Aurora Citizen

News & Views from the Citizens of Aurora Ontario

Who’s Responsible for Aurora’s Wikipedia Infomation

Posted by auroracitizen on March 30, 2011

The following was received from a reader

My daughter needed info on Aurora, googled it, and found the Wikipedia site.

I was really disturbed to see so much biased and old news about last years council that I was hoping someone could please update this site, and correct it. Not sure who supplied all the one-sided info, but a Wiki site should not be the place to air out political problems. Shame on you who used this for their personal platform.

So what’s the deal?

Prior to the last election a number of comments were added that were skewed towards the benefit of defeated Mayoralty candidate Phyllis Morris and her regime — however since then little has been done.

Aurora now has a person who is managing our social media. Wouldn’t it make sense for them to monitor and update Wikipedia?

Importantly, wouldn’t they make sure it is correct? After all, Wikipedia is supposed to reflect the community — not just one candidate. It should hopefully provide a balanced perspective.

Particularly concerning are comments around the Town Councillor Council Code of Conduct/Integrity Commissioner and the Promenade Study — both which were added for political gain and both are badly skewed towards a particular side. Regardless of your position on events — surely we can all agree that this site should represent the best and brightest that is Aurora, not to be manipulated for political purposes. In fact, on the site it identifies that the Town Councillor Council Code of Conduct issue is disputed.

Let’s get this mis-information fixed so when residents and prospective businesses visit the site they get a positive impression.

On a broader platform — what is our overall strategy? Has one been written? What are the objectives of the strategy? Does it align with our economic development and leisure services strategies?

Lots of questions.

Possibly the social media person at the town would care to comment here (we know from last term they are monitoring the site).

Perhaps Council and the CAO could direct them to update the site so it reflects Aurora in a more positive light.

12 Responses to “Who’s Responsible for Aurora’s Wikipedia Infomation”

  1. Elizabeth Bishenden said

    Anyone who knows any teachers or a students should forward the link to this discussion to them.

    As one poster noted, wiki’s aren’t considered good resources for scholarly projects. A concrete example always helps illustrate a lesson.

  2. Anonymous said

    If you don’t like it add your two cents and change it – that’s the power of social media.

  3. sharon said

    Dear Anonymous at 9:08,

    Wouldn’t you like to see your town represented in the best possible light for the general surfing public to view? The Code of Conduct issues from last year are still on the site, and should be removed, as also the plug for the ‘Promenade” study that has no merit to the town as of yet. I guess I can do this but maybe someone wants to ask Councillor Ballard if he agrees.

    • Sharon,
      Are the Promenade study and the Code of Conduct issues not valid? They have happened, there is documentation around them. To remove them is just hiding the facts.

      Wikipedia was not meant to represent the Town in the best light. It is supposed to be a factual reference source. Herein lies the problem with the model, contributors to Wikipedia tend to have an agenda when they post “the facts”.

      My advice to the original poster is not look at Wikipedia as a source of correct information. It is a good place for some things but temper all of the information with the knowledge that it could be incorrect, incomplete or slanted.


    • Anonymous said

      Hey Sharon, stop talking about what should be done and do it.

    • sharon said

      Done, thanks for reminding me.

    • Anonymous said

      Great. You erased all mention of the integrity commissioner episode.

      You know who else erased all the history he didn’t like?


    • Sharon,

      It’s very disappointing that you felt it was important to remove information from the Wikipedia site because YOU think it should be “represented in the best possible light”.

      You have removed factual information regarding things that have happened. But this is the problem with Wikipedia, the information is only as good as those that put it there (or take it out). The sanitized view of Aurora is all that is left.

      What sort of reality do you live in that removing bad things make the bad things disappear from everywhere?

      I am sure now this stuff was removed, the number of people that will flock to Aurora to live will be overwhelming.

      Job well done…. not.


    • sharon said

      The comments that I deleted were outdated and biased. That does not mean someone can’t update with more current factual information.
      I would appreciate someone with a better command of grammar than myself to update the info on the wiki site to reflect current council and town activities. That’s it.
      I’m not sure why the personal barbs are neccessary, comparing me to Stalin, and questioning my state of reality. Quite humourous, really.

  4. Yngvadottir said

    Please go change it! Wikipedia is the sum of the efforts of those who bother to edit it. No more, no less.

    I was referred here by a friend; I know nothing about Aurora politics and wouldn’t know where to look for sources. You do. Word it neutrally and have a reference to a newspaper article for everything you put in, and it will be tons better.

  5. Ha Ha Ha

    This is the problem with Wikipedia and one of the reasons that using it as a reference is not always a good idea. I have a child in grade 10 at Williams, Wikipedia IS NOT an acceptable resource in projects.

    The reason, NO ONE is responsible for the information. Wikipedia is a web site that allows anyone to update the information. The idea was to create a site of free information that can be built on by others. The result, some good – some bad. I could go on to Wikipedia and write an article about anyone that I did not like and it becomes the Wiki-gospel until someone else changes it.

    I discount anything that uses Wikipedia as a reference – I work in IT and the old IT saying is “Garbage In…. Garbage Out” . It should be the Wikipedia tag-line.

    I know of at least one poster here that will disagree with me…. but that’s normal.


  6. Anonymous said

    The town doesn’t own it. It’s a public website. Anyone can edit it. I don’t think it’s the role of the town to make sure it’s not biased. I’m sure you can imagine the can of worms that would open.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: