Most Popular

Most Viewed
Most Commented
News
"Most Popular" tools sponsored by:
Recent Articles

Recent Articles By Mary Spicuzza

National Features

  • Broward-Palm Beach New Times
    Last Step to Redemption

    Drug counselor Richard Entrekin swam a little too easily in a sea of sharks.

    By Amy Guthrie
  • Village Voice
    The Cro-Mag Diaries

    Remembering the brutal life and times of John "Bloodclot" Joseph, New York hardcore icon.

    By Rob Harvilla
  • Miami New Times
    Class Warfare

    At a Florida school, kids threaten teachers, whose bosses look the other way.

    By Francisco Alvarado

It can take just one sentence — if not one word — to start a war on Wikipedia. One recent war of words on the "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" — known as an "edit war" in Wiki parlance — started over a few phrases about former San Francisco supervisor and mayoral candidate Matt Gonzalez.

A Wikipedian named Boodlesthecat objected to this sentence by another user: "Gonzalez's critics considered him a stubborn and willful ideologue." The entry went on to state that Gonzalez had "walked out of Mayor Willie Brown's State of the City address in 2002." (For the record, Gonzalez told SF Weekly he did not walk out — he simply didn't attend because of his concerns over Brown's previous State of the City address.)

Boodlesthecat was not pleased with the Gonzalez entry, and started editing, voicing concerns about unsourced and inaccurate criticism and biased language. It's important to note that a neutral point of view is seen as a fundamental principle of Wikipedia — a principle that is absolute and non-negotiable. But the devil is often in the details, and some Wikipedians spend days (if not weeks or months) arguing what a neutral point of view in a given article even means.

Boodlesthecat's comments about Gonzalez quickly unleashed the wrath of a user known as Griot. Alas, that was a name Boodlesthecat recognized from Wiki-pedia's Ralph Nader entry — the two had just been sparring over the environmental and consumer-rights activist and former presidential candidate, particularly Nader's role in the 2000 election.

"Now you've followed me to the Matt Gonzalez article," Griot wrote Jan. 31 on Boodlesthecat's personal user page. "C'mon man, gimme a break. You don't know the City or its politics. Your editing there was strictly personal."

Boodlesthecat wasn't having it, and promptly responded: "See the talk page for discussion. Please refrain from using my talk page for your speculations and insults, and rude advice on what I can and cannot edit."

Griot seemed apologetic at first, writing "Sorry Cat." But the edit war over the Gonzalez entry heated up again. "I'm sorry, but I have to take this back to your Talk page, since your edits at this article obviously don't pertain to Matt Gonzales [sic], but to me," he wrote, adding, "Cut it out, wouldya?" Soon both Griot and Boodlesthecat were blocked from Wikipedia for 24 hours for violating the three-revert rule, meaning they made three edit reversions in a 24-hour period.

It's funny that Griot complained about getting personal, because I first learned of this particular user, who is reportedly San Francisco–based, during a conversation with my sister, Jeanne, about the plethora of anonymous online vitriol. We were discussing how many in cyberspace write things to each other — often using pseudonyms — that we couldn't imagine saying to people's faces. I mentioned that San Francisco seemed to have a lot of what some call "Internet rage."

That's when Jeanne, who is also a writer, told me of a debate over the entry about her in Wikipedia — and of one particular user, Griot, who seemed to be on a no-holds-barred campaign to delete her page after he blamed her for making dubious edits to Ralph Nader's page (which she denies). One Griot note on the talk page of a user called Calton, dated Aug. 27, 2007, reads, "Is there anything we can do about Jean [sic]? It's tiresome. Maybe we should give her back her personal page on Wikpedia so she isn't so lonely." He also accused her of creating several online identities to make a flurry of changes to the Nader entries. "Spicuzza is on the warpath again," Griot wrote to Calton, and made a snarky offer to Calton about my sister: "If you ever need help fending off this multiple personality disorder, don't hesitate to ask."

Over the months, I noticed that my sister wasn't the only person who had been taunted by Griot (for instance, Griot lectured another user, "Take your meds and shaddup"). It turned out he had made plenty of enemies on Wikipedia. One compared edit warring with this particular user to "arguing with a donut." Another even adopted a screen name riffing on his rival: "GridiotinSanFranciski."

By his own count, Griot had made more than 5,000 edits to 275 Wikipedia stories in three years. Griot seemed to take great delight in fighting with his fellow Wikipedians, as indicated by long lists of back-and-forth comments on his user talk page, which numbered 66 as of last week. (Each of Wikipedia's registered users can build a user page, which may be used to display information relating to its author as well as to hold discussions with others.)

After getting at least one user blocked from Wikipedia, Griot crowed: "The moral: Don't mess with the Griot."

I decided to ignore the warning. I decided I was going to find the Griot.

Griot (pronounced Gree-oh) is one of the 4.6 million registered users on Wikipedia's English-language site who have signed up to edit and write entries and ultimately determine what the Wiki-masses read. Wikipedia users rarely register with their real names, and Griot was (and is) no exception.

The only biographical information I found on Griot was on his or her user page, which was sketchy at best. Griot claimed to be a college professor and a record shop owner who was born and raised in San Francisco "in the Western Addition, to be exact" — and still lives here. Of course, it's difficult for another Wikipedian (or a reporter) to independently verify whether Griot is actually a record-shop-owning professor — or, for that matter, whether Griot is a man or a woman, Republican or Democrat (it's doubtful Griot is a Green Party member, considering his antipathy for Nader), and what other agendas may be at play while editing Wikipedia entries. For me, there was the practical concern of how I could track down Griot for an interview — a real in-person one, not an e-mail exchange — without a real name.

The best way to contact Griot was by writing a message on his Wikipedia user page. So that's what I did. I waited for a couple of days, but heard nothing. Then I sent a follow-up. Still nothing.

For centuries, West African history has told of griots — those who have bestowed wisdom to the masses and fulfilled the crucial role of sharing village histories, usually through song. Griots do more than tell tales: They have created oral histories. They are truth-tellers. The Griot on Wikipedia, though, seemed more of a shit-talker than a truth-teller.

"Be warned," Griot's user page read when I checked it out last month. "It has been said that I have a 'Dick Cheney approach to personal politics' , that I'm a 'hysterically paranoid info-deleter,' and that I 'use dirty tricks and corporate-style high jinks on Wikipedia to abuse independent artists' ." (This user page has since been altered.)

Andrew Keen, author of The Cult of the Amateur: How Today's Internet Is Killing Our Culture, finds the anonymous nature of the wiki world one of its most troubling aspects, and feels that "it lends itself to dishonest people." He has a point.

There is the infamous story of the once-prominent Wikipedian known as Essjay, a man who was believed to be a tenured professor of religion at a private university — one holding a Ph.D. in theology and a degree in canon law — who reportedly had written or contributed to 16,000 entries. After Essjay was featured in a July 31, 2006, article in The New Yorker titled "Know It All: Can Wiki-pedia conquer expertise?" he was unmasked as 24-year-old Ryan Jordan, who was not a professor and held no advanced degrees. "He was willing to describe his work as a Wiki-pedia administrator but would not identify himself other than by confirming the biographical details that appeared on his user page," the editor's note appended to the article reads.

The Essjay fiasco illustrated the limits of Wikipedia's editorial transparency. While everyone who reads an entry can click through to its editing history, as well as to any accompanying debates about changes and additions, you often still have no idea who the real-life editor is. How can you consider the source when you don't know who the source is?

Some Wikipedians do use their full names. Michael C. Berch, a 51-year-old Bay Area user and volunteer administrator who helps monitor the Wiki world, goes by "MCB," and lists plenty of biographical information on his user page. He said he understands why some users choose to be anonymous, but also voiced concerns about the "burden of anonymous editing." Berch, who called the Essjay saga a "great embarrassment," added that there isn't the same level of accountability when people don't sign their real names.

Another danger that any casual Wiki-pedia reader may notice: Some people seem more emboldened to act like assholes when cloaked by pseudonyms and online anonymity. Griot seemed to be a case in point.

Anyone with Internet access can edit Wikipedia, and the site's project introduction page speaks of the wonderful aspects of such a democratic pro-ject: openness, inclusion, and contributing knowledge as you see fit in a collaborative way. Champions of Wikipedia often invoke what's known as the "wisdom of crowds," or the idea that "the many are smarter than the few," as a 2004 book by James Surowiecki on the subject put it.

It's a noble principle. Unfortunately, the wise online masses too often erupt into vitriolic and wordy warfare in need of crowd control. Edit wars are a common manifestation of the crowds getting unruly.

Many an edit war may seem like a fight over nothing to the casual observer, but considering that according to its staff, the popular, multilingual Web site gets about 7 billion views per month, stakes can be high. An edit yields what millions of people read on the site on any particular topic. (That is, until another user dives in to make additional changes.)

Of course, some predictably controversial entries inspire frequent warring — the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, for example, not to mention the entry titled "Armenian Genocide," or the biographical entry of George W. Bush. But arguments can also break out over much more obscure matters, such as whether Nancy Reagan alienated herself from the general public with her expensive taste in clothes as well as her White House fine china collection. And then it seems some edit wars are waged out of sheer personal spite.

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."

Another user, one going by only an IP address, leapt into battle and pointed out other concerns in the 2000 elections, especially vote caging and voter fraud concerns.

Again, Griot wasn't having it. "R .. A .. L ........ P .. H .. N .......... A .. D .. E .. E ... R," he wrote, posting a link to a YouTube video featuring the Mickey Mouse Club — complete with Annette Funicello.

I saw my opportunity. "So, Griot," I wrote, "is it safe to say that you put Ralph Nader and Mickey Mouse in the same club, then? I just want to make my article as accurate as possible."

The words "Griot Speaks" promptly appeared on my user talk page.

"That was a reference to the Ralph Nader Fan Club, a club whose name I mentioned to someone with whom I was exchanging messages," Griot quickly responded. "I wouldn't read much into it or take it personally."

Then he got right to the point. "Why all the interest in me? Why the five invitations to be in your article, four more than you offered anyone else? What's the dang deal?"

He also promptly pasted my messages into a section on his user talk page, titled "Mary Spicuzza Pitches Woo." It was later changed to "Mary Spicuzza Pitches Woo 7 Times!"

My messages didn't seem inflammatory or rude. The first one read, "My name is Mary Spicuzza and I'm a reporter with SF Weekly. I'm working on an article about Wikipedia and I'd love to speak with you. May I give you a call?"

Another: "Hi Griot. I'm still working on that article and would really like to get your perspective on Wikipedia — especially on how San Francisco is represented in the encyclopedia. I'm on deadline, so the sooner the better for me. Thanks for your time."

Alas, Griot seemed to have no interest in being interviewed in person or over the phone.

I decided I had to get a little more pushy: I let Griot know he or she had become the main focus of the article. Maybe that would bring him or her out into the open.

Shortly thereafter, the words "Why me?" appeared on my user talk page. Griot was unhappy with being the focus of a news story.

"If it matters to you, and I suspect it doesn't, it's not something I would wish for," Griot wrote. "But since my wishes are being ignored, I just have to ask: 'Why me?' Is it my elegant prose? Did my many fans — they throw flowers at my feet and sometimes fire off one-gun salutes in my honor (hope you mention that in your article) — steer you to me? Your aunt? [I think he meant my sister.] I make my living partly as a journalist and writer, so I know how these things work. I just hope you're fair even though you never interviewed me or asked for my permission to do this.

"Is that fair to someone you don't really know?" he continued. "I teach at City College. I don't dare give you my name or the name of my business. I've had people from Wikipedia send me videos of them firing guns in response to my edits on gun control issues. I have other less mortal reasons for being anonymous."

Okay, for those of you keeping score at home: Griot is a teacher at City College, a record-store owner, and a journalist and writer. This is one busy Wikipedian.

Still, Griot had a point. Wikipedia is a public forum, and seemingly every discussion about an entry or a user talk page is open for the world to see. But just because a Wiki-pedian makes edits on a public forum doesn't mean he or she wants to divulge information about his or her virtual or real-life identity.

A Wikipedian named BillyTFried had indeed sent a video of himself at a shooting range to Griot in the midst of an edit war. That fight was actually over a couple of sentences Fried had wanted to add to the Chris Daly entry about San Francisco's Proposition H, known as the "gun ban," a ballot item that won the support of voters but was eventually struck down in court. Fried actually struck me as a well-meaning and earnest editor — one of the few willing to use his real name (and even agreeing to meet in person) to talk about his devotion to Wikipedia.

Before I could respond to all of Griot's "Why me?" questions, another user — Blow of Light — had suggested that I was likely a "single-purpose account" and should be blocked. I didn't know what I'd done to offend Blow of Light, so I quickly went to his or her talk page to write a note. That's when I noticed how much we seemed to have in common: "Freedom of speech is a fundamental human right," Blow of Light had written. "I encourage Wikipedians who think the same thing to join me in this quiet small way to say to the world: Wikipedians stand with the right of individuals everywhere to report on the facts of the world in peace."

I couldn't understand why this free-speech-loving user would want me blocked. And I developed a case of sock-puppet paranoia: Was Blow of Light secretly Griot? (I don't think so — Blow of Light provided thoughtful answers to my questions.) Griot could be anybody: a neighbor, a co-worker, an ex-boyfriend. It was all just too unsettling to think about for long.

It's not as though I can't understand why someone would want to be anonymous online. Still, I have to side with Paul Grabowicz, the new-media program director for the University of California at Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism. "I guess I have the same feeling about Wikipedia and other citizen-generated sites [as I have] about the media: The more transparency the better," he told me. "People should be able to find out who is producing the information." Grabowicz says he encourages his students to use Wikipedia — but only as a starting point. And the longtime investigative reporter urges "a healthy degree of skepticism, no matter what the information source. I think the bottom line is I don't trust anybody."

Say what you will about the press: There is at least a measure of accountability in a newspaper that is rarely seen on Wikipedia. It's called a byline. I mean, I'm sure I've produced some less-than-brilliant work during the dozen or so years I've been a journalist. But at least I've had the guts to sign my name — my real name — to what I write.

When I finally tried to answer Griot's question by explaining I would be exploring issues of anonymity on Wikipedia — and pointing out how little I knew about the person behind the user name — Griot was characteristically snippy in response: "Then it's going to be one hell of a riff, your article, if it focuses on me, since that's all you know. I'm a big jazz fan (you can use that). I'm looking forward to reading your article to see how well you thrive on a riff. Good luck to you."

I had a glimmer of hope that Griot would come around. Yet another note appeared: "Hey, I put some more biographical material on my user page at User: Griot. Hope it's helpful to you."

Under the heading "This Is My Story," it began, "Griot, the eleventh of ten children, was born in a boxcar factory next to some chicken coops in San Francisco's Pacific Heights neighborhood. His father was a melungeon breeder of grasshoppers and a part-time hosier; his mother a voodoo priestess and Tarot reader who dabbled in currency trading and goat futures."

Suddenly, I realized that while I may never meet Griot face to face, I had learned a little more about the prickly Wikipedian. Sure, Griot may be an anonymous pain in the ass. But at least he or she is a pain in the ass with a sense of humor.

Alas, on Friday, Feb. 8, Griot was blocked from Wikipedia because of concerns over sock puppeteering. But the Griot would not be silenced for long.

Early on Monday, Feb. 11, I received an e-mail purportedly from Griot: "Dear Mary Spicuzza, First, a warning: Next Christmas Santa Claus is going to put a large lump of coal in your cyberstalking." The angry Griot went on to vent about my sister, accused me of misrepresenting myself, and added some thoughts on ethics in journalism.

I received the e-mail way past deadline — and weeks after I first requested an interview.

To be fair, maybe as soon as I began getting reports about Griot's snide remarks and proclivity for personal wiki attacks, I should have immediately written, "Hey, Griot, I hear you're a real mean-spirited jerk who bullies those who disagree with you, but I'd like to hear your side of the story."

Then again, it's one thing to hear about somebody like Griot acting like an asshole. At least this way, I got to experience that fact firsthand. Read more quotes, see research and links at the 'Wikipedia Idiots' web extra.

Write Your Comment show comments (117)

  1. Excellent article! You captured the spirit of Wikipedia. It's not an encyclopedia. No, it's a multi-life role-playing message board, where players like Griot are only pissed off at you because identifying them may cripple their ulterior motives, and they may need -- gasp! -- to create another anonymous sockpuppet one day.

    Comment by Gregory Kohs — February 12, 2008 @ 08:39PM

  2. I think that I can help you on who is Griot.

    Actually, there are a lot of Greens who don't like Nader. Nader offended a lot of Greens when a proxy (Peter Camejo) ran for President and revealed that he was running as Nader's proxy right before the National Green Party Presidential Convention. Then Camejo became Nader's vice presidental candidate.

    The Green who was the most vitrol (although he can use humor at times) at Nader is Marc Solamon, who lives in the inner Mission. (He might own records as well.) Salomon works off and on as a IT guy. He has a flair for it and appears to spend a lot of time on the computer. He has been known to be thrown out of various political chat rooms and then recreate another alias and get back on them. (A different type of shadow puppets) And he hates Nader.

    Boodles sounds like one of Gonzalez's on and off girlfriends who's named Cat. Cat and Salomon have disagreed in the past and it's usually over something that Salomon has said about Gonzalez.

    Hope that this is a help.

    Comment by Lou Cyanne — February 13, 2008 @ 06:37AM

  3. Great article! Thank god somebody finally started talking about the dysfunctional world of Wikipedia. Too bad you didn't check out Chip Berlet, character asassin and SlimVirgin, brain-dead-power-hungry administrator. If you want to see a disturbing edit war, just check out what Chip has done to Fred Newman or the 911 conspiracy theorists. Generally, I have found the administrators rarely understand or follow the editing guidelines. In an edit war, admins make content decisions based on the popularity of the editors in question. They have no critical thinking skills whatsoever. The real travesity is that people still agrue Wikipedia is a valid source of information. S C A R Y!

    Comment by pK — February 13, 2008 @ 06:42AM

  4. Nice friends you keep, I see: the very first comment comes from a long-banned spammer still carrying a grudge of his repeated rebuffs to use Wikipedia to spam his business, and the third is someone continuing an edit war to promote various conspiracy theories.

    Overall, a pretty loathsome story of stalking -- or worse. See, there'S the bit where reporter Mary Spicuzza quoting a user in the story calling him/herself SeeknDistroi, whom Mary implies was blocked because SeeknDistroi was opposing Griot, when he/she was actually blocked for abusive sockpuppeting, one of many run by -- Jeanne Marie Spicuzza. Say, Mary wouldn't happen to be quoting her own sister, would she, while carrying on her sister's fight, using the resources of a newspaper and her position as a journalist to stalk and discredit own of her sister's "enemies"? It surely has that appearance to me.

    She DID mention this conflist of interest to her editor, didn't she?

    (You can find a list of Jeanne Marie's most recent sockpuppets in her war against Griot and for personal self-promotion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Telogen, in case your paper's IT systems manager want to work some of his computer nerd magic to confirm this.)

    Comment by Calton — February 13, 2008 @ 07:51AM

  5. That's right, Lou, I stand by my man, and you just keep your little green hands off of him and save the drama for you mama, honey!

    Comment by Boodlesthecat — February 13, 2008 @ 08:40AM

  6. Well written and true to the Wikipedia experience. I consider anyone on Wikipedia who doesn't use their real name to be a sock puppet anyway. This is one of the many reasons that I no longer advocate the Wikipedia.

    A lack of accountability goes with anonymity. That might be good for Second Life, but for something claiming to be a storehouse of global information... it isn't adequate.

    Comment by Taran Rampersad — February 13, 2008 @ 10:48AM

  7. Nice article. 'Idiots' it is. The purpose of Wikipedia is to essentially protect the myths that the powerful want in place, while providing useless trivia for the masses.

    For a good summary of how the CIA videotape destruction played out on wikipedia, see this article writtem by wikipedia user "Bov" --

    Concealing Crimes of the CIA, Wikipedia Style
    http://911review.com/articles/bov/wikipedia_cia.html

    Comment by Victronix — February 13, 2008 @ 12:19PM

  8. Mary Spicuzza's article on etiquette at Wikipedia -- and, unfortunately, occasional lack thereof -- was pretty accurate in capturing what does occasionally occur in discussions about various articles: as a Wikipedia administrator, I have dealt with (i.e., warned, blocked, and/or banned) a number of users like Griot. It's not always easy, but we do try to hold people to the same standards of civility and mutual respect they'd be held to volunteering at any non-profit, in real life or online.

    Reading through his contributions, it's evident that his is a more complex case than most trolls and vandals. Griot gets away with being snide by attacking those whose edits are not in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines. Thus, he can defend himself by claiming that his content is better, while getting whatever pleasure it is he derives from berating and speaking down to other editors.

    Nonetheless, I will defend Griot's right to anonymity on the project. There are some sites established by critics of Wikipedia for the sole purpose of "outing" Wikipedians, posting personal information and sometimes even photos of users in an attempt to coerce them into content changes, or into leaving the project altogether. (I will not name them here as they do not deserve the free publicity.)

    Benjamin Lowe
    San Francisco, CA

    Comment by Benjamin Lowe — February 13, 2008 @ 02:53PM

  9. I'm the Cat referenced above. I am not posting under the name Boodlesthecat on Wikipedia. Whenever I post online, I post under my real name - for precisely the reasons discussed in the article about the dark side of anonymity on these types of sites. As does Marc Solomon for that matter, so what the Lou guy said above in his comment doesn't make sense to me. Anyway, I ust wanted to set the record straight that I have not been trolling around on Wikipedia picking fights with this Griot person. I would be fascinated to find out who it is tho...

    Comment by cat — February 13, 2008 @ 03:02PM

  10. An Open Letter to the Wikimedia Foundation

    To Whom It May Concern:

    I do not participate on Wikipedia, nor do I use it as a source. I am none of the persons I am being accused of and do not suffer from Dissociative Identity Disorder, formerly known as MPD. My attorney, Richard Rosenthal, has been supplied with these facts along with a request that all false claims, slanderous remarks and defaming content concerning me be removed promptly from the site. Thank you.

    Sincerely,
    Jeanne Marie Spicuzza

    Comment by Jeanne Marie Spicuzza — February 13, 2008 @ 04:04PM

  11. Calton Bolick's comment above about me being a "long-banned spammer" is pretty humorous, given that "his" own Wikipediot community has blocked his account on FIVE separate occasions for being a general detriment to what little remaining repute the project still has left! Calton loves throwing out offensive-sounding labels for people with whom he cannot compete on a logical, level playing field.

    Here's the "diff" for you to learn about Calton Bolick:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Calton

    Comment by Gregory Kohs — February 13, 2008 @ 07:50PM

  12. This is an internet comment not a letter to the editor.

    I am not griot, and I do not waste my time on messing with Gonzalez or Nader's wiki entry.

    Ralph Nader is road kill lying on the center stripe ahead of Greens, he must be dealt with.

    Politically, Matt Gonzalez is receding into the rear view mirror, why concern myself with someone who is not actively trying to do something stupid like Nader is?

    I am only concerned with looking forward.

    Although it is always disappointing to invest so much political capital in someone, only to see it pissed away for nothing, I did not edit Gonzalez nor Nader's web page as griot or anyone else.

    The number of potential wikiteurs is only limited by the number of people Gonzalez and Nader have collectively been able to alienate.

    -marc

    Comment by marc salomon — February 13, 2008 @ 09:16PM

  13. Gregory Kohs, please check your data before making claims. You accused Calton of being blocked five seperate times, when in fact he was only blocked four times. The last "block" is actually a modification of a previous block, which (due to technical reasons) was done as an unblock and a reblock.

    Comment by Od Mishehu — February 13, 2008 @ 10:53PM

  14. It would seem this article manifests a conflict of interest on the part of the writer which is not disclosed in the piece, in that her sister, presented here as a casual witness, was a highly active account which ended up getting banned for sockpuppetry. This reminds me of a recent case in an Australian election where a newspaper reporter was sending emails to an independent candidate trying to get them to preference a Conservative, and actually went to the stage of hitting a Labour candidate in the face, then trying to neutrally report about the whole matter afterwards, all while every other media in Australia + NZ was reporting on the salacious facts of her own case. Journalistic integrity seems to have fallen by the wayside, at least on Wikipedia there is some transparency at least as to what is going on.

    Comment by Chris — February 14, 2008 @ 03:34AM

  15. Calton and Griot are probably two of the most toxic people on the internet. See, Wikipedia gets a ton of newbies every day who think they can add whatever they like, so they write about themselves, their businesses, whatever. Most editors who run across this stuff just tell the users, politely, that there are rules against that kind of thing. Some editors prefer to use them as easy marks for their frustrated egos. You boys can make all the excuses you like, but the author is right here; you're using the project to find people to be mean to without any risk of repercussions. Grow up already.

    Comment by Kate — February 14, 2008 @ 07:08AM

  16. Its amazing the hyperbole the usual cast of beer drinking NASCAR driving invisible being in the sky worshipping can spew out of their uneducated mouths. If you don't like the system bucky, then get out of it. Mmm'kay?

    Point is, you dolts can spew whatever bogosity you want, Wikipedia will be standing in the end. Our truth, the Wiki-truth, is the thing that matters. Perhaps you plebians can go back to whatever homeschool spewed you out to learn about such things.

    BTW nice email has been sent to your Editor in Chief. I'd start looking for a new job if I were you broom-pusher.

    Comment by Calton — February 14, 2008 @ 12:39PM

  17. This article is pretty silly.

    You are really talking about humanity here. There are some idiots, there are some smart people, some dumb and some just toxic. Wikipedia is no different.

    You might as well be telling a story about a local community center.

    The only difference with wikipedia, or any other online community, is that people who are idiots leave a trail behind for anyone to see, as do the good people, the smart people and the toxic people.

    Reporting fairly would mean you should cover the good as well, as a much larger percentage of wikipedia's activity.

    Comment by anne bartlet — February 14, 2008 @ 02:02PM

  18. Griot wrote a letter to the author of this article which can be seen here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Griot#Letter_to_Mary_Spicuzza

    I followed that up with my own response that he immediately deleted, which can be seen (being removed by Griot) here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Griot&diff=190675197&oldid=190673998

    Comment by BillyTFried — February 14, 2008 @ 02:10PM

  19. "Its amazing the hyperbole the usual cast of beer drinking NASCAR driving invisible being in the sky worshipping can spew out of their uneducated mouths. If you don't like the system bucky, then get out of it. Mmm'kay?"

    Riiigggghhht. Anyone who disagrees with you is an uneducated right wing idiot. Okay, Calton. If it makes you feel good about yourself to believe that the people you abuse for no good reason are 'bad' people, then go for it.

    Comment by Kate — February 14, 2008 @ 02:37PM

  20. Yeah really! And what the heck did you mean by "Our truth, the Wiki-truth"? That sounds kinda scary as if you know it's not the REAL truth, but your OWN truth that you have the ability to manipulate. Why would you boast of having "ownership" of the truth in the comments section of an article that accuses you of just that? Way to make Wikipedia look even better in the public's eyes! Bizarre!

    Comment by BillyTFried — February 14, 2008 @ 02:44PM

  21. This article is totally uninteresting. It can be summarized as: in Internet forums, there are boorish people. Great news... It's been true since USENET days, it's still true today, and there is no need for several pages of bla-blah to prove it. As a matter of fact, it is also true of "real life", which is full of people that just want to be annoying.

    The part about the bylines used in the press being a proof of seriousness is hilarious. I've had to deal with the press a number of times, and I can attest that it is a business where people are quick to "pass the bucket".

    I remember pointing an error to the author of an article, only to be told that it was not there in her original version and was added at the suggestion of the editor. Hey... Pass the bucket.

    My favourite are agencies like AP and Reuters. Call a newspaper about a factual error, they'll tell you it was from an AP or Reuters report. Call AP or Reuters, they'll say the error is not from their office but from another office somewhere else.

    Do not expect that the press will ever publish corrections. They'll do it only if the error is so obvious that many people complain, or if the error annoys powerful people, or if they risk a losing lawsuit.

    That's what happens in the real world. All the talk about "responsibility" is just... talk.

    Comment by Dog tag — February 14, 2008 @ 11:47PM

  22. Excellent article. I've heard of this chump Griot from many wikipedia editors, but never have had run-ins with him. Although I think Wikipedia is a valuable resource, it is difficult for me to understand why a two-year-old trapped in an adult's body would be interested in collaborative knowledge gathering.

    Although it was somewhat gratifying to see such a person being exposed for what he is in the mainstream media, I suspect it was equally gratifying to Griot as well. This type of behaviour which is normal for an infant or toddler, commonly referred to as "acting out" is a surrogate method of getting attention. When positive attention is unavailable, negative attention fills the gap. In a functional family, the behavior normally disappears after the toddler realizes that it far more cost effective to engage in behavior that is rewarded with positive attention. In a dysfunctional family, this behavior is rewarded or ignored, and it continues into adulthood. I think Griot's seemingly flippant remarks about his parents are a sign that he or she was raised in this type of environment and now he or she is in a situation in which he or she can only compensate for the lack of parental love by engaging in behavior guaranteed to provoke an overwhelming negative response. The amount of time Griot spends on wikipedia would also seems to indicate that he or she has few if any real world relationships in which to solicit this type of attention, hence the obsession with Wikipedia.

    Although it may seem just for such an unlikable person to be exposed to public ridicule, it only encourages poor Griot to continue to act out. It's highly unlikely that this stunted indivdual will be able to extricate himself/herself from the vicious circle his parent(s) inadvertantly created, so if Griot deserves anything, it is our pity.

    Comment by Henry Jones — February 15, 2008 @ 07:51AM

  23. Oh my MY. Looks like the author's sister managed at one time to get slimed by two of thw most pathetic presences in the ether, known by their nom de pukes, Griot and Calton. Sorry about that! But don't fret. For a laugh, just do a google search for Calton Bolick and read about what a stunning mediocrity you had a run-in with. Here's a guy, the epitome of the stereotypical self-loathing loser who spends thousands of hours trolling the internet, smiting articles by anybody his diseased walnut brain feels unworthy of internet notability. He swings his delete button like the mighty phallic substitute that it is. apparently your Jeanne Marie, who appears to be an entertainer artist type with modest presence (and all the best to her success, hey why not) aroused the wrath of Calton's jealous male organ substitute; not too worry, it's a harmless, if noisy and malodorous organ. I see he is here in this discussion, true to form, in all his ill tempered loathsome glory. Hey, CalCal, watch out for those imported dumplings, I hear they're tainted!

    Bingo Long

    Comment by Bingo Long — February 15, 2008 @ 09:21AM

  24. Two things:
    1. I highly doubt there are many "beer drinking NASCAR driving invisible being in the sky worshipping uneducated dolts" that even known SFweekly exists let alone read or post here.

    2. I'd like to say to anyone who reads this that in my experience the type of person who embraces and perpetuates the kind of bigoted and hateful stereotypes as the one quoted above is not representative of the average editor or the overall Wikipedia community in general.

    Comment by BillyTFried — February 15, 2008 @ 09:52AM

  25. Wikipeda as Orwellian internet cult....

    Comment #4 by Carlton is a strong argument that Wikipedia is an internet cult. It is a scary, scary island..think Piggy and Lord of the Flies. They write what they want..PERIOD. Hostile-lowest-common-denomenator group think overrides established knowledge. God forbid you actually take the editorial polices seriously!!!!! If you question these bully editors and admins, you are put on trial, while they all pat each other on the back chanting, Kill the Pig! Kill him dead! Kill the pig!

    Comment by pK — February 15, 2008 @ 01:35PM

  26. I highly doubt your fecal brain matter could digest the words contained within Lord of the Flies, let alone understand the point of the novel mm'kay?

    Give it up bucky, no one is going to help you. No admin is going to "speak to me about my behavior" as you so ELOQUENTLY (snicker) put it on your little cry-fest on the ANI.

    The FACT is this article is libelous, one sided, biased to the extreme, and reads like the 5th grade newspaper of some redneck school in "MA DADDY FOUGHT IN 'NAM DONT DISRESPECT HIM" Alabama. The best thing would be for the so called "author" to be fired and this tripe ridden thread to be deleted forever.

    And Wyatt.....I KNOW you're reading this....so put down the "Bear" magazine for a bit and flush that play-dough brain of yours out with some Drain-O mm'kay?

    Comment by Calton — February 15, 2008 @ 05:03PM

  27. Nice video Carlton!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elIwf0QZ1nE

    Talk about fecal brain matter!

    Comment by 12chan — February 15, 2008 @ 05:45PM

  28. Calton: therapy. Now. Please.

    Comment by Kate — February 15, 2008 @ 05:47PM

  29. Great article! Thanks for bringing attention to the reckless, irresponsible, hostile and unjust world of Wikipedia. My advice to the author - both you and your sister should get non-published phone numbers and addresses ASAP. I'd also turn over all correspondance from Calton to my local police department, just to be on the safe side. Based upon his comments here and all the information about this guy on the net, it seems that he may be suffering from some serious mental health issues. I wouldn't underestimate Calton's desire for revenge. His apparent obsession with your sister is really scary. He strikes me as a sociopath, who doesn't seem to understand that harrassing people is a crime. I really hope this guy gets some professional help, before it's too late.

    My deepest sympathies to your sister for all she's been through. I hope she sues!

    Comment by Ann Onymous — February 16, 2008 @ 12:32AM

  30. Comment #16 is a crude -- and crudely written -- forgery, as the slightest check of the posting IP by the site admins would show, and I demand that it be removed immediately. What, exactly, is level of self-righteousness that provokes such dishonest tactics like forgery and character assassination in pursuit of a vendetta?

    Oh, and Greg, I'm still beavering away at Wikipedia -- not banned -- while you were blocked, permanently, by founder Jimbo Wales hisownself for trying to spam Wikipedia to line your own pockets. It takes some doing to get that level of personal service.

    And Jeannie, you not only were sockpuppeting -- and have been blocked repeatedly for it -- but your own sister used one of those sockpuppets as a source without bothering to mention that fact it was you. That's a pretty big laspse of journalistic ethics if she didn't tell her editor and a very big lapse on the part of the editor if he or she DID know and let her. How she snowed her editor, I don't know -- maybe the same way she snowed the people at the Wikimedia Foundation about the type of story she claimed to be doing.

    So rant about lawyers all you want, Jeannie -- assuming he exists and actually works for you -- but if he's even halfway competent, he's going to tell you that you don't have a legal leg to stand on and the evidence WILL be against you.

    Comment by Calton — February 16, 2008 @ 08:12AM

  31. Oh, and #25? Also a crude, sub-literate forgery.

    Comment by Calton — February 16, 2008 @ 08:19AM

  32. As to the above comment by Calton, this tactic of his, to deny posting the previous comments, is one he stated he would pursue. A quick scan of his Wikipedia activity will show he usually falls into one of 3 categories when caught saying something he should not be:

    1. Denial, even in the face of overwhelming evidence.
    2. Blame the comment on a sockpuppet.
    3. Ignore the comment as if it didn't exist.

    He has done this before. I have NO doubt the above comments by Calton are in fact genuine, as they are too alike both in style and substance to his usual inane ramblings.

    Comment by Bain — February 16, 2008 @ 08:24AM

  33. I want to make something clear, even for you dolts. Freedom of speech is a PRIVILEGE NOT a right.

    I demand that this entire thread be removed due to the obvious forgery, in my name, going on here. I have NO doubt this forgery is being done by more than one disgruntled former Wikipedian that was shown the door courtesy of myself.

    If this entire thread is NOT taken down in 24 hours I WILL be in contact with my legal friends to seek other means of addressing this situation.

    And as for Wikipedia user MegaMom AKA Wyatt AKA Bain, I strongly suggest you keep your plebian mouth shut. The Wikitruth shall prevail, as always, and there is nothing any of you clam-clowns can do about it.

    Comment by Calton — February 16, 2008 @ 08:47AM

  34. Hmmmmmm...Carlton...what is it...did I hit a nerve?????

    Comment by pK — February 16, 2008 @ 09:15AM

  35. Oh dear Carlton the Doorman WILL be in contact with his legal friends! At this point, let's remind him again that renting Season 7 of Law and Order is NOT the same as having legal friends. He DOES have psychic friends though. In any case, I hope it's clear to the amused non Wikipedian readers here what us editors have to deal with on a regular basis battling such omnipresent putzes like Carlton and Griot. Oh well, I guess old Jimbo Wales' little ego trip sure has gone down the crapper! Nice job, Carlton and Griot

    Bingo Long

    Comment by Bingo Long — February 16, 2008 @ 12:39PM

  36. It's interesting to note that both the supposed forged Calton and the supposed genuine Calton used the fairly uncommon words "Dolts" and "Plebian" in rather similarly phrased hysterical rants that both ended with name calling that was also uncommon with the first one using "broom-pusher" and the second one using "clam-clowns". What is a clam-clown anyway?? They also both made bizarre statements as well. The first with the "Our truth, the Wiki-truth, is the thing that matters" and the second with "Freedom of speech is a PRIVILEGE NOT a right". Very strange indeed. And by the way Calton, freedom of speech is guaranteed by the Bill of RIGHTS, not the Bill of Privileges. Oh and I love the demands for this entire thread to be removed and threats of legal action. Too much! :-D

    Comment by BillyTFried — February 16, 2008 @ 02:08PM

  37. Mr. Fried,

    I think I actually love that phrase..."clam clown"!! I've just reclaimed it for the forces of good.

    Comment by pK — February 16, 2008 @ 05:45PM

  38. Mr. Fried,

    I think I actually love that phrase..."clam clown"!! I've just reclaimed it for the forces of good.

    Comment by pK — February 16, 2008 @ 05:45PM

  39. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbCiac03ycQ

    Comment by Clam Clown — February 16, 2008 @ 06:19PM

  40. For continuing education on Wikipedia, this may be of interest:

    "Wikipedia ruled by 'Lord of the Universe'" by Cade Metz

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/06/the_cult_of_wikipedia/

    additional reflections here:

    http://www.cultnews.com/?p=2257

    Comment by AK — February 18, 2008 @ 08:42AM

  41. Mary,

    I just read your article on Wikipidiots and I would just like to applaud you on a wonderful piece. I am not a Wikipedia user and I try my best to stay away from the internet for critical information. If there is no accountability to the information I am receiving, I don't reagrd it as legitimate. Furthermore I cannot stomach internet users like Griot whom I like to call "Internet Warriors" who are as tough and critical as they want to be in the virtual world, but never dare show face in the real world. I have had altercations via e-mail in the past with people threatening my life. Of course when it came down to meeting in person they were more than reluctant. Again, unaccountable and full of nothing more than inner anger and an immense vocabulary. I even e-mailed one asshole my address and phone number if he really wanted to see me. I can't stand bully's. Especially scared ones with piercing words who have a latent smart-ass tone attached to their humor. Good job.

    ps: I loved the last paragraph. You must be smiling bigger than I am knowing how much your article pissed off that asshole. Haha. I love thinking about idiots like him swimming in a vat of their own anger wanting desperately to destroy you, but having no weapon other than a poor and miserable facade.

    Comment by Carlos Nieto — February 18, 2008 @ 10:32AM

  42. Excellent piece. I have been active on the Internet since pre-Web days; back when 'newsgroups' were the hot ticket, and 'gopher' was leading edge technology. And I always rejected the implict intellectual and personal cowardice of using 'handles' or aliases or whatever; I always signed every post I wrote with my real name.

    Until about two years ago. I posted a comment -- not an especially controversial one -- to a web political blog. As usual, I signed it with my real name (as I am with this post.)

    Long story short: a couple of days later I began receiving harassing -- no, threatening -- phone calls from a number blocked from Caller ID. This freak called repeatedly for several days, and then quit. I suppose it wasn't very hard for him to track me down; my name isn't overly common, and my post gave a general idea of where I live.

    In any case, since that time I've largely used aliases on the web. I don't like it; but I've learned there are some very angry and scary people out there on the Internet.

    Comment by Brent Eades — February 18, 2008 @ 03:32PM

  43. I read your article with great interest, and I found myself chuckling at your description of the petty wars waged among some of Wikipedia’s pricklier contributors. I refer to Wikipedia frequently yet I realize it’s foolish to rely solely on it for unbiased, complete, authoritative information. However, until Encyclopedia Britannica makes its above-reproach and impartial content as accessible, free, and easy to use, one would do well to consult Wikipedia – and its two-million-plus articles - with a salt shaker handy.

    Comment by Scott Spiro III — February 18, 2008 @ 03:56PM

  44. BillyTFried, as you slovenly pickananies should know, is a well known troll, libeler, and character assassin on Wikipedia. His parents were more than likely related before they got married, and I would not be too surprised if his father in fact, forced himself onto his "me so hor-ney" mother.

    Bad trash breeds bad trash, as BTFried is evident of.

    I also see this thread has not been taken down. Fine. Lawyers contacted period/full stop.

    Comment by Calton — February 18, 2008 @ 04:02PM

  45. Wow, insulting my mother and father eh Calton? How classy and sophisticated of you. "Lawyers contacted period/full stop." Hahahaha! Yeah, you BETTER get this thread taken down soon before you make yourself look any worse! LOL! So sad!

    Comment by BillyTFried — February 18, 2008 @ 05:11PM

  46. And what's with the racist "me so hor-ney" comment? You're the one who's Asian. Not me. Or was that entire post also a forgery? The "slovenly pickananies" must know! :-D

    Comment by BillyTFried — February 18, 2008 @ 05:50PM

  47. http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Calton

    Comment by Pk Ananies — February 18, 2008 @ 06:50PM

  48. Calton's hateful and sociopathic behaviors on Wikipedia were already reported on in USATODAY two years ago.

    An American expatriate called "Calton" apparently doesn't like the political userboxes.

    "Kill them, kill them with fire, nuke them from orbit, salt the earth behind them," he wrote on one deletion-review page.

    Then "Misza13" of Poland cried foul on "Calton": "I'd like to note that, in my humble opinion, your vote ("Kill them ...") is an example of Wikihate. Please, don't hate."

    http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2006-02-27-wikipedians_x.htm

    Comment by Nickz — February 18, 2008 @ 07:44PM

  49. Now if this were Wikipedia I suspect some "snarky" admin would undoubtedly come forward to inform us all that the hostile and inappropriate messages signed by "Calton" came from the same IP address. A host of "established" members of the Wikipedia "Community" would then probably come forward to publish the IP address, the general location of the user, the Internet Service provider, and publicly identify any corporation associated with that IP address, in the hopes that they might be able to cause problems for the user at their place of employment. Nothing would give the "regulars" on WIkipedia more pleasure than to detail as much embarrassing personal information about the poster as possible. Of course, their breeches of Wikipedia policy would be completely ignored by administrators and their postings would be fiercely guarded, so that the embarrasing details of any "scrape" with Wikipedia's "powers that be" would remain on Google searches of the individual's name for YEARS TO COME! That seems to be the general "mission" of Wikipedia - public embarrassment and humiliation for anyone who doesn't take their idiotic site, which seems to be run by a group of disturbed social outcasts "seriously" enough. I honestly think someone should start a worldwide petition to get Wikipedia "banned" from Google search results - certainly the talk pages and "non article" spaces.

    I sincerely doubt that anyone has "impersonated" Calton on this site! lol! Nice try, Cal! These postings are all too similar to his other published "works". The only difference appears to be a few typos. What's the matter, Cal? Perhaps, you had a few too many glasses of wine and don't remember posting these nasty little messages?

    Mary, if you're really looking to write an interesting article that could draw wide spread international attention, I suggest you do a follow up focusing on "Calton". Based upon his postings here, he seems to be "begging" for your newspaper's time and attention. There is certainly more than enough available information for QUITE an article on this person, who many see as an Internet "menace". http://www.fireflysun.com/book/Berkeley_Wikipedia_cyberstalking.php

    And before any "psychos" come forward to accuse me of "being" Wyatt - I'll state for the record that I'm NOT. It's really fascinating - "Calton" apparently stalks and harrasses this poor guy for years trying to destroy his professional reputation. Finally the guy has enough and starts his own website - exposing Calton for what he is - a CYBER STALKER. Now anyone who references this site, bringing it to the public's attention, is acussed of "being" Wyatt and allegedly "stalking" Calton! lol! "Calton", you are obviously very seriously disturbed - GET SOME HELP!

    Comment by Ann Onymous — February 18, 2008 @ 10:25PM

  50. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Griot

    "And we would've gotten away with, too, if it hadn't been for you kids, and your article too!"

    Comment by Pk Ananies — February 19, 2008 @ 03:27PM

  51. I read this piece in the physical paper with some hope of it being a well-written and researched article, as it was the front page splash and touched on a somewhat worthy subject. The problem is that it spiraled into a personal mission by the author to criticize and ridicule one single Wikipedia idiot rather than formulate a worthwhile opinion or news piece on the state of Wikipedia as a whole and the effect that these numerous people have on it. From this article, one might assume Griot is the *only* person on Wikipedia that is a problem, or at least only the articles that he/she touched are plagued by such editing problems. There are plenty of problems with Wikipedia on many more subjects (usually controversial ones) including with Wikipedia "elite" staff/editors themselves who act as the stop-gates to topics and articles they "oversee." I guess we are to take heart in the fact that the author acknowledges her own bias, because of her sister's plight, and therefore forgive the witch hunt.

    As a whole, a disappointing effort by the author, and even further disappointment that the SF Weekly chose to run it as the feature article. With a little more research and a lot more effort, this could have been a truly insightful and meaningful article with a much deeper message about our current social structure and how anonymity affects information bias and content.

    Comment by Peter C — February 19, 2008 @ 04:29PM

  52. You guys should know that The Commonwealth Club's INFORUM Salon series is hosting Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales and Andrew Keen in a Salon style event at The Bubble Lounge next Thursday, February 28th. It's called Web 2.0: Amateur Hour or Mass-ive Knowledge and they're going to be talking about just these issues. If you agreed with or dis-agreed with this article you should definitely check it out. It is limited to 100 people and tickets are going fast. But, if you want to know more check out, www.commonwealthclub.org/inforum.

    Here's a teaser:

    In today's self-broadcasting culture, where amateurism is celebrated and anyone with an opinion can post a video on YouTube, change an entry on Wikipedia or publish reviews on Yelp, we increasingly turn to the collective intelligence of large numbers of people. Should we rely on the "wisdom of the crowds," trusting that they are smarter than the expert few? Or is Web 2.0 weakening traditional media to the point where we only have opinion and chaos? Wikipedia's Wales and author Keen go head to head in this debate.

    Comment by Caroline Moriarity Sacks — February 20, 2008 @ 12:41PM

  53. Well well well look at what appeared on Wikipedia today:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Calton

    scroll to the bottom and you'll see (before Calton deletes it)

    Favor

    Our journalist friend may have been made to walk the plank. Her name no longer appears on her paper's masthead.[4] I sent copies of the letter I sent to her two days prior to publication to her editors. I ambushed them, I think. I believe the editors were surprised by the revalation but had to print because cancelling was too late. Notice in the article that the sister stuff appears tacked on at the last minute. Maybe Wiki people stepped in for me. Maybe the editors had a fit. I don't know. A favor: Can you fix all links to my Talk page on "Attempted Outing"? "Attempted Outing" will go into archives soon and be uneditable. I would like the links to work, so can you make the links to archived versions of my Talk page as the current page is a blank? Two bloggers that I know of are going to write about the incident and maybe rival papers to the Weekly as well. I'm sorry for what happened but those yatches hounded me for a half a year and I had to take measures. Life without Wiki bullshit is pretty good. Lots of free time. Thanks for all. This message will self-destruct in ten seconds. 71.139.24.255 (talk) 02:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


    This is where I would call the lawyers on Wiki. Hey, if anyone goes to that above mentioned debate that Jimbo is going to be in, this might be a good point to bring up.

    Comment by Lulz — February 20, 2008 @ 10:24PM

  54. i was the person with whom he was exchanging messages about ralph nader, presenting him with inescapable facts from the innumerable reports with people like greg palast and democracy now and howard zinn disproving his accusations, and he taunted me with that stupid mickey mouse thing! just to let you know, i find this personally fascinating. he is now blocked, thanks heavens and porridge:)

    Comment by telly-gulliver poppins — February 21, 2008 @ 03:50PM

  55. Just read it... I'm not sure what your article accomplished in the end,
    but it DID provide interesting tidbits of info regarding the Wikipedia
    World (how it works, who's involved, some of its effects, SF's
    involvement, etc), AND it was a very entertaining story overall. It was
    cool how despite your challenges, you made it work out in the end...
    well, maybe not for YOU per se, but for me as a reader, it was
    satisfying. Anywhoot, thanks for a good read! =)

    Comment by Phil aka DJ Chicken Skratch — February 22, 2008 @ 07:33PM

  56. I find it rather ironic that this thread is still here despite the fact I managed to get the author of said piece terminated due to her rather libelous and flimsy "journalism", which would best be suited to the National Enquirer.

    I also find it amusing, to a point, the continued inane bogostic blabberings of the usual cast of clueless plebians and broom-pushers who have no idea how Wikipedia really works, and who base their rather skewered opinions on the fact they are more than likely EX-Wikipedians who ran afoul of policy.

    I won, you lost. period/fullstop.

    Comment by Calton — February 25, 2008 @ 01:22AM

  57. I find it ironic that you can’t see what a pathetic rambling jackass you sound like.
    And you didn’t get anyone fired idiot, the author resigned Feb 1 and works for MSNBC now.

    Hyperbole, beer drinking NASCAR driving invisible being in the sky worshipping dolts, Give it up bucky, (snicker), bogosity, plebians, fecal brain matter, Mmm'kay, some redneck school in "MA DADDY FOUGHT IN 'NAM DONT DISRESPECT HIM" Alabama, "Bear" magazine for a bit and flush that play-dough brain of yours out with some Drain-O mm'kay?, I demand this tripe ridden thread to be deleted forever, Freedom of speech is a PRIVILEGE NOT a right, Our Truth, The Wikitruth, slovenly pickananies, His parents were more than likely related before they got married, and I would not be too surprised if his father in fact, forced himself onto his "me so hor-ney" mother. Lawyers contacted period/full stop. Clam-clowns, bogostic blabberings of the usual cast of clueless plebians and broom-pushers. I won, you lost. period/fullstop.

    How can you not see what a pathetically insecure and quite psychotic chump all this pseudo-intellectual babble makes you sound? I can understand your frustration with the fact that even in Japan a fat ugly feminine half-Asian mega-dork like you still can’t get laid, but harassing people over the web for outing a sock puppet isn’t going to help your situation any. period/fullSTOP HAMMERTIME! :-D

    Comment by ChumpGaijinSmasher — February 25, 2008 @ 05:34PM

  58. I find it ironic that you can’t see what a pathetic rambling jackass you sound like.
    And you didn’t get anyone fired idiot, the author resigned Feb 1 and works for MSNBC now.

    Hyperbole, beer drinking NASCAR driving invisible being in the sky worshipping dolts, Give it up bucky, (snicker), bogosity, plebians, fecal brain matter, Mmm'kay, some redneck school in "MA DADDY FOUGHT IN 'NAM DONT DISRESPECT HIM" Alabama, "Bear" magazine for a bit and flush that play-dough brain of yours out with some Drain-O mm'kay?, I demand this tripe ridden thread to be deleted forever, Freedom of speech is a PRIVILEGE NOT a right, Our Truth, The Wikitruth, slovenly pickananies, His parents were more than likely related before they got married, and I would not be too surprised if his father in fact, forced himself onto his "me so hor-ney" mother. Lawyers contacted period/full stop. Clam-clowns, bogostic blabberings of the usual cast of clueless plebians and broom-pushers. I won, you lost. period/fullstop.

    How can you not see what a pathetically insecure and quite psychotic chump all this pseudo-intellectual babble makes you sound? I can understand your frustration with the fact that even in Japan a fat ugly feminine half-Asian mega-dork like you still can’t get laid, but harassing people over the web for outing a sock puppet isn’t going to help your situation any. period/fullSTOP HAMMERTIME! :-D

    Comment by ChumpGaijinSmasher — February 25, 2008 @ 05:35PM

  59. Hey CalTON Bay Beeeeeeeee! Hows thatlegal action going?? 58 comments and counting....make it stop mommy make it stop!!! Keep watching divorce court in your underpants, maybe you'll get some ideas!! Oops , sorry, Calton/ideas???? oxycontinmoronic. Yiou got her sacked huh??? Whadya do, post deleete!!! hahahaahahahaha ya LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSER

    Comment by Bingo Long — February 25, 2008 @ 08:53PM

  60. I edited this story and I can assure you that Mary did not get fired for this story or any other. Mary decided to leave the paper to take a job with a local documentary filmmaker. She gave her notice before the Wikipedia story was published. She disclosed to me early in the reporting process her sister's fights with Griot and her sister's role is mentioned high up in our story. Bottom line: We stand by the story.

    Comment by Will Harper, Managing Editor, SF Weekly — February 26, 2008 @ 01:55PM

  61. But but but, Calton said his high powered legal team got her terminated! You sure this isn't just more bogosity from a broom-pushing clam-clown? Tell the wiki-truth plebian!

    Comment by BillyTFried — February 26, 2008 @ 04:56PM

  62. Mr.Harper is, as usual, lying. You can spin this travesty anyway you wish, the Wiki-Truth is she was shwon the door period/fullstop.

    I find it also very amusing that a recent spat of rambling dolts and hook-nosed Shylocks have been vandalizing my Wiki talk page as well. Funny thing is, they all seem to be originating from the San Fransisco area.

    Coincidence?
    I think not.

    I advise you Mr. Harper to call off any attack dogs (which in your paper's case would be French Poodles *snicker*) before you find yourself in as much legal stew as the hack 'journalist' who fabricated this birdcage liner article of yours.

    Comment by Calton — February 27, 2008 @ 04:52AM

  63. First the bigoted anti-religious-Nascar-fan-country-folks remark.
    Then the shameful anti-Alabaman-Vietnam-War-Veteran comment.
    Then the anti-Asian Me-so-horny comment despite your own Asian background.
    And now making shocking anti-Semitic hook-nosed comments as well?

    What's next? Spicuzza sounds Italian to me. Maybe some anti-Italian slurs as well?

    And how well do you know Mr. Harper to know he's lying "as usual"? Have you been cataloging his lies for years?
    And AGAIN what is this Wiki-Truth you keep referring to and how does it differ from the REAL truth? And why do you keep using the word plebian and saying period/fullstop over and over again? Do you really not see how bizarre it sounds?
    And just what "legal stew" is the author of this article in for exposing the unethical behaviors of a couple of ANONYMOUS USER NAMES on Wikipedia?

    Calton,
    - Everyone knows your buddy Griot was confirmed to be an abusive sock puppeteer and was permanently and justifiably banned for it by the WIKI-authorities.
    - Everyone knows you didn't get the author of this article fired for a story the editors had no problem making the FRONT PAGE story and still maintain they stand by.
    - Everyone knows you have no legal team working day and night to get this comments section deleted from the web.
    - Everyone can see your bizarre, hysterical, angry, hateful, racist remarks and figure out for themselves how deranged and possibly mentally ill you are regardless of the story or other's comments.
    Every comment you make is not convincing anyone of your little fantasy stories and only makes you look even worse. Just stop posting already. Its the best thing you can do for yourself. Seriously.

    Comment by BillyTFried — February 27, 2008 @ 10:44AM

  64. Spicuzza resigned. That's cute. I think we really know the whole story, but thanks anyway for the denial. It's so...SF Weekly-like.

    Comment by Moi — February 27, 2008 @ 09:54PM

  65. Hey, you forgot to say at the end Griot, I mean Moi! LOL!

    Comment by BillyTFried — February 27, 2008 @ 10:08PM

  66. Hey people,

    Thank you for all of your comments and letters to the editor. And it's true--I gave notice on February 1 after accepting a job with an amazing documentary production company.

    Thanks again for showing so much interest in this article.

    Best wishes.

    Comment by Mary Spicuzza — February 27, 2008 @ 10:11PM

  67. Let's see. In comment #10, Jeanne Marie Spicuzza, the author's sister, writes, "I do not participate on Wikipedia, nor do I use it as a source." However, the article notes that Jeane Marie kept a page on Wikipedia and it was "taken off." Then in comment #60, an SF Weekly editor writes about the author, "She disclosed to me early in the reporting process her sister's fights with Griot." So her sister didn't participate in Wikipedia but managed to have "fights with Griot."

    Hey, what's going on here? Then the author herself chimes in with a statement about how she quit in February, right before the article came out, and that her sudden departure from the Weekly had nothing to do with her appalling lack of journalism standards.

    What's that I smell? Is it fish? Fishiness?

    "Based on a true story" -- isn't that the Weekly's motto?

    Commen