Wikipedia Idiots: The Edit Wars of San Francisco

I couldn't understand why this free-speech-loving user would want me blocked. And I developed a case of sock-puppet paranoia: Was Blow of Light secretly Griot? (I don't think so — Blow of Light provided thoughtful answers to my questions.) Griot could be anybody: a neighbor, a co-worker, an ex-boyfriend. It was all just too unsettling to think about for long.

It's not as though I can't understand why someone would want to be anonymous online. Still, I have to side with Paul Grabowicz, the new-media program director for the University of California at Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism. "I guess I have the same feeling about Wikipedia and other citizen-generated sites [as I have] about the media: The more transparency the better," he told me. "People should be able to find out who is producing the information." Grabowicz says he encourages his students to use Wikipedia — but only as a starting point. And the longtime investigative reporter urges "a healthy degree of skepticism, no matter what the information source. I think the bottom line is I don't trust anybody."

Say what you will about the press: There is at least a measure of accountability in a newspaper that is rarely seen on Wikipedia. It's called a byline. I mean, I'm sure I've produced some less-than-brilliant work during the dozen or so years I've been a journalist. But at least I've had the guts to sign my name — my real name — to what I write.

When I finally tried to answer Griot's question by explaining I would be exploring issues of anonymity on Wikipedia — and pointing out how little I knew about the person behind the user name — Griot was characteristically snippy in response: "Then it's going to be one hell of a riff, your article, if it focuses on me, since that's all you know. I'm a big jazz fan (you can use that). I'm looking forward to reading your article to see how well you thrive on a riff. Good luck to you."

I had a glimmer of hope that Griot would come around. Yet another note appeared: "Hey, I put some more biographical material on my user page at User: Griot. Hope it's helpful to you."

Under the heading "This Is My Story," it began, "Griot, the eleventh of ten children, was born in a boxcar factory next to some chicken coops in San Francisco's Pacific Heights neighborhood. His father was a melungeon breeder of grasshoppers and a part-time hosier; his mother a voodoo priestess and Tarot reader who dabbled in currency trading and goat futures."

Suddenly, I realized that while I may never meet Griot face to face, I had learned a little more about the prickly Wikipedian. Sure, Griot may be an anonymous pain in the ass. But at least he or she is a pain in the ass with a sense of humor.

Alas, on Friday, Feb. 8, Griot was blocked from Wikipedia because of concerns over sock puppeteering. But the Griot would not be silenced for long.

Early on Monday, Feb. 11, I received an e-mail purportedly from Griot: "Dear Mary Spicuzza, First, a warning: Next Christmas Santa Claus is going to put a large lump of coal in your cyberstalking." The angry Griot went on to vent about my sister, accused me of misrepresenting myself, and added some thoughts on ethics in journalism.

I received the e-mail way past deadline — and weeks after I first requested an interview.

To be fair, maybe as soon as I began getting reports about Griot's snide remarks and proclivity for personal wiki attacks, I should have immediately written, "Hey, Griot, I hear you're a real mean-spirited jerk who bullies those who disagree with you, but I'd like to hear your side of the story."

Then again, it's one thing to hear about somebody like Griot acting like an asshole. At least this way, I got to experience that fact firsthand.