Malicious code planted in Wikipedia
Published Mon, Nov 6 2006 9:19 AM
Technorati Tags: Computers and Internet, News and Politics
November 06, 2006 (IDG News Service) -- Malware writers have used a Wikipedia article and special storage features to attempt to plant malicious code on unsuspecting users' systems, the online encyclopedia's organizers have confirmed.
The incident took advantage of Wikipedia's policy of openness, which allows anyone to create and modify articles. The attackers created a Wikipedia page that promised a Windows security update for a supposedly new version of the Lovesan/W32.Blaster worm and pointed to an external site with the seemingly authentic domain wikipedia-download.org.
...
In August, Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales, addressing the Wikimania conference, acknowledged growing problems for the encyclopedia around accuracy and malicious edits, and promised to improve quality...
Source: Malicious code planted in Wikipedia
I seem to recall something about the accuracy problems and malicious edits. I remember a few topics having to do with the republican form of government being rather controversial. The current entry for "republic" is under dispute and protected from editing. It's a much more extensive topic than the current entry for "republican democracy", which just barely gets the notion of "its emphasis on law and rule of the people through elected representatives".
More to the point, that entry defines a republic as a system of restricted democracy, and even it is likely to disappear as it gets merged into "constitutional democracy." Even that entry is significantly less extensive than the "republic" entry.
It seems like some of the editors of Wikipedia don't particularly like the form of government we have. They dislike it so much that they are trying to suppress the information about it that has been available on Wikipedia for some time, and to distort the meaning of it.
This shouldn't be too surprising, Wikipedia is the ultimate "open source" encyclopedia. Anybody can edit it. Even hackers can edit it and point it at malware. Personally, I don't trust Wikipedia. I'd much rather use an encyclopedia with a longstanding print reputation, such as Encyclopedia Britannica or Encyclopedia Americana, even though their content isn't as freely available.
This incident gives me even less faith in Wikipedia. About the biggest advantage they have is that their content is free. Sadly, that's also one of their biggest disadvantages.
Trackback URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/track.aspx?postid=78
Permalink URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/2006/11/6/78.aspx
Subscribe to this entry's
comment feed. (Atom)
Comments to this entry are closed.