website statistics

Archive for the 'Wikipedia' Category

The Prince and the Photographer

Published by William Beutler on November 24, 2007 in Copyright, Entertainment, Seriously, Wikipedia and William Beutler. 0 Comments

If you’re interested in popular culture or copyright law, or especially if you’re one of those few who happens to be into both, then you surely can’t have missed the recent controversy surrounding efforts by one Prince Rogers Nelson to remove images and video from online media sharing platforms, and now even from fansites. In September, when the artist formerly known as The Artist Formerly Known as Prince was just targeting YouTube (somewhat successfully) and the Pirate Bay, one could at least acknowledge he was focusing on genuine copyright infringement, even if one thought he was making a mistake. But now,

Fan sites dedicated to Prince say they have been served legal notice to remove all images of the singer, his lyrics and “anything linked to Prince’s likeness”, and have vowed to fight what they are calling censorship.

This undertaking is beyond vexatious. This is, after all, the same man who gave away his last album in the UK’s Sunday Mail. Is he a Radiohead-like supporter of “free culture” or is he a jealous protector of his identity? He’s apparently both, and this isn’t necessarily contradictory — no more so than any photographer who has different copyright settings for different photos on his or her Flickr account.

Photograph of Prince, currently appearing on Wikipedia, taken by James "Jimieye" HughesSpeaking of which, lately I’d been wondering about the photo of Prince on his Wikipedia entry (at right). Specifically, I was wondering why it was still there. Edit Wikipedia long enough, and you’ll notice that one thing its editors closely monitor is the uploading of new images. Not only would the Wikimedia Foundation prefer to avoid being sued, the school of thought known as “deletionism” seems to be the dominant ethos.

Turns out the photograph remains where it is (for the time being) because it was uploaded by the photographer himself, one James Hughes of Ballymena, Northern Ireland. That settled that, but that wasn’t all. What was the story behind the photo? Had he been contacted by Prince’s lawyers? Via FlickrMail messages, he told me this week that so far he has heard nothing, and is pretty sure Prince has “bigger fish to fry.” He doesn’t expect Prince’s ill-conceived plan to get far enough to affect his work, although he did seem amused by the whole thing. The photo itself is from Prince’s first visit to Ireland in the 1990s, which Hughes shot for a local magazine. As he explained:

I remember they where very strict with us up front for 3 songs and his managment were all beautiful girls. Apparently he didn’t trust men, though he always had his heavies around. I was told off for taking pictures of bouncers lifting fans out of the front who had passed out. I think hes one of the greatest songwriters alive though he’s also a nut case, like most people in the business both go hand in hand.

I’m not myself a huge Prince fan (I do have 1999 in my iTunes) but out of two Prince fans I spoke to for this post, Hughes was one of two to call him crazy.

And that’s probably all I’ve got to say about it.

It’s unfortunate for the Prince fans, especially the die hards who run fansites and now find themselves under attack by the very object of their infatuation. I am no copyright expert, but it seems to me that while Prince is not ultimately going to win, he will get further than most simply because he has the means to drag it out. The good news is that his opponents… that is, his fans, have joined together in a coalition against him, Prince Fans United.

I have to wonder if, as old media monoliths dissolve and new alliances of artists rise, we’ll see more artists acting like Radiohead or more like Prince. Of course, attitudes and behaviors will depend on the artist, so generalization at this point is risky. As I write this, the old music labels are still here and they’re still fighting to save a terminal business model. But it’s still my guess that artists (and other celebrities) in the near future will be more accommodating than they are now.

It seems odd that someone who has fought the record labels for most of his career is now making the same mistake of misunderstanding his audience. Maybe it’s not — maybe this whole time he only intended to replace them, not their narrow thinking. Let’s hope he makes a federal case of it — say, Prince v. Prince Fans United — and hope this unprecedented attack on his fan base eventually sets the right precedent.

P.S. Though I don’t usually spend much time thinking about Prince and may never publicly write about him again, I’m clearly irritated by his current agenda. Therefore, below the jump, is my contribution to the vast archive of unauthorized Prince artwork on the Internet.

Continue reading ‘The Prince and the Photographer’

I Am My Blogger’s Keeper

Published by William Beutler on June 4, 2007 in Edit Wars, Netroots, Tough Crowd, Virginia Politics and Wikipedia. 2 Comments

At MyDD’s Breaking Blue miniblog, contributor Texas Nate is alarmed that the Wikipedia entry for the late Steve Gilliard had been nominated for deletion.

I didn’t agree with Gilliard much, and I don’t know Texas Nate at all, but I agree this development is worrisome. As I pointed out last week, it’s not the first time entries for bloggers have been so nominated — and as that effort was beaten back then, so should it be now.

As a Wikipedian in good standing, I added my two cents, reproduced below:

Argument to keep Steve Gilliard's entry at Wikipedia

The article certainly needs work — indeed, it was only begun upon the announcement of his passing on Sunday — but more to accord with Wikipedia style polices rather than meet NPOV guidelines.

When the big book on the liberal netroots is written, Gilliard will be more than a footnote. Wikipedia has the ability to record that now, and I believe it should.

Update: Good news — after a string of “keeps,” the silliness is over:

Easy call here. The only arguments for deletion are thinly veiled personal attacks. The New York Times only does obits if you are notable. Also, the claim that one must be notable enough to be in a paper encyclopedia is patently absurd. Agreed, notability should be considered, but in Mr. Gilliard’s case there is absolutely no question about that.

The Colbert Nation vs. the Ron Paul Machine or: Jimbo Wales is Blog P.I.’s Alpha Dog of the Week

Published by William Beutler on May 28, 2007 in Edit Wars, Online Polling, Ron Paul, Stephen Colbert and Wikipedia. 12 Comments

Last week Stephen Colbert hosted not Ron Paul — who was on Bill Maher — but Wikipedia’s own BDFL Jimbo Wales (apologies for the ugly Comedy Central player; another prediction dashed):

Wales was a good sport about the high-profile headaches Colbert has caused, specifically for the Wikipedians maintaining the Elephant and Reality entries (both of which are still semi-protected). He was so even as Colbert not-so-subtly encouraged readers to vandalize several new pages (Oxygen, Einstein; both protected) and the entire Spanish-language edition (you could say they’ve been put on notice).

Simultaneously overtly and covertly (the show is genius à la South Park) Colbert encouraged his Nation to visit the appropriate Wikipedia pages and assert that “Librarians are hiding something.” Of course, tonight of all nights, site administrators would be watching:

Wikipedia admins prepare for Colbert Nation onslaught

Mere seconds, of course. But this time, instead of just blanking and bolting, they’ve stuck around to argue in the Talk pages, (thanks to Not Paul Begala for pointing this out):

Colbert Nation chides Wikipedia editors in Wikipedia discussion pages

Wow: Going into a Wikipedia discussion page and chiding a Wikipedia editor for taking the site policies seriously is like, well, kind of like if Wales had started telling Colbert how to do his job.

Helgers7, a legitimate Wikipedian, is clearly right (as is Colbert) that one should be skeptical about the contents of any random Wikipedia entry. And yet amusing as the whole Colbert game may be, vandalizing the site doesn’t get that point across constructively — editing with integrity does. Helgen7 gets this; Sonic Hog (whom we’ll meet in a moment) is wasting his time.

Dedicated Wikipedia trolls are not that uncommon and, for good reason, Wikipedians try not to talk about them. In late 2006 administrators fought back an attempt to delete all entries related to blogs, LAist’s Tony Pierce in particular. But those vandals tend to be unregistered or IP abusers (i.e. sock puppets), whereas the aforementioned apprehended vandal/Sega aficionado Sonic Hog has actually been on the site since December 2005. Perhaps contsituting a new classification of Internet troll, Sonic Hog appears to be a resident troll of Wikipedia.

This readiness to engage in manipulative behavior online also reminds me more than a little of the Ron Paul Machine, that several thousand-strong cohort of libertarians, paleos, lefty trolls and Internet pranksters.

Surely Colbert still has the better-organized online army, and while he uses his basic cable pulpit knowingly, the Ronbots aren’t getting such explicit directions from the Paul campaign. They know to do what Colbert has to ask his fans to do: freep polls.

And what about the Wikipedia entry for Ron Paul? Since May 16, the discussion page runs to more than 24,000 words. I have to cut this off somewhere, and 24,000 is reason enough.

In conclusion, never underestimate the power of a small group of Internet users to change the results of any online power struggle. I think this was best summarized by one Digg user who has become something of a dedicated defender/reverse troll, frequently digging anti-Paul stories (including one Blog P.I. post). 1337 FTFA:

Digg's COINTELPROagent riffs on the Paulbots

There’s something to be said about those groups who can keep a good humor about themselves while also understanding where to draw the line. In that spirit, let’s return to the Wikipedia discussion pages, where Blog P.I.’s favorite Colbertian gets pwned:

Colbert Nation accuses Wikipedia editors of hiding something

In sum, it’s worth reminding oneself what and what not to take seriously. That goes double for fans of Stephen Colbert and Ron Paul.

The Good Fight: On The Google Bombing Campaign of 2008

Published by William Beutler on May 22, 2007 in George W. Bush, Google, John Kerry, John McCain, SEO, Stephen Colbert and Wikipedia. 5 Comments

When it comes to monkeying around with Google search results, MyDD is the undisputed leader in the political blogosphere. In a comment thread there yesterday, the appropriately-monikered Monkey in Chief is already thinking ahead to the bombing campaign of 2008:

Considering that there is a lag before Google’s index will be updated, it’s likely prudent to start the 2008 Presidential Gooblebomb once the Republican nominee is known. I wonder if an early round targeted at all the candidates (except maybe Ron Paul should link to sites what emphasize his opposition to the war) wouldn’t be of value. The only downside to starting early is that it gives the other side more time to respond. An advantage of an early start is that Google may be getting tired of having their algorithm gamed and reduce the influence of a sudden spike of links. In this case, starting early would be an advantage. As a defensive measure, we should reverse good Googlebomb the Democratic nominee with links to official and favorable websites once the Democratic nominee is known.

These are questions the underdog online Republican activists should be asking themselves as well. The Google wars rage on, and as every strategist knows, fighting the last campaign is rarely enough.

The Chief is correct about Google’s displeasure with overt efforts to “optimize” its search engine: Google bombs for “miserable failure” (George W. Bush), “waffles” (John Kerry) and “greatest living American” (Stephen Colbert) have all been defused, though news coverage of each remains.

So a gradual effort would make sense. But which sites do you choose? Will the strategic decisions of mid-2007 hold up in late 2008? Might Google step in and make an editorial judgment again anyway?

That’s why I’m intrigued by the reverse-Google bomb; not only is a preventive strategy wise, I presume the Oracle of Mountain View is unlikely to step in and demote a positive website — so the chances of the effort being wasted are much lower. Even if one goes the negative route, it still makes sense to match search terms with a website that actually contains those terms. The aforementioned trio of Google bombs were easy to identify because they were so obviously contrived. That said, an ongoing effort to associate John McCain’s name with negative coverage appears to be failing, at least so far.

Websites to avoid include the candidate’s Wikipedia entry and official site, which are already likely to be near the top. News stories are also risky, as a news organization could move the location of a particular story at any time, for any reason, without warning.

So what kind of site should the positive-bombers select? Here’s an idea: The participants should set up a brand new advocacy blog for that candidate, to which they can link the candidate’s name when blogging at their own sites. Not only will the new entry rise to the top, but if the blog is well-maintained, it will generate multiple entries that will rise to the top of the results as well.

Most SEO guides advise that the best recipe for success is to create content that people want to click on, link to and read. That should apply here, too. Don’t muck up the results — create the results you want people to find.

The Google wars probably will never end. But this is one way to neutralize the damage.

Colbert Nation, 2; Wikipedia, 0

Published by William Beutler on January 31, 2007 in Edit Wars, Entertainment, Stephen Colbert, Tech Blogosphere and Wikipedia. 13 Comments

If you consider yourself a fan of both Wikipedia and “The Colbert Report,” a kind of cognitive dissonance is inescapable at times — and Monday night was one of those times.

The first was last August, when the faux winger unleashed upon Wikipedia his so-called Colbert Nation — an unknown percentage of his audience willing to carry out simple online tasks (e.g voting in online polls) at Colbert’s request — to make two specific Wikipedia edits: that Colbert’s opinion of Oregon is that it is “Idaho’s Portugal” rather than “California’s Canada” or “Washington’s Mexico,” and that the number of African elephants in the wild had tripled over the last six months (you’d have to see it, but alas, as I advised against, it has been removed from YouTube). The Nation responded, causing headaches for Wikipedia editors and administrators that persist to this day.

On Monday Colbert struck again. While the segment isn’t on YouTube, it is available through Comedy Central, thereby meeting a minimum standard of web literacy but (surprisingly for this show) failing to understand why increased fan control over the content is a good idea. There is an embedding capability to let fans put the videos on their own sites, but the back end is terrible. Just click on the image below — or better yet, open it in another tab:

Stephen Colbert's The Word: Wikilobbying

The subject this time was the recent controversy about Microsoft paying an independent contractor to correct perceived errors on Wikipedia. It’s a new issue and a complicated one, but for now suffice to say that my take is closer to the TWiTters‘ than Michael Arrington’s.

“The Colbert Report,” being the late-night comedy it is, went with the same angle as last time, per the show’s website (image has been altered to remove other segment panels):

Colbert Report video teasers on Comedy Central

I digress.

In the August and latest segments’ opening moments, Colbert announced the night’s Word. Last time it was “Wikiality,” this time it was “Wikilobbying” — and instantly, throughout the Eastern time zone, fingertips fell upon keyboards: was there an entry for Wikilobbying yet?

Wikipedia page for Wikilobbying didn't yet exist

At that point, no. In those first five seconds (or so) I was one of several hundred, possibly even a couple thousand, Internet users requesting that file. And of that crowd, the quickest-fingertipped member of the Colbert Nation exhibited the same wit that brought us “Frist!” and Fitz!”:

First person to create a Wikilobbying page at Wikipedia

I hit refresh. Moments later, another loyal vandal referenced the recurring migraine mentioned above:

Wikilobbying page references Colbert's elephant population joke

Among those thousand or few who turned up inside of the segment, a handful were actual Wikipedians who had obviously expected this:

Wikilobbying page was quickly redirected to the Colbert Report page

Remember, maybe a minute has passed, and Colbert hadn’t specifically asked anyone to do anything. But then he did. According to Colbert, Microsoft’s actions tampered with the very concept of reality itself, and so this time he issued a specific directive:

Colbert Nation vandalizes Wikipedia entry for Reality

Actually, this vandal was either a moron or a poor typist, because what Colbert actually asked for was:

Reality has become a commodity

Multiple Wikipedia administrators went into action, cleaning up the mess…

Wikipedia entry for Reality was quickly reverted and protected

…and even correcting their own mistakes:

Wikipedia editors had different ideas about how to protect the Reality page

One of the great things about Colbert’s show is the audience participation enabled by the Internet. Colbert’s “feud” with Oregon’s own The Decemberists grew out of similarly-themed user-generated video contests. I enjoyed the “green screen challenges” — those were creative. The Wikipedia onslaught may be harmless insofar as pages are immediately fixable and reliably fixed, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t destructive. Not to mention, Colbert’s pranks reinforce overwrought fears about the website’s supposed vulnerability.

But think of Wikipedia like the Internet itself. The structure of the network and the community of editors is redundant by its nature. If one thing goes wrong and even if many things go wrong, the corrections are usually prompt. Yes, they’re less reliable along outlying nodes and even some overtrafficked ones. Neither claimed to be without flaws, yet both will withstand virtually any attack (save electromagnetic pulse).

You have to be a loser with no life — or a late-night comedian and his his unblinking minions — to think vandalizing Wikipedia is a good idea. And it provides further evidence for all the comparisons to “The O’Reilly Factor,” Colbert’s program is not just a parody of O’Reilly’s fanbase, it is the mob they presume to be parodying.

Jesus Christ Wiki Star

Published by William Beutler on December 5, 2006 in Entertainment, Religion, Seriously and Wikipedia. 1 Comment

Hi, my name is Bill, and I’m a Wikipedian. (Hi, Bill.)

It is true — I am not just a frequent commentator on and booster of Wikipedia; I am in fact also a registered user and semi-frequent contributor. Most of my edits are simple clean-ups such as formatting edits, typo fixes and correcting British spellings on American subjects.

Sometimes, though, I have to go a little bit further. For example, see this comment I left on the discussion page for a controversially-named “post-thrash/metalcore” band, having just made an important edit to an oft-defaced, marginally-related entry:

Wikipedia discussion page for Lamb of God (band)

The Other Side of Wikiality

Published by William Beutler on December 3, 2006 in Academic Blogging, Entertainment, Washington Post and Wikipedia. 0 Comments

Last week I pointed out a promising development at Wikipedia — that at least one law professor is assigning his students to write entries for the online encyclopedia — and wondered if anybody would report on the fact. After all, the press Wikipedia gets tends to be skeptical at best.

I see nothing yet, but for the time being I will certainly settle for the article in today’s Washington Post by staff writer (and JewsRock.org co-founder) David Segal:

Casual readers might assume that Wikipedia’s goal is a complete account of all earthly knowledge, but the site maintains a rather elaborate set of criteria for admission. The several thousand unpaid volunteers who write and edit Wikipedia spend a lot of energy ensuring that people, bands, companies, and everything else meet what it calls “notability guidelines.” … Wikipedia jettisons more than 100 entries every day, many of them from people who posted autobiographies after registering on the site. (Writing your own entry, as we will see, is “strongly discouraged.”) The list of nominated rejects is posted each day on a page titled “articles for deletion,” and because all of Wikipedia is transparent and public, anyone can watch the editors’ votes roll in, and witness those ultimately deemed non-notable slink away, in real time, after getting cyber-gonged off the stage. Type “wikipedia deletion log” into Google for a peek at the latest.

Standards? Who knew?! Thanks to Mr. Segal, a few more Washingtonians than yesterday. Being primarily a music writer, Segal focuses on some of the bands and artists who didn’t make the cut:

The thumbs-up-or-down debates can rivet those in danger of Wiki deletion. Chicago composer and writer Matthew Dallman noticed last week that the fate of a biographical entry about him, which he says he didn’t write, was being debated and on Wednesday, it was gone. On Thursday, it was back. “It looks like the votes are running five to three in favor of deletion,” he said on the phone from his home in Chicago. “I’ve been watching for a few days and I’ve got to say, it’s really perplexing and very surreal. There’s this debate going on about me, but Wikipedia seems to dislike self-promotion, so saying anything on my own behalf would probably undermine my cause. It’s like I’m on trial and I can’t testify.”

It’s an interesting process to watch, as the votes trickle in and administrators state their reasons. To my knowledge, my only friend with a Wikipedia entry is policy maven, entrepreneur and columnist Phil Kerpen. His page just barely survived a deletion debate this summer, and is still the locus of an ongoing edit war.

Dallman, however, may not get the chance. Also this morning, he’s commented on the story at his own blog:

It looks like the page is going to be deleted. Oh well. The argument that my work hasn’t achieved recognition in the wider world, when compared to many, many other figures on Wikipedia, certainly isn’t wrong. As someone else in the Post article is quoted, its their site and they have their rules. The silver lining is that my take-away is the reminder, that if I do my work, and get it out there, then things like having a page on Wikipedia will take care of themselves.

Which is exactly the right attitude to have about it — and that ones’ own Wikipedia page is considered a status symbol at all is an interesting development. Maybe society can acclimate to something as apparently confusing as Wikipedia.

Home of the C+ Term Paper Makes the Honor Roll?

Published by William Beutler on November 28, 2006 in Academic Blogging, Second Life and Wikipedia. 2 Comments

This fall term, Pepperdine international law professor Roger Alford made sure his students gave something back (my take, not his), as he explains at Opinio Juris:

This semester I took Peter Spiro’s suggestion to heart and assigned my international law students to write a Wikipedia entry as a small part of their class requirements. The only limits I put on the students was to pick a topic that was relevant to international law and that was not currently included in Wikipedia (or at most was a stub). The results were quite impressive. I will not give you the details of each entry to avoid compromising the next phase of the experiment. But essentially they wrote on topics ranging from prominent international law professors and judges, several major decisions of international courts, two Supreme Court decisions, a key aspect of a major environmental law treaty, principles of international law jurisdiction, an undeveloped topic relating to the use of force, a major international investment arbitration issue, and an issue relating to corporate conduct and core labor standards. They wrote the entries in Wikipedia format to maximize the chances that the entries will be accepted by the Wikipedia editors.

First, this is a terrific idea for a course assignment — I wish there had been a Wikipedia when I was in school. Second, this is great news for Wikipedia itself. I’d like to see media outlets that picked up the John Seiganthaler controversy last year run a small feature on this development. Third, this makes a lot more sense than a whole class about Second Life.

Content hat tip: ExMo. Headline hat tip: zefrank.

Makin’ Copies

Published by William Beutler on November 19, 2006 in Asymmetrical Media, Second Life and Wikipedia. 1 Comment

At Freedom to Tinker, Ed Felten gives a good overview of the threat the CopyBot application poses to the economy of Second Life. If you’re not familiar with the Second Life metaverse, but you do recall the “World of Warcraft”-themed season premiere of “South Park” this fall, then the situation Felten describes might ring a bell:

If you’re not familiar with virtual worlds, you might think the word “economy” is a stretch. But really it’s not. SecondLife has about 1.5 million residents. Residents are given a sophisticated toolset they can use to design complex objects, specifying the objects’ shape, appearance, and behavior. Objects can be sold for a currency called Linden Dollars. Linden Dollars are real money — they can be traded for U.S. dollars on currency exchange markets. Quite a few people make their living in SecondLife, running businesses that make Linden-Dollar profits, which are then cashed in for U.S. dollars. Most days, the SecondLife economy sees transactions worth a total of between $500,000 and $1,000,000 (real U.S. dollars). This is clearly a real economy. To understand the possible impact of CopyBot, imagine such a thing existed in real life. Point this CopyGadget at any real-world object, push a button, and you get a perfect copy of that object. Want a new Lambourghini sportscar? Just find one in a parking lot and copy it. Like the lime sorbet at the local ice cream parlor? Buy a cup, take it home, and fill your freezer with copies. When you get down to the last cup in the freezer, just copy it again. You get the idea.

I’ve been getting to know Second Life for a few weeks now, and even though political uses of the virtual world are not directly susceptible to this kind of chicanery, it certainly poses an indirect threat. Sure, Second Life is big now — but so were Napster and Friendster.

If there is nothing else to be learned here, do not name your company anything ending in “-ster.” If there is something else to be learned from this, it’s that Second Life creator Linden Labs must settle this quickly and definitively. According to New World Notes, the actual damage so far is very limited, but that’s no reason to sigh with relief. As that business with John Seigenthaler goes to show, even a minor problem can be magnified many times in the media’s perception — especially if you’re doing something new and unproven, like a user-written encyclopedia or user-built virtual world.

P.S. Because I can never resist using an available screen grab, here’s the Second Life version of yours truly chilling out on the seaside balcony of a Japanese-themed luxury home:

William Beutler in Second Life

Yes, I am sitting fully-clothed in an operational hot tub. Considering that I’m also trespassing, that’s probably for the better.

Gil Gutknecht, Fire Your Internet Strategist

Published by William Beutler on August 17, 2006 in Republicans, Seriously and Wikipedia. 8 Comments

As the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported late last night, Rep. Gil Gutknecht (R) is the latest member of Congress to be caught red-handed trying to rewrite his own Wikipedia entry. Like the others who edited before him — and got busted before him — Gutknecht wanted to eliminate a reference to a broken campaign promise, and so, brilliantly, replaced the section with a few hundred words from Gutknecht’s official bio, thereby also making Wikipedia unwitting plagiarists. What it ended up getting him was a whole new subhead about the incident — not to mention the unflattering Strib coverage.

But that isn’t all his office tried to change. Most preposterously, they thought they could re-edit the very first paragraph into a colorful lead-in sounding nothing like any other congressional bio on the site, and somehow nobody would notice. Take a look at this screen shot from his entry’s History page, highlighting the differences between Gutknecht’s version (on the left) and the revert to what it looked like before (on the right). It’s a thumbnail, so you’ll have to open the full-size version in another tab:

Gil Gutknecht & Wikipedia Thumbnail

Did the Gutknecht people really think Wikipedians would prefer to hear about his family history and church attendance instead of, you know, the details of his government service, which is what qualifies him to be listed in Wikipedia in the first place? Many people who are what Wikipedia would term “non-notable” try to write pages about themselves; these are deleted as “vanity” pages. I’m going to guess it’s less common that “notable” figures seek to turn their own entries into vanity pages.

Gutknecht deserves all the bad press he gets for this, even more than the geniuses who came before him. Well, maybe a bit less than Wikipedia’s own founder, Jimmy Wales.

Of course it was unethical to do and idiotic to imagine they wouldn’t be caught. But it was also their very disregard for Wikipedia’s customs that all but guaranteed they would be called out, and quickly. If they’d had the sense to edit from an off-site computer, or bothered to create a User ID, or to make subtler changes, it’s very possible they’d have gotten away with it, at least for awhile, and likely would have escaped public attention entirely.

I’m all for wider web literacy, but to a certain extent, widespread ignorance has the unintended consequence of keeping people honest.

P.S. For local reaction from left-leaning bloggers, see MN Publius, Vox Verax and A Bluestem Prairie.