Scandal abrewing at Biglaw, according to Concurring Opinions and The Turk at New York Personal Injury Law.  It seems that Biglaw attorneys spend their days editing their firm’s Wikipedia listings to improve its marketing value, while playing with their competitors to mess with their heads.  Now, the CIA and Vatican are doing it too.  I’m not sure this means that the Vatican is editing Judaism to include the “Jews have horns” thing, but it certainly doesn’t sound right.

When Wikipedia first came on the scene, I wondered how it would  work, with a theoretical group of a zillion editors vying for supremacy.  The self-promotional opportunity was obvious, as was the tug of war to play with one’s adversary’s descriptions.  Would the self-monitoring model really work? 

Oddly, the fact that these various firms and entities all have an equal opportunity to help/hurt each other should be a deterrent.  It’s the nuclear option, which should theoretically result in a universal truce lest they all have to constantly monitor and edit and waste a ton of time just to keep things stable.  And posts like Co Op and Turk’s are here to keep them honest.

A few years ago, when I first went to look at Wikipedia, I found that it included a list of prominent lawyers known for litigation.  I was surprised to find that I was on the list.  And I admit it, I was flattered.  I went back from time to time, noting that my bio was edited by people I didn’t know to include things that were, well, unrecognizable.  Why did this happen?  My best guess was that people with too much time on their hands were just playing around.

Then one day, my name disappeared from the list, and was replaced by somebody I never heard of before. Well, he probably never heard of me either, and so it goes.  That’s the nature of the Wiki world.  But if anyone reading this feel neglected because they aren’t named in Wikipedia, go on over and put yourself in.  They say it’s against the rules, but if it’s good enough for Wachtel Lipton, it’s good enough for you.