Excuse the Tabloidesque topic title tittle but please allow me to ask the obvious ... how many of these guys and gals find their way under the bedcovers of the Wikipedia and how, in anyway, is the Wikipedia capable of monitoring and dealing with them?

On one level, thanks to becoming Google's third testicle, the voice of the Wikipedia has become louder and more powerful than nations on the internet. Under the guise of "Free Kulture" it is probably believed and accepted far more readily than official voices.

We already clearly documented one nation, Israel (Shankbone) and Korea (VANK-ers), openly dabbling in the waters ... who knows how many are doing so in an obscured fashion. We all know of countless information wars goings on between opposing interests on the Wikipedia.

... and why should unpaid volunteers spend their lives on subject to such loaded environments or playing within?

I suspect the information war being sponsored is far more subtle than just "make the government look good". I would suspect it is far more long term and long ranging in nature. Suggesting that infiltration is easily possible, and it is, what addition insight and abilities could such infiltrators gain climbing the ranks of the Wiki-Power Rangers?

From: All Out: China Turns on the Charm by Helle C. Dale

Helle C. Dale is the Heritage Foundation’s Senior Fellow in Public Diplomacy studies.

I wonder what the hourly rate in Shanghai right now.

The very idea of editing Wikipedia to climb the ranks of the party!

I'm not sure why you should focus on the countries mentioned. USA, UK etc. do the same.

I should suspect many do ... I have no evidence. I would love to see more evidence.

Israel came up because of the marvelous 'David Shankbone pissing goat and kosher incontinent pants" episode' (... yes, that is what they got for their money) and the Korean VANK organization stands out as remarkable for its scale and rabid determination. Again clearly documented as government funded.

I doubt there are many nations who could commit and exceed VANK - except for China. Some nations could even add value if done properly.

I would guess it comes down to a strange equation of money, technology and the relative state and nature of civilization. Any nation having just come out of brutal feudalism or patriarchal dictatorship ... and with low wages ... is going to be at a distinct advantage on Wikipedia.

I just would not like to face any of their admins or meatpuppet teams.

I'm not sure many governments have got their heads round this. You would have to get a departmental budget, hire people, train them in the usual Wikipedia way, defend yourself against cuts (competing with budgets for aircraft carriers, boots for the infantry, compensation schemes etc). Judging from the contributions from this IP, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...131.137.245.206 , which appears to be the Canadian Department of National Defence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:131.137.245.206, I don't think they've got the idea at all. These range from dull

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=367465506
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=362160429

to the usual WP trivia

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=366015528
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=360747042

to infantile

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=342076917

This one http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=374555285 caused a storm http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/Wi...7247/story.html of course, but that's just proof of their incompetence.

I admit the Chinese are probably better at this kind of thing.

The better 'they' are at it, the less evidence there will be. And it's not Governments that will be the most consistently active - every major corporation will need to think 'semantically' in a context where the significance and even meaning of words and phrases can be subtly altered for global consumption. Of course there will be attempts at gross manipulation of history and battles over sources (my expert is more correct than your expert), but in the main the war over significance and meaning as it is conducted across Web 2.0 will be fought with changes of tense and the insertion of semi colons (or whatever the smallest punctuations are in any given language).

Wikipedia's combination of NPOV fantasy and the obfuscation of editor identity makes it particularly vulnerable to propogandist activity, as such it must inevitably become "the sum of all human knowledge as agreed by Corporate Marketeers and the proganda departments of powerful Nations."

A.virosa

The title is not only tabloidesque, it is grossly misleading in that the people involved in this are trying to be anything but trolls. The most successful at this will be those who can do it without causing friction or suspicion. Or at least without causing so much suspicion that those in control of the website/forum/Wikipedia actually do anything about it.

Indeed, many times before now we've noted the similarities between the construction of Wikipedia and the Chinese student-led Great Cultural Revolution.

Here, the residues of the two actually begin to interact.

I suppose it was bound to happen.

Definitely misleading - I was just getting ready to really root for the Chinese, only to be sorely disappointed again.

So, how to convey the actual subject - Wikipedia as platform for taxpayer-supported nationalistic propganda - without seeming too dry or clinical? I was thinking something cute, like "The World's Tax Dollars At Work" or "Best argument for tax cuts EVER."

Well, it was a direct quote although "he Chinese central government employs at least 280,000 people to control the internet" might be closer to future. I'd say your sub-title works for me. It is a serious issue.
For those who are too young to know what Milton Roe is pointing to here, I actually agree with him. It was driven by the energy, fanaticism and blinkeredness of easy to control and indoctrinate youth parties. Not to mention their ruthlessness and violence ... to the point of snitching on parents, teachers etc.

What the quote says is that is also bolstered by the old guard ... and a lot of new surveillance tools.

Putting this into a greater context, the government has an English as a second language type policy. It is a required subject from primary to postgraduate schools and has become a core element in China’s university entrance examinations. China also has an increasing army of coders and helpdesk types who tend to make up a large part of the Wiki-community. At present China is turning out 20 million new English speakers each year but, in 2002, there were more 120 million new school students.

As for China versus the Wikipedia? China will win, Jimbo will put back on his red silk jacket, bill the Communist Party for speakers fees and drink with them afterwards.

On the hand, do burgeoning developing nations entering into the Wiki age not pose another problem, e.g. 1 billion people with a good 4,000 year written history (approx) have a lot of new topics to add but not so much donations to support them?

Japan is screwed again.

So Wikipedia needs Douglas MacArthur?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War#Ch...ecember_1950.29