Wikipedia editors, locked in battle with PR firm, delete 250 accounts(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
Wikipedia editors, locked in battle with PR firm, delete 250 accounts
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/10/wikipedia-editors-locked-in-battle-with-pr-firm-delete-250-accounts/
15 comments
Occasionally it does make its way back into their article, but ideally in the same way anything else does: as a factual description of something that happened, cited to third-party sources. For example here's one [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marty_Meehan#Wikipedia_editing
It's not supposed to be retaliation, though, so there's sometimes pushback from Wikipedians somewhat self-consciously worried that mentioning the Wikipedia controversy in the Wikipedia article is biasing towards too-meta an article. Ideally it should only be included if, in some hypothetical universe, a similar controversy not about Wikipedia (e.g. about Britannica payola) would also merit coverage in Wikipedia. But that hypothetical is sometimes difficult to answer.
[1] More or less randomly selected from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedia_controversies
It's not supposed to be retaliation, though, so there's sometimes pushback from Wikipedians somewhat self-consciously worried that mentioning the Wikipedia controversy in the Wikipedia article is biasing towards too-meta an article. Ideally it should only be included if, in some hypothetical universe, a similar controversy not about Wikipedia (e.g. about Britannica payola) would also merit coverage in Wikipedia. But that hypothetical is sometimes difficult to answer.
[1] More or less randomly selected from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedia_controversies
Occasionally it does make its way back into their article, but ideally in the same way anything else does: as a factual description of something that happened, cited to third-party sources.
That one gets fun.
I occasionally look at my sisters' Wikipedia pages and laugh at the mistakes which I know about, which I can't fix because what is already there cites third party sources which were wrong, and I don't know of third party sources that have correct information.
If I really cared I could get it fixed. (Just ask my sisters to make an unambiguous statement somewhere that I can quote.) But in the meantime I get a chuckle out of things like Wikipedia thinking that I don't exist...
That one gets fun.
I occasionally look at my sisters' Wikipedia pages and laugh at the mistakes which I know about, which I can't fix because what is already there cites third party sources which were wrong, and I don't know of third party sources that have correct information.
If I really cared I could get it fixed. (Just ask my sisters to make an unambiguous statement somewhere that I can quote.) But in the meantime I get a chuckle out of things like Wikipedia thinking that I don't exist...
Yeah, this is a big problem with less rigorously covered subjects. If you think of Wikipedia as a summary of existing sources on a subject (which is what it aspires to be), and the existing sources suck, then the summary, by transitivity, also sucks. But there's not much that can be done about that within the scope of the mission, defined in that way. If you instead think of Wikipedia as a compendium of true information on all subjects, the problem gets much harder: then it would aspire not only to summarize all information ever produced, but also to vet all that information for accuracy, correct anything incorrect published in any academic field or in the popular press, and fill in gaps where the third-party sources are lacking entirely [1] ... plus convince people that these corrections, despite no citations, are true. I think that is better tackled in separate projects: one project (Wikipedia) to summarize the existing state of writing, and different projects to improve it in specific fields, e.g. a project to improve documentation of 20th-century punk rock, or to document the history of open-source software.
Wikipedia has, though, tried to cautiously make a few exceptions to what counts as a citation to address some of the more specific problems relating to individuals. Personal blogs are not generally considered published sources, but are acceptable sources for the specific case of summarizing what the person who writes the blog themselves thinks about a subject, in cases where that's relevant [2]. This is used most commonly to cover the "subject's side", e.g. if there is an article about someone that includes negative information, and that person has responded on their own blog, but hasn't managed to get a newspaper to publish their rebuttal, Wikipedia will still cite the rebuttal. I guess that's along the lines of asking your sisters to make an unambiguous statement somewhere about your existence.
The questionable reliability of news articles also means that they tend only to be treated as acceptable sources for newer things. If you're writing about WW1, it's frowned on to directly cite New York Times articles on the conflict, because some of them were wrong in hindsight, and we now have much better books and journal articles written about it, which have done all the legwork of reading through the newspaper archives and assessing their reliability. At this point, making a new argument about the conflict based solely on previously-unnoticed news articles is original research that ought to be submitted to a journal, and only to Wikipedia if it's accepted by the historical community first (this is not purely hypothetical with WW2, where people really do try to come up with novel interpretations of the Holocaust based on a new reading of old newspaper archives). Alas, for newer stuff there's often no such alternative, short of just not covering the subject at all, so newspaper articles are accepted on something like the Syrian civil war, because they haven't yet been superseded by anything better.
One thing that's interesting to me is that some of this source-evaluation difficulty would be simplified if they had applied some of the same rules as Wikipedia. Sometimes I will cite a New York Times obituary for an article, because it contains a bunch of facts about a person conveniently collated. But then I wonder: where did the NYT obituary author get this information? Is it based on solid first-hand research? Summarizing old NYT articles? Cribbing info from Encyclopedia Britannica? It would be nice to know!
[1] I wrote a bit about the gap problem elsewhere, http://www.kmjn.org/notes/wikipedia_notability_verifiability...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SELFPUB
Wikipedia has, though, tried to cautiously make a few exceptions to what counts as a citation to address some of the more specific problems relating to individuals. Personal blogs are not generally considered published sources, but are acceptable sources for the specific case of summarizing what the person who writes the blog themselves thinks about a subject, in cases where that's relevant [2]. This is used most commonly to cover the "subject's side", e.g. if there is an article about someone that includes negative information, and that person has responded on their own blog, but hasn't managed to get a newspaper to publish their rebuttal, Wikipedia will still cite the rebuttal. I guess that's along the lines of asking your sisters to make an unambiguous statement somewhere about your existence.
The questionable reliability of news articles also means that they tend only to be treated as acceptable sources for newer things. If you're writing about WW1, it's frowned on to directly cite New York Times articles on the conflict, because some of them were wrong in hindsight, and we now have much better books and journal articles written about it, which have done all the legwork of reading through the newspaper archives and assessing their reliability. At this point, making a new argument about the conflict based solely on previously-unnoticed news articles is original research that ought to be submitted to a journal, and only to Wikipedia if it's accepted by the historical community first (this is not purely hypothetical with WW2, where people really do try to come up with novel interpretations of the Holocaust based on a new reading of old newspaper archives). Alas, for newer stuff there's often no such alternative, short of just not covering the subject at all, so newspaper articles are accepted on something like the Syrian civil war, because they haven't yet been superseded by anything better.
One thing that's interesting to me is that some of this source-evaluation difficulty would be simplified if they had applied some of the same rules as Wikipedia. Sometimes I will cite a New York Times obituary for an article, because it contains a bunch of facts about a person conveniently collated. But then I wonder: where did the NYT obituary author get this information? Is it based on solid first-hand research? Summarizing old NYT articles? Cribbing info from Encyclopedia Britannica? It would be nice to know!
[1] I wrote a bit about the gap problem elsewhere, http://www.kmjn.org/notes/wikipedia_notability_verifiability...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SELFPUB
Who is your sister?
From the name I would guess Jen and Meg Tilly.
That would not be an inaccurate guess.
Other useless trivia is that our grandfather is the T in http://www.cmtengr.com/.
Other useless trivia is that our grandfather is the T in http://www.cmtengr.com/.
Smart family.
I think it's hilarious that Wikipedia could get something as simple as the number of siblings wrong.
I think it's hilarious that Wikipedia could get something as simple as the number of siblings wrong.
The question is whether the Wikipedia snowjob is itself notable enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia.
Often some random internet debate or meme is not judged to be noteworthy enough for inclusion. Should someone hiring a PR firm to update their Wikipedia article count? I mean, if misleading PR is a topic that is generally discussed in the media about a firm that's one thing, but if fairly ordinary corporate PR efforts that just so happened to violate Wikipedia's neutrality policy, I'm not sure that that's all that notable amongst the many other things a company has done.
Often some random internet debate or meme is not judged to be noteworthy enough for inclusion. Should someone hiring a PR firm to update their Wikipedia article count? I mean, if misleading PR is a topic that is generally discussed in the media about a firm that's one thing, but if fairly ordinary corporate PR efforts that just so happened to violate Wikipedia's neutrality policy, I'm not sure that that's all that notable amongst the many other things a company has done.
This goes into libel territory - Wikipedia presumably doesn't have the resources or authority to investigate and fully ascertain who paid for what.
That's why it's important to have a 3rd party publish the rumor first, then they can cite that and pass the literary libel liability laterally.
I don't think the law of libel works that way.
"Congress specifically enacted 47 U.S.C. § 230 (1996) to reverse the Prodigy findings and to provide for private blocking and screening of offensive material. § 230(c) states "that no provider or user of an interactive computer shall be treated as a publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider," thereby providing forums immunity for statements provided by third parties."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law
47 U.S.C. § 230 (1996) basically covers online forums from being responsible for what other people post on those forums.
From what I can tell, it doesn't necessarily protect a person who uses one of those forums to post libelous claims, just because that person cites another source.
Arguably, the law could be read that way, but I would be surprised if the courts actually interpreted the immunity as broadly as you're describing it---that would pretty much gut libel law altogether. Do you have any case law to support your interpretation?
From what I can tell, it doesn't necessarily protect a person who uses one of those forums to post libelous claims, just because that person cites another source.
Arguably, the law could be read that way, but I would be surprised if the courts actually interpreted the immunity as broadly as you're describing it---that would pretty much gut libel law altogether. Do you have any case law to support your interpretation?
Yes. I should say that the law is specific for users of an interactive computer.
"arguing that only the originator of a defamatory statement published on the internet could be held liable.[4][9][10][11]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrett_v._Rosenthal
"arguing that only the originator of a defamatory statement published on the internet could be held liable.[4][9][10][11]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrett_v._Rosenthal
Citogenesis.
Good goals, bad strategy. One simple thing will happen: company X competitors will astroturf Wikipedia posing as agents of company X. Company X gets punished and retaliates. After short period of time many pages include warnings that respective companies tried to manipulate the articles. And the cycle starts again.
> This should be fixed the old-fashioned way: By cutting off teh flow of money at the source. When clients are caught directly or indirectly using sock-puppetry and astroturfing on Wikipedia, banners should be added to the affected pages naming and shaming the clients.
So, you're saying instead I would just hire these firms to edit the pages of my competitors?
So, you're saying instead I would just hire these firms to edit the pages of my competitors?
You misunderstand. If you did that then your name would appear on the competitors pages as the funder of edits to that page.
Great idea, as long as there is some mechanism to deal with joe-jobs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe-job
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe-job
Of course you have to have a mechanism. Running an online business of any kind, but most especially with user-generated content, requires an unending investment in forensics. It's no different for Wikipedia than it is for eBay or even Hacker News.
Most of these companies would cease and desist after one politely worded but firm letter.
If they were the victim in the case, they would probably provide money and/or resources to track down a rogue PR firm, an unethical competitor, disgruntled ex-employee, or miscellaneous vigilante whack-jobber.
I don't think we need to get hysterical like some responders and assume that every corporation is out to do black bag jobs on each other. If they can spend a few bucks and get some easy astro-turfing, they will. If the penalties are such that it's not worth the bother, they won't.
Most of these companies would cease and desist after one politely worded but firm letter.
If they were the victim in the case, they would probably provide money and/or resources to track down a rogue PR firm, an unethical competitor, disgruntled ex-employee, or miscellaneous vigilante whack-jobber.
I don't think we need to get hysterical like some responders and assume that every corporation is out to do black bag jobs on each other. If they can spend a few bucks and get some easy astro-turfing, they will. If the penalties are such that it's not worth the bother, they won't.
Unfortunately this approach could be used by unscrupulous businesses to permanently tarnish the reputation of their competition. I can agree with the sentiment, but you've got to be a bit cautious with these sorts of heavy-handed punishments.
How would you prove the company paid for the services? How would you stop other companies form paying people to get the tag on competing companies pages?
No need to. Block, remove and move on is the common way. It works.
I don't see much difference in people trying to use Wikipedia to post spam, or people trying to use HN to post spam. Both is spam, both should get deleted, both should ban the users from posting more, and both do so. Having a large banner ontop of spam posts here that says "company X is trying to spam HN, get them!!!" would not actually improve my HN experience.
I don't see much difference in people trying to use Wikipedia to post spam, or people trying to use HN to post spam. Both is spam, both should get deleted, both should ban the users from posting more, and both do so. Having a large banner ontop of spam posts here that says "company X is trying to spam HN, get them!!!" would not actually improve my HN experience.
Except that would violate their policy of presenting information in as neutral manner as possible. It's also hard to see where this would stop: banners for Exxon stating they ruin the environment, a banner on the NSA article stating they violate civil rights?
As long as it is the truth and no relevant facts are left out, it is still neutral.
There is this strange notion in the US today that "neutral" means "doesn't upset or offend anyone". Or that neutral means "both sides get equal weights". If some corporation pays for getting their articles edited, then it is still a neutral fact that that was what they did, even if it upsets someone at the corporation that the truth comes out.
There is this strange notion in the US today that "neutral" means "doesn't upset or offend anyone". Or that neutral means "both sides get equal weights". If some corporation pays for getting their articles edited, then it is still a neutral fact that that was what they did, even if it upsets someone at the corporation that the truth comes out.
Which means that you don't understand the concept at all. Wikipedia is neutral because it doesn't hold to a particular position. "The NSA violates civil rights" is not a position that Wikipedia holds because it cannot hold a particular position in regards to this organization. Sure, it can state facts, but it will have to source the information that the NSA violates civil rights to a third party.
This is not to say that all sides must be held to have equal weight. Flat earthers should only get a passing mention on the article about the curvature of the earth, though they should be mentioned. Breathinarianism should be barely mentioned in an article on human health.
I've found, when I was working on contentious articles on Wikipedia (all those many years ago now!), that neutrality always highlighted extreme views and held them to the light of day - they seemed, if anything, more bizarre and absurd when presented in a neutral manner. That's really why Scientologists hate Wikipedia, IMO.
This is not to say that all sides must be held to have equal weight. Flat earthers should only get a passing mention on the article about the curvature of the earth, though they should be mentioned. Breathinarianism should be barely mentioned in an article on human health.
I've found, when I was working on contentious articles on Wikipedia (all those many years ago now!), that neutrality always highlighted extreme views and held them to the light of day - they seemed, if anything, more bizarre and absurd when presented in a neutral manner. That's really why Scientologists hate Wikipedia, IMO.
You obviously don't understand my comment at all. If Wikipedia has proof then there isn't any longer "a particular position", but a fact that can and should be stated. Wikipedia writes "Lee Harvey Oswald (October 18, 1939 – November 24, 1963) was, according to four government investigations,[citation needed][n 1] the sniper who assassinated John F. Kennedy". Note the "according to" and "citation needed". But it also writes "On November 24, 1963, Ruby shot and killed Lee Harvey Oswald". No "according to" and no citations.
As the gentleman who actually invented [citation needed], I think I need to also quote a very old (and now underused!) template - {{sofixit}} !!
Just because there is a non-neutral position doesn't mean that it shouldn't be altered.
Just because there is a non-neutral position doesn't mean that it shouldn't be altered.
> As the gentleman who actually invented [citation needed]
Is there a story here?
Is there a story here?
Sure, not terribly interesting, but I got sick of people adding random "facts" without a source so I decided to use a reverse footnoting system to highlight it. Normally you add a citation footnote to clearly show where you got your fact or idea, mine was the opposite - it showed clearly that there was no citation so use the information at your own peril!
I also did it to force the editors to get sources and not just make stuff up. There was also often an issue where the fact was good, but was extraordinary and needed a source to back it up. The tag allowed the good info to stay until a source could be found. Unfortunately, sometimes bad info stays too long but it has the tag so at the very least you know that something is potentially fishy.
It was basically more wildly successful than I ever imagined. I really had no idea I was creating an important bit of Internet popular culture - I was just trying to make Wikipedia more reliable!
I also did it to force the editors to get sources and not just make stuff up. There was also often an issue where the fact was good, but was extraordinary and needed a source to back it up. The tag allowed the good info to stay until a source could be found. Unfortunately, sometimes bad info stays too long but it has the tag so at the very least you know that something is potentially fishy.
It was basically more wildly successful than I ever imagined. I really had no idea I was creating an important bit of Internet popular culture - I was just trying to make Wikipedia more reliable!
Oh, just to clarify, the foot noting ref system came after {{fact}}.
Putting some facts in a special banner doesn't strike me as neutral. Sounds more like special treatment.
Loads of articles are flagged as advertisements, questionable notability, conflicts of interest etc and all that happens is the page sits there with the notice for years and nobody cares.
I think they should team up with Google and Apple and really hurt companies that shill, spam and link farm - app and search rankings. Then they should put a price on their heads.
I think they should team up with Google and Apple and really hurt companies that shill, spam and link farm - app and search rankings. Then they should put a price on their heads.
> This should be fixed the old-fashioned way
Tar and feathers?
Tar and feathers?
Here's another idea: Remove questionable Wikipedia entries from the first page of search results. Could this be done algorithmically, or through the use of noindex attached to some trigger on Wikipedia's end?
Why not start with the simpler option of a cease-and-desist letter? Sounds like there should be a legal mechanism for a U.S. website wanting a U.S. company to stop editing its user-generated content.
Their list of services https://www.wiki-pr.com/services/ looks like a corporate shill's sick mockery of Wikipedia's community standards.
I hope every single one of their spurious sockpuppet accounts get deleted.
I hope every single one of their spurious sockpuppet accounts get deleted.
None of their pages load for me.
Google cache of that page (text only): http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:tDxefPp...
Full Google cache (wouldn't load for me): http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:tDxefPp...
Google cache of that page (text only): http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:tDxefPp...
Full Google cache (wouldn't load for me): http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:tDxefPp...
Replying to myself: the site loads normally now.
In addition, here is their leadership team (https://www.wiki-pr.com/leadership/):
"DARIUS FISHER
Co-Founder, Chief Operations Officer
Darius co-founded Wiki-PR in 2010 after working alongside a crisis communication consultant in San Francisco. As the crisis unfolded, Darius' clients got libeled online. Darius recognized the importance of presenting his clients fairly, accurately, and professionally on Wikipedia. He has since built Wiki-PR into the largest Wikipedia public relations firm. Darius graduated with a degree in Economics from Vanderbilt University.
JORDAN FRENCH
Co-Founder, Chief Executive Officer
Jordan leads Wiki-PR from its headquarters in Austin, Texas. He heads Wiki-PR's Page Management and Crisis Editing teams. Jordan is formerly an attorney and an engineer. Jordan is licensed to practice law in New York and Massachusetts. He earned his law degree from Washington University in St. Louis and his engineering degree from Vanderbilt.
STEVE NEIL
Chief Financial Officer
Prior to joining Wiki-PR, Steve served as the CFO of Diamond Foods, maker of Kettle Brand potato chips and Pop Secret popcorn. Steve has over 30 years experience managing operations, logistics, and finances for publicly traded companies. Steve acquired his bachelors degree from UC Santa Barbara and his MBA from UCLA.
ADAM MASONBRINK
Vice President of Sales
Adam manages sales and business development from Wiki-PR's office in San Francisco, California. Prior to working with Wiki-PR, Adam held senior sales roles at Google, Intuit, and several Bay Area startups. Adam graduated from University of Kansas with a degree in business communications and entrepreneurship."
Hopefully this kind of blatantly unethical behavior follows them around a bit. I don't wish the end of a career upon anybody, but maybe a few doors end up closing for some of these folks that would have otherwise been open.
"DARIUS FISHER
Co-Founder, Chief Operations Officer
Darius co-founded Wiki-PR in 2010 after working alongside a crisis communication consultant in San Francisco. As the crisis unfolded, Darius' clients got libeled online. Darius recognized the importance of presenting his clients fairly, accurately, and professionally on Wikipedia. He has since built Wiki-PR into the largest Wikipedia public relations firm. Darius graduated with a degree in Economics from Vanderbilt University.
JORDAN FRENCH
Co-Founder, Chief Executive Officer
Jordan leads Wiki-PR from its headquarters in Austin, Texas. He heads Wiki-PR's Page Management and Crisis Editing teams. Jordan is formerly an attorney and an engineer. Jordan is licensed to practice law in New York and Massachusetts. He earned his law degree from Washington University in St. Louis and his engineering degree from Vanderbilt.
STEVE NEIL
Chief Financial Officer
Prior to joining Wiki-PR, Steve served as the CFO of Diamond Foods, maker of Kettle Brand potato chips and Pop Secret popcorn. Steve has over 30 years experience managing operations, logistics, and finances for publicly traded companies. Steve acquired his bachelors degree from UC Santa Barbara and his MBA from UCLA.
ADAM MASONBRINK
Vice President of Sales
Adam manages sales and business development from Wiki-PR's office in San Francisco, California. Prior to working with Wiki-PR, Adam held senior sales roles at Google, Intuit, and several Bay Area startups. Adam graduated from University of Kansas with a degree in business communications and entrepreneurship."
Hopefully this kind of blatantly unethical behavior follows them around a bit. I don't wish the end of a career upon anybody, but maybe a few doors end up closing for some of these folks that would have otherwise been open.
>> Darius' clients got libeled online. Darius recognized the importance of presenting his clients fairly, accurately, and professionally on Wikipedia.
Yes, because when I have a client who gets libeled online, the first thing I need to do is create an honest Wikipedia page.
Seriously, WTF?
It's too bad they've suckered so many people into thinking they could control their online brand through Wikipedia.
Yes, because when I have a client who gets libeled online, the first thing I need to do is create an honest Wikipedia page.
Seriously, WTF?
It's too bad they've suckered so many people into thinking they could control their online brand through Wikipedia.
[deleted]
The 50+ year old CFO looks strangely out of place next to the 20/30 something founders.
That's a bit sketchy - I'd posit that experience is especially important for a CFO role. Too often are interesting ideas brought down by bad financial management.
it's a sign that they got someone competent to do finance. Just means that he's the guy to go to (sue) when you demand remedy from the company for injuries caused. :)
I hope, as a Wikipedian since April 2010, that this is the beginning of a thorough change of culture on Wikipedia in the interest of making Wikipedia more of a genuine free online encyclopedia[1] and less of a publicity platform for everyone who doesn't want to pay honest cash money for a paid advertisement. There is currently a proposal discussed among Wikipedians for a tighter policy against paid editing,[2] and as long as the new policy, whatever it ends up being, makes for less promotional content on Wikipedia, I'm all for it.
People who want to help Wikipedia improve as unpaid volunteers have a number of channels for doing that. One thing that would help Wikipedia's goal of better content quality[3] is adding more reliable sources to articles. I try to help that process by compiling source lists in user space that any Wikipedian can use for updating articles.[4] It's a long slog to fight the rot on Wikipedia. Reading Wikipedia takes a sharp eye for propaganda and advertising in disguise.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Here_to_build_an_enc...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Paid_editing_po...
[3] https://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Plan/Movement_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#Accuracy_of_content
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WeijiBaikeBianji/Intellig...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WeijiBaikeBianji/Anthropo...
People who want to help Wikipedia improve as unpaid volunteers have a number of channels for doing that. One thing that would help Wikipedia's goal of better content quality[3] is adding more reliable sources to articles. I try to help that process by compiling source lists in user space that any Wikipedian can use for updating articles.[4] It's a long slog to fight the rot on Wikipedia. Reading Wikipedia takes a sharp eye for propaganda and advertising in disguise.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Here_to_build_an_enc...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Paid_editing_po...
[3] https://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Plan/Movement_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#Accuracy_of_content
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WeijiBaikeBianji/Intellig...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WeijiBaikeBianji/Anthropo...
I hope that Wikipedia's culture someday acknowledges that money is not the only corrupting influence in a society.
Some of the most egregious examples of biased editing I've seen on Wikipedia were almost certainly not paid for; they were the result of deeply held personal beliefs about politics and religion.
Inaccurate or blatantly false edits of this type are easy to get into Wikipedia articles because politics and religion have thousands of highly biased third party "news" sources, so almost any ridiculous claim can be supported with a citation.
Some of the most egregious examples of biased editing I've seen on Wikipedia were almost certainly not paid for; they were the result of deeply held personal beliefs about politics and religion.
Inaccurate or blatantly false edits of this type are easy to get into Wikipedia articles because politics and religion have thousands of highly biased third party "news" sources, so almost any ridiculous claim can be supported with a citation.
I would be extremely surprised if (quoting from article) it is only "as many as several hundred" accounts are being used by people paid to edit Wikipedia. I know at least a dozen people who have a wikipedia account just to edit articles to make where they work look good (I suppose it is not their full time job, but it is the only reason they edit wikipedia).
Is it unethical for, say, a company's "media guy" to update Wikipedia if his company releases a major new project? "On October 1, 2013, Initech released version 2.0 of its flagship product IniIDE Pro(tm)" I think there's a line to draw between adding some pertinent information to keep the page from being outdated, vs. fighting to keep all negative information off the page.
It's fine to add information.
It's not ok to remove negative information.
What about listing a company under the product or category page or placing subtle advertisements on the page? An example would be Nest adding links to their wikipedia to the Thermostat wikipedia page. Is that ethical? Is it legal? Is it against wikipedias Terms of Use?
It's not ok to remove negative information.
What about listing a company under the product or category page or placing subtle advertisements on the page? An example would be Nest adding links to their wikipedia to the Thermostat wikipedia page. Is that ethical? Is it legal? Is it against wikipedias Terms of Use?
> It's not ok to remove negative information.
Why? The BLP stuff has been clear and firm for years: Anything that is unsourced should be removed quickly, especially if it's BLP.
Obviously, removal of suitably sourced material is a problem so I agree there.
Why? The BLP stuff has been clear and firm for years: Anything that is unsourced should be removed quickly, especially if it's BLP.
Obviously, removal of suitably sourced material is a problem so I agree there.
[deleted]
Seems like an awfully fine line. What if the negative information is unfair or even false?
Negative information such as criticisms or controversy, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft#Criticism
They must obviously have a reputable source.
They must obviously have a reputable source.
Borderline really. There are clear conflict of Internet guidelines for the project, whilst that isn't an egregious example, I would counsel anyone working for a company to avoid editing any articles related to their company. The PR mess you might cause (even for innocent edits) could well outweigh any gains you may have achieved.
The best thing is to participate on talk pages. Even there, be careful not to respond to inflammatory comments or trolls.
The best thing is to participate on talk pages. Even there, be careful not to respond to inflammatory comments or trolls.
Why? What is unethical about providing the truthful and correct information about company and products? I would understand that if Wikipedia banned all commercial product information, but it does not. So why it is OK for unknown schoolkid (random example) to edit a page with the list of, say, Cisco products (random example), but it's not OK for a person working for Cisco who actually knows what he's talking about and has access to most accurate, correct and up-to-date information possible? Wikipedia requires reputable sources - which means the said schoolkid would be copypasting some info from somewhere anyway - so what's wrong with the most authoritative sources - people actually making things it describes and knowing everything about them?
For the same reason that we frown on politicians from accepting money for making ethical decisions. The issue is that the Wikipedia community do not know whether the information is slanted towards a positive viewpoint by an interested party. In fact, seemingly neutral information may often gloss over important information or give undue positive weight towards a subject.
I would suggest reading up on Wikipedia's information on this subject at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest - it's very informative and should answer most of these questions.
I would suggest reading up on Wikipedia's information on this subject at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest - it's very informative and should answer most of these questions.
Bad analogy. If you want to make better analogy, you'd say it's unethical for a politician to give an interview about his own party or write a newspaper column about his own political platform, because that is self-promotion and creates conflict of interests, and makes him gloss over negative sides of his policies and give undue positive weight towards the subject. Sounds silly, right, politicians do that all the time, that's the name of the game.
Of course, editing process can be abused by interested parties - politicians can lie to advance their causes, and wikipedia editors can be (and sometimes are) driven by motives very different from the quest for pure and accurate knowledge. However this can and is happening without any employment relationship, and employment relationship does not add much to it - one can be non-neutral by thousand other reasons (e.g. N happens to be a fan of certain ice hokey team and rewrites its Wikipedia article to extoll its virtues in excess). It seems as one of these reasons - a very real one, but definitely not unique - is being singled out. Is it because money is the root of all evil?
Of course, editing process can be abused by interested parties - politicians can lie to advance their causes, and wikipedia editors can be (and sometimes are) driven by motives very different from the quest for pure and accurate knowledge. However this can and is happening without any employment relationship, and employment relationship does not add much to it - one can be non-neutral by thousand other reasons (e.g. N happens to be a fan of certain ice hokey team and rewrites its Wikipedia article to extoll its virtues in excess). It seems as one of these reasons - a very real one, but definitely not unique - is being singled out. Is it because money is the root of all evil?
Yes, not the best example. I should have said paid for ethical and unethical decisions alike!
But indeed, those other examples are also frowned on and may get you blocked. These are not new concepts to the Wikipedia community, I was heavily involved 5 years ago and had to setup the admin's noticeboard to coordinate efforts around areas precisely like this.
It's not even money that's the issue, but it is almost certain that the paid editing that was occuring was to whitewash articles to "correct" the impressions given about certain companies.
I've never seen, and doubt I'll ever see, a company that edits Wikipedia articles for money that does it for an unbiased reason. Otherwise, why would you pay the company?
The best I can see is a consulting firm that does no editing but merely advises on the best way to interact directly with the Wikipedia community.
But indeed, those other examples are also frowned on and may get you blocked. These are not new concepts to the Wikipedia community, I was heavily involved 5 years ago and had to setup the admin's noticeboard to coordinate efforts around areas precisely like this.
It's not even money that's the issue, but it is almost certain that the paid editing that was occuring was to whitewash articles to "correct" the impressions given about certain companies.
I've never seen, and doubt I'll ever see, a company that edits Wikipedia articles for money that does it for an unbiased reason. Otherwise, why would you pay the company?
The best I can see is a consulting firm that does no editing but merely advises on the best way to interact directly with the Wikipedia community.
Well, we have changed here from "employee of X can't talk about X on Wikipedia" to "company that edits Wikipedia for money", which is different thing.
>>> Otherwise, why would you pay the company?
I can name a bunch of reasons. To deliver correct information and ensure it is correct. To weed out mistakes and misinformation that may hurt clients of a company. To make people more likely to consume products by making them familiar with true variety and features of the said products. There are a lot of reasons to put absolutely true information out there, and there are a lot of companies that make money on doing exactly that. Of course, there are also those who put out false and misleading information for money. But presenting it as if any information that somebody paid for disseminating must be false is not correct.
And again, I see no reason why random person can just come in and edit anything, but random company can not. If I were Wikipedia, I'd rather do the opposite - make companies that are interested in providing input into certain pages identify their official representative, clearly mark it as such (maybe even charge for the privilege of having "verified account" or something) and engage them in the process. Of course, if the said rep seems to be bending the truth, it would be at his own peril - imagine how embarrassing it would be for a company to have their official verified rep banned from Wikipedia? So the incentive to cooperate would be on both sides.
>>> Otherwise, why would you pay the company?
I can name a bunch of reasons. To deliver correct information and ensure it is correct. To weed out mistakes and misinformation that may hurt clients of a company. To make people more likely to consume products by making them familiar with true variety and features of the said products. There are a lot of reasons to put absolutely true information out there, and there are a lot of companies that make money on doing exactly that. Of course, there are also those who put out false and misleading information for money. But presenting it as if any information that somebody paid for disseminating must be false is not correct.
And again, I see no reason why random person can just come in and edit anything, but random company can not. If I were Wikipedia, I'd rather do the opposite - make companies that are interested in providing input into certain pages identify their official representative, clearly mark it as such (maybe even charge for the privilege of having "verified account" or something) and engage them in the process. Of course, if the said rep seems to be bending the truth, it would be at his own peril - imagine how embarrassing it would be for a company to have their official verified rep banned from Wikipedia? So the incentive to cooperate would be on both sides.
So I want to point out that I wasn't thinking of hiring some outside company to make you look good, I was talking about Bob in PR putting in a link to the press release when they retire product X. There's no bias in "On January 15, 2013, Initech announced end-of-life for X[12]".
Argh! Internet should say "Interest"
If it's really newsworthy, wouldn't someone else not related to the company do that?
I'm not a wikipedia editor, so they may think of things differently, but when I see a news story about a company, I generally think, "Interesting."
I don't think, "Ooh, I better check if this is in their Wikipedia article yet." Now, maybe the most devout of wikifiddlers will do that, but why not just make it part of your process? If it's not notable, presumably someone will delete that bit eventually. It's better than going to an article and finding that there's no news since 2009 or whenever the article was first written.
I don't think, "Ooh, I better check if this is in their Wikipedia article yet." Now, maybe the most devout of wikifiddlers will do that, but why not just make it part of your process? If it's not notable, presumably someone will delete that bit eventually. It's better than going to an article and finding that there's no news since 2009 or whenever the article was first written.
Maybe if there's a process for a pull-request like feature, similar to github, but what a company thinks is newsworthy may not be, or it may be newsworthy for a different reason than the company thinks it is, like a product that exploded on the launch day.
Couldn't help but laugh when I saw the Wiki-PR affiliates page: https://www.wiki-pr.com/affiliates/
OUR AFFILIATES MAKE BIG MONEY.
<...>
Just leave us your name.
OUR AFFILIATES MAKE BIG MONEY.
<...>
Just leave us your name.
>"I'm much more worried about what happens when an unethical outfit manages to start getting major clients and start controlling articles that our average reader assumes are not written by corporate flaks."
Or worse, if Wikipedia's trustworthiness is tarnished beyond repair. I remember when I was in high school 5 or 6 years back Wikipedia was kind of seen as a joke by my peers. Now it's taken as near fact. Although I think skepticism of anything read on the Internet or elsewhere is healthy, I would hate to see it revert to the first state because of greedy "PR" firms.
Or worse, if Wikipedia's trustworthiness is tarnished beyond repair. I remember when I was in high school 5 or 6 years back Wikipedia was kind of seen as a joke by my peers. Now it's taken as near fact. Although I think skepticism of anything read on the Internet or elsewhere is healthy, I would hate to see it revert to the first state because of greedy "PR" firms.
A hope that's admittedly probably wildly optimistic is that Wikipedia could help people get better at critically evaluating sources, since everyone knows you are not "supposed" to take it completely uncritically on the basis of the publisher's authority. If you get some familiarity with it gets reasonably easy to spot which articles have something strange about them. Sometimes it's the writing style, sometimes the tone that clearly sounds like advocacy or PR copy rather than encyclopedia copy, sometimes the absence of or particular choice of references, etc. I tend to also start with strong prior skepticism depending on the area, e.g. articles on present-day companies, but not ones big enough to attract a lot of real editors (unlike Google, Microsoft, etc., which do) are inherently suspect for paid editing, while articles on mathematics, whatever other problems they might have, typically don't ring my "might be a PR shill" warning bell.
Can be useful even outside of Wikipedia! Distinguishing between trade-nonfiction books honestly trying to cover a subject, versus trade-nonfiction books that are thinly veiled ads for a piece of technology (or the author's management/diet/etc. consulting gig), has some similarities.
Can be useful even outside of Wikipedia! Distinguishing between trade-nonfiction books honestly trying to cover a subject, versus trade-nonfiction books that are thinly veiled ads for a piece of technology (or the author's management/diet/etc. consulting gig), has some similarities.
Articles on math and physics might just be plain wrong, though. (Especially the `entropy' article, since every armchair physicist wants to contribute.)
That might not be such a bad thing. Wikipedia isn't exactly trustworthy even without paid editing by PR folks; the Wikipedia pages of journalists who criticise them tend to turn into hatchet jobs for instance.
Related post previously on the front page: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6580333
Depending upon how far the PR firm goes to circumvent their block, couldn't they be brought up on hacking charges? Could the companies that hire them be found culpable too?
I sure hope not. As much as I'd love to see something happen to these guys, the precedent that would result would be as far-reaching as it would be terrible.
couldn't they be brought up on hacking charges
Which ones?
Which ones?
They've been told not to edit wikipedia. They're continuing to edit wikipedia.
That seems pretty clearly like accessing a computer system without the owner's permission, which feels like it should be a standard bit of law.
That seems pretty clearly like accessing a computer system without the owner's permission, which feels like it should be a standard bit of law.
From the comments I've seen on other 'unauthorized access' stories, I feel like most of HN believes that sort of act shouldn't be illegal.
(I agree with your sentiment.)
(I agree with your sentiment.)
A significant proportion of Wikipedians (and free-culture people outside Wikipedia) also have those views, which is why I'd guess suing is unlikely. It'd result in a big flamewar within the free-culture community, with various commentators denouncing the Wikimedia Foundation as out of touch, setting dangerous legal precedents, etc., so they would likely only resort to if they really felt they had no other choice.
"Seems," and, "feels," are not enough.
I'd be interested to hear what US lawyers would say, but using a computer without permission is pretty much the definition used worldwide in hacking laws.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/telecommunications-and-informat...
> Hacking is breaking into computer systems, frequently with intentions to alter or modify existing settings. Sometimes malicious in nature, these break-ins may cause damage or disruption to computer systems or networks. People with malevolent intent are often referred to as "crackers"--as in "cracking" into computers.
> "Unauthorized access" entails approaching, trespassing within, communicating with, storing data in, retrieving data from, or otherwise intercepting and changing computer resources without consent. These laws relate to either or both, or any other actions that interfere with computers, systems, programs or networks.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/telecommunications-and-informat...
> Hacking is breaking into computer systems, frequently with intentions to alter or modify existing settings. Sometimes malicious in nature, these break-ins may cause damage or disruption to computer systems or networks. People with malevolent intent are often referred to as "crackers"--as in "cracking" into computers.
> "Unauthorized access" entails approaching, trespassing within, communicating with, storing data in, retrieving data from, or otherwise intercepting and changing computer resources without consent. These laws relate to either or both, or any other actions that interfere with computers, systems, programs or networks.
What's "using a computer" though? The trouble with hacking laws as they stand currently is that they are written so broadly that innocuous uses are technically illegal, but where no one prosecutes.
I for one don't want to live in a world where everything is illegal - this hands power to the executive and has been a major source of abuse both past and present.
Say I tell you "DanBC, you're a jerk, you can't access my website anymore". What happens if you visit my website? Are you "using a computer without permission", assuming I own the server?
What is the level of interaction necessary in order for a user to graduate from legally clear to "throw the book at the hacker"?
I for one don't want to live in a world where everything is illegal - this hands power to the executive and has been a major source of abuse both past and present.
Say I tell you "DanBC, you're a jerk, you can't access my website anymore". What happens if you visit my website? Are you "using a computer without permission", assuming I own the server?
What is the level of interaction necessary in order for a user to graduate from legally clear to "throw the book at the hacker"?
While I appreciate what you're trying to say, it seems obvious that "viewing" and "editing the content of" a website are quite different concepts. If you've been told to no longer edit the content of my website and you continue to do so, it would be hard to argue against a charge of unauthorized access.
You say this, but it's been prosecuted in enough cases that are often posted to Hacker News, I don't even feel compelled to find a link to show that... deleting your account and informing you by e-mail that you have been banned and your accesses of the web services provided by a brand are no longer welcome are valid standards of "denying access."
They can block your IP address, but that's been held up as an example of "how not to implement a service block" enough times already, I think the important bit is above.
They can block your IP address, but that's been held up as an example of "how not to implement a service block" enough times already, I think the important bit is above.
18 USC Sec. 1030(a)(4), presuming, of course, that the positive public exposure that they are selling to their clients is "anything of value", which the fact that they are selling it to their clients for money pretty clearly indicates it is.
My understanding is that (a)(4) would require Wikipedia's computers to be the ones engaging in interstate commerce or communications, under the definition of "protected computer."
> My understanding is that (a)(4) would require Wikipedia's computers to be the ones engaging in interstate commerce or communications
Yes, Wikipedia's computers would need to be "used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication", 18 USC 1030(e)(2)(B). But I think they pretty clearly are, so I don't see that as problematic.
Yes, Wikipedia's computers would need to be "used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication", 18 USC 1030(e)(2)(B). But I think they pretty clearly are, so I don't see that as problematic.
The definition of "protected" is narrower than "any webserver."
Fairly certain that my communications with WP's servers cross state lines. I can't recall any cases where the defense hinged on determining the target computer was not "protected".
"Protected" is a limiter within the law itself, so it's more a situation where the case would not be prosecuted under this statute in the first place.
Assuming that Wikipedia's computers are neither used in nor affecting interstate commerce or communication, that would be true.
Of course, since the whole reason for Wikipedia-oriented PR management is that Wikipedia's computers -- and, particularly, the hosting of particular content on them -- does affect interstate commerce, that's unlikely to be a successful argument.
Of course, since the whole reason for Wikipedia-oriented PR management is that Wikipedia's computers -- and, particularly, the hosting of particular content on them -- does affect interstate commerce, that's unlikely to be a successful argument.
The ones which made it a felony to violate a website's terms of use. AKA: the same ones that the US Attorney threatened Aaron Swartz with.
The CFAA[1] is a powerful tool for all sorts of strong arming. Even if it can also be used for good, it would be far better if it were reformed.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act
Completely agree.
And that Lori Drew was acquitted of?
These paid editing services are obviously lousy and harmful to Wikipedia and it's great that they've gone.
How well did average wikipedians deal with the editors and their clients? Was anyone turned into a useful editor? Or were more people left frustrated and baffled by the WP process?
How well did average wikipedians deal with the editors and their clients? Was anyone turned into a useful editor? Or were more people left frustrated and baffled by the WP process?
The main problem here seems to be: Why must every company on earth have its own Wikipedia page?
That said, I can see why e.g. Microsoft, the East India Trading Company and BMW should be recognized in an encyclopedia. And there are examples of products (lines) that could/should be mentioned in a vast online encyclopedia as well (e.g. Windows, BMW 3 series) because they influenced industries/trends/zeitgeist and/or lifes.
But why, for the love of god, should every consultancy, contractor, forrester and his second cousin have an entry on this site?
EDIT: typo
That said, I can see why e.g. Microsoft, the East India Trading Company and BMW should be recognized in an encyclopedia. And there are examples of products (lines) that could/should be mentioned in a vast online encyclopedia as well (e.g. Windows, BMW 3 series) because they influenced industries/trends/zeitgeist and/or lifes.
But why, for the love of god, should every consultancy, contractor, forrester and his second cousin have an entry on this site?
EDIT: typo
Because wikipedia long ago decided that 'notable' had a fairly low bar. There's really no going back now and personally I very much like the abundance of articles, even on relatively minor people/companies/events. The storage/serving costs for these articles is negligible, but the value to our society (and maybe especially future ones) will be enormous.
Some language versions have higher requirements for notability. It's hard to set a clear cutoff point for example in sports, entertainment and companies. When does something become wiki-notable? Everyone has their own admins, deletion policies and arbitration mechanisms, which have and will influence content.
Statistics show clearly that some have opted to include as many stubs as possible via the use of bots (for example Swedish wikipedia). Tens of thousands almost worthless stubs (like all US townships and communities) could be machine-added at any time, but most wikis have steered clear of this kind of doping. German wikipedia is quite the opposite in regards to pictures. They don't allow any fair use / citation pictures, which leads to de.wiki articles having considerably less photos than other languages.
Statistics show clearly that some have opted to include as many stubs as possible via the use of bots (for example Swedish wikipedia). Tens of thousands almost worthless stubs (like all US townships and communities) could be machine-added at any time, but most wikis have steered clear of this kind of doping. German wikipedia is quite the opposite in regards to pictures. They don't allow any fair use / citation pictures, which leads to de.wiki articles having considerably less photos than other languages.
What good are any of our acts if they aren't recorded for others to see? /s
Why are we passing this opportunity up?!?!?!
Oh Jesus Christ, common now we're a community of entrepreneurs & hackers, someone just create a new startup that's wikipedia for people.
PeoplePedia.com is taken but here, but I've got http://www.infopag.es so it's perfect for something like InfoPag.es/ChrisNorstrom.
If someone wants to join in reply to this comment. So basically I'm envisioning a wiki for people. However, there's 2 routes I can go down:
a) Anyone can create a page on a person and anyone can edit and add onto or delete content from that page. (lots of growth, but lots of potential for abuse)
b) People must register to create a page on themselves, anyone can edit that page and add onto or delete content but the registered owner must approve the edits.
Which sounds better?
Oh Jesus Christ, common now we're a community of entrepreneurs & hackers, someone just create a new startup that's wikipedia for people.
PeoplePedia.com is taken but here, but I've got http://www.infopag.es so it's perfect for something like InfoPag.es/ChrisNorstrom.
If someone wants to join in reply to this comment. So basically I'm envisioning a wiki for people. However, there's 2 routes I can go down:
a) Anyone can create a page on a person and anyone can edit and add onto or delete content from that page. (lots of growth, but lots of potential for abuse)
b) People must register to create a page on themselves, anyone can edit that page and add onto or delete content but the registered owner must approve the edits.
Which sounds better?
Neither. Both sound like recipes for disaster, and impossible to administer. In all seriousness, it's taken close to a decade for Wikipedia to develop policies, guidelines, enforcements and practices to deal with abuses and get decent information into articles about people.
Anyone who thinks it's easy to allow anyone to edit articles about people hasn't tried to do it before, or are just plum crazy!
Anyone who thinks it's easy to allow anyone to edit articles about people hasn't tried to do it before, or are just plum crazy!
You've only further encouraged me. I'll start work on it this weekend.
Best of luck - the greatest inventions were created by those with blind optimism :-) interestingly, it's also how they started Wikipedia...
Since these companies (or at WikiPR) are refunding the money when things don't work out they should just hire these PR companies directly via friends and family and watch those accounts that are editing the pages they paid to edit. Once they catch the people, they ban the accounts, revert the changes and then demand their refund. It's a basic honeypot.
based on experiences by previous clients, they would not refund the money.
Thought off the top of my head so it's not developed or thought through, but wouldn't Wikipedia do well to find a way of somehow connecting itself in with academia? It might gain better resources to knowledge and people and more credibility as a result. And make it more difficult to "just get access" to editing a page.
Why doesn't Wikipedia sue this company and their clients?
I've always thought Wikipedia is like the true prophecy of Isaac Asimov (encyclopedia galactica) - but not even old Isaac could have predicted this!!
IMO, Wikipedia has more in common with Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (the fictional book featured in the series of the same title, not the work of fiction in which it featured) than Asimov's Encyclopedia Galactica.
My point still applies :) Could you imagine PR companies warring to get their 'native content' into the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (the book featured in the series)? Now that would have been prescient.
"This page has been locked by Wikipedia in response to deceptive practices paid for by Engulf and Devour to circumvent our community standards and mislead readers."
If you want this to stop, you have to give the clients a disincentive. That will drive the good clients out and these firms will be left with erectile dysfunction flim-flam as their market.