Wikipedia editors, locked in battle with PR firm, delete 250 accounts
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
"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.
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?
"arguing that only the originator of a defamatory statement published on the internet could be held liable.[4][9][10][11]"
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.
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.
Just because there is a non-neutral position doesn't mean that it shouldn't be altered.
Is there a story here?
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!
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.
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
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.
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...
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...
Other useless trivia is that our grandfather is the T in http://www.cmtengr.com/.
I think it's hilarious that Wikipedia could get something as simple as the number of siblings wrong.
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.
So, you're saying instead I would just hire these firms to edit the pages of my competitors?
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.
Tar and feathers?
I hope every single one of their spurious sockpuppet accounts get deleted.
"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.
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.
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...
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...
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 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.
The best thing is to participate on talk pages. Even there, be careful not to respond to inflammatory comments or trolls.
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.
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?
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.
>>> 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.
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?
They must obviously have a reputable source.
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.
OUR AFFILIATES MAKE BIG MONEY.
<...>
Just leave us your name.
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.
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.
Which ones?
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.
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.
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"?
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.
(I agree with your sentiment.)
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.
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.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act
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?
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
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.
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?
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!