Could Wikipedia Unmask Anonymous Editors?

Hello Wikify readers and welcome to another thrilling installment of your favorite newsletter. Today we're attempting to explain whether or not anonymous Wikipedia editors could ever be "unmasked" by the Wikimedia Foundation. We promise this isn't a Betteridge's law situation where the answer is clearly "no" despite the perceived uncertainty of the headline. Then in the second section, we offer three likely explanations for why your organization's Wikipedia entry hasn't been updated recently.?

But let's start in Durham.?

We were amused by recent reporting in INDY Week detailing efforts from the Durham city attorney, acting on the behest of elected officials, to compel the Wikimedia Foundation (the parent organization of Wikimedia) to unmask the identities of users who have "published accurate but unfavorable information about said officials to the crowdsourced encyclopedia."?

If you love local political scandals, then this is the article for you! One of the officials, city council member Monique Holsey-Hyman, is under investigation following an allegation that had she attempted to extort a land developer. Another, city council member DeDreana Freeman, got into a physical confrontation with the city's mayor pro tempore while defending Holsey-Hyman's actions. Naturally, these incidents ended up in both politicians' Wikipedia articles.?

These additions didn't sit well with Holsey-Hyman and Freeman, who had Durham city attorney Kimberly Rehberg send a certified letter to the Wikimedia Foundation requesting the identities of the Wikipedia editors who had added and sought to preserve the critical content. (Mayor Elaine O'Neal also requested that a scanned image of her signature be removed from her article, which was a more reasonable request.)

INDY Week was able to contact one of the editors, who stated the obvious:

“Nothing that’s in their Wikipedia articles is unsourced. It’s all based off of news stories, which is where you get your cited information. I do find it interesting that they’re not going after news sources for reporting those stories. Wikipedia is just an encyclopedia that gathers public information.”

The Wikimedia Foundation has, to date, not complied with the letter and is unlikely to do so. A spokesperson told the paper that the foundation is “strongly committed to protecting the privacy of editors and users on Wikimedia projects.”

All of the above is amusing, but could there ever be a situation where the Wikimedia Foundation actually does comply with a request and reveals the real identities of editors? It's not likely, but it's not impossible either. The foundation always stresses that it keeps very little information about users, but it does have (a) email addresses for users who provide them during their account setup, and (b) IP addresses linked to users' devices. That information alone could be potentially compromising if the foundation was forced to share it under court order.?

In 2013, lawyer Susan L. Burke issued a subpoena to the Wikimedia Foundation to unmask two Wikipedia editors who had allegedly inserted misleading information onto her Wikipedia page. The story seems to hit the same notes as the Durham one, but the context here was intriguing: Burke had previously been involved with litigation against private military company Blackwater Inc, and she believed these editors were working on Blackwater's behalf to defame her. What's more, the information added to Wikipedia really was inaccurate.

One of the editors hired a lawyer and participated in the case—suggesting that they believed the Wikimedia Foundation (a) did, in fact, possess enough information to reveal their actual identity, and (b) could be compelled to disclose said information. (The District of Columbia Court of Appeals eventually ruled against Burke, but again the fact that this editor needed a lawyer is interesting.)?

Why aren't editors updating your organization's Wikipedia page??

This is another question we hear a lot and one that's actually easy to answer. Here are the three reasons we always provide:?

• Lack of media coverage: Wikipedia relies heavily on media coverage and editors will not make updates to an article based solely on press releases or company website posts.
• Lack of interest: If your company is not in the press a lot, doesn’t have a product or service that has captured broad interest, or doesn’t have a devoted fan base, it is less likely that there is organic interest in keeping the page updated.
• Lack of editors: Wikipedia’s high search ranking and soaring traffic numbers might lead you to believe that it’s a huge, well-staffed organization. The truth is, though, that the ongoing maintenance of the entire encyclopedia is dependent upon a very small community of volunteers. There’s only one highly active Wikipedia editor for every 1,200 pages on the English language site. In practice, this means that even if your organization does have robust media coverage AND a devoted fan base, editors still might not find time to update your page.?

If you’re in this spot, you can help bring editors’ attention to the issue. The best way to do this is to transparently make requests and share high-quality sources to support the information to be added or updated. Not sure how to start: reach out at [email protected].

Ready to learn more about Wikipedia? Check out our book!

Thanks for reading Wikify! Don't forget to tell a friend.