Publisher employees go wild on Wikipedia

This morning, Shacknews reported on Wikipedia edits made from an IP address traced to Electronic Arts' Redwood Shores headquarters with the help of a recently publicized search tool. However, it isn't an isolated incident among publishers. Given that it would only take one employee of a company a...

This morning, Shacknews reported on Wikipedia edits made from an IP address traced to Electronic Arts' Redwood Shores headquarters with the help of a recently publicized search tool. However, it isn't an isolated incident among publishers. Given that it would only take one employee of a company a lapse of judgment lasting a few minutes to make an ill-advised alteration to an entry, it wasn't hard to guess other companies would have similar skeletons in the wiki-closet.

GameSpot found that the majority of Wikipedia edits made to game-related topics by publisher-owned IP addresses were helpful--correcting spelling errors, updating company information, and refreshing lists of published games. Not all edits were innocent, though. Many straddled a gray area between correcting misrepresentations and manipulating entries in order to whitewash anything that casts the company in a bad light.

For example, IP numbers owned by Sony Online Entertainment were credited with editing the company's own entry, as well as the page for its EverQuest massively multiplayer online role-playing game, in order to remove mentions of controversies and criticisms. In the former case, the deleted passages made exhaustive reference to fan uproar over Star Wars Galaxies' new game enhancements reboot and player gripes with The Matrix Online in the company's "Recent History" section.

In the latter case, the cut was a single paragraph referencing a St. Petersburg Times article about a man sentenced to 15 years in prison for fracturing his 9-month-old son's ribs and leaving the child in a utility closet to die of a punctured heart while he played EverQuest. That paragraph was included under the apparently appropriate header of "Controversies and Social Issues."

As pointed out by GameSpot reader Jason Brozek, an IP owned by Nintendo eliminated a paragraph stating that "earlier and later" versions of the GameCube were prone to disc read errors. However, that paragraph did not include any citation or reference to back up the claim. Another edit from Nintendo, this one to the DS Lite page, eliminated from the list of features mention of a sturdier hinge, which was supposedly fragile in earlier models.

An IP address owned by the Entertainment Software Association had tweaked the entry for mod chips, as well as Abandonware site Home of the Underdogs. The mod chip edit truncated a section describing the legality of mod chips in the US as "ambiguous," instead flatly stating that they are illegal because of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. The omitted text also mentioned the creation of mod chips that would allow users to play legally purchased imported games, but still prevent the use of pirated, burned game discs. In the Home of the Underdogs entry's case, a reference to the site's "illustrious career" was simply changed to read "illegal career."

It was evident from a cursory glance through various publishers' edits that their employees are updating Wikipedia entries for their own personal reasons. Whether they be edits to information about starlet Tara Reid's family members, or tweaks to the "Other Uses" section of the Urine entry, many changes made were to seemingly random subjects about inconsequential issues.

And of course, it wouldn't be Wikipedia without a few vandals. One edit traced back to an industry trade group added reference to a pornographic Web site and hideous Internet meme to the entry for GameSpot sister site GameFAQs. A game publisher with an apparently disgruntled Minnesota Vikings fan on staff was linked to an edit of head coach Brad Childress' entry that said "this meat-whistle couldn't coach his way out of a wet paper bag."

110 Comments

  • stfolife

    Posted Aug 21, 2007 3:56 am PT

    lol wow some companies are really desperate apparently microsoft shows their ummm peaches by not covering up the red lights thing

  • lamprey263

    Posted Aug 20, 2007 9:54 pm PT

    didn't they already report on this?

  • mikemetroid5565

    Posted Aug 20, 2007 1:30 pm PT

    Well if this is true.. or w/e. Sony might not be able to keep it like that for long.

  • FrankieLA

    Posted Aug 20, 2007 10:54 am PT

    I love Wikipedia but anybody that uses this site as their sole source of information for anything is just plain stupid.

    I would even say the same thing about basing your facts around one book, one documentary, one news headline. Expand and research your questions before presenting them to the public.

  • Bgrngod

    Posted Aug 20, 2007 10:45 am PT

    This just in... Wikipedia allows user edits!!

    Any idiot that reads Wiki's should be well aware of their ability to be 100% accurate in some cases, and totally off the mark in others.

    Grain of salt.

  • vashkey

    Posted Aug 20, 2007 10:25 am PT

    Wow... I'm afraid of Everquest fans now...

  • Riverwolf007

    Posted Aug 20, 2007 8:56 am PT

    What's the big deal? Does nobody realize that most of what we call history was rewritten at some point in time?

  • ghsacidman

    Posted Aug 20, 2007 7:58 am PT

    Large companies have no right entering a site ment for individual's and modifying it for company gain. I can't get a straight answer from Wikipedia anymore because of these companies... Intentionally filling it with bad/false information. When is too much, TOO MUCH? Are we going to allow Wal-Mart to edit our local news papers? Are we going to let Fox news re-write history books? Or, let Verizon screen the Wii news channel. It's just like in-gam ads, they'll take it as far as we'll let them. Thats why, as consumer's, we should DEMAND that these shady pratices are stopped or we will boycott. Who's with me? Lol.

  • rootATdarkstar

    Posted Aug 19, 2007 4:12 pm PT

    The purpose of this story seems to be to draw away the focus from EA's wiki-tampering and send out the idea that "everyone is doing it." While some of the above tamperings are unfortunate, none of these have the severe moral implications that comes with the tampering done by EA. Downplaying an isolated social incident (Everquest) or removing reference to fragile hinges (which is still just talk, Nintendo has admitted nothing about new/old DS hinges) is child's play compared to removing references that your company ripped off IT'S OWN EMPLOYEES for literally millions of dollars. If I were a conspiracy theorist, I may go so far as to say that EA probed other companies' wiki-dabblings themselves only to take the spotlight off of themselves and their obviously shady video game business dealings. Shame on you, EA. I will never buy another EA game until you all straighten out your act.

    Since I don't buy many EA games anyway, I would hope that at least some of you would join me and try to avoid EA as a publisher as much as possible. You should know that EA did pay those employees for their overtime pay, but as soon as it was over (for the 2nd time) they made it company policy to sign a contract making all those positions salary-paid positions rather than hourly, meaning that OT is not honored as time-and-a-half at all, but is ignored. You are paid salary regardless of hours worked. **** you EA. **** you.

  • lsny

    Posted Aug 19, 2007 1:50 pm PT

    Consider everything you read, but don't believe it.

  • anamnawshad

    Posted Aug 19, 2007 11:33 am PT

    Wiki must do something to make this editing **** stop!

  • smoothn00dle

    Posted Aug 19, 2007 6:10 am PT

    I am surprise nobody mention M$. M$ hired an Australian to edit their wiki and got busted.. hahahaa

  • CyberSkull

    Posted Aug 18, 2007 11:58 pm PT

    I don't have a problem with minor factual corrections and copyedits, but when a group clearly goes after what makes them look bad, this only makes them look worse. Regarding any controversial info, they should simply post on the talk page.

  • Ryu

    Posted Aug 18, 2007 11:51 pm PT

    A publisher spitball fight over (truthful) blemishes to their company's Wikipedia pages? Sad...

  • Dolacide

    Posted Aug 18, 2007 6:01 pm PT

    Doesn't surprise me, that's what happens with open ended websites.

  • PicoFry

    Posted Aug 18, 2007 4:14 pm PT

    Unfortunately, wiki is a double-edged sword. What I don't understand is if anyone can see what was edited and from where...why doesn't anyone from Gamespot (or anywhere else) re-edit the entries for journalistic integrity?

  • Bloodhawk_DX

    Posted Aug 18, 2007 9:59 am PT

    I like how everyone is attacking Wikipedia instead of the actual perps.

  • Humorguy_basic

    Posted Aug 18, 2007 9:19 am PT

    This is part of a bigger picture that gamers do not think about. Ever wonder how we got the point where you do hardly see PC game charts, you have no idea where to find true sales figures you can trust to see what REALLY sells on PC and you hardly get any really hard interviews of gaming industry leaders or companies. What you do get is nice friendly interviews to help publicise a new game or something. Because this is now a business for hardcore gamers and fanboys, it can be very private about everything knowing it's customers are not going to complain or even ask the questions....!!

  • JimBurber

    Posted Aug 18, 2007 9:08 am PT

    does anybody ever trust wikipedia???

  • SuperbGamer

    Posted Aug 18, 2007 8:41 am PT

    I would have to say that Wikipedia could be both a blessing and a curse .

  • zero-G1080

    Posted Aug 18, 2007 4:36 am PT

    "this meat-whistle couldn't coach his way out of a wet paper bag." classic

  • ocdog45

    Posted Aug 17, 2007 10:42 pm PT

    people never surprise me

  • Neoyamaneko

    Posted Aug 17, 2007 9:24 pm PT

    And all of their entries can be reverted due to biased POV and lack of neutrality

  • sniper_99

    Posted Aug 17, 2007 7:08 pm PT

    lol, a couple o months ago someone edited the article on Matrix Online. One of the titles was "Morpheus' Return?" but someone screwed it up and instead of "Morpheus' Return?" it was "Peanus' Return?" next day however it was back to normal, thankfully

  • PeachyRamune

    Posted Aug 17, 2007 6:57 pm PT

    There needs to be a massive fine for this.

  • darthzew

    Posted Aug 17, 2007 5:46 pm PT

    Oh my- This is ridiculous! Why can't we just work for the common good here and publish FACT and only FACT. That's what I'd really like to say: a crap-free world!

  • BlueFlameBat

    Posted Aug 17, 2007 4:13 pm PT

    I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but I'm disappointed in Nintendo's continued dishonesty. I hate being lied to, especially by a company I was a fan of for so many years. Editing out certain unflattering info from a well-do-do information website like Wikipedia is only going to piss people off.
    Furthermore, I also think Wikipedia should undo any edits made by corporations. I'm glad we also have other websites that report this kind of abuse. Hopefully GameSpot won't start editing as well.

  • BlankHound

    Posted Aug 17, 2007 3:28 pm PT

    I don't think this is all that big of a deal. First of all its natural for companies to make themselves look better. Wikipedia is open to anyone, so even if the companies didn't do it, an EA fanboy could have done the same thing. Plus in the case of Everquest and such. People don't need to know what crime some crazy person committed It's irrelevent to the game itself. Good for sony to edit it out. If people want to know about disgusting crimes they can watch the news. Overall, this only makes a difference if you believe everything you read off the internet, I for one, do not.

  • prioritymail

    Posted Aug 17, 2007 11:14 am PT

    it was only a matter of time for wikipedia to be corrupted..

  • Atarii

    Posted Aug 17, 2007 10:29 am PT

    Changing sections to reflect accurate information is obviously good. Changing sections to misinform readers is clearly wrong - but with a site such as this, what can you expect? Also, the guy about EQ and leaving his nine month old son to die is awful, I hope he nevers sees the outside of a prison again.

  • comthitnuong

    Posted Aug 17, 2007 9:31 am PT

    I am surprised to see this many companies changing up things in Wikipedia articles. When I first read about the EA one, I wasn't too surprised because EA...is EA. I expected that sort of thing from them. I did not expect companies such as Nintendo and ESA doing the same thing. This leads me to believe that Nintendo and other companies might not be as nice as I might think. It makes me sad to read such things.

  • greystone227

    Posted Aug 17, 2007 9:22 am PT

    I have to say, I absolutely love Wikipedia. You can find information there that you simply can't find anywhere else. If I see some reference on the internet that I don't get or something of that sort, a quick search on Wikipedia gives me all of the answers. In fact, I once did almost an entire report on the history of video games (we got to choose our own topics) from its respective Wikipedia page (and got a 100%). Also, all of this weird editing doesn't bother me much. I haven't looked up any of these topics the news reports are talking about (and I have read many news articles about this), because these aren't the type of things I use Wikipedia to learn about.

  • steven141

    Posted Aug 17, 2007 9:13 am PT

    tsktsktsk, they will always be found out

  • Dan777UK

    Posted Aug 17, 2007 9:10 am PT

    If universities ever need backup for not letting you cite wikipedia in your papers... here it is.

  • Oni

    Posted Aug 17, 2007 9:09 am PT

    You could look at this as a serious problem. Pretty much every powerful corporate conglomerate has "fixed' it's wiki pedia entry. Disney is the worst when it comes to "enhancing" their image.

    This really makes Wikipedia unreliable on certain issues. It's still a great resource for other things. Just make sure to back your findings with another more reliable source.

  • The_Weekend

    Posted Aug 17, 2007 8:55 am PT

    Let's try to edit EA's wiki-section together and see how fast can they catch up with the editing!

  • ostegolation

    Posted Aug 17, 2007 8:42 am PT

    if anyone remembers, theres no vandalism done to the game website Gamefaqs.com. Those who entered that Gamefaqs.com was connected with a pornographic website were totally true. I remember when I was younger and looked around the internet for cheat codes and everything and stumbled across gamefaqs.com, which when I clicked on it turned out to be a pornographic website. However, gamefaqs.com itself was also a website at the time, so it could have been a common misconception when visiting the site.

    Long story short, no vandalism was done to Gamefaqs.com ,when you went to their website in an earlier time, you were ACTUALLY redirected to a pornographic website...

  • happynoodleboy7

    Posted Aug 17, 2007 8:34 am PT

    I'm really not surprised. Anything based on the Wiki format is just begging to be tampered with.

  • demollyon

    Posted Aug 17, 2007 8:07 am PT

    Only MS didn't edit any entries. That's why they're a respeectful company.

  • JahanX

    Posted Aug 17, 2007 8:03 am PT

    From the CIA to games companies...can no one stand any critcism?

  • DryvBy2

    Posted Aug 17, 2007 7:50 am PT

    A prime example why Wikipedia shouldn't be trusted. It's stuff made up by the general public.

  • Fuzion222

    Posted Aug 17, 2007 7:44 am PT

    "As pointed out by GameSpot reader Jason Brozek, an IP owned by Nintendo eliminated a paragraph stating that "earlier and later" versions of the GameCube were prone to disc read errors. However, that paragraph did not include any citation or reference to back up the claim."

    This is VERY VERY TRUE, I've experienced a few of disc read errors while playing a few games. It happened only a few times so it wasn't really a problem for me, but it did happen. And everyone says that Nintendo hardware never fails...

  • salamancecool

    Posted Aug 17, 2007 7:31 am PT

    Wikipedia is not very reliable. Its not shocking to see company's making themselves look better.

  • spow

    Posted Aug 17, 2007 7:30 am PT

    wikipedia can only be reliable to give some kind of introduction to the topic its not the Fountain of Infinite Wisdom but it is usefull to a certain extent

  • jbot666

    Posted Aug 17, 2007 7:10 am PT

    You mean there is a chance that Wikipedia isn't 100% accurate!!!

  • Draconos137

    Posted Aug 17, 2007 6:28 am PT

    I think it's very interesting to see who makes some of these entries and how future entries will be affected now that the anonymity of wikipedia has been partly demolished.

  • grarap

    Posted Aug 17, 2007 6:21 am PT

    I find it heartening that these dodgy edits are constantly being weeded out and removed . Hopefully the big three will think twice about doing something like this again.

  • paranoiasurviva

    Posted Aug 17, 2007 6:08 am PT

    lol, Wikipedia edits are always fun.

  • playa42018

    Posted Aug 17, 2007 6:04 am PT

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRlXZ5W8lTs

  • Thorpe89 Site moderator

    Posted Aug 17, 2007 5:56 am PT

    This is happening more and more often. The other day I read about the BBC editing some articles and now EA. I don't mind innocent spelling correcting edits but when they remove the truth (even if it makes them look bad) that's when things start getting dirty. Doing this probably just shows them up even more.

advertisement

Hot Stories

Newsmakers

Featured Stories

Submit News

Got tips? Send them in!