Mediaboss Marketing

For many it is no more than the first port of call when a niggling question raises its head. Found on its pages are answers to mysteries from the fate of male anglerfish, the joys of dorodango, and the improbable death of Aeschylus.

But beneath the surface of Wikipedia lies a murky world of enduring conflict. A new study from computer scientists has found that the online encyclopedia is a battleground where silent wars have raged for years.

Since Wikipedia launched in 2001, its millions of articles have been ranged over by software robots, or simply bots, that are built to mend errors, add links to other pages, and perform other basic housekeeping tasks.

In the early days, the bots were so rare they worked in isolation. But over time, the number deployed on the encyclopedia exploded with unexpected consequences. The more the bots came into contact with one another, the more they became locked in combat, undoing each others edits and changing the links they had added to other pages. Some conflicts only ended when one or other bot was taken out of action.

The fights between bots can be far more persistent than the ones we see between people, said Taha Yasseri, who worked on the study at the Oxford Internet Institute. Humans usually cool down after a few days, but the bots might continue for years.

The findings emerged from a study that looked at bot-on-bot conflict in the first ten years of Wikipedias existence. The researchers at Oxford and the Alan Turing Institute in London examined the editing histories of pages in 13 different language editions and recorded when bots undid other bots changes.

They did not expect to find much. The bots are simple computer programs that are written to make the encyclopedia better. They are not intended to work against each other. We had very low expectations to see anything interesting. When you think about them they are very boring, said Yasseri. The very fact that we saw a lot of conflict among bots was a big surprise to us. They are good bots, they are based on good intentions, and they are based on same open source technology.

While some conflicts mirrored those found in society, such as the best names to use for contested territories, others were more intriguing. Describing their research in a paper entitled Even Good Bots Fight in the journal Plos One, the scientists reveal that among the most contested articles were pages on former president of Pakistan Pervez Musharraf, the Arabic language, Niels Bohr and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

One of the most intense battles played out between Xqbot and Darknessbot which fought over 3,629 different articles between 2009 and 2010. Over the period, Xqbot undid more than 2,000 edits made by Darknessbot, with Darknessbot retaliating by undoing more than 1,700 of Xqbots changes. The two clashed over pages on all sorts of topics, from Alexander of Greece and Banqiao district in Taiwan to Aston Villa football club.

Another bot named after Tachikoma, the artificial intelligence in the Japanese science fiction series Ghost in the Shell, had a two year running battle with Russbot. The two undid more than a thousand edits by the other on more than 3,000 articles ranging from Hillary Clinton s 2008 presidential campaign to the demography of the UK.

The study found striking differences in the bot wars that played out on the various language editions of Wikipedia. German editions had the fewest bot fights, with bots undoing others edits on average only 24 times in a decade. But the story was different on the Portuguese Wikipedia, where bots undid the work of other bots on average 185 times in ten years. The English version saw bots meddling with each others changes on average 105 times a decade.

The findings show that even simple algorithms that are let loose on the internet can interact in unpredictable ways. In many cases, the bots came into conflict because they followed slightly different rules to one another.

Yasseri believes the work serves as an early warning to companies developing bots and more powerful artificial intelligence (AI) tools. An AI that works well in the lab might behave unpredictably in the wild. Take self-driving cars. A very simple thing thats often overlooked is that these will be used in different cultures and environments, said Yasseri. An automated car will behave differently on the German autobahn to how it will on the roads in Italy. The regulations are different, the laws are different, and the driving culture is very different, he said.

As more decisions, options and services come to depend on bots working properly together, harmonious cooperation will become increasingly important. As the authors note in their latest study: We know very little about the life and evolution of our digital minions.

Earlier this month, researchers at Googles DeepMind set AIs against one another to see if they would cooperate or fight. When the AIs were released on an apple-collecting game, the scientists found that the AIs cooperated while apples were plentiful, but as soon as supplies got short, they turned nasty. It is not the first time that AIs have run into trouble. In 2011, scientists in the US recorded a conversation between two chatbots. They bickered from the start and ended up arguing about God.

2017 Guardian Web under contract with NewsEdge/Acquire Media. All rights reserved.

Continued here:
Study: Bot-on-Bot Editing Wars Raging on Wikipedia's pages - Sci-Tech Today

The dominance of Wikipedia can no longer be denied. A local expression of a national initiative to address some of the online encyclopedia's biases takes place this week.

Once upon a time (not that long ago, actually), students were warned against even reading Wikipedia. The issue is that Wikipedia was open-source and editable, by anyone, anonymously. Information can be purposefully edited to be misleading, or missing something, or biased in some way.

One well-documented bias is gender. The flood of young men in the computer sciences means that the large body of information on Wikipedia skews toward the interests of that demographic.

Wikipedia is huge, with more than five million articles in English. Its also free. Warning people against using it really isn't an option anymore. So in an attempt to offset the bias, many museums, universities and science organizations all over the globe have organized edit-a-thons, events bringing together experts and interested people to edit and improve specific entries.

Art+Feminism is a national organization that began organizing Wikipedia Edit-A-Thons in 2014 to address the bias created by the lack of women editors. (Fewer than 10% of contributors to Wikipedia identify as female, according to the organization.)

The Carnegie Museum of Art hosts one such edit-a-thon this Saturday (just in time for Womens History Month). No prior Wikipedia editing knowledge is necessary. The museum will offer tutorials for beginner Wikipedians at 10:45 a.m. and 1:30 p.m., as well as reference materials and expert support. Bring your own laptop if you can, as the museums supply is limited.

See the rest here:
Art + Feminism Wikipedia Edit-A-Thon at on Saturday at Pittsburgh's Carnegie Museum of Art - PGH City Paper (blog)

afroCROWD Wikipedia Edit-a-thon photo by Lilith Dorsey. All rights reserved.

Last weekend I had the honor of attending the #afroCROWD Black History month event, Wikipedia edit-a-thon. The organization provided a wealth of information about Wikipedia editing. Everything was helpful for those just beginning, or veterans of the process. As many of you know Wikipedia has become the top source of information on the internet. Because it is crowdsourced that leaves a lot to be desired in the way of quality and quantity of content.

In this day and time of alternative facts the presentation of truth becomes even more important. Those of us who exist in marginalized or underrepresented realms are constantly presented with the difficulty of getting our stories heard. One of the ways we can do this is by becoming pro-active, and doing wikipedia editing for ourselves. This is vital for pagan activists, black activists, LGBTQ activists, and anyone trying to make a real difference in a world that doesnt, or cant hear our voices.

Recently feminists and other groups have taken up this challenge. In a recent article called Editing for Equality by Catch News they explain we write in reaction to all thats wrong and how were misrepresented, but another way to make the world see this is to be the primary source. If women, and people from other disenfranchised, marginalized and often forgotten social groups were made visible for who they are and what they have achieved, that would be the first step to actual emancipation.

Wikipedia edit-a-thon photo by Lilith Dorsey. All rights reserved.

So what is the best way to start ? First, if at all possible, I urge you to attend a Wikipedia edit-a-thon. These events are popping up all over the world. Even if one isnt present in your area, you may be able to video conference in to an event.

However, what if that isnt possible, and in that case there are several resources available to get you started. I highly recommend the informational video series on Wikipedia editing by Art and Feminism.

Art + Feminism Beginner Training

The first thing you are going to have to do is set up a Wikipedia user account, if you dont have one already. AfroCROWD recommends using a different name than your own. This will protect your identity and also possibly lend to the objectivity of your edits.

All your Wikipedia editing will also need to be sourced. What is considered a reliable source is a relatively short list. Books and established newspapers are the best sources to cite, but Wikipedia does make determinations on a case by case basis. One thing you cant do is use yourself as a source. This is troublesome for writers like myself. You also cant use another Wikipedia article as a source. Spend some time looking at the approved sources for citations to get an idea what is acceptable.

Before I went to the edit-a-thon one of my friends asked me to find out why many Wikipedia edits get removed. There are a few answers to this question. First everything has to be properly sourced, which I just mentioned. Then there is the problem of conflict of interest. Wikipedia takes great care to insure edits are not created by people looking for self-promotion. If you do have a connection to the material you are editing, make sure you mention this on the talk page for the entry you are editing. You can find the tab in the top left of the article. While at the afroCROWD event I found one edit I really wanted to make. Regular readers of this blog know I am a member of the Voodoo Spiritual Temple in New Orleans. When I looked I realized that the address for the temple on its Wikipedia page was incorrect (the temple relocated after suffering a fire last year.) In order to make this edit I disclosed my connection to the temple on the talk page, and then sourced the edit from a site that didnt belong to me or the temple. While these steps may seem like a bit of extra trouble, they will hopefully insure that your edits get approved.

Obviously there is much more to understand about this subject, but hopefully this will get you started. If possible get involved with the AfroCROWD organization (Afro Free Culture Crowdsourcing Wikimedia.) It is a new initiative which seeks to increase the number of people of African Descent who actively partake in the Wikimedia and free knowledge, culture and software movements. Since its launch during Black Wiki History Month in 2015, Afrocrowd has sensitized thousands in its target audience about free culture crowdsourcing and the need to close the multicultural and gender gaps in Wikipedia. Afrocrowd has also held monthly multilingual editathons in partnership with cultural institutions such as the Brooklyn Public Library, the Studio Museum in Harlem, MOMA, the Caribbean Cultural Center African Diaspora Institute and Haiti Cultural Exchange. Afrocrowd has also trained future trainers in the target community.

Wikipedia editing can be a valuable tool for pagan activism, black activism, and the furthering of knowledge for many underrepresented groups. I wish you the best of luck in your edits. Hopefully someday someone will make a Wikipedia page for me and my writing and films, hint hint. Until then you can follow my edits on my user page under LilithAuthor, and if you appreciate what you read here please remember to share.

Follow this link:
Wikipedia Editing : Essential Tips for Activists - Patheos - Patheos (blog)

Mashable

The great Garfield gender debate ends after Wikipedia edit war Mashable Garfield's first appearance was on June 19, 1978. Garfield was created by Jim Davis. Garfield is a tabby cat. Garfield is male. These are all things you will learn about Garfield at first glance of the Wikipedia page "Garfield." But what you don't ... The Debate Over Garfield's Gender Has Gone All The Way Up To CongressRefinery29 Wikipedia Erupts in Editing War Over Garfield the Cat's Gender ...Unicorn Booty (blog) Garfield's gender identity sparks 60-hour 'editing war' on WikipediaDaily Sabah Konbini US -UPROXX -New York Daily News -Mental Floss all 16 news articles »

The rest is here:
The great Garfield gender debate ends after Wikipedia edit war - Mashable

Garfield is lazy; Garfield is a cat; Garfield likes lasagna.

Is there really much more to say about Garfield? The characteris not complicated. Since the comic debuted in 1978, Garfields core qualities have shifted less than the mostly immobile cat himself.

But this is 2017 a timeof Internet wars, social conundrums and claims to competingevidence about Garfields gender identity.

Wikipedia had to put Garfields page on lockdown last week after a 60-hour editing war in which the characterslisted gender vacillated back and forth indeterminately like acartoon version of Schrdingers cat: male one minute; not the next.

He may have been a boy in 1981, but hes not now, one editor argued.

The debate has spilled into the broader Internet, where a Heat Street writer complained ofcultural marxists bent on turning one of pop cultures most iconic men into a gender fluid abomination.

[Students were told to select gender pronouns. One chose His Majesty to protest absurdity.]

It all started with a comment Garfields creator, Jim Davis, made two years ago in an interview with Mental Floss titledinnocuously: 20 Things You Might Not Know About Garfield.

Between the sitesplugs for Garfield DVDs, Davis revealed a few harmless curiosities about the cat: Garfield is named Gustav in Sweden. Garfield and his owner Jon Arbuckle live in Muncie, Ind.

Garfield is very universal, Davis told Mental Floss mid-interview. By virtue of being a cat, really, hes not really male or female or any particular race or nationality, young or old.

The remark caused no fuss. At first.

Until last week, when the satirist Virgil Texas dug the quote upand used it to make abold claim and bold move:

A brief note about Virgil Texas: Hes been known totroll before. The writeronce co-created a fictional pundit named Carl The Dig Diggler to parodythe media and annoy Nate Silver.

But Texas told The Washington Post he was only concerned about Garfield canon, in this case.

Texassaid he came across Daviss old quote while watching a five-hour, live-action, dark interpretation of Garfield (yes, really). Soheinvented aWikipedia editor (anyone can do it) named David The Milk Milkberg last week, and changed Garfields gender from male to none.

Almost instantly, the universe of Garfield fans clawed in.

AWikipediaeditor reverted Garfields gender back to male less than an hour after Texass change.

One minute later, someone in the Philippines made Garfield genderless again.

[Transgender boys mom sues hospital, saying he went into spiral after staff called him a girl]

And so on.Behind the scenes, Wikipedia users debatedhow toresolve the ragingedit war.

Every character (including Garfield himself!) constantly refers to Garfield unambiguously as male, and always using male pronouns, oneeditor wrote listing nearly three dozencomic strips across nearly four decades toprove the point:

The one where Jon tells Garfield good boy! before Garfield shoves a newspaper into his owners mouth.

The one where the catsmagical talking bathroom scale (probably a proxy for Garfield himself) refers to Garfield as a young man and a boy.

But another editor argued that only one of thoseexamples looks at self-identification a 1981 strip in which Garfieldthinks, Im a bad boy after eating a fern.

And Milkberg/Texas stuck to his claims: If one could locate another source where Jim Davis states that Garfields gender is male or female, then this would give rise to a serious controversy in Garfield canon, he wrote on the Wikipedia debatepage. Yet no such source has been identified, and I highly doubt one will ever emerge.

Threads of competing evidence spiraled through Twitter, where one commenter compared the Garfield dispute to Krazy Kat: asexually ambiguous cartoon predecessor,profiled last month by theNew Yorker.

Some huntedbeyond the comic sectionin search ofanswers,intothe ambiguous world ofGarfield-themed merchandise and quasi-canonical arguments.

And some took the whole thing as ajoke.

But others chided orphilosophized: Why must we care what Garfield is or isnt? Jimmy King asked. Who cares what someone else perceives as him being male or female?

Many pondered the meaning of Daviss words in 2014, which were confusing because thecreatorreferred toGarfield as he whilesuggestingthe cat was neither he nor she.

AWikipedia user proposed a compromise to provide both genders, each appropriately referenced: Male[1] and/or none[2]. That didnt get much traction.

Garfields gender swapped20 times over 2 days (during which his religion was briefly listed as Shiite Muslim for some reason) before an administrator was forced to step in.

Garfield was finally,officiallylisted asmale on Wikipedia citing four comic strips including one from 1979 in which a veterinariansays hes too fat.

Andthe page waslocked against more edits until March.

Yet a Heat Street writer draggedthe argument to the very end of February citing the spinoff character Garzookas hard pecs and prominent bulge as evidence ofa rugged, heterosexual American MAN.

That didntresolve anything, of course.

Maybe this will:

Garfield is male, Davis told The Washington Post on Tuesday.He has a girlfriend, Arlene.

Presented withnew evidence, the satiristdeferred to the creator. Hes in charge of the canon, Texas said. Im just curious how it squares with his prior statement

If I had the opportunity I would interrogate him.

ButWikipedia hasalready progressedbeyond gender disputes. Now other aspects of the fat, lazy cat are beingcalled into question.

Forget about his gender and alleged Muslim faith, a user wrote Monday. Need we really list Arlene under the spouse category?

More reading:

This is what happens when two Internet nerds battle over politics

With his first-ever Garfield musical, creator Jim Davis revels in a dream fulfilled

From our 1982 archives: The Cat That Rots the Intellect

The rest is here:
Garfield's a boy right? How a cartoon cat's gender identity launched a Wikipedia war. - Washington Post