Roll Back Prices! Rolling Back Wal-Mart on Wikipedia
Matt pointed me towards a current wiki-rendering battle by Wal-Mart to control how they are represented on Wikipedia:
For up to two years Wal-mart lobbyists have successfully waged a war against a fair viewpoint on Wikipedia’s Wal-mart page[1]. Although the Wal-mart page was originally highly critical of Wal-mart, it has slowly shifted to a very positive perspective. Although Wikipedia maintains a ‘Neutral Point of View’ (NPOV) policy[2], the Wal-mart page is highly biased. Additionally, all criticism has, contrary to policy, practice, and the general opinion of those concerned, been moved to a Debates Over Wal-mart section[3]. Even that page has noticeable resistance to negative points of view about Wal-mart. Whitedust: Wal-marts Wikipedia War
We’re struggling with how to frame what’s happening in wiki-space here: Is this a battle? (Rhetoric as war.) And a battle for what? Or is it forum for public discussion? Is it a matter of balance? Shouldn’t Wal-Mart be able represent their interests as they see fit? Shouldn’t other interests be granted ditto? And which other interests? And which interests are still being left out? And (and here’s the kicker), if those interests were brought in, if the representation were fair to all, would it make much difference? Would it persuade?
Matt brings the irony forward so we can look at it rhetorically and even teach with it:
… it’s useful to look at citation in a negative way as well–what mechanisms are in place to prevent certain people from participating. I always like to bring this up in the context of Wikipedia. It’s very fruitful to examine how gradually this new technology (wiki), which for awhile enabled a more public approach to knowledge, is slowly but surely losing its edge. After all, the same technologies that make it easy for an anti-Wal-Mart radical from Brooklyn to write a scathing rebuke of Wal-Mart makes it even easier for Wal-Mart to simply outsource an army from Bangalore to maintain a more positive (or even propagandistic) representation.
It’ll be interesting to see how the Wikipedia governance will react as more and more corporate pages are taken over in this fashion. Will Wikipedia become little more than a cheap public image tool? Perhaps just one giant sales catalog?
When it’s on Wikipedia, it’s clearly a rhetorical matter (battle, skirmish, maneuver, whatever), and that warms my rhetorical heart.
Here’s another wiki space being readied. Bemidjipedia is a wiki on which local citizens can write their own stories. The land has been cleared and graded, the slash piles burned, and the plat is filed. I’m hoping we see an alternative to a Wal-Mart battle for the space. But, just as Wal-Mart moved to town a few years ago, so they may write themselves into the Bemidjipedia.
From outside the fray, lstening to
- Money Changes Everything – Cyndi Lauper
- All The Money Or The Simple Life Honey – The Dandy Warhols
- Where’s the Money? (Live – 1971 Troubadour) – Dan Hicks & His Hot Licks
- Lawyers, Guns and Money – Warren Zevon
- Money (That`s What I Want) – The Flying Lizards
- Money for Nothing – Dire Straits
- Life Is A Lemon (And I Want My Money Back) – Meat Loaf
- Ch Ching – Lady Sovereign
Related posts
- when “turn in your drafts” means linking to wikipedia
- history of wikipedia and features
- when wiki works
- garden envy
- watching business sell wikis
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Love your choice of ‘music’ for this post! Very, very telling!
I could hardly believe that such company as Wall Mart can attach so much attention to the content of the articles published in Wikipedia. I guess that such articles as mentioned above should be excluded from all encyclopedias as they area based on partial rather than objective opinions of the persons who are writing them.