Wikipedia Watch



This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.

Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for Deletion page.

You are welcome to edit this article, but please do not blank this article or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress. For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the Guide to Deletion. How to list a page for deletion ([ log])

Wikipedia Watch is a web site that was launched on October 13, 2005 by Daniel Brandt criticising Wikipedia in response to the Wikipedia article that was made about himself, which he stated was an invasion of privacy, in particular of Florida State statutes on privacy (the Wikipedia Foundation has its headquarters in Florida).

About
He has both emailed and written (via fax) to the Wikipedia Foundation and Jimmy Wales personally demanding that this article on him be deleted from the Wikipedia; a copy of the faxed letter has been posted on his Wikipedia Watch site.  Brandt argues that Wikipedia's openness raises the risk that articles may be manipulated by anyone without being accountable for it. He also argues that Wikipedia's prominence in search engine results gives those with a personal agenda a potential platform for making libelous statements with impunity. Brandt has said of Wikipedia that
 * The privacy issues interest me even more than the libel issue. Unfortunately, the laws on privacy are less clear, and discussions on privacy will not be as focused. In Florida, where Wikipedia is located, there is an invasion of privacy statute that might apply in this case, even assuming that everything in the article is true. At issue would be the public disclosure of truthful private information that a reasonable person would find objectionable. Would a reasonable person find Wikipedia's mention of facts about my 1960s activism objectionable? Not at the moment, hopefully, and yet it wouldn't take much for this situation to change. Another act of terrorism on U.S. soil, followed by a stronger version of the U.S. Patriot Act, and "reasonable" people might feel that I should, once again, be watched by the FBI, CIA, and local police the way I was in the 1960s. Does Wikipedia consider issues such as this? Of course not — information wants to be free, and nothing must stand in its way.

Identities of Wikipedia users
He has stated on Wikipedia Watch that he seeks identities of Wikipedia contributors and administrators in part because, if he decides to sue, he is unsure who to sue. Brandt also criticizes the anonymity of certain Wikipedia editors and administrators, and maintains a page where he attempts to obtain the identities of the anonymous editors with whom he has come into conflict. He says "the editors and administrators feel that they are untouchable" (as of mid December 2005) and that disclosing their identities would increase accountability of the information they write. Wikipedia defenders counter that it is the Internet service providers who refuse to give out the information only they have about who is using an individual IP, and that Wikipedia has no way of gaining such information. 

Wikipedia policy
Brandt has also criticized recent changes to Wikipedia policy taken as a result of the Seigenthaler controversy, saying that they are are a step backwards because they will decrease the number of users whose IP address will be visible. The new policy prevents users who are not logged-in (and who therefore can only be credited for their edits with an IP address) from creating articles. Such users are still permitted under the new policy to edit existing articles, and all such edits will still be credited to their IP addresses.

Editor of Wikipedia
Brandt was a Wikipedia editor under the user name User:Daniel Brandt from approximately October 15 to November 8, 2005, when his account was indefinitely blocked from editing. This action was taken following a rancorous three week period during which Brandt engaged in conduct that many Wikipedia editors considered to be violations of Wikipedia policy or otherwise inappropriate. His ban was overturned on December 17, 2005.

Role in the Seigenthaler controversy
In December 2005, Brandt became involved in the John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. Seigenthaler's USA Today column criticizing Wikipedia over the affair had generated considerable publicity.

Brandt found that the IP address used by the poster of the allegedly defamatory information was also used to host a website, with the text, "Welcome to Rush Delivery." There was also a company in Nashville known by that name, and the IP address on the email they sent back to Brandt matched that in the edit history of the Seigenthaler article. He made this information known to the media. Within the week, Brian Chase, a manager at Rush Delivery, resigned and personally confessed to Seigenthaler.

Attacks on Wikipedia Watch
As well as criticism, Wikipedia Watch has faced a number of attacks by Wikipedians. These include:


 * A hoax being sent by someone claiming to be a lawyer, who claimed that they had the identity of one of the unknown editors, giving their name as Daniel Atta Benzona, which means "Daniel is a son of a whore" in Hebrew. This person then set up their own web site http://danielbrandtblog.blogspot.com/ to document the hoax.
 * A Denial of Service attack perpetuated by one of Wikipedia's administrators. See http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/perp.html