Spanish TV Channels Vandalize Wikipedia

strider2004 writes to tell us that Barrapunto, a Spanish tech news site, has outed two TV stations in Spain, one public and the other private, for engaging in Wikipedia vandalism for the sake of a story. (The link is in Spanish; Google translation here.) The public station introduced falsehoods into the Wikipedia entry for John Lennon; the private one vandalized the Elvis Presley entry. Both stations said they were performing an "experiment" to check the reaction time of Wikipedia. Both articles were promptly corrected by other editors.
Update: 08/19 13:01 GMT by KD : Barrapunto is not affiliated with Slashdot.

So....

Goofballs add bogus info to Wikipedia; said bogus info is promptly corrected.

This is news?

Re:So....

This is news?

Bueno, fue hecho con una computadora...

Re:So....

Goofballs add bogus info to Wikipedia; said bogus info is promptly corrected. This is news?

You're *so* right. In 2048, when IPv4 addresses run out and Wikipedia becomes sentient, we'll all have a laugh about it.

Wait .....

Hold the phone here...

"(Spanish Slashdot) has outed two TV stations in Spain..."

How on Earth can two television stations be of homosexual leanings? Also since when was the Spanish Slashdot site an authority on these things? Guess those Spanish speaking nerds just know something we all don't...:)

Re:Wait .....

How on Earth can two television stations be of homosexual leanings?

Vandalizing wikipedia is gay.

Another Brick In The Wall

You open what is supposed to be all the world's knowledge combined in a site, except that the policy is to treat it like a public bathroom. That's fine, but why is it news every time someone gets caught taking a shit in it?

It's fine to let people contribute, but most articles need to be locked down when they are completed, and then you submit stuff to be added for peer review or something. There is no reason why 8 year old Johnny needs to be editing the live version of a page on something he knows nothing about.

Is there enough new information on Elvis arriving, that his page needs to be open to live submissions from anyone 24/7/365?

Re:Another Brick In The Wall

The problem is if 8 year old Johnny can't edit the page, he won't bother. Anyone can fix a typo, but if it's too much work they won't do it.

The openness is the reason wikipedia succeeded. Not because being open gives better content, but because being open gives more content, and more content makes it valuable to more people, and being valuable to more people gives them more editors, and more editors usually gives better content.

Also, you're forgetting: any page with regular vandalism does get locked down.

Re:Another Brick In The Wall

It's fine to let people contribute, but most articles need to be locked down when they are completed

How would you define completed? Very few articles can claim to contain every piece of knowledge about the subject. There is always room for more, so locking down anything permanently would be a horribly bad idea.

I'm shocked!

I can't believe this is true! Why did no one tell me that Slashdot has a Spanish version? Seriously, looking at it is like looking at Bizarro Slashdot.

Re:I'm shocked!

That's no Slashdot! It has no CowboyNeal option on its polls!

Re:I'm shocked!

That's no Slashdot! It has no CowboyNeal option on its polls!

Not to mention the usual witty commentary we've all come to know and love, time and again, but in spanish:

- Imagínate un enjambre Beowulf de estos!
- Esa no es una luna, es una estación espacial!
- En Rusia Soviética, Wikipedia te vandaliza a TI!

Re:I'm shocked!

I dunno about that. It's not really authentic Spanish Slashdot until their poll has an option involving "VaqueroNeal".

The experiment was already done before

In case nobody remembers, Stephen Colbert's "experiment" proved the response time for fixing BS entries in wikipedia (that librarians are hiding something) in about 15 seconds. Why do they have to try the experiment otra ves? :P

Re:The experiment was already done before

Maybe the Colbert Report is not on Spanish TV?

Fair's fair

I think someone should write graffiti on big letters on the walls of these TV stations... purely as an experiment, you understand, to see how long it takes to remove it.

Why you try to mess with me, ese?

Don't you know I'm loco. --Wikipedia.

Terrorists place bombs in Spanish TV offices

"We were just testing to see how fast the emergency services would react..."

Spanish version of slashdot?

oh really?

barrapunto - not just for nerds

Their slogan is not "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters", but "La informacion que te interesa"...

What does that make them, the spanish Drudge Report?

Re:barrapunto - not just for nerds

There's no proper translation for terms like "nerd" or "geek" in spanish, so the only slogan that'd make sense would be "News for people who're good with computers, but socially inept", which doesn't quite have the same ring to it. As a proper nerd, I of course learned english just so I could read the original version of Slashdot. :P

Response times depend on the article

Other "experiments" kept from us:

Response time for vandalizing Sonic Hedgehog [wikipedia.org] - 8 days
Response time for vandalizing Sonic the Hedgehog [wikipedia.org] - 8 seconds

Ah yes.

Vandalism by the media. I guess another entry for this article on Wikipedia [wikipedia.org].

Spanish Ads

clicking on the Barrapunto link, I get an advertisement for something called "Dorkbot Madrid"

I think it's the first time an advertisement has ever made me want to buy something, particularly when I have no clue what it is.

Why the outrage?

Most of the comments so far seem very upset that the TV channels did this, but it really doesn't seem like a big deal to me. Wikipedia is a community, a society like any other. It has its values, with accuracy being one of the most important, and someone did a social experiment to see how well that community adhered to its principles. Sure, it required being a little bit of a bad actor, but if Slashdot reported on a new study where researchers bumped into people while carrying several packages and found that Linux users were more likely to help them pick up their dropped items, I don't think the comments would be blasting them for assault.

This was minor public vandalism, of a kind the community sees every day, and a kind that it was built to correct. If they had launched a systematic campaign to spread disinformation throughout many articles, that would be a serious problem, but changing the date of Lennon's death to 2007 instead of 1977? If edits like that caused Wikipedia any kind of damage, it would have died years ago.

questions on vandalism aside

They picked up two the most famous cultural icons in the world for their experiment. Supposedly, those pages should have been watched by "million eyes" (remember the open software motto?). Comparing that to the graffiti on the wall, which requires much more effort to fix, is plain vanilla exaggeration.

I guess the public ran of the steam of the Wikipedia anonymous fixing by corporate bastards, and now feels the need to pick on whatever left of the story. That is what exactly what traditional media does by beating the dead horse ad nausea. And now /.

Fast corrections is a bogus myth!

I am unimpressed by the fanboys' constant claims of Wikipedia being corrected immediately. How about articles "guarded" by gonzo editors claiming ultimate knowledge, disregarding experts? Huh?

OK, how about Van Allen radiation belt [wikipedia.org] where fast editing has prevented corrections? Evidently the fanboys feel NASA is in the wrong, original research perhaps?? As this talk entry shows [wikipedia.org] a glaring mistake has been known for over a year but noone can do anything about it.

I am sick and tired of these stories claiming Wikipedia editors are that good. Rather I see these editors as the direct descendants of the mob that burned the Library of Alexandria.

In the name of science

"Both stations said they were performing an "experiment" to check the reaction time of Wikipedia."

Maybe someone should perform an "experiment" to test the stability of that TV station's websites.

To prevent this in future...

Simply block all changes that contain upside down question marks and prevent users signing up if they have more than five first names and three surnames.

Except on the Spanish version, obviously.

The "test" is a success

If the TV channels really vandalized to see the reaction time of the community, the test is a success I think personnaly this kind of test is stupid if you don't warn Wikipedia Inc it self..

Blimey!

Blimey! There's a spanish /.! and its all orange! Nice.

Good work, Barrapunto

TV Stations need to understand that Wikipedia, and any other web service is NOT their own personal plaything, for them to run "experiments" on. Investigative journalism is one thing, but destructive journalism is quite another and is certainly illegal. That's like me walking into your business, pulling out one of your file cabinets, and tossing the contents across the floor because I wanted to see how fast your secretary could scramble to reorganize the files. Sorry if you can't "turn that into a report" on "how fast the Wikipedia community corrects bad info"...if that's even what they intended in the first place.

Interesting translation

Both Google and Babelfish translate "CIA" as "the company". Hmmm...

Tomorrow never dies?..

Today they mess with Wikipedia, tomorrow they will start an experiment with nuclear war. Spanish must be stopped now, for the sake of world peace and democracy!

Re:Good Ol' Unreliable WikipediaBS

Anyone can change it without anything to back it,{{citation-needed}} generally changed by the whiny commie demoncrat terrorists to spread their communist lies.{{citation-needed}}

Re:Good Ol' Unreliable WikipediaBS

Wait. How can you vandalize something on Wikipedia? Its a Wiki, and free speech..even if it gets edited out.

Re:Good Ol' Unreliable WikipediaBS

Just because it's a medium that allows anyone to edit stuff, it doesn't mean adding bogus information isn't vandalism. That's like spraying painting graffiti on a wall isn't vandalism because paint sticks to the wall.

Re:Good Ol' Unreliable WikipediaBS

Then perceptions != reality. It was never OK.

Re:Good Ol' Unreliable WikipediaBS

Or, you know, not:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Stephencolb ert [wikipedia.org]

"BEFORE YOU POST HERE: Please realize that this user was NOT blocked for vandalism, joking, or 'poking fun at Wikipedia'. This user was banned for violation of Wikipedia's Username policies which state that "Names of well-known living or recently deceased people" are inappropriate and should be indefinitely blocked until confirming evidence (in this case, from Stephen Colbert or Comedy Central) shows that this is, in fact, Stephen Colbert. Although Mr. Colbert 'made the edits on national television', he was also joking and it is not at all certain if he was in fact the person who made the edits attributed to this account. Until the blocking administrator (Tawker) receives word from Stephen Colbert or Comedy Central that this is Mr. Colbert, this account will remain blocked."

Re:Red neck response

Then why do they speak Mexican in Spain?

Re:Red neck response

for all the idiots: Mexico != Spain

It is for sufficiently large values of Mexico.

Local FOX News translation

WIKIPEDIA... A free encyclopedia, so free ANYONE can edit it. Are child molesters using it to reach out to YOUR CHILDREN? The answer... coming up later this hour.

Re:Local FOX News translation

... a story no parent can afford to miss ...

Re:Where's at?

So are parts of the US :-)

Re:Need Disclaimer

You mean like this [wikipedia.org] which is linked at the bottom of every single page?

Re:Need Disclaimer

The bottom of each page links to Wikipedia'a:

General Disclaimer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_dis claimer/ [wikipedia.org]

Which links to the specific disclaimers:

Risk disclaimer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Risk_discla imer/ [wikipedia.org]

Medical disclaimer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Medical_dis claimer/ [wikipedia.org]

Legal disclaimer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Legal_discl aimer/ [wikipedia.org]

and

Content disclaimer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_dis claimer/ [wikipedia.org]

Re:Lost in Translation

In order to add some salt and pepper to a boring story (read: to increase tv share), they described Wikipedia as "a free encyclopedia, so much free that you can freely alter it at will", and then a so-called "expert" (read: a girl who had no idea about how this whole thing works, but oh-oh, she's just sooo cute!) happily showed everybody how to vandalize an article. She demonstrated how easy it was by introducing some odd junk in Lennon's article regarding Spanish "paella". However, she added it was "easy" to get that fixed.

All in all, why's this crap even getting any attention? They're stupid, ok, so what? Come on...

Re:who knew?

``or perhaps even a "schuinestreeppunt"?''

Exists, but is actually tweakers.net [tweakers.net].

And, IMO, nowhere near as good as Slashdot.

Re:Lost in Translation

It says "eth eth eth, scorchio. Chanel 9, viva el presidente!". [google.com]

Re:who knew?

I think this one was in a story some time ago (or I found it some other way maybe...):
http://slashdot.jp/ [slashdot.jp]

Even closer to the original then Barrapunto (Color scheme and icons). But no, that pole doesn't have a "kaubooi niiru" option on it, either (Slashdot won't let me post this in Katakana :/)

Re:Red neck response

Are you sure that you are not accidentally implicitly casting the values in your enums (NorthAmerica and Europe) to ints?

No, because countries are class instances.

Re:Need Disclaimer

that really wasn't very punny.

Re:who knew?

You have some here [wikipedia.org] in the Non-English part.