[Foundation-l] Porchesia

[daniwo59 at aol.com]

While I generally agree with Birgitte, I have to take exception here.  
Porchesia appeared on one of our projects for ten months. It was caught quite by  
accident, when someone pointed it out to me. This raises an important issue,  
relevant to all major languages and projects--what are we doing to ensure the  
veracity of the information we provide. This is especially relevant, given the  
other discussion about spamming, which Brad raised. If we can have a fake 
island  with 300,000 imaginary people get through for ten months, we can 
certainly have  a fake company get through for 10 months. This company can even get 
people to  read up on them and take their money. And if you look the company up, 
it is on  Wikipedia, Answers, and any other mirror. This is a serious 
problem. Wikipedia  provides credibility. 
 
There are two problems with this. Both are, in my mind,  serious ethical 
issues. 
 
1. Given our size and reputation, we are in the process of transforming  from 
a medium that reports fact to a medium that can, potentially, create fact.  
Colbert and the elephants is symptomatic of that (for people who don't know the 
 reference, see Jimmy's opening remarks at Wikimania). In the particular case 
of  Porchesia, someone has just argued on the mailing list that it should be 
kept  because it is now an internet meme. The fact that it has been on 
Wikipedia for  ten months ensures that 
(_http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-October/054735.html_ 
(http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-October/054735.html) ).  This is worrying. Are we now reporting on what we 
report? Where do we draw the  line between reporting information and creating 
information? I believe that this  issue is sufficiently serious to warrant 
discussion among all Wikimedia  participants, not just the people on WP:EN.
 
2. The second issue is more sinister. Several months ago we received a call  
in the office from a major police agency. Someone created a false identity  
and used it to extract money from unsuspecting victims. When people  questioned 
how important he was, they were told, "Just look me up on Wikipedia."  Were 
the people who gave him money stupid? Yes. So are the people who answer  tragic 
emails telling them that their long lost but fabulously wealthy  relatives 
were killed in car crash in Togo. And yet, people continue to answer  those 
emails. The article on EN was quietly deleted, the man was likely  arrested, but 
the problem remains. Given our position and the respect we  receive, Wikipedia 
in all languages is an open target for spammers and con  artists. I believe 
that this is also an issue that should be addressed by the  larger community, and 
not just limited to WP:EN.
 
There is a tension between accuracy and openness. Citizendium and  
Everything2 are two extreme answers to that tension. If, however, we are to  maintain 
both, we must address the tension when it occurs. We must come up with  creative 
solutions. And that is something that involves more than just the  English 
Wikipedia.
 
Danny