Wow, this Wiki picture has Liars since the early days!

ARE WE BEING REGULATED BY HACKS WHO CAN TOY WITH US LIKE GIANT BABY-EATING CATS? YES AND NO. THERE ARE RULES THESE 'SYSOPS' MUST FOLLOW, BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN THEY DO.

What does an American noise-rock band and Wikipedia have in common? They’re both LIARS. When band member Angus Andrew logged onto Wiki for a spot of self surfing, he discovered he was suddenly Australian. The Filipino-born musician’s attempt to correct this falsity proved futile. Since Wiki has become a powerful pantheon of transparency and truth (bleat), two prosecutorial agents were deployed to silence him in the form of non-negotiable binary code. In times of bullshit like this, who you gonna call? SUPERSWEET!

Having been hired by L.I.A.R.S to investigate the matter (Livid Investigatory Rumour Squad) SUPERSWEET sat down and read a shit load of stuff about Wiki, by Wiki, just to make sure we got the whole picture. Since we’re all hungry hippos on this new wave of information transparency, we should be asking “How does Wiki really work? What are we reading, by who, and how much of it can we trust? Does the Queen really go to the toilet?”

In 2005, Jimmy Wales was accused of re-writing his own wiki biography as sole Wiki founder. Forgetting the transparent nature of his own free culture movement (which co-founder Larry Sanger had to point out to him), Jimmy realized it was pointless trying to spin his own legacy and later apologized. If Wales himself, hailed as a ‘benevolent capitalist’ and ‘constitutional monarch’, has been exposed as a LIAR, maybe he should join the band?

In founding Wiki, Wales and Sanger did for information what Wordsworth did for literature: they pushed it into a whole new orifice and changed the course of history. "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." This god-pioneering software beget the concept of open-editing for billions, apparently regulated by an inner circle of editorial disciples.

Probing this, SUPERSWEET discovered a worrying number of factual contradictions. Wales clearly mentions these governing editors but Wiki’s own FAQ page contradicts it, stating “Wikipedia has no editorial board or governing staff.” A further contradiction reveals there is in fact over 1,700 volunteer ‘administrators’ who regulate Wiki. “Administrators are entrusted with special tools. considerable experience is usually expected”

SUPERSWEET decided to become an administrator. To our shock, Wiki contradicts this again, stating “The English Wikipedia has no official requirements you must meet to become a Wikipedia administrator. Anyone can apply regardless of their Wikipedia experience”

IT'S THOSE BLOODY PESKY ADMINISTRATORS, THINKING THEY'RE GOD, ABUSING THEIR POWER AND DELETING. IF THIS HAPPENS, THEN THE ABOVE CONTACT SHOULD PROVIDE A SOLUTION.

So which is it? Are we being regulated by hacks who can toy with us like giant baby-eating cats? Yes and no. There are rules these ‘sysops’ (cyber janitors) must follow, but it doesn’t mean they do. Should they break the code of conduct, resignation ensues, but only if they’re challenged sufficiently.

Administrators are governed by a council of volunteer Arbitrators, “whom the community of editors at large elects to resolve the most complex or intractable disputes that may arise within the community.”

So what happens when an Arbitrator screws up? Suddenly a “bureaucrat” comes into play, someone from the Wiki Foundation who governs Arbitrators.

After hours of painful soul searching, SUPERSWEET managed to track down an email to contact Wiki about hoaxes, vandalism and unfairly deleted pages: info-en-v@wikimedia.org This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

>>> Send the exact URL for the article with the problem. This is the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... part that your Web browser shows above the article itself. Please copy and paste this exactly, without any change; otherwise we may not be able to assist.

>>> A brief but specific description of what you think is wrong, including any offensive remarks or profanity. This works best if you copy and paste the improper text; in some cases, though, screenshots can be useful.

Now we’re asking, “Why do we need to contact an arbitrator when wiki is openly-editable inviting us to correct information ourselves?” The swift answer is, “because it’s a fucking pain in the arse… Because every time I try to correct something or add new content, it’s reverted or deleted the following week.” It’s those bloody pesky administrators, thinking they’re god, abusing their power and deleting what they see fit. If this happens, then the above contact should provide a solution. Go grass them up, but don’t bitch.

In Part 2 of this investigation, SUPERSWEET will experiment with creating an account, correcting LIARS misleading information, asking if the Queen really does go toilet and ousting a long-running hoax article that almost fooled SUPERSWEET into believing its LIES!

In the meantime, we entreat you to consider this age-old maxim “don’t believe everything you see and hear. If you do, you’re a bloody fool.”

Until then, please peace off and leave us in piss.

Words: Tiffany Tondut
Illustration: Federica Ubaldo