false links and references to that page. As well as this ‘deletionists’ can ‘esperanzify’ a ‘stub’, but should be careful (somewhat terrifyingly) of being guilty of ‘autofellatio’.
None of the above bears repeating, let alone explaining…
Inconvenient truths
Wikipedia has grown into an astounding source of information and has become, for many, a bible of encyclopaedic information. As all material is user-generated- that is to say, contributed and edited by layman members of the public – doubts remain about the reliability of information found on the site.
The journalistic world was left red-faced last year when BBC theme-tune composer Ronnie Hazelhurst died. More than a few of the national newspapers cited in his obituary that he was, unbeknownst to many, the composer of pop hit Reach For The Stars by teeny-boppers SClub7. It soon emerged, however, that this was in fact complete nonsense, and had been put on Ronnie Hazelhurst’s Wikipedia entry by a rogue joker, thus revealing the great dependence of modern journalists on Wikipedia over real research.
But most of what appears on Wikipedia about the Sarah Palins and Barack Obamas of this world is probably true. It is doubtful that Ronnie Hazelhurst spent much time checking his Wikipedia page, but it would be naïve to assume that the political big-wigs are equally as ignorant about their own pages, especially when they are running for office in a country as obsessed with the superficial as America. You can be sure that, among the legions of campaign staff at party HQ, there are a few bespectacled internetites who have been tasked to keep the Wikipedia entries of the McCains, Palins, Obamas and Bidens free from scandal and slander.
For example, ‘Kevin0320’, the self-proclaimed “greatest wikipedia person ever”, deleted all the information on Barack Obama’s page and replaced it with a single phrase reading: “Vote for me so I can take away your liberty and capitalism”. This edit was, however, undone within just 30 seconds by an eagle-eyed user.
Who knows what other bits of information have been deleted (or repressed) from Wikipedia’s pages? Were they libellous tirades or inconvenient truths? Were they too far off the mark or too close to home?
Either way, the propaganda machine is always spinning to sweep undesirable truths under the vast rug of history, so when it comes to user-generated information of dubious provenance, be well advised to take whatever Wikipedia has to say on the forthcoming US elections with a pinch or two of salty scepticism.