5 ms·

I'm not familiar with the Wikipedia cite policy, but wouldn't this problem be relatively easy to solve by requiring citations from before the fact was added? G

by dtech 12y ago

I'm not familiar with the Wikipedia cite policy, but wouldn't this problem be relatively easy to solve by requiring citations from before the fact was added? Granted, there might be some edge cases (like when a Wikipedian was very fast in adding the fact after it became known) but that would seem to stop the feedback loop dead in its tracks.

arjie 12y ago
Wouldn't work. You'd need to find the first occurrence of the fact on Wikipedia. One example exploit (though there are others): 1. On Day Zero, write a falsehood into a Wikipedia article. 2. Wait for the falsehood to become popular through the process described in this HN story. 3. Delete the falsehood while performing other edits. 4. Wait a few days, making other edits. 5. Add the falsehood. Citations will all precede the day that the fact is added. To detect this, you'd have to scan all past history for the falsehood for the _first occurrence that precedes all citations_, not an easy task. If you decide to add a falsehood into a related article, then that complicates matters further. For instance, I once removed a 'fact' that Indira Gandhi (once Prime Minister of India) was named Gandhi for PR reasons. This was in an article on her husband Feroze Gandhi.
- jonnathanson 12y ago
  And it doesn't even need to be that elaborate. Wikipedia can be exploited recursively, i.e., by making up the same "fact" on two related pages, then linking to each other. If timed correctly, this can work for quite awhile before anyone unravels it. Another tactic is to cite existing external sources as proof of a new "fact." If an article about, say, bananas has a few citations about the nutritional content of a banana, you can use one of those existing sources to cite the "fact" that bananas are descended from potatoes. Editors and bots usually won't question the authority of an existing source. It can be stretched and extended, like an umbrella, to vouch for new statements and information.

by dtech 12y ago

arjie 12y ago

Wouldn't work. You'd need to find the first occurrence of the fact on Wikipedia. One example exploit (though there are others): 1. On Day Zero, write a falsehood into a Wikipedia article. 2. Wait for the falsehood to become popular through the process described in this HN story. 3. Delete the falsehood while performing other edits. 4. Wait a few days, making other edits. 5. Add the falsehood. Citations will all precede the day that the fact is added. To detect this, you'd have to scan all past history for the falsehood for the _first occurrence that precedes all citations_, not an easy task. If you decide to add a falsehood into a related article, then that complicates matters further. For instance, I once removed a 'fact' that Indira Gandhi (once Prime Minister of India) was named Gandhi for PR reasons. This was in an article on her husband Feroze Gandhi.

jonnathanson 12y ago
And it doesn't even need to be that elaborate. Wikipedia can be exploited recursively, i.e., by making up the same "fact" on two related pages, then linking to each other. If timed correctly, this can work for quite awhile before anyone unravels it. Another tactic is to cite existing external sources as proof of a new "fact." If an article about, say, bananas has a few citations about the nutritional content of a banana, you can use one of those existing sources to cite the "fact" that bananas are descended from potatoes. Editors and bots usually won't question the authority of an existing source. It can be stretched and extended, like an umbrella, to vouch for new statements and information.