Qatar’s Contributions Curtailed at Wikipedia

WikipediaDid Wikipedia ban Qatari contributors from the site, or just a misbehavin’ subset?

A bit of controversy was brewing this morning over at Wikipedia, the freewheeling transcription of human knowledge by a hive of transient, often pseudonymous Internet users, when it was reported by CNet, BBC News, Slashdot and others that the site would no longer reflect the singular contributions of Qataris.

The claim was that Wikipedia administrators had grown weary of Qatari users’ randy, nationalistic, or simply vandalizing contributions to the community encyclopedia, which zealously patrols content using a combination of human editors and programmed bots to attempt to keep entries at some minimum level of repute.

It’s not Britannica, of course, but starting from zero, the massive database can provide useful leads and threads for further research, so the stakes are high in keeping out those not vested in the Wikipedia mission.

The BBC News had it this way earlier this morning (though the story was later changed):

Web encyclopedia Wikipedia has banned anonymous posts to its site from people in Qatar after repeated net vandalism.

The ban hits everyone in the country because all web traffic in Qatar is routed through a single net address.

This appears to be true. All high-speed traffic in Qatar is bottlenecked through QTel, the exclusive telecommunications provider for the country. But the larger reading of things — that all of Qatar was banned from Wikipedia — didn’t sit well with Wikipedia’s founder, Jimbo Wales.

The flood of traffic to Wikipedia’s post on the ban has prompted Mr. Wales to issue a general plea to the Web masses, and to journalists around the globe:

If you came here from a news headline saying that Wikipedia has banned all of Qatar, please pop right back over there and post in the comments that the story is not true. This IP number was temporarily blocked for less than 12 hours, and a block of an entire nation would go absolutely against Wikipedia policy. In the English Wikipedia, such an action would require approval of at a minimum the English Arbitration Committee and/or me personally, and would never ever be undertaken lightly, nor without extensive attempts at direct negotiation with the ISP and/or nation in question.

To any and all reporters, from Slashdot, TechCrunch, mainstream media, etc.: You may email me and ask me for my personal cellphone number, which I will answer 24 hours a day to confirm or disconfirm any such story of this type. — Jimbo Wales 03:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

(The BBC has since updated its story at the same address.)

Complaints from users began to mount, including this one noted at the discussion page: “This IP address is one of the addresses assigned to QTel’s proxy servers. In Qatar, all Internet traffic is censored by QTel, and by blocking these addresses, you are effectively preventing an entire country from posting to Wikipedia.”

But as further explanation, a user who claimed to have been affected by the block suggested that it was only anonymous users who were being blocked, and that those willing to create an account at Wikipedia could now use the site:

As one who was affected by the block, I’d like to clarify. On 30 December 2006, a Wikipedia admin placed a one-month block on the IP address 82.148.97.69 for reasons of chronic vandalism and spam. The IP address turned out to belong to a QTel proxy server, and thus anonymous posting from the whole of Qatar was blocked. Account creation was also blocked, but this condition was later relaxed after the ban was widely reported across technology sites. — Ngourlay 11:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

As the clarification continues, it’s worth noting the encyclopedia entries that mischievous Qatari editing elves were so interested in disrupting. They included articles on Egypt and the United States, Kamahl Santamaria, an Al Jazeera English news anchor, and Mawlid, the celebration of the birthday of Muhammad.

And then there was this Wikipedia warning, generated on Dec. 2 by an edit that also came from Qatar:

“Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to ‘Spoons sex position.’ It is considered vandalism.”

Comments are no longer being accepted.

The press seems to loves to slam Wikipedia. As an Wikipedia editor, however, it seems clear that the press has no idea how frustrating it is to work very hard on a legitimate entry – trying to create an entry with a neutral point of view and journalistic standards and with verifiable citations – and have it wrecked by someone who either just wants to vandalise the entry with nonsense, or worse, try to make it a platform for their point of view.

The timeline of events seems very logical to me. A vandal was blocked – as they well should be – and when they realized that the IP was for the whole country, they took steps to allow reputable editors – ie, ones with accounts and editing history – back onto the site.

This just sounds like a slow day in the news rooms, for goodness’ sake. Is Web Admin news? Sounds like a nightmare bit of Admin too, actually. The storyline might read “Nightmare Bit of Web Admin for Wiki.”

They regularly block everyone from AOL, too.

I love Wikipedia. Whatever its real or imagined faults, it makes a huge contribution to the availability and dissemination of human knowledge.

The problem with Wikipedia is that it represents people, and by default it will have some kind of nutjob trying to vandalize it once in a while.
I’m an avid wikireader, and I often notice errors, often as simple as misspellings and sometimes more complex. If you’re looking for information and you’re dumb enough to look for only one source, or if you’re dumb enough not to realize when something is obviously imbalanced, then you are bound to get misinformed.

Stories like this not only remind us how frustrating it is to work on a legitimate entry but also how easy it is to change and alter entries in one of the most widely used information resources on the internet. The actions of Wikipedia administration are completely logical and justified, but the reader should take the story as a continued caution to the questionable veracity of entries in the encyclopedia lest the reader fall victim to wikiality.

It would behoove a self purported editor at Wikipedia to use correct grammar at all times, most especially in public postings. “An Wikipedia editor” is a silly mistake to make.

Ironically, as a Wikipedia editor, I find the encyclopedia so interesting and addicitive, I’ve had to edit my hosts file to block myself from accessing it during the day. Perhaps Qatar has the same problem — too much editing and talk page discussion was getting in the way of government.

Wikipedia is great January 2, 2007 · 3:20 pm

but not all its users!

Would it be possible to have a section/page/guestbook entry/comment area addendum to each Wikipedia topic that would allow individuals to post their comments/view/input/biases to each entry? It would be specifically separate from academic editing and would provide the perspective of current world perception. It would be interesting to read and study, to understand how other cultures assimilate information and misinformation, and it would add to our knowledge, either by making an interesting sub-altern argument or proving its own ignorance. It would grant individuals freedom and outlets of expression without diluting the integrity of the original entry. If Wikipedia has the server space it could provide a legitimate area for the “vandals” to leave their signature and for us all to benefit from the added perspective.

Brilliant idea Dana. I hope Wikipedia takes the suggestion. I am also an avid Wikipedia reader, and consider it an absolutely brilliant and now necessary resource. It is infinately easy to navigate, and the information is fresh, thorough, and up to date.

Dana’s suggestion is an interesting one and deserves discussion. However, I’m afraid the implementation of what would be an interesting sociological, social psychological, anthropological, and cognitive scientific framework for studying Wikipedia use and maintenance would turn out to require more design effort than it might seem at first glance and ultimately would be declared by many to be more trouble than it’s worth.

Frankly, I think that’s unfortunate. I can empathize with Dana’s vision and I think learning as much as is feasible from how the Wikipedia is used would be to our ultimate advantage, to refine to the functions that it serves and improve its interaction with the user/editor community.

I don’t see the Wikipedia as a finished software engineering project at this time. I think it will have to evolve to meet the needs — and block the abuses — of its users. Taking more refined versions of proposals like Dana’s into account as that happens might be a wise choice.

Mine is merely one person’s opinion, of course.

I find it a valuable source of information and agree with Eddie B’s comment above. “If you’re looking for information and you’re dumb enough to look for only one source, or if you’re dumb enough not to realize when something is obviously imbalanced, then you are bound to get misinformed.”

One of the things that I like most about Wikipedia is the citation section. The site is usually a good place to get a descent overview, and when correctly cited gives me good leads.

Yet again the mainstream media deliberately refuses to understand Wikipedia and uses a sensationalistic, misleading headline to drum its preconceived beliefs into its readers.

You’re right to say that Wikipedia isn’t Britannica despite the fact that Britannica contains as many errors as Wikipedia. The difference is that errors in Britannica can’t be as easily corrected as those in Wikipedia. They also aren’t as often corrected because the editors of Britannica are too busy writing about every single minor insignificant aspect of American politics and government to care about the rest of the world – or the rest of American society, for that matter.

Wikipedia is my favourite site. Google gives me a path to the answer. Wikipedia is the answer. Please do not close it or hurt it.

I think its funny how web editors on wiki think they are journalists. A web editor insulting the legitimate press sounds a little backwords. The reason the person is a web editor is because the couldn’t get a job at the ligit press.

REVISED FOR CLARITY (2nd submission)

My experience is that it takes a while for people newly exposed to freedom to understand its rights and responsibilities, especially the latter. The people of Qatar are new at this and some people got carried away. It has been a good lesson for them to understand that those of us who benefit from something like Wikipedia (not just its administrators) take these breaches seriously. We are both the knowledge behind it and the power enforcing its integrity. Hopefully their trip to the woodshed and lashing with a wet noodle has taught them something. Yes, Sadam is gone from Iraq and others will follow him. But, no, it does not mean we can do anything and everything we please. Freedom is for grownups.

Posted by SusanZ

In response to Dana’s suggestion: Wikipedia already features essentially what you have in mind. Each article is linked to a discussion page where the editors (i.e. virtually anyone who reads the article) can register their comments, complaints, suggestions, etc.

Almost every time I read a Wikipedia entry, there is at least a small error. I read about the study that compared Britannica to Wikipedia and said Wikipedia had fewer errors, but, honestly, how silly to attempt to compare a print edition to a site that can be changed (corrected and/or vandalized) at any moment. At any given snapshot in time, Wikipedia can have more or less errors, so one cannot possibly do an accurate comparison.

Wikipedia is fine as a reference that can lead to more valid sources, but it drives me nuts that some of my fellow university students tend to cite it constantly without bothering to view other sources. I view Wikipedia as a casual entertainment source, not an unbiased, fully reputable source. Far too many people seem rabidly dependent on Wikipedia, unfortunately.

+à+Ô+á+Â+á+Ó+à+×+à+Å+áòÀ++à+

Advertisement
https://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/01/02/qatars-contributions-curtailed-at-wikipedia/
thelede.blogs.nytimes.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2017-34
73365
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:IYCKEGSXCR6M4JRGH4TR7R6RQNE5LNWI
<urn:uuid:891cb658-5ec4-41d2-b8d9-5bdfb44f4115>
2017-08-19T07:26:08Z
151.101.33.164
text/html
sha1:MQ3A4QCEKLXDDT6QRQXBNXDKVQSU7BWT
<urn:uuid:b0c552eb-6098-4310-bd6c-856ab67864c2>
https://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/01/02/qatars-contributions-curtailed-at-wikipedia/
response
<urn:uuid:4ac08fd3-3b9b-4f5a-a578-5c63e5f3f192>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-166-40-189.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2017-34
operator: Common Crawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for August 2017
publisher: Common Crawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf