Since then Saudi Arabia seems to have stepped up their efforts to influence the public view. An internal investigation at Wikimedia showed that all of their administrators in the country were government agents. Since Wikipedia relies on their volunteers to maintain the information on the site, they have had to create a structure of trust to ensure the quality of the information. The Saudi Arabian agents had managed to raise to the level of administrators, whom are authorized to edit or delete contents, as well as blocking lower level users edits from being published.

This got me thinking, if one regime has infiltrated Wikipedia, are they the only one? Most likely not. And if countries are doing it on a wide scale, is it possible that other organisations are doing the same with a more limited scope.

This might be an interesting area for further research by someone more qualified than a cybersecurity engineer. However, as a layman I would think that this is quite common. When we have an open set of knowledge people in power will try to control it. So the next question becomes how successful are they? For now we have to keep in mind that we should be critical of all sources, and try to use several of them to validate. Do they all agree? Whom is behind the information?

There is still a place for Wikipedia, and due to the many eyes that continuously review the data I will keep it as one of my go to sources. I believe that the many will keep the information true, and that this incident has opened the eyes of both Wikimedia and the free press to in the future hold leaders accountable for dirty influences.

In the end, I hope that we can continue to protect the individuals that share their knowledge on the web, regardless if they are journalists, volunteers or something else. We should continue to aspire to share knowledge and insights to further the discussions and make the world a better place.

I would argue that there are two kinds of platforms, the ones where you pay with money, and the one you pay with data. When paying with data, the user is often the product. The way companies sell that product and make money is advertisement. By knowing their users, companies are able to tailor the most appropriate ads for that user. The more ads the user sees, the more revenue for the company earn. Therefore it is in the companies best interest to keep the user engaged and coming back. For social media, it’s profitable to be addictive. The more users stay on the platform, and the more they interact with it, the more the platforms know about the user and therefore can show more and better ads.

As an answer to this exploitation of users and their data a movement have risen. Humane technology aims for ethical technology. By focusing on adding value to the user, without exploiting the nor their data, it is the polar opposite of where many of the major platforms are heading. The Center for Humane Technology is a great source of both inspiration and knowledge when it comes to these areas. They even propose the following principles[2]:

1. Obsess over Values; Today there is an obsession with clicks, likes, and other instant reaction metrics. This promotes clickbait to maximise the metrics. Instead we should use metrics of actual value (fun, creativity, well-being), what did the user get out of this? It is harder to measure, but ensures greater value for all parties.
2. Strengthen Existing Brilliance; Technology is moving very fast, and enters more and more spaces. But not all things needs a technical adaptation or solution. Some things cannot be replaced with technology. For example, If you feel lonely a weekend evening after being home alone, the solution might be to invite some friends over for dinner and discussion. Tech could help you set it up, prepare the meal etc. but when you are seated at the table, it’s you and your friends that bring each other joy.
3. Make the Invisible Visceral; To ensure that we consider every ethical and safety aspect of our product it can be a good idea to how we frame our user personas in the design. By considering a random old lady to be a relative of yours, perhaps your grandmother, you might be more cautious about how the product might affect her.
4. Enable Wise Choices; By changing the way we frame the information we help the readers to make a choice. All information will have a bias for one interpretation. A common example is the cows are deadlier than sharks statistic, that is biased towards the dangers of cows due to the large difference in shark to cow population. This does however not mean that cows are more dangerous than sharks.
5. Nurture Mindfulness; To ensure the well-being of the user it is important to allow for a balanced experience. By nurturing the users mindfulness their awareness increases. When there is not a new notification prompting them to engage whenever there is a dull moment it promotes actively searching out whatever the user needs, and sometimes that is just a calm moment to relax.
6. Bind Growth with Responsibility; The only goal should not be in the number of users, platforms and other technology should take their responsibilities to grow ethically. How can we grow without compromising our values? You should not be willing to grow at any cost, but rather find a balance where your ethics are sound, and your users happy.

These steps are a great way to start working towards a humane technology, but as with the prisoners dilemma [3] it is still easy for others to not play nice, and exploit the user to gain more influence. I hope that we continue to move in a direction where the users gain enough insight to reward nice and ethical behaviour (humane technology) over exploiting users.

1. https://www.zuckedbook.com/
2. https://www.humanetech.com/technologists
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma