Comments on: Has Wikipedia Been Hijacked by Ishmael Beah’s PR Machine? The Online Encyclopedia Abandons Neutrality and Regurgitates the Young Author’s View by Editorializing That ‘It Is Important Not to Lose to Lose Sight’ of His Human-Rights Work

By: 1minutebookreviewswordpresscom

1minutebookreviewswordpresscom — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 13:51:14 +0000

Thanks for keeping us up-to-date on this, which offer good background not just on Beah’s entries but on Wikipedia processes in general. I’m hoping to write more about this soon.
Jan

By: rosabibi

rosabibi — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 12:21:22 +0000

In the first paragraph of my previous post, I should have made clear that this is the contributor’s opinion. It doesn’t convince me and it also isn’t the line of defence being put forward by Beah or his publisher.

By: rosabibi

rosabibi — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 12:18:12 +0000

One of the previous contributors has returned with a lengthy exposition on why Beah’s book is consistent with the material outlined by the Australian.
That “history” button is interesting, isn’t it? Although most people (including me) don’t use their own name, you can click around and see what other entries they have modified and how, and that gives you an idea of their interests and bias. If someone has only made one edit, and it relates to a living or recently living person, I generally suspect that they may have a personal interest of some kind.

By: 1minutebookreviewswordpresscom

1minutebookreviewswordpresscom — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:19:11 +0000

That “History” button is great resource that I hadn’t known about (though it’s right up there, as you say, for all to see). Thanks so much for pointing it out.

The Wikipedia entry has been improved since I wrote this post and is less biased now. But it seems odd that, for example, at this writing the listing doesn’t say that Beah has been appointed the UNICEF Advocate for Children Affected by War, a post he got in November. There’s lots of information about it on the Internet, and it’s relevant to the controversy partly because UNICEF has defended Beah.

I wonder if anybody has tried to add a note about his having the UNICEF job?

By: rosabibi

rosabibi — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 06:22:55 +0000

I’ve made substantial contributions to Ishmael Beah’s wikipedia entry over the past few weeks, and I’m certainly not part of his PR machine. I’m an Australian-based grad student. I find the Australian’s reporting very plausible and relevant. However, I’m fairly new to Wikipedia and I didn’t just edit out wholesale other contributors writing’ (although I took out a lot of the worst factual guff) because wikipedia is a group effort and because I thought wholesale deletion would cause antagonism and possibly “edit wars” (where contributors keep deleting each other’s work). If you hit the button at the top marked “history”, you can read the various edits and see the ID of the contributors. If you google the most “pro-Beah” contributor, he’s a lecturer in medicine at an Australian university, and from all appearances an enthusiastic amateur.

By: 1minutebookreviewswordpresscom

1minutebookreviewswordpresscom — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:57:37 +0000

It really is disappointing. I’ve linked to Wikipedia quite a few times (and it’s linked to me) because it often has more balanced or comprehensive information on authors than publishers’ sites do. But the listing for Beah is so biased and poorly written that I may rethink whether or not to link. Thanks for your helpful feedback.
Jan

By: moonbeammcqueen

moonbeammcqueen — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 06:19:56 +0000

I don’t know if Wikipedia’s been hijacked by this particular author’s “PR machine,” but I am noticing this non-neutrality more and more when I look things up on their site. So disappointing.