NIH to Edit Wikipedia – A Slippery Slope?

 

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has initiated a program to encourage its scientists to edit and create articles in the online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, Wikipedia.  Wikipedia is a widely used free resource on the web often criticized for its lack of reliability that results from its open editing format. 

Such government involvement in the internet encyclopedia is not new and has been problematic in the past.  The purpose for this program is, according to the Washington Post, “to make that online information more reliable.”  However, when government employees from the CIA and FBI edited articles on the Iraq War and Guantanamo in 2007, the public reached a different conclusion.  The agencies removed aerial and satellite imagery and altered casualty statistics in a way that was misleading.

The difference between the efforts in 2007 and the current one?  In 2007, the agency individuals who edited the site were not operating as part of an official government program.  Instead, they were individuals operating based on personal interest and motives.  In the current effort, government employees are being trained on how to edit Wikipedia and encouraged to do so representing a potential conflict of interest of immense proportions.  It’s a big enough problem to keep the politics out of science within the government; now it seems that the government may impose its issues on the public if it is not vigilant. 

Further, if the government wants its information to be authoritative it should keep it on its own sites.  Just because NIH edits the articles on Wikipedia does not mean that the articles are accurate even if the information submitted by NIH is unbiased.  There is nothing stopping another user from going in 5 minutes after an NIH scientist and adding misleading information or removing information.  Thus, the NIH would do better to build its own technological resources for public outreach in-house.

 

(Roger Strother* 07/28/09)

Comments

by Anonymous (not verified) on 08/09/09

WP:CITE I dont suppose the

WP:CITE I dont suppose the CIA have reliable peer-reviewed journal sources to cite. They are not comparable with the NIH.
by Roger Strother* on 08/10/09

I wasn't comparing the

I wasn't comparing the quality of the information suppliable by either agency.  What I was bringing up by mentioning the example were the problems inherent to having government employees editing the public source anonymously. 

There are many other problems that extend beyond the quality of information.  As you may know, NIH was involved in an effort to remove scientific information from the internet en masse after 9/11.  They are not above political manipulation.

Further, my post makes a larger point that you miss.  It is not simply about NIH or CIA but about the potential problems that stem from government employees, in general, doing this sort of thing.  Again, I do not have problems with them doing it, but there need to be policies and proceedures in place.

Just a side note, you are mistaken about the CIA's publications.  See Studies in Intelligence.

by John Broughton (not verified) on 07/31/09

Of course NIH should have

Of course NIH should have high quality information on their websites. But if NIH scientists help with science articles on Wikipedia, as well, then those articles will be of higher quality than they otherwise would be. And the readers of Wikipedia articles - who will come to Wikipedia whether NIH scientists participate or not - will get more complete and accurate information.

Sure, Wikipedia articles aren't perfect, and never will be. Anyone can add incorrect information - though this tends to be removed very quickly. Anyone, from NIH or otherwise, can remove information, though this tends to be put back in place very quickly. But the higher the ratio of good editors to bad ones, the better Wikipedia articles will be. NIH scientists are certainly overwhelming going to be good editors. And that will help improve Wikipedia, which is one of the top ten most-read websites in the world.
by Roger Strother* on 07/28/09

I have nothing against

I have nothing against federal employees adding their expertise to Wikipedia.  I am concerned about the policies surrounding this effort, however.  I understand the need for scientists to be able to communicate with the public - that was in the 21st Century RTK recommendations.  However, as you know, the NIH under the Bush administration withdrew material from web and their actions had the effect of manipulating public scientific findings. What if they would have also gone into Wikipedia to change conclusions, remove them, etc?  Moreover, what is stopping NIH scientists from removing privately funded research they may disagree with?  I think there need to be media policies in place to keep this sort of thing in check - ie guidelines for federal employees who do factual editing as part of a government sponsored initiative.

I completely second your point that government employees must be transparent about the fact that they work for the government.  However, this does not seem to be part of their training.  To quote the WaPo article, "Since the workshop, Summers has edited his first Wikipedia article, though he would not disclose the topic because editors are supposed to be anonymous."

So I think the policies and training need some work as they are.

by Heather West (not verified) on 07/28/09

It's important that federal

It's important that federal research inform the public dialog and be made easily available. These are the people who have some of the best knowledge out there- and Wikipedia is one of the primary places that the public looks to in starting their research. Is there a difference between writing in an academic journal, speaking to journalists, or editing a Wikipedia article? As long as government employees are transparent about their government employment and whether they are acting on behalf of their agency, they should be allowed and encouraged to tell people about their work, as we all noted in the 21st Century Right to Know report. In addition, creating an official program for this kind of public dialog ensures that the agency can create appropriate safeguards against employees posting misleading statements, and creates official accountability for the edits that are made on NIH's behalf. Putting the scientists and researchers at NIH in charge of making sure that their research reaches the public, through Wikipedia or some other vehicle, is not a bad idea. Adding citations and links to the Wikipedia page is a good way to drive the public to the authoritative information at NIH and making sure that the information is as widely accessible as possible. The Wikipedia community will decide whether their contributions are valuable, and serves as a self-policing community to decide when someone is out of line- as has happened when federal employees edited Wikipedia articles for their bosses' benefit. Letting federal employees add their expertise to Wikipedia- be it scientific, policy, or otherwise- is should be just one more way to ensure a well informed citizenry.