The WikiScanner effect…

Just as an addition to our last post, it looks like WikiScanner is already wreaking havoc.

In Australia, we are being inundated with reports of changes to Wikipedia being linked back to staff in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, from immature vandalism to making edits to entries about subjects such as children overboard and the Treasurer. However, if we were just starting to think this was just another political stone-throwing match in the lead up to the election, unfortunately this is not the case – it’s a world-wide slinging match.

Government employees in South Africa have been accused of editing entries on its HIV/Aids policies, in Ireland North’s civil service employees have made over 1,000 edits. Organisations as varied as SeaWorld theme parks, Amnesty International, Pepsi, Exxon Mobil, Disney and Apple don’t escape either…

Mind you, I think that the Sydney Morning Herald asks a pertinent question today when they inquire: “If the Central Intelligence Agency, the Vatican and the Australian Department of Defence can't get it right, what hope is there for the rest of us to adjust, clarify or improve a Wikipedia entry without fear of being branded a wiki vandal?”

This will be an interesting one to keep an eye on!

Who is accountable for UCG?

As we track the social media phenomenon, we are honing in on the different elements of the ‘new’ media sphere. What really caught our attention this week was user generated content, who owns it and how accountable are individuals for their creations.

We are all experiencing and participating in the shift towards an active consumption of media and entertainment. More and more people are engaging with content, leaning forward to the computer screen rather than passively receiving, leaning back on the couch. (Mind you, some would argue that consumption of all media is growing and no one platform is being abandoned – but we’ll discuss this another time).

With this shift towards active consumption comes an increasing desire, driven innately by customer behaviour, to be a part of the creation of content: from videos to blogs to podcasting to wiki sites to citizen journalism. But, at what point does the content have so many creators that it no longer resembles the truth and is not beneficial to anyone?

Wikipedia has certainly seen its fair share of criticism, with entries being defaced and having incorrect information published. However, I met the news last week about the development of the wikipedia scanner designed to track the source of edits, with mixed feelings.

Whilst I believe it is a good thing that self-serving, false information can be traced and the people trafficking it can be made accountable, it also adds an editorial filter which user generated content is meant to bypass. All of a sudden, any shared information can be checked by a ‘higher power’. To me, this seems to be in direct opposition to the spirit of the game. Because really, being engaged with the information, not taking anything for face value and continuing the search – isn’t that where the fun really lies?

This only gives a general snapshot of the swiftly changing social media landscape and is just the starting point of this discussion, however it has made me think about a number of other issues such as trust and ownership – and we’ll be looking at these more over the coming weeks.