EA caught fiddling Wikipedia

[Shrygue]

via Computer and Video Games (http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=170230)


It appears that EA has been none too chuffed with entries on its Wikipedia page, and rather than soak up the punches has decided to take action.

According to reports, not only has a user - an EA staffer, allegedly - previously removed references to the publishing giant's founder Trip Hawkins, but additionally negative content associated with the company has also been removed.

The detective work has been conducted by Shacknews, which highlights a number of areas on EA's Wikipedia page that have been altered in the past to apparently erase Hawkins' legacy.

Not only that, but 'clean up' alterations were made to the page - again allegedly by an EA staffer - to remove negative entries focussing on controversial business practices and the publisher's previous attitude to its workers.

According to Shacknews, a lot of the alterations that were made have subsequently been revised by the Wikipedia community. We can understand the desire to rub out negative content, by why the removal of references to Trip Hawkins?

We've contacted EA and await a response (which will no doubt be "no comment").

[VampDude]

EA have no right to alter stuff to erase the past, hopefully the author of the original context has the original written documentation ready to re-submit (or if Wikipedia can restore the original linking to the altered version).

[Elmarco]

Bad EA, very bad! They ought to take the negative as well a positive just like everybody else!! :mad:

[podunk320x]

Thats another "low" for EA. :rolleyes:

I really hated them a few years ago when they were treating a programmer like crap and they eventually let him go for "below average" work. Yeah right, they let him go because his wife spoke up. :mad:

Anyway, I wish that wikipedia not only put everything back like it used to be but also ADD that they tried to remove the content.

I have to agree with Elmarco. Bad EA, very.... very bad

[Mr. Shadow]

Thats why wikipedia shouldn't be made public, hey i found zion on wikikpedia as well as a couple of mods over their. There gone now but i remember a few to be wraggster, kaiser, cap'n'1time, and zion.

[mcdougall57]

hopefully theyll restore it, sly bastards

[Cap'n 1time]

Thats why wikipedia shouldn't be made public, hey i found zion on wikikpedia as well as a couple of mods over their. There gone now but i remember a few to be wraggster, kaiser, cap'n'1time, and zion.

I disagree. Wikipedia works, and the proof is in the fact that companies that try to alter their image on wikipedia (Microsoft, EA, etc) always get caught and take it up the ass when they do get caught.

[SnesR0X]

I love Wikipedia, anytime I want a reliable source (generally :p) I can just click on and I'm there. There'll usually be more info on the subject than any official source, because it says all the good and bad.

[JKKDARK]

(or if Wikipedia can restore the original linking to the altered version).
Yes it's possible ;)

[pibs]

I disliked EA since they canceled Thrill Kill

EA's response was that
Many companies routinely post updates on websites like Wikipedia to ensure accuracy of their own corporate information.

They did not, however, address the specifics of the changes.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Arts

[Adrenalin]

lol pwned.
stupid EA

[VampDude]

Yes it's possible ;)

I think anything is possible on Wikipedia, as Wikipedia are always monitoring content and making sure that nobody has maliciously altered documents and other forms of unjust editing. Wikipedia at times section off subjects, which I can only presume that they restore the original document from the server and possibly have a small team to comb through the original and the edited document and make the necessary changes to correct the updated original document.

[Mr. Shadow]

I disagree. Wikipedia works, and the proof is in the fact that companies that try to alter their image on wikipedia (Microsoft, EA, etc) always get caught and take it up the ass when they do get caught.

opps, you misinterpreted what i said. Don't get me wrong i use wikipedia quite often, i meant that ANYONE shouldn't be able to edit it just like that. Still that is just my opinoin. I respect yours.:) and remember what i said earlier, to me peolpe who are angry at somthing tend to go to wkikpedia to miss use something there like saying you (cap'n'1time) suck or somthing of the sort.

[Cap'n 1time]

opps, you misinterpreted what i said. Don't get me wrong i use wikipedia quite often, i meant that ANYONE shouldn't be able to edit it just like that. Still that is just my opinoin. I respect yours.:) and remember what i said earlier, to me peolpe who are angry at somthing tend to go to wkikpedia to miss use something there like saying you (cap'n'1time) suck or somthing of the sort.

I still disagree... well, sort of. While it would be awesome if we had 100% accurate super genius robots writing wikipedia articles that isnt going to happen no matter what. It's hard to find enough people who would donate so much time on topics they have little or no interest of to such a project with no pay. I do think it would help if citations were always required and approved BEFORE the article goes public.

[Mr. Shadow]

I still disagree... well, sort of. While it would be awesome if we had 100% accurate super genius robots writing wikipedia articles that isnt going to happen no matter what. It's hard to find enough people who would donate so much time on topics they have little or no interest of to such a project with no pay. I do think it would help if citations were always required and approved BEFORE the article goes public.

AH good you got me their, i like your idea for the citation. Maybe its something they should apply.