Disclosure: I first met Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Peyton Thomas (and his future wife — Anne Estrada) back in 1986 when just a college freshman at the University of Missouri (Mizzou). Thomas and I were good friends for several years.
I visited him at Harvard Law School and he stopped by to see me when I was attending law school at SMU. Shortly thereafter, the friendship fell apart and we haven’t spoken for more than a decade. Because of this history, I was somewhat hesitant to write about Thomas’ Wikipedia controversy. Yet it is an issue that needs to be addressed.
Thomas has been accused of modifying his Wikipedia bio in order to make it reflect favorably on himself. If true, it begs the question whether such editing violates Netiquette.
What is undisputed is that Thomas has angered the pro-illegal immigration lobby and its adherents within the State Bar of Arizona, Phoenix city officials, and the local judiciary. He’s facing an onslaught of tactics to get him to stop aggressive enforcement of laws designed to deter illegal immigration. This has included numerous Bar complaints plus a failed recall effort.
I’m not going to argue the merits (or lack thereof) of these arguments against Thomas — just noting that he’s got some very powerful political enemies that want him out of office.
With that in mind, it is easy to extend the political with personal attacks on the Internet, including the content of Wikipedia biographies.
What would you do if someone edited your Wikipedia bio to cast you in an unfavorable light? Would you ignore it (particularly if you’re an elected official) or would you edit the content to make it more favorable?
The flaw in the Wikipedia model is the lack of context provided. If your enemies write about you on Wikipedia, they should be clearly identified as such. Similarly, you should have the opportunity to respond to the content they write with your name attached as the author of the rebuttals.
And therein lies the solution. Thomas is accused of modifying his bio using a username that included his initials and age but not his full name. Wikipedia would be doing itself and readers a service if disclosure of the full names of those who do the editing of bios are attached to the editing that occurs.
Yes. Free speech should be encouraged on the Internet. Yet with freedom comes responsibility. Let’s eliminate anonymous hit jobs.
The subjects of Wikipedia bios, their friends, and their foes should clearly identify themselves when writing content. That way credit (or blame) for what’s written can be clearly given.
What do you think? Is there a better way to deal with the issue?
No related posts.
I modified the entry, not Andrew Thomas. Stupid of me to use apt37 (37 is my favorite number). I thought it would give me some authority in the fight against the criminals who were putting in ridiculous, non-relevant information about him (such as the Bandy prosecution – who in the world knows about that other than a few obscure criminals and their liberal Thomas-hating ACLU defenders?) Since you have a degree from G-town, I hope you will reconsider your post, unlike the sleazebags who run the Phoenix New Times. You do bring up an interesting issue, but this is the wrong example considering the poor guy had nothing to do with it. Sorry I ever messed with the entry – I guess we should just leave wikipedia to the left wing to control mercilessly to propagate their propaganda.
And it should be noted – if wikipedia released the information on the apt37 user who corrected the smears, maybe it could be traced back to me and blare my name all over the internet. I don’t think their contractual agreement authorizes that, and I certainly don’t want my name broadcasted all over the internet. It’s really ridiculous that articles would be written blaming someone who was not responsible for something like this. Andrew Thomas has a lot of supporters and I’m certainly not ashamed to be one, although I’d prefer not to have my name plastered all over the internet for defending him. If you want to contact me about it, go ahead, my email address is meerkatfan@hotmail.com.
Guess what,
Wikipedia still identifies apt37 as Thomas. If you are apt37, consider having it corrected.
I understand that you don’t want your name posted all over the Internet…but that’s the point. If names were tied to the Wikipedia bio entries and edits, anonymous attacks would disappear. Instead of being a place to smear one’s political opponents, Wikipedia might become more factually accurate.
The post will remain intact. It certainly is not an attack on Thomas. We’re no longer friends but I do believe he has the right to defend himself.
However, the issue is Wikipedia author/editor anonymity. Until there’s full disclosure of who is writing what, the underlying information will continue to remain suspect.
Best wishes,
-Mike
Why would Thomas delete that he was legal counsel for the Arizona Department of Corrections? Inquiring minds want to know.
Guess what?
I don’t believe you!