Editing History of Wikipedia (section)

===Controversies===
{{anchor|Controversies and criticism}}
{{Main|Criticism of Wikipedia|Litigation involving the Wikimedia Foundation|Reliability of Wikipedia}}
* In November 2005, the [[Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident|Seigenthaler controversy]] caused Brian Chase to resign from his employment, after his identity was ascertained by Daniel Brandt of [[Wikipedia Watch]]. Following this, the scientific journal ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'' undertook a [[peer review]]ed study to test articles in Wikipedia against their equivalents in ''[[Encyclopædia Britannica]]'', and concluded they are comparable in terms of accuracy.<ref>{{Cite journal |year=2005 |title=Internet encyclopaedias go head to head |journal=Nature |volume=438 |issue=7070 |pages=900–901 |bibcode=2005Natur.438..900G |doi=10.1038/438900a |pmid=16355180 |s2cid=4417563 |last1=Giles |first1=Jim |doi-access=free  |issn = 0028-0836}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |title=The (Nature) peer review |url=http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/multimedia/438900a_m1.html |url-status=live |journal=Nature |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100410155113/http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/multimedia/438900a_m1.html |archive-date=10 April 2010 |access-date=13 April 2010}}</ref> ''Britannica'' rejected their methodology and their conclusion.<ref>Britannica: [http://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf Fatally Flawed. Refuting the recent study on encyclopedic accuracy by the journal Nature] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160709053629/http://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf |date=9 July 2016 }}</ref> ''Nature'' refused to release any form of apology, and instead asserted the reliability of its study and a rejection of the criticisms.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Nature's responses to Encyclopaedia Britannica |url=https://www.nature.com/nature/britannica/index.html |access-date=16 March 2023 |website=Nature |archive-date=15 May 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170515025717/https://www.nature.com/nature/britannica/index.html |url-status=live }}</ref>
* During early-to-mid-2006, the [[congressional staffer edits to Wikipedia|congressional aides biography scandals]] were publicized, whereby several political aides were caught trying to influence the Wikipedia biographies of several politicians. The aides removed undesirable information (including pejorative quotes, or broken campaign promises), added favorable information or "glowing" tributes, or replaced the article in part or whole by staff-authored biographies. The staff of at least five politicians were implicated: [[Marty Meehan]], [[Norm Coleman]], [[Conrad Burns]], [[Joe Biden]] and [[Gil Gutknecht]].<ref>{{Cite web |last=Nate Anderson |date=31 January 2006 |title=Congressional staffers edit boss's bio on Wikipedia |url=https://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060130-6079.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081012062850/http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060130-6079.html |archive-date=12 October 2008 |access-date=9 June 2014 |website=arstechnica}}</ref> The activities documented were:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Politician
! Editing undertaken
! Sources
|-
| [[Marty Meehan]]
| Replacement with a staff-written biography
| [https://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060130-6079.html Congressional staffers edit boss's bio on Wikipedia]
|-
| [[Norm Coleman]]
| Rewrite to make more favorable, claimed to be "correcting errors"
| {{Cite journal |title=Web site's entry on Coleman revised Aide confirms his staff edited biography, questions Wikipedia's accuracy |url=http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/news/local/13750990.htm |url-status=dead |journal=St. Paul Pioneer Press(Associated Press) |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070929103102/http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/news/local/13750990.htm |archive-date=29 September 2007}}
|-
| [[Conrad Burns]]<br />Montana
| Removal of pejorative statements made by the Senator, replaced with "glowing tributes" as "the voice of the farmer"
| {{Cite web |last=Williams, Walt |date=1 January 2007 |title=Burns' office may have tampered with Wikipedia entry |url=http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/articles/2006/02/09/news/wikipedia.txt |access-date=13 February 2007 |website=[[Bozeman Daily Chronicle]]}}
|-
| [[Joe Biden]]
| Removal of unfavorable information
| [https://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060130-6079.html Congressional staffers edit boss's bio on Wikipedia]
|-
| [[Gil Gutknecht]]
| Staff rewrite and removal of information evidencing broken campaign promise.
| Multiple attempts, first using a named account, then an anonymous IP account.<ref>A spokesman for Gutknecht did not dispute that his office tried to change his Wikipedia entry but questioned the reliability of the encyclopedia. {{Cite web |date=16 August 2006 |title=Gutknecht joins Wikipedia tweakers |url=http://www.startribune.com/587/story/618899.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060821074302/http://www.startribune.com/587/story/618899.html |archive-date=21 August 2006 |access-date=17 August 2006 |website=Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune}}</ref>
|}

In a separate but similar incident, the campaign manager for [[Cathy Cox (American politician)|Cathy Cox]], Morton Brilliant, resigned after being found to have added negative information to the Wikipedia entries of political opponents.<ref>Information included the mention of an opponent's son's arrest in a fatal drunk driving crash and allegations of questionable business practices of another opponent. {{Cite web |date=28 April 2006 |title=Online postings changed; ex-Gregoire aide resigns |url=http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002958137_campaign28m.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110524041212/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002958137_campaign28m.html |archive-date=24 May 2011 |access-date=27 July 2013 |website=The Seattle Times}}</ref> Following media publicity, the incidents tapered off around August 2006.
* In July 2006, Joshua Gardner was exposed as a fake Duke of Cleveland with a Wikipedia page.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Student Reporters Expose 'Royal' Sex Offender |url=https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/LegalCenter/story?id=1501916 |access-date=16 March 2023 |website=ABC News |language=en |archive-date=25 March 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230325084727/https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/LegalCenter/story?id=1501916 |url-status=live }}</ref>
* In January 2007, English-language Wikipedians in [[Qatar]] were briefly blocked from editing, following a spate of vandalism, by an administrator who did not realize that the country's internet traffic is routed through a single [[IP address]]. Multiple media sources promptly declared that Wikipedia was banning Qatar from the site.<ref>[http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=196800476 "Wikipedia Founder Refutes Claims That It Banned Qatar"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071022202210/http://informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=196800476 |date=22 October 2007 }}. Thomas Claburn. ''[[InformationWeek]]''. 2 January 2007.</ref>
* On 23 January 2007, a [[Microsoft]] employee offered to pay [[Rick Jelliffe]] to review and change certain Wikipedia articles regarding an open-source document standard which was rival to a Microsoft format.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Bergstein, Brian |date=23 January 2007 |title=Microsoft offers cash for Wikipedia edit |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna16775981 |access-date=1 February 2007 |publisher=[[NBC News]] |archive-date=5 December 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131205062212/http://www.nbcnews.com/id/16775981 |url-status=live }}</ref>
* In February 2007, ''[[The New Yorker]]'' magazine issued a rare editorial correction that a prominent [[English Wikipedia]] editor and administrator known as "Essjay", had invented a persona using fictitious credentials.<ref name="New Yorker">{{Cite magazine |last=Schiff |first=Stacy |author-link=Stacy Schiff |date=24 July 2006 |title=Annals of Information: Know It All: Can Wikipedia conquer expertise? |url=https://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060731fa_fact |magazine=[[The New Yorker]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060813110914/http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060731fa_fact |archive-date=13 August 2006 |access-date=16 April 2007}}</ref><ref name="Guardian">{{Cite news |last=Finkelstein |first=Seth |date=8 March 2007 |title=Read me first |work=The Guardian |location=London |url=http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,2028328,00.html |url-status=live |access-date=16 April 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070329052204/http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,2028328,00.html |archive-date=29 March 2007}}</ref> The editor, [[Essjay controversy|Ryan Jordan]], became a [[Wikia]] employee in January 2007 and divulged his real name; this was noticed by Daniel Brandt of Wikipedia Watch, and communicated to the original article author ([[Essjay controversy]]).
* Also in February 2007,<!--<ref>Docket number L-001169-07 in Monmouth Court, New Jersey. Records may be searched here [http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/acms/disc/CV0227W0E.ASP].</ref>--> Barbara Bauer, a literary agent, sued Wikimedia for defamation and causing harm to her business, the Barbara Bauer Literary Agency.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Bauer v. Wikimedia et al. &#124; Electronic Frontier Foundation |url=https://www.eff.org/cases/bauer-v-glatzer |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100412233037/https://www.eff.org/cases/bauer-v-glatzer |archive-date=12 April 2010 |access-date=13 April 2010 |publisher=Eff.org}}</ref> In ''Bauer v. Glatzer'', Bauer claimed that information on Wikipedia critical of her abilities as a literary agent caused this harm. The [[Electronic Frontier Foundation]] defended Wikipedia<ref>{{Cite web |date=2 May 2008 |title=EFF and Sheppard Mullin Defend Wikipedia in Defamation Case &#124; Electronic Frontier Foundation |url=https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2008/05/02 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100407223854/http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2008/05/02 |archive-date=7 April 2010 |access-date=13 April 2010 |publisher=Eff.org}}</ref> and moved to dismiss the case on 1 May 2008.<ref>[https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/wikimedia/motiontoquashmemo-wikimedia.pdf Motion to quash case (PDF)] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161020140651/https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/wikimedia/motiontoquashmemo-wikimedia.pdf |date=20 October 2016 }}. EFF.org. 1 May 2008. Retrieved 19 October 2012.</ref> The case against the Wikimedia Foundation was dismissed on 1 July 2008.<ref>{{Cite web |date=31 January 2008 |title=Bauer v. Wikimedia &#124; Citizen Media Law Project |url=http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/bauer-v-wikimedia |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100713053150/http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/bauer-v-wikimedia |archive-date=13 July 2010 |access-date=13 April 2010 |publisher=Citmedialaw.org}}</ref>
* In June 2007, an anonymous user [[Chris Benoit double-murder and suicide#Wikipedia controversy|posted hoax information]] that, by coincidence, foreshadowed the [[Chris Benoit double-murder and suicide|Chris Benoit murder-suicide]], hours before the bodies were found by investigators. The discovery of the edit attracted widespread media attention and was first covered in the sister site [[n:Death of Nancy Benoit rumour posted on Wikipedia hours prior to the body being found|Wikinews]].
* In October 2007, in their obituaries of recently deceased TV theme composer [[Ronnie Hazlehurst]], many British media organisations reported that he had co-written the [[S Club 7]] song "[[Reach (S Club 7 song)|Reach]]". In fact, he had not, and it was discovered that this information had been sourced from a hoax edit to Hazlehurst's Wikipedia article.<ref>{{Cite web |first=Andrew |last=Orlowski |title=Braindead obituarists hoaxed by Wikipedia |url=https://www.theregister.com/2007/10/03/wikipedia_obituary_cut_and_paste/ |access-date=16 March 2023 |website=The Register |language=en |archive-date=16 March 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230316055525/https://www.theregister.com/2007/10/03/wikipedia_obituary_cut_and_paste/ |url-status=live }}</ref>
* On 14 July 2009, the National Portrait Gallery issued a cease-and-desist letter for alleged breach of copyright, against a Wikipedia editor who downloaded more than 3,000 high-resolution images from the NPG website, and placed them on [[Wikimedia Commons]] ([[National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute]]).<ref>{{Cite news |last=Kennedy |first=Maev |date=14 July 2009 |title=Legal row over National Portrait Gallery images placed on Wikipedia |language=en-GB |work=The Guardian |url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/jul/14/national-portrait-gallery-wikipedia-row |access-date=16 March 2023 |issn=0261-3077 |archive-date=13 February 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170213165734/https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/jul/14/national-portrait-gallery-wikipedia-row |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=National Portrait Gallery receives support from BAPLA in its legal fight against Wikipedia |url=http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=865802 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100116135932/http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=865802 |archive-date=16 January 2010 |access-date=13 April 2010 |publisher=Bjp-online.com}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |date=15 July 2009 |title=Gallery in Wikipedia legal threat |language=en-GB |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/arts_and_culture/8151989.stm |access-date=16 March 2023 |archive-date=19 July 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090719231100/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/arts_and_culture/8151989.stm |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=14 July 2009 |title=National Portrait Gallery sues Wikipedia |url=http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?National_Portrait_Gallery_sues_Wikipedia&in_article_id=702647&in_page_id=34 |access-date=13 April 2010 |website=Metro |location=UK}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |date=17 July 2009 |title=Wikipedia painting row escalates |language=en-GB |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8156268.stm |access-date=16 March 2023 |archive-date=23 July 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090723012706/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8156268.stm |url-status=live }}</ref>
* In April and May 2010, there was controversy over the hosting and display of sexual drawing and pornographic images including images of children on Wikipedia.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Schofield |first=Jack |date=12 May 2010 |title=Wikipedia's porn purge, and cleaning up for the iPad |work=The Guardian |location=London |url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/may/10/ipad-apple |url-status=live |access-date=24 October 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131104202826/http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/may/10/ipad-apple |archive-date=4 November 2013}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |date=7 May 2010 |title=EXCLUSIVE: Wikipedia's Parent Company Starts Purging Porn From Its Websites |publisher=[[Fox News]] |url=http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/07/wikipedia-purges-porn/ |url-status=dead |access-date=24 October 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101023073605/http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/07/wikipedia-purges-porn/ |archive-date=23 October 2010}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |date=10 May 2010 |title=Wikimedia pornography row deepens as Wales cedes rights |publisher=BBC |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/10104946.stm |url-status=live |access-date=24 October 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100618192131/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/10104946.stm |archive-date=18 June 2010}}</ref> It led to the mass removal of pornographic content from Wikimedia Foundation sites.<ref>{{Cite web |date=8 May 2010 |title=Jimmy Wales – Where things stand now |url=http://www.mail-archive.com/foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org/msg10574.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121010080055/http://www.mail-archive.com/foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org/msg10574.html |archive-date=10 October 2012 |access-date=28 November 2010}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |date=10 May 2010 |title=Wikimedia pornography row deepens as Wales cedes rights |publisher=BBC |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10104946 |url-status=live |access-date=28 November 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101130150909/http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10104946 |archive-date=30 November 2010}}</ref>
* In November 2012, [[Lord Justice Leveson]] wrote in his report on British press standards, "''The Independent'' was founded in 1986 by the journalists Andreas Whittam Smith, Stephen Glover and Brett Straub..." He had used the Wikipedia article for ''[[The Independent]]'' newspaper as his source, but an act of vandalism had replaced Matthew Symonds (a genuine co-founder) with Brett Straub (an unknown character).<ref>{{Cite news |first=Andy |last=McSmith |date=30 November 2012 |title=Leveson's Wikipedia moment: how internet 'research' on The Independent's history left him red-faced |work=The Independent |location=London |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/levesons-wikipedia-moment-how-internet-research-on-the-independents-history-left-him-redfaced-8372446.html |url-status=live |access-date=8 December 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121204151536/http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/levesons-wikipedia-moment-how-internet-research-on-the-independents-history-left-him-redfaced-8372446.html |archive-date=4 December 2012}}</ref> ''The Economist'' said of the [[Leveson report]], "Parts of it are a scissors-and-paste job culled from Wikipedia."<ref>{{Cite news |date=8 December 2012 |title=The Leveson Inquiry: Hacked to pieces. |newspaper=The Economist |url=https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21567944-somewhat-mediocre-report-could-yet-lead-better-press-rules-britain-hacked-pieces |url-status=live |access-date=26 December 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121227113012/http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21567944-somewhat-mediocre-report-could-yet-lead-better-press-rules-britain-hacked-pieces |archive-date=27 December 2012}}</ref>
* In late 2013, commentators publicly shared observations of the reappearance of many of the pornographic images deleted from Wikipedia since 2010.<ref name="XBIZ">{{Cite news |last=Gray |first=Lila |date=17 September 2013 |title=Wikipedia Gives Porn a Break |publisher=XBIZ.com |url=http://newswire.xbiz.com/view.php?id=169017 |url-status=dead |access-date=20 October 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131021064635/http://newswire.xbiz.com/view.php?id=169017 |archive-date=21 October 2013}}</ref>