Wikipedia Idiots: The Edit Wars of San Francisco

Wikipedians, for all their lofty talk about the collaborative spirit, aren't idealistic fools. They know it's not all about peace and love in the Wiki world. "Because editing, as far as the whole project is concerned, is normal activity, an edit war is also, from a statistical perspective, considered normal activity," said Jay Walsh, head of communications for the Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit that operates Wikipedia and other collaborative wiki projects.

Wikipedia has a disciplinary system in place to deal with edit wars. First, users are reminded of the site's policies, and administrators try to "talk down" the parties involved. Offending users may enter dispute resolution. They can be shut out, or "blocked," from editing for a period of time — it could be 24 hours, it could be indefinitely. Serious violators may be banned altogether. But, as Walsh points out, dispute resolution is handled by the Wikipedia community: "I would point out that Wikipedia itself doesn't regulate or prevent; rather, the various users and editors play those roles."

Despite the potential for being blocked, anyone who has peered into the history of Wikipedia entries knows violations of Wikiquette are rampant. Griot has been accused of many such violations.

But some users say that Griot seems to have a skill for baiting others to the point where they violated Wikipedia policies. He would then report them to administrators, which could result in them being blocked.

One Wiki user, SeeknDistroi, told me via e-mail that he'd been editing for a short time and then butted heads with Griot over the Ralph Nader entry: "Yeah, Griot. ... You disagree with him, he harasses you, you get blocked."

That battle had its roots in Nader's role in the 2000 presidential election. Seekn-Distroi objected to its position in the lead biographical section, suggesting it be moved to another location. "It's also not even accurate," he wrote on November 27, 2007. "The Supreme Court ruled W pres, despite Al Gore winning the popular vote. All that anti-Nader stuff that he 'made' Bush Jr. president is stupid and naive."

After much back-and-forth discussion with SeeknDistroi, Griot scolded other users on the Nader entry's talk page, "Moreover, Wiki does not have 'winners' or 'losers' (as you and SeeknDistroi keep asserting) but only truthseekers." But the warring continued, and SeeknDistroi was indefinitely blocked just as he was listing Griot's suspected sock-puppet accounts, where users create multiple online identities.

As I quickly learned while writing this story, some users have several screen names; one reported having as many as 15. While creating sock puppets is generally a no-no — at least when puppets belonging to one user "gang up" on those of another to win an edit war — users admit that it happens. They are also an easy way to get around a block — if one Wiki identity gets blocked, a user can use a sock puppet to continue editing.

While I was finding out a lot about how Wikipedia worked, I still hadn't heard from Griot. Apparently, polite messages to him weren't going to do the trick. I thought I might have to do something more drastic.

The staff at the Wikimedia Foundation is small — just 16 people — but also a helpful bunch. (At the time I contacted the company, it was still based in St. Petersburg, Florida; its headquarters has since relocated to San Francisco.) Almost immediately after receiving my request to interview Bay Area–based users, then–public relations maven Sandra Ordonez (who was not able to relocate to San Francisco) quickly started putting the word out. With her help, I spoke with librarian and avid user Phoebe Ayers — whose book, How Wikipedia Works, will be published later this year. Passionate Wikipedia editor George William Herbert was willing to patiently explain how the Wiki world works, as was South Bay user Rachel Rein.

But there was still no word from Griot. And silence can make most snoopy reporters all the more curious.

SF Weekly's IT systems manager, Max Pavlovich, had agreed to work some of his computer nerd magic. I tracked down what I suspected to be Griot's Internet Protocol (IP) address, a unique number assigned to every computer connected to the Internet. I naively thought that if I hung out in Griot's neighborhood, which seemed to be somewhere between the Castro and the Mission, maybe I'd spot this person, but I felt pretty ridiculous — and a bit creepy — stalking poor Griot. And, after all, it wasn't as if I expected he or she to be carrying a West African djembe drum.

Despite my best efforts, Griot still wasn't giving me the time of day. My editor wondered if I was being too polite; he thought I needed to bait Griot by editing one of his entries. I didn't want to go there, but I did tempt Griot by posting a comment about one of his hot-button subjects.

Those affiliated with the Green Party seem to especially strike a nerve with Griot. He has engaged in numerous wars over Ralph Nader's entry. Late last month, Griot wrote: "Now my question is how to address the fact that Nader's biggest impact was in 2000. That belongs at the top of both articles. No more white-washing, please." He wrote to rival editor Boodles-thecat on his user talk page: "Nader would have been a footnote to the elections if not for his role in 2000 in Florida. I'd appreciate if you wouldn't insist on glozing [sic] over this fact, as much as you may dislike it."