Wikipedia, subject and object of political influence? In a few weeks, two cases demonstrated the extent to which the collaborative encyclopedia aroused the interest of campaign teams and collaborators of public figures. The publication this Thursday, February 17 of the investigative book “At the heart of Z”, by journalist Vincent Bresson, revealed the work of an internet cell called “Wikizedia” among supporters of Eric Zemmour. The group, made up of a dozen activists, was intended to put the candidate to his advantage in the most discreet way possible. In the majority of cases, its participants tried to lessen the seriousness of certain remarks of the polemicist. Among them, there was notably Gabriel, alias “Cheep”, the 64th largest contributor to Wikipedia in the French version, registered for more than 15 years on the site. A real strategy of entryism.
But the Zemmour teams are not the only ones trying to shape the Wikipedia pages. In January, one of the administrators of the free encyclopedia told Arrêts sur image that a quarter of the page devoted to Marlène Schiappa, the Minister Delegate in charge of Citizenship, had been written by one of his collaborators. . A warning then appeared on the text in question, deeming it “autobiographical or self-centered”. A few months earlier, a similar incident had occurred with the page of the deputy LREM Laetitia Avia, or that of the senator Esther Benbassa. Recurring incidents, which require the vigilance of volunteers from the free encyclopedia and which L’Express had investigated in June 2021. Interview with Rémi Mathis, Wikipedian, ex-president of Wikimedia France and author of Wikipedia. Behind the scenes of the world’s largest encyclopedia (Ed. First, 2021).
L’Express: Were you surprised by the latest revelations concerning the pages of Eric Zemmour and, a month ago, Marlène Schiappa?
Remi Mathis: Yes and no. I was not surprised to see that people in the communications community consider Wikipedia to be an important entry point. On the other hand, it is unfortunate that, in the case of Eric Zemmour, these modifications came from a contributor, Cheep, who was trusted and had been active for a long time. To my knowledge, this is the first time that a person has acted from the inside, in bad faith. This is a fairly new political strategy.
The case of Marlène Schiappa actually seems quite different to me. Intervening on a page is not a bad thing in itself, and here, it is more about institutional, sourced communication. The article is quite hagiographic, but there is no intention to deceive, unlike the one on Eric Zemmour, where the latter is manifest.
Are the pages of the presidential candidates particularly watched at the moment?
Since 2012, we know that a passage on Wikipedia seems obvious for the teams of the candidates. But they are relatively few: we must pay attention to about twenty people, whose pages are generally based on clear sources, easy to find. These are not difficult items to control. If we see that a controversy swells, we can, moreover, put the page of a personality in “semi-protected”, which means that its access is limited to the oldest contributors. A legislative election is more complex: there are 500 pages with sometimes little-known candidates, many local controversies that we don’t necessarily know about, pages that are created, paragraphs that are added… In this kind of cases, “patrols” are put in place as the election draws near.
Is this kind of intervention reserved for politicians?
No, but they happen especially on the pages of living people. This can concern writers as well as actors, or even people who simply want a Wikipedia page. The only difference with the pages of political personalities, it is the militant intervention.
How do you identify, for example, the influence of a communication agency, hired to ripolin the page of a political figure or a company?
Already, it must be said that this is not necessarily a bad thing. An agency can be hired to put the exact turnover of a company, add details. This is of no concern. I remind you that Wikimedia France has partnerships with certain museums which can intervene to add information to their own page. Why can’t companies do it too? The important thing is obviously that a multiplicity of sources exist on the page, such as contributors. In any case, when there are problems with communicators, we notice rather naive things, rather quickly.
Do you often come across outright acts of vandalism?
This is one of the most common forms of vandalism! Overall, however, this is not a problem because we have small computer programs, with accounts maintained by bots which restore the pages automatically. The real problem comes more from modifications that are subtle enough to require human intelligence to flush it out, such as those made on Eric Zemmour’s page.
Does the example of Eric Zemmour’s page lead you to think that there may be a flaw in moderation?
Not really. Wikipedia relies on the work of people under pseudonyms, who are judged on their actions. In this context, it is obvious that some people make themselves known after a certain time. Someone who has been acting positively on the encyclopedia for 7 or 8 years is not going to be constantly monitored. This was the case with Cheep, and I don’t think this model is questioned. After all, the consequences of what he did with the Zemmour article are quite limited.
There are, moreover, banners which indicate when an article poses a problem, because it creates a debate on Wikipedia: some find the additions very good, others ridiculous. This kind of addition helps to tell the reader to pay attention, to include him in the reading and to tell him to make up his own mind. This banner, anyone can add it, on any page, except for semi-protected articles. On the other hand, there are articles so controversial that you cannot make any changes without entering a discussion page where you debate with other contributors on the relevance of such or such addition. And if you can’t figure it out, you can always ask other Wikipedians, outside the debate, for their opinion on a particular section of the site called “the bistro”. All these people intervene, cross their point of view, and finally, we arrive at a good balance.
On the other hand, one thing seems more complicated to me to solve: the overall consistency of certain pages. Spotting people to edit an article is quite simple. But it is quite complicated to give editorial consistency to a tab of 30 or 40 pages written by hundreds of people, with sources that go in all directions. Eric Zemmour’s page, precisely, is a good example: there are a lot of controversies available, a lot of chance that the page will go all over the place, with one section larger than another. For the moment, it is complicated to settle this question.