For those of you who looked up the HDI rankings for Indian states this morning on Wikipedia, you may have found an odd discrepancy. Kerala had dropped from number 1 to number 11, and Gujarat had moved from number 11 up to number 1. Here’s what it looked like before Mukesh Manda undid the edit.
You can find this version of the wiki page here. This is not the first time that Gujarat has shot up the rankings. Gujarat moved to 2nd place (and Delhi moved down to number 11) on the 20th of February 2014, and to number 1 in place of Kerala a couple of weeks later. This time Gujarat had an HDI score of 1.000. The contributor had helpfully added Jai Narendra Modi in brackets next to the score, in case we were in doubt about his or her political leanings. In fact the figures for Gujarat have been altered 5 times between the 20th of February and the 10th of April 2014. Here are all the links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php…
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php…
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php…
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php…
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php…
Most of us are wary of relying on Wikipedia, because while crowd-sourcing knowledge has huge advantages, one can never be sure of its accuracy. This is especially true of information that is politically sensitive. Of course, at certain times all information about pretty much anything can become politically sensitive.
I’m not going to launch into a long diatribe against the dishonesty and depravity of some of Modi’s supporters, and I still believe this is a minority (though they probably consider the term minority a pejorative). I am no longer surprised but continue to be saddened by the behaviour of some sections of the Indian public, and of course those leaders who depend upon them for support. Tampering with data on a Wikipedia page may seem like a relatively childish and fairly harmless act, but it is indicative of something more insidious. Wikipedia is a common resource, despite its flaws, this is one of the single most useful resources on the internet, accessible to everyone and built through the effort of millions of users who have taken the time to contribute. It is also a powerful symbol of the power of cooperation, of how millions can come together to create for each other. These are our digital commons. The act of defiling these commons should seem as reprehensible to us as the defiling of a religious space. I see no difference. If it is done too often, it will force administrators to restrict access and the possibility of editing and adding to content. This will mean a loss of freedom, and in the end a loss of value, because the virtuous cycle of contribution, addition and correction that happened automatically will be broken. It will cost more to keep Wikipedia going, because it will need to be policed.
The only positive I see is that perhaps Modi supporters have come to realise that HDI is an important indicator of development, but I’m probably being optimistic.