On election night, she wrote, Wikipedia is likely to impose even stricter restrictions, restricting the authority to publish a presidential contest winner – from reputable outlets like the Associated Press or large network news outlets, of course – to the most experienced, most trusted administrators in the project.
A Muboshgu-based administrator compares the vigilance required to keep political reporting reliable and accurate to the work he does to repress baseball editors eager to get the news over disseminate reported trades. "We try to explain that, while these reports are often correct, they are also inaccurate enough to have warranted caution," he wrote in an email. "I plan to apply this logic to election-related pages for 2020 if necessary."
Moving slowly was a Wikipedia superpower. Boring compliance with fairness and procurement rules, and the often slow deliberation of gnarled issues of accuracy and fairness, has made the resource less of interest to those looking for misinformation campaigns with immediate payouts.
WIRED's guide to online conspiracy theories
Everything you need to know about George Soros, Pizzagate, and the Berenstain Bears.
For example, Wikipedia's article on 86 was immediately revised as soon as it was used to support the case of the Trump campaign against Whitmer. Initially, one editor removed the reference to killing from the article and found that no reliable source was given for that definition. Others protested, arguing that such a quick response made it appear that Wikipedia was so intent on not helping the Trump campaign that it would even change exact articles.
Ultimately, the killing was attributed to the article, but not on the first line. Instead, it was recorded as follows: “The term is used more generally today to refer to someone or something. In the 1970s, its meaning expanded to include murder. “It's hard to imagine the Trump campaign now tweeting a screenshot of the revised article, explaining that 86 means mostly what Whitmer obviously intended, even if it's sometimes used in this other, violent way.
Similarly, the Wikipedia article on QAnon's far-right conspiracy theory is straightforward and evidence-based. Containing the allegations of a cabal of satan-worshiping pedophiles planning against Trump, it concludes: "No part of the theory is factual." However, this summary bothered libertarian economist Tyler Cowen, who recently wrote in Bloomberg Opinion that " makes me a little uncomfortable "because there is no similar disclaimer on the pages for the major sects and religions of the world or" for the book of "revelation of the Bible, which shares an apocalyptic spirit with QAnon. “QAnon can best be viewed as an inarticulate uprising against the elites, he offered.
Being a stickler for accuracy is a problem. It requires making enemies and putting aside people or institutions that are not acting in good faith. For some, you may lose the poetry and achievement of politics. With profitable companies like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter, you may lose the users you make money with.
And lurking in the background are those who spread misinformation and conspiracy theories, those who view elections as a battle between belligerent cults and bend the facts accordingly. However, Wikipedia insists that contemporary politics can and should be reduced to common sense and common facts, including those who won a free and fair election. Let's hope you are right.
More great WIRED stories