On Wikipedia, the influence campaign of the candidates for the Elysée

• The "Wikizédia affair" has revived old fears of offering the millions of Internet users who consult the online encyclopedia false information.

• But the community of contributors is ultimately not worried, all attempts by Cheep and the dedicated cell of Eric Zemmour's campaign team have failed.

• This highlighting even made it possible to talk about Wikipedia, its foundations and its functioning.

  And to recall his essential role in the presidential campaign.

Install the Wikipedia app in French: 

.

Discover in the most read articles the one on Eric Zemmour among the top 10: 

.

To realize that he is the presidential candidate who arrives first in the most consulted: 

.

And after ?

Since the update of the "Wikizédia affair", the candidate for the presidential election crystallizes serious controversies concerning his page in the free encyclopedia and largely animates the debates between contributors - "The heart of the Wikipedian community is made up of 300 to 400 people”, according to the president of Wikimedia France -.

Has Wikipedia become a tool of influence in the presidential campaign?

attempts at explanation.

“The essence of Wikipedia is its community”

Last Thursday,

, a book signed by journalist Vincent Bresson, was released.

He recounted his infiltration into the campaign team of the far-right candidate and in particular, into the self-baptized cell “Wikizédia”, which tried to modify certain articles concerning Eric Zemmour to polish his image online.

But even before the revelation of the extent of this case, these attempts failed.

Thanks to Wikipedia's principles of neutrality?

“Not only”, according to Capucine-Marin Dubroca-Voisin, the president of Wikimedia France, the association which supports “wiki” type projects, but has no editorial role.

“The very essence of Wikipedia is its community.

A community that decides the rules itself, edits the articles, moderates them and manages itself”.

“To keep the encyclopedia up to date, we must constantly recruit new contributors, agrees Gilles Sahut, researcher in information and communication sciences.

The Wikipedia community is adapting.

It applies flexibility in the rules and emphasizes reasoned debates”.

And advocates total transparency since all exchanges are made on public pages, accessible to all.

An internal betrayal

By announcing on Wednesday that Cheep, a very old contributor, with more than 150,000 modifications, and six of his acolytes who took part in the "Wikizédia" cell were banned for life, the community severely sanctioned what it considers to be a betrayal.

“We knew of his commitment to the far right long before the revelation of this affair, confides the president of Wikimedia France.

But as on Wikipedia, everyone can contribute, its contents, additions and modifications were checked like the others”.

There, Cheep "caused the ire of the administrators of the encyclopedia because he was supposed to respect the principles of neutrality and he acted behind the scenes to promote Eric Zemmour", she still gets annoyed, recalling that the trust is at the heart of the operation of the free encyclopedia.

But these attempts at influence are therefore not a new phenomenon: “There is nothing surprising in this “Wikizédia” affair, apart from the size of the cell, analyzes Gilles Sahut.

Moreover, reports Capucine-Marin Dubroca-Voisin, "we recently had the case with the team of Marlène Schiappa, who was advancing with her face uncovered, but who was trying to modify articles concerning her".

Or that of François Asselineau, who almost never had his Wikipedia file.

“He and his team have been carrying out a real harassment of Wikipedians for several years.

This was long before he was a presidential candidate.

At the time, he was not considered notable enough to be included.

And when he gathered the sufficient criteria, the community was quite focused and took a long time to agree on the creation of his page”.

As David Walther, communication director for Yannick Jadot's campaign, also reminds us, "On Wikipedia, we do surveillance, a little control over the candidate's page but also on themes where we know that lobbies are extremely powerful. , for example on the issue of nuclear power, agriculture, cereals, pollutants.

We know that they finance agencies that are very active on these subjects and we are trying to establish the truth, by inviting our activists to contribute openly”.

Have we reached the limits of Wikipedia?

Finally, the impact of the case had generally positive effects on Wikipedia.

If in the presidential campaign, this new escapade of Eric Zemmour indignant his opponents, it also made it possible “to reinforce the vigilance of the community, insists Capucine-Marin Dubroca-Voisin.

And to prove that the encyclopedia and our open model have held up well.

For example, the caption change on a photo of Laval and Pétain to qualify their role in the Holocaust remained online for barely a minute.

Unacceptable for David Walther to foment a stratagem à la “Wikizédia”: “It's an ethical choice.

You don't do in the digital world what you wouldn't do in real life.

For us, these manipulation attempts, such as fake accounts and bots, are comparable to fake voters or people being paid to come to meetings.

It is an open and proactive strategy to create

”.

But Gilles Sahut, if he goes in the same direction, nevertheless qualifies Wikipedia's guideline: "The community has still not decided whether neutrality is science or whether it is the diversity of points sight”.

“It is true that the community is not infallible, blows the president of Wikimedia France.

There are various biases already identified among contributors: for example, their appetite for certain subjects as well as the 

.

Less than 20% of our pages are about women and we are far from reaching parity among contributors”.

Influencing Wikipedia, a long-term job?

For Gilles Sahut, "Wikipedia is a battle ground for influence to promote or damage the public image, it is an intrinsic part of the project".

Contributor himself on a small scale, he claims to have noticed for “already seven or eight years” how difficult it was to integrate critical content, even nuanced on Eric Zemmour, as well sourced as they are.

“My statement, taken from the journal specializing in communication, Réseaux, remained for a few hours and was then deleted, under the pretext of dubious arguments”.

However, as everything is known and everything can be seen on Wikipedia, he was able to trace the history of the said contributor and note “that he belonged to the identity movement”.

But he had stopped there on the subject and had not wished to (de) fight to consolidate his point of view.

It is therefore possible to influence the content of Wikipedia but "we must avoid going there in a frank and visible way", analyzes the researcher in information sciences.

And the very term influence could be a bit strong.

“At one time, there was also an Equality and Reconciliation cell, Alain Soral's small group, which had tried to infiltrate the encyclopedia very subtly”.

But if the activist goes too frankly, we spot his trace far too easily.

Everything would then be a question of balance: did you say tightrope walker, Wikipedia?

By the Web

Who is "Kouassijp", this regular Wikipedia contributor who systematically adds the Jewish origins of personalities?

Municipal

Municipales 2020 in Grenoble: When Wikipedia deletes the PS candidate's page

• By the Web

• Digital

• Strategy

• Elections

• Presidential election 2022

• Eric Zemmour

• Wikipedia

• 0 comment

• 0 share

  • Share on Messenger

  • Share on Facebook

  • Share on Twitter

  • Share on Flipboard

  • Share on Pinterest

  • Share on Linkedin

  • Send by Mail

• To safeguard

• A fault ?

• To print