Wikipedia editors have disabled hundreds of paid Wikipedia editing accounts in recent weeks as part of a campaign against so-called "sockpuppetry."
The efforts were described in a statement published this morning by the Wikimedia Foundation, in which director Sue Gardner acknowledged that "as many as several hundred" accounts belong to editors who are being paid to promote products or services on the site. That's a violation of Wikipedia policies and terms of use, Gardner noted. "As a result, Wikipedians aiming to protect the projects against non-neutral editing have blocked or banned more than 250 user accounts," continued Gardner. "The Wikimedia Foundation takes this issue seriously and has been following it closely."
The statement follows reports earlier this month in the The Daily Dot and last week in Vice. The stories describe the increasing amounts of money flowing toward paid editing of English-language Wikipedia pages. According to both articles, Wikipedia editors attribute the growth in paid edits to a company called Wiki-PR.
The Daily Dot interviewed four Wiki-PR clients who said they paid between $500 and $1,000 to have articles written and then $50 a month for ongoing "page management" services. For its article, Vice spoke to a college dean who paid $1,500 for a profile to be written—and then was asked to pay another $800 for 30 days of "media relations efforts" when the page kept getting deleted.
Unfortunately for Wikipedia editors, Wiki-PR recently had success in attracting larger corporate clients. In a tweet captured by Wikipedians in September, Wiki-PR's head of sales boasted of snagging Viacom and Priceline as clients.
"I don't give two shits if they write articles about websites that sell erectile dysfunction pills," said longtime Wikipedia editor Kevin Gorman in an interview with Vice. "They're immediately obvious to the casual user as lame spam. 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."
103 Reader Comments
Shouldn't he be concerned that eventually wikipedia readers will just start assuming that every single article is written by a corporate shill and abandon the website for another source of information that they feel is not selling out to the highest bidder?
Last edited by Liquid Snake X on Mon Oct 21, 2013 11:59 am
Then again, when doing research on anything more serious than a plot summary I tend to only use the article for the references as a jumping off point for my own research.
Presumably they'll ban the IP addresses, but even those are easily replaced if you have money.
Presumably they'll ban the IP addresses, but even those are easily replaced if you have money.
Honestly, you don't even need money...
/sarc
Shouldn't he be concerned that eventually wikipedia readers will just start assuming that every single article is written by a corporate shill...
That's basically the same thing as what he said. Once we start discovering that "articles that our average reader assumes are not written by corporate flaks" are actually written by corporate flaks, then there is a problem with credibility, accuracy, or both.
Where would they go? That aside, it's not the website selling out, it's individual editors.
Are you sure about that?
[citation needed]
ie, " The following page may have been modified by a paid consultancy firm on behalf of "XYZ" and may contain inaccuracies, modifications and fabrications.
Shouldn't he be concerned that eventually wikipedia readers will just start assuming that every single article is written by a corporate shill and abandon the website for another source of information that they feel is not selling out to the highest bidder?
Which other "source of information" might that be? Wikipedia is so much larger and more complete than anything else, that there really aren't any good options. It's like saying "Hey, let's all switch to Esperanto to avoid an Anglophone bias". Ain't. Gonna. Happen.
Wikipedia is what we have. Let's just help protect it, and shame the spammers.
edit: Anglophile -> Anglophone
Last edited by AreWeThereYeti on Mon Oct 21, 2013 12:26 pm
Where would they go? That aside, it's not the website selling out, it's individual editors.
Even without having a reliable replacement immediately available, once the trust is lost, people will just stop using the service, period. No new edits will be made by neutral and objective authors and suddenly we will learn that battle of the Alamo was sponsored by Jiffy Lube. With all credibility lost, even Uncyclopedia will take cheap potshot at its formerly respectable cousin.
Where would they go? That aside, it's not the website selling out, it's individual editors.
Even without having a reliable replacement immediately available, once the trust is lost, people will just stop using the service, period. No new edits will be made by neutral and objective authors and suddenly we will learn that battle of the Alamo was sponsored by Jiffy Lube. With all credibility lost, even Uncyclopedia will take cheap potshot at its formerly respectable cousin.
Wikipedia has never had a high level of trust. A few years ago, there were tons of news stories about edit wars and bias in Wikipedia; I remember Stephen Colbert bashing it repeatedly. What was the damage to Wikipedia? Not much, just more caution on most people's part, which is healthy attitude towards any source of information.
I think this is a dangerous and elitist attitude. The very fact that those websites that sell erectile dysfunction pills make money proves that there are lots of people out there who can't distinguish marketing spam from fact. This attitude reflect the speaker's status as an intelligent, educated, literate person with lots of internet experience. Wikipedia isn't just for people like that, and it's important to remember that.
Everyone is clueless at some level. That's how I feel when I look at Wikipedia articles like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firewall_%28physics%29 . The only people who can understand it are people who already understand it.
edit: fixed parentheses in link text, thanks, kushal_one.
Last edited by AreWeThereYeti on Tue Oct 22, 2013 8:54 am
If it gets big enough the mainstream media (MSM) will be more than happy falling over themselves to cover the lying and cheating brands... that is unless of course the brand in question is a main sponsor of the MSM... crap, we're screwed!
As an aside, a while backI submitted a grant proposal to the Knight Foundation about the importance of the Editorial voice in the modern age of information...
I think I was just a little ahead of the times. Pretty soon cheap and free won't be good enough anymore.
Where would they go? That aside, it's not the website selling out, it's individual editors.
Even without having a reliable replacement immediately available, once the trust is lost, people will just stop using the service, period. No new edits will be made by neutral and objective authors and suddenly we will learn that battle of the Alamo was sponsored by Jiffy Lube. With all credibility lost, even Uncyclopedia will take cheap potshot at its formerly respectable cousin.
Wikipedia has never had a high level of trust. A few years ago, there were tons of news stories about edit wars and bias in Wikipedia; I remember Stephen Colbert bashing it repeatedly. What was the damage to Wikipedia? Not much, just more caution on most people's part, which is healthy attitude towards any source of information.
Kinda off topic here but I remember when Daniel Tosh told viewers to mess with the Tosh.0 page on Wikipedia.
You can always buy a professional writer to write one and have that linked. If you are a major corporation, I am sure any information you liked referenced can be found on your corporate website or even better; in an article published in one of the media firms you control.
“ My job requires a certain …moral flexibility.” —Nick Naylor
ie, " The following page may have been modified by a paid consultancy firm on behalf of "XYZ" and may contain inaccuracies, modifications and fabrications.
Who gets to decide which pages get the warnings? The professionals are more likely to be editors and moderators than normal users.
I would very surprised if most of the people running this campaign aren't themselves shills who are just getting rid of a bit of the competion.
Last edited by Carewolf on Mon Oct 21, 2013 12:56 pm
1. The IP Address from which your encountered the malicious activity.
2. The website on which this malicious activity has been performed.
3. The time frame during which this activity has been performed.
4. All the access logs that supports your claim.
Like some poor overworked moderator (e.g., moi) and our admin is going to dig this stuff up. We've just started blocking the IP ranges of their hosting provider as junk comes in.
I think this is a dangerous and elitist attitude. The very fact that those websites that sell erectile dysfunction pills make money proves that there are lots of people out there who can't distinguish marketing spam from fact. This attitude reflect the speaker's status as an intelligent, educated, literate person with lots of internet experience. Wikipedia isn't just for people like that, and it's important to remember that.
Not really the same thing, but I feel pretty clueless too when I look at Wikipedia articles like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firewall_(physics) . The only people who can understand it are people who already understand it.
You may be overstating the point made here. This is a quote by, what appears to be, a lone editor that may not be 100% perfect, but still gets most of the point across.
The point is that really obvious pages are really obvious to most people, but I think most people understand that the internet public at large cannot be 100% saved from themselves. As in most endeavors, you have to pick your baseline of stupidity and work from there. There are many people who don't know the difference between real and fake erectile dysfunction pills or a real page, but that's clearly not most people. Hell, percentage wise, it's a small percentage. And I'll tell you it's definitely clear to the Wiki Editors who would take down such pages quickly and with extreme prejudice without much problem.
What's hard, and more of a concern to most Wiki editors are the subtle changes, the ones that you try to make not obvious. They stay their longer and tilt opinion ever so slightly in their favor. They could potentially have a greater influence by moving opinion a little bit, but affecting a greater number of people since they are up for longer.
"Add pages" might also be more obvious in that their sources are bad or missing, or it's simply a poorly written article. The erectile dysfunction can also be the example for the most commonly used subject on pages that are clearly spam. I mean, it is the most common spam in your email inbox... isn't it?
Ive seen wikipedia editors make arbitrary changes to pages without giving any real reason, or not substantiating a challenge to authenticity without providing anything that refutes a claim.
Also, Ive seen pages deleted when some editor arbitrarily decides the page contents weren't of significance - without any reason why it is not significant.
Since wikipedia can be edited by anyone, and its editors are certainly not experts on the subjects they regularly edit, the editors need to get over it. Its a common man's reference that is a very good starting place for learning, and that's it.
1. The IP Address from which your encountered the malicious activity.
2. The website on which this malicious activity has been performed.
3. The time frame during which this activity has been performed.
4. All the access logs that supports your claim.
Like some poor overworked moderator (e.g., moi) and our admin is going to dig this stuff up. We've just started blocking the IP ranges of their hosting provider as junk comes in.
Couldn't you just enable CAPTCHA?
It's not a paid wikipedia account. It's an account used by someone who is paid by someone else to post to wikipedia. The phrasing is a bit confusing though, no doubt.
Propaganda got it's name changed after WWII to Pubic Relations since the Nazi's tarnished that word by being so good at it.
PR = Propaganda. So yes, they are career liars and manipulators it's their job.
Sue over what? "Shitting all over a valuable information resource so you can make a quick buck", while a very douche-y thing to do, isn't obviously illegal from what I know. (Not a lawyer, though, so maybe someone who is can go into more detail.)
Sue over what? "Shitting all over a valuable information resource so you can make a quick buck", while a very douche-y thing to do, isn't obviously illegal from what I know. (Not a lawyer, though, so maybe someone who is can go into more detail.)
Violating the terms of service, breach of contract, fraud, being asshats, digital vandalism, I don't know I'm not a lawyer either, but surely this is illegal somehow?
I mean really, everything seems to be illegal these days. You just have to find the right way to explain it with the right analogies.
You don't usually see Godwin proven correct on such a benign topic. Good show.
Sue over what? "Shitting all over a valuable information resource so you can make a quick buck", while a very douche-y thing to do, isn't obviously illegal from what I know. (Not a lawyer, though, so maybe someone who is can go into more detail.)
It is if the activity violates the TOU.
You must login or create an account to comment.