Wikipedia has wiped off the Meta story from The Wire’s page and has redirected the Tek Fog page to The Wire. Notably, Wikipedia had a detailed page on the Tek Fog “investigation” done by The Wire. There is a detailed discussion among the editors at Wikipedia that can be read in the Talk section of The Wire, where they refused to add any information on Meta Vs The Wire saga as they could not find “any reliable source other than The Wire”.
It is interesting to see Wikipedia subtly attempting to save The Wire from getting egg on the face using loopholes in their own regulations. Ideally, there should be a detailed section on The Wire’s Wikipedia page where all the information on how the publication or people linked to the publication were found to have used forged ‘evidence’ and later removed the stories linked to the saga when they were caught “red-handed”.
The discussion on Meta Vs The Wire saga on Wikipedia
The discussion over Meta Vs The Wire saga (Termed Metagate by Wikipedia) started on October 12, a couple of days after The Wire published its second story in the series blaming Bharatiya Janata Party’s IT Cell Chief Amit Malviya for getting posts removed from Instagram using his special “powers” he got under XCheck program of Meta. OpIndia archived the discussion page before writing this story to make sure the report can be verified with this particular version of the Talk Page. Please note that Wikipedia pages and sections under them are subject to change whenever an editor adds or removes something from them.
Meta officials’ and whistleblower’s words do not matter
During the discussion, it was mentioned that the questions raised by Meta Whistleblower Sophie Zhang over The Wire’s story were rejected by the senior editor Venkat TL. Another editor Yuyutsu Ho questioned the removal of her statement in the matter and said, “Sophie Zhang’s comment as someone who’s worked for Meta and is a whistleblower doesn’t matter?” He also questioned the objective behind removing the explanation given by Chief Information Security Officer at Meta Guy Rosen, who had said that the emails were fabricated.
The explanation for the removal of Sophie’s comments on the matter was it was her “opinion”, and opinions should not be treated as “evidence”. Venkat TL also questioned how she was relevant to the story. Sophie was the whistleblower in the alleged manipulation of engagement at Meta platforms, spread over several years from 2018 to 2020. If someone who has seen Meta’s working in and out has no relevance in reports based on Meta’s functioning and alleged links to governments and powerful people, it is unclear what could be relevant for the team Wikipedia.
In the case of Rosen, Venkat TL claimed that as Meta had already released an official statement on the matter, there was no need to add comments to Rosen. Interestingly, Wikipedia tends to rely on multiple sources to cross-check and add more “authenticity” to the content but here, what Rosen, CISO at Meta, said held no relevance.
‘Can’t base on The Wire’s report’
TrangaBellam, the infamous and controversial editor of Wikipedia, said during the discussion that as The Wire wrote the story, it cannot be a reliable source for the Wikipedia section on Metagate. He further pointed out that as there was evidence that The Wire forged the evidence or victim of a trickster, the section should be based on “high quality” sources “preferably from outside India”.
When a user named Akshaypatill pointed out that there was no need to remove the entire section, TrangaBellam said he would prefer to wait for a few more days. Wikipedia is known for adding updates as quickly as possible. However, in this case, even though several publications were following Meta Vs The Wire saga, a senior editor at Wikipedia found it was okay not to act and sit back for more inputs “to fill the gaps in the story”. He wrote, “I will wait for another few days. There are gaping holes in The Wire’s claims, but they are yet to be documented by some external publication-of-repute outside of the Twitterverse.”
Another senior editor, Kautilya3, objected to adding the section on The Wire’s page itself and claimed it should have been on Meta’s page. Notably, there is no mention of it on Meta’s page either. TrangaBellam agreed to the argument. Kautilya mentioned that The Washington Post does not have a “Watergate” section as an argument. It is noteworthy that The Washington Post page at least mentions the scandal.
There is an entirely separate page on Watergate on Wikipedia, which is why the WaPo entry has no separate section. It is a common practice on Wikipedia to link the page and not add too much information on the matter. However, in the case of Meta Vs The Wire, Wikipedia not only decided to remove the section but also decided not to have a section on it anywhere, removing all the traces of it, at least from the platform.
The discussion pointed out that The Wire has been “fooled again and again”. Akshaypatill said it would be better to write the section after The Wire reviews its reports, which might never happen.
When an editor at Wikipedia who goes by the name Captain Jack Sparrow mentioned that it looked like a deliberate fabrication, another editor, Tayi Arajakate, objected to blaming the publication. He said, “One of their reporters almost certainly fabricated material, but I don’t think it makes sense to accuse the publication as a whole, considering they gave the ids of the experts to outside parties for them to verify, which has led to this. One of the experts is also fairly clear that he was only contacted by the reporter in question and blames the publication for not verifying. [It is] most likely a case of a reporter duping the publication rather than an external party doing so.”
Arajakate further sided with The Wire as they “retracted the stories”. He said, “As far as editorial standards are concerned, this is how one is expected to respond to poor stories and is a positive indicator.” TrangaBellam said the whole scene “does not affect the credibility of the publication” and added Wikipedia should just refrain from using it as a source for tech-related information.
Following this discussion on the ongoing matter came the red flags over the Tek Fog page Wikipedia had created based majorly on the information published by The Wire. Interestingly, TrangaBellam said he had urged the editors to be cautious about Tek Fog coverage, but apparently, no one took his warning seriously. He suggested redirecting the Tek Fog page to The Wire. Again, there is not even a single reference to Tek Fog on The Wire’s Wikipedia page. It is interesting to see how Wikipedia editors deleted all the references to Tek Fog and Metagate (Meta Vs The Wire), keeping the kitty clean for The Wire.
On October 22, speaking about Metagate, TrangaBellam said, “I will draft a single paragraph on the episode primarily sourced from Newslaundry, CNN etc.” This report was published on October 26. To date, there has not even a single mention of the matter on The Wire page has appeared.
Netizens reacted to Wikipedia’s actions
Netizens have criticized Wikipedia for the way it has handled Meta Vs The Wire saga. Author and columnist Abhishek Banerjee said, “Do you know how the ecosystem works? On the Wikipedia page for Wire, no mention of Meta fiasco. Edits that were made mentioning this incident were removed quickly. Now the page is “protected”. History is being scrubbed clean before our eyes. Ecosystem protecting the reputation of the Wire.”
Do you know how ecosystem works?
— Abhishek (@AbhishBanerj) October 26, 2022
On Wikipedia page for Wire, no mention of Meta fiasco
Edits that were made mentioning this incident were removed quickly
Now the page is “protected”
History is being scrubbed clean before our eyes.
Ecosystem protecting reputation of the Wire.
Twitter user Banbreach pointed out that the Tek Fog page was redirected to The Wire page.
The #TekFog @Wikipedia page now redirects to the @thewire_in page.
— Banbreach (@Banbreach) October 25, 2022
User TryKid redirected the page to the “The Wire” TV series around 1PM IST today. Around 6:19 PM IST, user Coderzombie fixed the link.
1/n pic.twitter.com/k0XCciPH9e
Wikipedia has a history of controversies
Wikipedia is considered to be a left-leaning publication. Though it calls itself a user-driven-content based encyclopedia, the editors on Wikipedia often show bias towards left-liberal websites, news portals and individuals. So much so, the co-founder of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger, in an interview with OpIndia, had said, “Wikipedia has become a huge moral hazard” and accused the website of turning into a ‘monocultural establishment organ of propaganda.
