Talk:Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Companies (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Marketing & Advertising (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Marketing & Advertising, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Marketing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Wikipedia (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view on topics relating to Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hold the Speedy[edit]

By speedy deleting this is looks to me awfully like wikipedia is trying to hide something. AfD would be more appropriate to get a wider opinion. SFC9394 (talk) 18:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

+1 insightful. (talk) 01:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
+1 Electron9 (talk) 06:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

As a note[edit]

I'm certainly going to avoid editing the article, and am not going to express a real opinion as to whether or not it should exist, but Priceline wasn't the only organization that replied to Martin's emails confirming they had used Wiki-PR's services. Colorado Technical University was also named in the VICE article. I would encourage people to not lash out against the articles of Wiki-PR's clients (many of them are named at the SPI/LTA and elsewhere,) as I truly believe many of their clients were unaware they were violating our norms. Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Otoh, wikipedia can't be blamed for their poor judgment on their part. Electron9 (talk) 07:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Perfectly true, and I think we should bring up the articles Wiki-PR wrote to our standards, or delete them when necessary. I would just prefer to avoid seeing the revenge-style editing that occasionally happens when a company transgresses our norms. I've talked to a lot of Wiki-PR's clients, and most of them, while ignorant, were well-intentioned. (I haven't started personally repairing articles yet, because I'm waiting to see what happens with WMF, arbcom, functionaries, etc. Plus, repairing all the articles on my list of what they've edited would take quite a while anyway, heh.) In a nutshell, I think we should treat them like we would treat our other articles; bringing them up to our content standards and deleting non-notable ones. Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
It's up to the involved parties to prove their intentions and the associated redactions may in fact them self be of interest. Which companies that made use of these services is something that should be clarified. Electron9 (talk) 09:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

This talkpage[edit]

We need to discuss the article here, not the business ethics, real or imagined, nor Wikipolitics. Please let us constrain ourselves to creation of a good, decent, unbiased article. Fiddle Faddle 10:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

If this is related to my comments above, I'd like to point out that I did point out a factual error in the article that still hasn't been corrected :p. In a high profile case where revenge editing is likely to occur, I also see nothing wrong with requesting people refrain from doing so on the talk page of an article involved. The article for some reason also uses internsushi as a source, which both fails WP:RS, and is incorrect. (I'm refraining from editing this article directly for fairly obvious reasons.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:09, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
It was not related to anyone's comments here in any direct manner. I would have been explicit had it been. I simply see the potential for a huge mess if we do not, ourselves, uphold the standards of this place, both in articles and in their respective talk pages. It is clear that there is an issue with Wikipedia and this organisation and similar organisations. Equally it is clear that this issue should be dealt with quietly and factually in the article if relevant and on the talk page if necessary. Acting in any different manner would be inappropriate.
The issue itself is being discussed elsewhere, which is, in my view, as it should be. A conclusion will be reached there. Interestingly, using Wikipedia as a citation for itself in discussing that issue within this article would be using an unreliable source. We have, therefore, a set of interesting article writing dilemmas to face. That was the basis of my message. Fiddle Faddle 23:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Where is this "is being discussed elsewhere" ? Electron9 (talk) 09:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
There is a banner at the head of the pages on WP which has details of a major discussion of Wikipedia and paid editing. I have dismissed it for myself, so can no longer see the location, though I did contribute to it. I commend the discussion to you. Perhaps someone would be kind enough to add the link to it here? Fiddle Faddle 09:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


As a company, Wiki-PR doesn't seem to be notable on its own and doesn't pass WP:CORP. This article seems to be more about the kerfuffle around the Morning277 sockpuppet investigation than the company itself. I don't dispute that the incident received significant coverage in reliable sources, so I propose we move this article to a title that focuses on the editing controversy itself, as it would better reflect the content here. I'm thinking something along the lines of Wiki-PR editing scandal or Wiki-PR sockpuppet controversy. Gobōnobō + c 00:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree.--Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 05:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
WIth the caveat that Wikipedia reporting upon Wikipedia feels rather like condoning incest, I half agree, but suggest we consider widening it to include all paid editing. Fiddle Faddle 08:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
We do have an article for conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia. Gobōnobō + c 11:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I was unaware of that, and have started a discussion on the talk page there about the concept of a merge of this article into it. The merge banner on the article(s) leads to that discussion directly. To me it appears to be an ideal home, and also a great place for the discussion. Fiddle Faddle 11:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Now that readers find out about this army of socketpuppys that perhaps is directed by a small company. They will most likely want to find out what this formally small company with huge consequences is. So make a article on paid bad editing, but link here. Notability is not always straightforward. And removing this article is of course a self serving interest for this company.. Electron9 (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
@Electron9: While I understand the points you are making, WIkipedia is not a news medium, but is a rather staid and sedate encyclopaedia. Wiki-PR is a PR company. If it is inherently notable it should have an article, but that article must not be a WP:COATRACK, which this one is at present. Fiddle Faddle 23:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I have moved this article to Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia given the concerns about the notability of the company. This way our subject is a direct match to the news coverage, so there shouldn't be a problem from a WP:GNG perspective. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:45, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

sources & factual accuracy[edit]

Please guys, pay close attention to both the quality of sources you use and what the sources actually say. Wiki-PR doesn't have 45 employees, doesn't have two offices, and the 'Wikimedia Foudation' didn't block anyone's user account. The community of the English Wikipedia did. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Can you cite what the sources are saying on the employees and the offices then? All I could find and cite was from their website, which should be alright as I have been somewhat using the JESS3 article for assistance in improving this page as a "PR" article instead of the current one. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
They previously had an office in SF, they now do in Austin. You will find some old social media postings etc that reference their SF office, but it no longer exists (and isn't mentioned in the source cited.) Per WP:SPS, self published sources are only acceptable without caveat for claims that are not unduly self-serving, are not exceptional claims, and where we have no reason to doubt their veracity. Claiming they have 45 employees including Wikipedia administrators is an exceptional claim that we have plenty of reason to doubt the veracity of, hence is not a RS for the statement that they have 45 employees. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
You are correct that the info isn't listed in the source since I used the wrong one. (Figures.) The line I am referring to on that page is, "Adam manages sales and business development from Wiki-PR's office in San Francisco, California." You did mention that they did close their SF office, so I will try to dig that up. For the second part, why can we say that they have 25 employees, but not 45 specifically? (Some of those employees likely don't have any Wikipedia experience, but do have something that benefits their organization.) --Super Goku V (talk) 00:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I'd be equally skeptical about citing without caveat a claim that they had 25 employees. When a source makes claims that are both exceptional and self-serving, all information from that source should be treated skeptically - and their website certainly makes claims that are exceptional and self-serving. Per WP:SPS, they really shouldn't be used as a source for anything but the most basic info about themselves (like Jordan French as CEO) without it being explicitly disclaimed as 'Wiki-PR tates that they have 45 employees,' etc. I don't know if anything about their move is currently in an RS, but would expect at least one RS to mention that they no longer have a physical office in SF in the near future, and will drop by with it when it appears. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
According to this LinkedIn profile, they appear to hold the office in the San Francisco Bay Area. While it cannot be cited, it might help to limit the range of the search if correct as this had to be edited sometime around April of this year. (It is the most I have right now.) --Super Goku V (talk) 02:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
As a general note, this article is an annoyance for several commercial entities so any editing or suggestion to do so should be viewed with this in mind. Electron9 (talk) 00:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

What became the Morning277 sock-puppet investigation began in August 2012, not in 2008. Here is the first revision.

There's now a Wall Street Journal article about the company. {{cite news | author = Geoffrey A. Fowler | title = Wikipedia Probes Suspicious Promotional Articles | publisher = Wall Street Journal | url = | date = 2013-10-21 | archiveurl = | archivedate = 2013-10-22 | accessdate = 2013-10-23}} —rybec 11:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed the year to 2012. —rybec 02:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


I cleaned up this article. Any productive comments about my content changes? (No griping about banners, please start a separate section for that jazz.) Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 12:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


I have no intention of griping about banners. I have simply reinstated the merge banner designed to reach consensus at the target article talk page, which you have removed unilaterally. Thwarting the consensus building process by summary removal during building of consensus is wholly inappropriate. Fiddle Faddle 13:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Move to Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia[edit]

I think the move is probably a good thing (0.8 probability) though am not entirely convinced. As the article stands at present it is most assuredly about Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia instead of being about Wiki-PR itself. Fiddle Faddle 13:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Woohoo. Progress. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I oppose this move. It's non-standard and rather obtuse. We have lots and lots of articles about businesses that are notable only for one thing, yet the title of the article is the name of the business. (And has anyone actually confirmed that there isn't a single reliable source that isn't about editing Wikipedia?) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
It does seem akin to moving Acme Widgets to Acme Widgets' manufacturing of widgets. Face-smile.svgrybec 20:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
May I suggest that instead of playing the move and counter move game [I know we will not be doing that], we now hold a discussion here for the correct name of the article, since we have one definite oppose opinion. I remain on the fence, but 80% in favour Fiddle Faddle 21:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes please. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - The article was for the company called Wiki-PR, not just the controversy that they caused on Wikipedia. If a reader heard about Wiki-PR, and likely since this has been in at least a BBC article, they would have a difficult time finding information about the company itself. Not to mention the fact that this was done without any discussion and that the current revision would be the same as a section on the Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia article. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree that this is a slightly atypical move... but the problem you point out is easily fixable with a redirect from Wiki-PR to this article. There's no reason why this title should make it harder for readers to find info than the original title would. Please note, I'm not taking a position on the move, just pointing out that the problem you forsee is easily avoidable. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
It isn't a redirect problem, but a content problem. If a user wanted to find information on the company, outside of the controversy, they would be unable to since there is no background section on the article since the edits by Biosthmors. They will find this page easily, but they will find nothing of what they would want to find, unless it was directly connected to the controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Super Goku V (talkcontribs) 16:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't follow. I don't remember removing any content (that wasn't already marked as dubious), I just thought the article was better off without unnecessary sections. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 18:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
You are not just suppose to remove information marked dubious, especially when we were engaging in a discussion on the talk page about it. To note, you did remove content that wasn't marked dubious, specifically the whole first paragraph of the Background section and the tags you removed from the top of the article. In addition, it wasn't as if the section was unnecessary, only when you decided on your own to move the article without a discussion. To clarify my stance, your edits are welcome, but I am displeased by how you conducted them. Wikipedia is about having a consensus on decision, not major decisions by one user. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Here's the diff. WP:Bold exists. What content was removed you think should stay? Wasn't the information I removed self-serving and self-published? It was, according to my memory. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 09:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Mostly, my problem is that I felt that this was pushing into WP:OWN. I just would like a discussion on if your edits should be in place or not, not a drawn out conversation over what I am opposed to. As I said above, we were discussing the content on another talk section and was working to make sure everything was alright with it. Especially since it can be assumed that they are the Primary source for their own material. (See: The Human Stain and Philip Roth for more.) --Super Goku V (talk) 17:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand this concern. Does someone else understand it? Maybe they can explain it to me in another way. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 15:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Simply put, the move was forced. The controversy was made as the only focus about the article, even though there can be articles about organizations that are notable for only a single major event. There wasn't even a shred of discussion before it happened. Some users are opposed to the original move, myself included. In order to be moved back, we need to have a discussion on it. I am attempting to participate in the discussion, but seem to be getting pushed into other discussions. The article started as a company article. It had information that was balanced between the controversy and the company itself. Now, the whole article barely states anything about the company, except what the controversy is about. There isn't even any real mention of why they did this, to profit from the edits. Any readers would need to find other sources to understand how and why Wiki-PR attempts to operate. People understand that there is a controversy, but they might not know anything else about them. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Possible names[edit]

  • Wiki-PR (original)
  • Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia (current)
  • Wiki-PR Wikipedia editing
  • Inappropriate editing of Wikipedia by Wiki-PR
  • Wiki-PR editing scandal
  • Wiki-PR editing controversy


Is there consensus that Wiki-PR is a notable company? If so, then we can move it back to that name. I personally favor "Inappropriate editing of Wikipedia by Wiki-PR" if we're going to have a long descriptive summary name of the recent media coverage. I dislike the word controversy, as I think it is a lazy-man's (and possibly non-neutral) word. The word controversy implies that someone is saying Wiki-PR's edits that are the subject of the article were appropriate. Are there any reliable sources that state as much? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 09:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Wiki-PR has been featured in several reliable sources and is therefore a notable company per WP:CORP. The title of this article should therefore be... Wiki-PR. Consistent with WP:NCCORP, as well as every other business's article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps, but it concerns me that this article is stand-alone. I am concerned this can be construed as an "attack article." This whole episode is damaging enough without an article like this. I think it should be part of Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia. Coretheapple (talk) 18:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
What do you mean, an attack article? We reflect what reliable sources say. Anything that reflects what reliable sources say, is neutral, and follows the notability guideline can't be an attack article by definition. It's something else: an encylopedia article. The company was roundly criticized in the press for inappropriate editing, according to Wikipedia's standards. I don't even see a tiny shred for a legitimate concern for this being an attack article. And it wasn't just COI editing. It was also sockpuppetry. There isn't enough overlap for a merge. I'm OK with a move back to Wiki-PR if the consensus is that the company is notable. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 15:23, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I do not perceive Wiki-PR to be notable, not even notable for the event. The event, however, is notable, something which seems to be a paradox. I am in favour of an article title which reflects the event unless and until the corporation is, itself, notable. Fiddle Faddle 15:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Coretheapple and Fiddle Faddle, we really ought to make decisions on this article based on WP policy/guidelines to avoid being accused of pro-WP (or anti-WP) bias. Could you please cite specific policies or guidelines that support your position? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

  • WP:GNG is the sole guideline that concerns me. Fiddle Faddle 08:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
  • WP:ATTACK. People who are outraged about what happened here should work as I have to ban paid editing, not to using Wikipedia article space in this fashion. Coretheapple (talk) 14:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
    • ? No outrage here, and no evidence provided. Is this a simple I don't like it comment? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 15:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm equally confused. What do these policies have to do with the title of the article? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Because the corporation is not notable it may not have an article about itself with its name as the title. If it did then it would be deleted as a non notable corporation (or renamed as this one has been done). If there is a notable incident that features the corporation, even if it is not a notable corporation, the article may include the name of the corporation in its title. This is in line, for example, with people whose murder is notable but they are not themselves notable. In all cases there are exceptions. Wiki-PR is not one of them in my view. Fiddle Faddle 10:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
That issue is already essentially settled; most editors both here and at Talk:Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia#Proposed_merge_with_Wiki-PR agree that Wiki-PR satisfies the GNG/CORP standard, and you haven't produced any evidence to the contrary. One critical flaw in your murder victims analogy is that only a tiny, tiny number of notable people are known just for being murdered; most people are known for something else. Whereas most notable companies are known for the business they practice. No difference here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
It is impossible to produce evidence that something is not notable. Think about it! Fiddle Faddle 22:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
It's not impossible. If "X" is under discussion and no significant coverage of "X" is found on Google News, LexisNexis, Google Scholar, or MIT's library for instance, that would be pretty good evidence that "X" was unlikely to be notable. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
To be fair, that is simply a void. I see what you are saying, but an absence of proof positive is not the same as proof negative. Fiddle Faddle 09:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Please use an RM before deciding on a move. Otherwise, sometimes people get cranky. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
    • It also appears some people get cranky if you actually follow WP:Be bold and edit a page. Scary, no? I wonder, sometimes, why people who overreact in that fashion participate on this website. Here's to your future, Wikipedia! Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Call for additional input[edit]

I think we're close to consensus to move this article back to "Wiki-PR", but we're not quite there. Anyone else willing to give their two cents? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold and note I've stopped taking this issue seriously, because it's dropped on my personal priority list. I think the article is fine, and our attention would be better focused elsewhere. I say this because I'm thinking about the readers. Would any random reader of this article be pissed off or dissatisfied with the current structure/content? I'll boldly note that I think not. Moving on. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 09:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
If we don't reach consensus then we should revert back to "Wiki-PR" per WP:NOCONSENSUS. However I wouldn't call the discussion dead quite yet; let's give it a couple more days. If you don't want to participate any further then you're certainly not obligated to do so. (Btw I'm with you re WP:BOLD.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Please use a requested move to gather more input before trying to move the page again one way or the other. Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:RM isn't required, and we're already having a discussion so I think it would be redundant. (For controversial moves: "It is not always necessary to formally request a move in these circumstances: one option is to start an informal discussion at the article's talk page instead.") Plus, there's a huge backlog there. Going to RM would simply delay the proper reversion of a move for which there's (currently) no consensus. Unless we see significant movement in the next 48 hours I'm going to invoke WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY and decline your request. If you have a problem with this you can request a review at WP:MR. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Oh dear. No, that would be invalid. Consensus is absolutely required, and we must be bound by it whether we agree with it or not. Why are you so determined to insist that it is moved to the original and imperfect title? Why does it matter so much to you? Build and obey consensus. Phrases like "Unless [this happens] I will [perform that action]" are not the way Wikipedia works best. Fiddle Faddle 00:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I would like to point out that it isn't "imperfect" to use the name of the company for an article, which was the original intent of the article, before the series of edits a week ago without consensus. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
RM isn't required for uncontroversial moves, but this isn't an uncontroversial move, and it's highly recommended for controversial moves where talk page discussions haven't reached consensus. The point of RM isn't just to start a discussion, it's to bring in outside eyes who are often more familiar with naming policies than random passers-by are. RM or at least an RFC should be used in pretty much any case where there's a controversial move with no established consensus among talk page participants, which is the case here. I edit conflicted with you, but the passage you quote from RM simply suggests that it's not necessary if consensus has been established on the talk page, and that isn't the case here. And to be clear: I object to the proposed move back. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
RM clearly contradicts you, but no matter -- if you want to continue the discussion there, fine. Please notify me and the other participants if you do. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I would rather not formulate the RM/RfC text myself because I can perceived as having a significant COI w/r/t to this article, but I object to any further move that doesn't go through an RM or an RFC. I would appreciate it if you or another more neutral party would formulate the RM or RfC text and post it as one. If no one else does, I will myself, but that's not a great idea. Controversial moves benefit from discussion that involve parties that don't have pre-existing involvement with an article. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

  • No move should now happen without a Requested Move. Fiddle Faddle 00:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I really think the title needs to be moved back to simply Wiki-PR. That is the name of this company and any other title has some already built-in bias. If there is insufficient content to justify a full fledged article on this company, I would argue it needs to be merged into Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia, where there is already an empty section merely pointing to this article. Turning this into a redirect, some minor rewording to get it to flow with the rest of that other article, and simply moving everything except the external reference over might be more than sufficient. Does this topic deserve more than the current three paragraphs? If other references could be garnered and if this company is notable enough to deserve an article, it simply should be about this company and not just the editing controversy.... which again already has an article. --Robert Horning (talk) 18:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Potential sources from Talk:Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia[edit]

NPR interview with Sue Gardner[edit]

archive #1 archive #2rybec 05:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 14:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

POV of this article[edit]

See also: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia, originally Wiki-PR

My gosh, I have never seen a more slanted and one sided article in the entire time I have been participating on Wikipedia. For those who have been involved in this article and letting it get into this state, shame on you. It has been entirely written as a slam piece by those who want to let the world know that this company is a troll.

There is nothing at all neutral about this article. Frankly, I think it should simply be deleted, but I can't find any formal grounds for deletion other than the neutrality of the article is so horrible that it would be better to simply nuke the article and start over again from scratch.

Yes, this company may be slimy and be a part of the whole controversy regarding paid editing that is taking Wikipedia as a whole by storm, but even for something like this some actual neutral editing about a firm like this should happen. Note, I am not suggesting I support this firm and its efforts either, but writing with a neutral point of view is expected for all main space articles. If those involved in writing this want to turn this into an essay and move this over to the Wikipedia namespace, it might even be fitting. As it stands right now, it does not deserve to be recognized as anything but lousy writing that needs serious clean-up before it can be recognized as WP:Brilliant Prose that all articles should at least strive toward even if they don't quite achieve that level of quality. As it stands right now, this article is definitely going in a negative direction towards that goal. --Robert Horning (talk) 16:23, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

How does this article deviate from the reliable sources? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Most of which also have a strong POV. Writing for a neutral POV isn't strictly writing to the sources involved. There doesn't even seem to be an attempt to write with a neutral tone in the grammar at all. I know this is not easy to do either, but it should at least be attempted. --Robert Horning (talk) 18:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Reflecting the sources is the definition of NPOV. Please see here, which describes the most common misunderstanding about NPOV. In my opinion, the tag should be removed per the bolded sentence here. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 12:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Both of you make valid points. A source that is, itself, POV, can be referenced with "Smith states that.... [citation]" if necessary, though. Fiddle Faddle 12:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I contest that unless you can offer a valid definition for the term POV, which I don't believe exists on this website. If it is not defined on this website—and if you can't adequately provide one—then I will simply repeat my argument. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
And isn't attribution is only beneficial in cases where the facts are disputed by reliable sources? Do we have reliable sources contradicting themselves? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 15:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I've taken the time to read this article with care now rather than just answering this question theoretically. I'm sure I'm not the only bloke with an opinion on the article(!), but I can't see that it is slanted in any direction as a matter of bias, It is factual and records the material facts with care. It is carefully about the corporation's editing of Wikipedia, not about the corporation itself, and it states the facts that came to light as the controversy developed.

I suppose it could comment upon the edits made, but that would only be valid if those edits were discussed in WP:RS and that material were viewed as suitable for inclusion. What one can say is that Wiki-PR made edits which were paid for by clients and thus a conflict of interest. This is sourced information. One must assume that the edits that have not been reverted as poor quality are either of good quality or are yet to be discovered and assessed. Since the firm was paid to edit it is likely that their edits had decent editing quality, whetever else one might choose to say about them, but postulating this in the article would be WP:OR

I am by no means comparing Wiki_PR to the perpetrators of a criminal act in my next thought. If we have an article on a murderer that article puts forward the facts, generally all of which are unpleasant, and quotes cited sources. As a technical writing exercise, how is an article on a transgression ever going to show much other than the gory details?

My view, after much thought, is that the article is only slanted because there is no way of avoiding the slant, and that it is as neutral in its reporting the facts as any other article. Fiddle Faddle 16:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I will admit that it is very difficult for somebody intimately involved with Wikipedia to avoid having a very strong bias against this company. That said, I have most definitely seem much more neutral articles written and I certainly don't think that the fact this company is slimy and causing what some perceive to be a problem on Wikipedia is justification to write what amounts to be a hit piece on this company.
It may very well be impossible for active editors on Wikipedia to write a neutral article on this company (which IMHO really ought to be the title too.... I guess I need to get into that discussion above as well). That is perhaps the first clue that this is likely already violating the NPOV pillar of Wikipedia. Nothing here talks about what its clients may think, what motivations might be involved, and there are other sources which could be used for writing this article as well. If necessary, I will write a forked version of the article as a draft to show what I believe might be a more neutral article. I don't intend to simply sit still on this one and for damn sure this isn't a "drive-by tagging" of this article.
I would like to see some more eyeballs on this article too, so far as it sort of is one of the companies stirring the pot here on Wikipedia anyway, so the firm which is the target of so much animosity likely should have a quality article depicting what is the source of that angst. There are plenty of sources (certainly more than are listed right now) and we as Wikipedia editors certainly can do much, much better than what I see on this page. I am asking to have more than a freaking 24 hours to make all of the editorial changes as I am suggesting it will be a major overhaul of the article. --Robert Horning (talk) 17:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
In the world of WIkipedia there is no rush. Take the time you require to marshall your thoughts and, most importantly, to determine sources that would be required in the rewrite you feel is appropriate. Then please discuss what you propose to do. There is nothing worse that what could turn into an edit war. So let us look at your case and achieve consensus.
The article could not, certainly initially, be about the company because there seemed to be nothing available about the company per se, just about its actions. If that has changed then it has changed.
As someone who edits Wikipedia a lot and has been around a while I can say that I am unconcerned about paid editing. I am, however, concerned about paid and biased editing. Perhaps that makes me a smidgen less partial than some other editors. Fiddle Faddle 17:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
For the purpose of this article, I don't think it even matters about what personal opinions are regarding paid editing. That shouldn't even come into this. On the other hand, I do think that there are plenty of sources about this company that a legitimate article about the company (which is sort of what the lead sentence implies this article is about) that a full fledged article, at least a reasonable stub with a half dozen reliable sources, could be written about the company covering the basic 5 w's about the company and explain what it is that they do. That in addition the controversial aspects of what this company is doing could be explained is certainly something that should be in the article.
I guess I'm sort of steamed right now that I'm even getting into a bloody edit war over putting a simple NPOV tag on what appears to be a stub of an article too, and that by itself smacks of article ownership. I feel rushed to explain myself and strongly object to that disclaimer not being placed in the prominent place that it deserves, because I do assert that a strong POV bias currently exists and this dispute has not been resolved on this talk page.... and I sure am trying to use the talk page here instead of just doing a drive-by tagging without engagement. I find it insulting nearly to the point of a personal attack that it has been judged by such a standard. --Robert Horning (talk) 17:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
The problem with this article, as I've said previously, is that it exists at all. Nobody is more against paid editing than I am. But articles like this bring Wikipedia into disrepute, as this is designed purely for the purpose of disparaging this company. It is an "attack article" and has no business being here. Coretheapple (talk) 22:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I disagree. How is the subject not notable? How is the article not neutral? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 09:12, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


The issue of notability isn't what is in question here. The issue is an attack article with a clear bias against this company, regardless of the fact that the only sources which seem to be available are all slamming this company too. As mentioned in the NPOV notice board and in the article moving section above, this article also is simply named for a specific activity of this company. I would argue that is the first thing that needs to be fixed in terms of seeking a more neutral tone to this article, as it really ought to be a more dispassionate look at the company itself. Clearly it has stirred up a world of hate within the Wikipedia community along with many people coming to Wikipedia's defense and sympathetic to Wikipedia's editors that have to deal with the results of this company.

We really need to nail down here on this talk page what this article is really all about, at least in terms of starting to unravel this whole thing about POV. If it is just about how Wiki-PR has been engaged in editing Wikipedia, the lead sentence really needs to nail that point down and de-emphasize the company. That also gets into the coatrack issues as I fail to see why this particular company needs to have a separate article as if it is the only company or organization doing this kind of biased editing on Wikipedia. Mind you, I didn't even put that coatrack editor's note on this article (although I did restore it from being removed earlier). By making this company an example, it places undue emphasis on this one company and its practice that could more neutrally used in a larger context of paid editing on Wikipedia in general. It is this out of context emphasis that I am also complaining. So what is the point of even writing this article in the first place and what is it really about? --Robert Horning (talk) 18:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

On your last point, and this is not a flippant suggestion, why not make a neutral (or a delete) nomination at AfD for the article. This will determine with precision whether it is kept or deleted by creating a firm consensus. I'm undecided about which way my own opinion falls here. I don't feel strongly enough either way to make that nomination, though. Fiddle Faddle 18:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I am choosing not to make an AfD about this article for two reasons: one, it is incredibly disruptive and distracting to resolving the issues I've brought up and two, I find that this article meets every standard in WP:DP for being kept. Running this article through the AfD sausage mill will accomplish nothing other than distracting more people and wasting the time of a bunch of admins and a wikiproject that is already overtaxed. If somebody else tries to do that, I will vote a strong keep vote and argue a speedy close as well. My complaint is about the tone of the article, not that it should exist. None the less, a consensus needs to form about what this article really is about for us to proceed. --Robert Horning (talk) 01:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

If an article accurately represents the information contained in reliable sources, it is not an attack article by our standards. Wiki-PR meets the WP:GNG by a few thousand miles, so I think it pretty easily warrants a standalone article from the general COI article. I would suggest an RfC to determine scope or an RM to determine proper naming or something, since they'll be more productive paths than people simply repeatedly stating that there are problems. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

You still haven't answered my previous question: What exactly is this article about? Is it about strictly the editorial behavior of Wiki-PR, or is it about the company in general? The article, as currently written, is in a quasi-state of trying to do both at the same time and IMHO failing miserably at doing either one as well. This has nothing to do with notability (which I will concede that notability concerns are met), but rather just the focus of the article in the first place. I'm trying to nail down the scope of the article first, without which any RfC to determine any other issue is sort of pointless. --Robert Horning (talk) 01:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Bluntly, that was completely intentional. I'm not the person to decide the scope of this article. I was responsible for the second major English language news story about Wiki-PR, have been quoted widely about them in the media across a dozen languages, and initiated their community ban. That's why I suggested an RfC to determine scope. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I thought the point of talk pages was to decide issues like this when it is about an individual article? I would like to come to some consensus on the issue, but apparently you and I are the only ones actually talking about the scope of this article. That you may also have some COI on this topic (having self-proclaimed that you have been responsible for the news stories about this company) may cause some problems with that too, so I don't object to outside input if anybody is really interested. I assume that most of those who are interested in this article and topic already have it on their watch list, and the point of an RfC would be mainly to widen the scope of discussion to let other experienced editors on Wikipedia know about this article, to get more eyeballs on the issues being raised. --Robert Horning (talk) 17:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
That is the purpose of a talk page, but when insufficient voices are being heard (as in this instance,) then an RfC on the talk page is the perfect mechanism to draw in other experienced editors to the discussion so that more voices can be heard and consensus formed as to an appropriate scope. I'd strongly suggest that an RfC to draw more eyes is the best path forward. I don't think that I can reasonably contribute to a page where probably 30% of the potential sources for the page are literally quoting me, and to avoid the appearance of malfeasance, have mostly been trying to only comment on procedural stuff. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree with this point: "If an article accurately represents the information contained in reliable sources, it is not an attack article by our standards." With that said, I think it would be wonderful to incorporate Wiki-PR's views on this issue. If someone can find that material and refer to it, that would be a highly constructive contribution. Logical Cowboy (talk) 00:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
The Wall Street Journal piece I mentioned above [18] has a five-paragraph e-mail from the CEO. —rybec 02:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, it seems like a no-brainer to include some comments from Wiki-PR in this article. Feel free to improve further. Logical Cowboy (talk) 15:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Colorado Technical University[edit]

I'm in communication with the founders of Wiki-PR via email, and they dispute the fact that Colorado Technical University was one of their clients. Looking at the Vice article more closely, this claim doesn't actually seem to be supported by the article, either. The article states that Emad Rahim was a client, not that CTU was. Given this, I'm going ahead and taking out mention of CTU. If someone else thinks it worthy, they can reinsert appropriate wording saying that a dean at CTU was a client. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:15, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I think it is not wise to make edits on behalf of banned users. --TeaDrinker (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't see very much wrong with making an edit to correct an actual misreading of a source, even if it was a misreading pointed out to me by banned users. Edits upholding WP:V are allowed by the banning policy even if pointed out by a banned user. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:19, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
For a ban to be meaningful, we can't keep considering their advice and making the edits we like. Few users get to the point of a community ban without having made at least some reasonable edits. However the view of the community is that it is no longer worth our time and effort to determine which of their edits are reasonable and which are problematic. I am sure you had the best of intentions, but many editors before you have decided to become the conduit by which a banned user can again edit on the project. That sort of thing is unacceptable. They are not welcome to edit the encyclopedia, including through other users. --TeaDrinker (talk) 23:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
WP:Banning, which is policy, has a section that explicitly states that the sort of edit I made is 100% acceptable. It may be worth keeping in mind that I'm the person who proposed their ban in the first place, spent a hell of a lot of time on the SPI and in private channels, and am unlikely to start making a flood of edits biased in their favor. This also wasn't an edit they requested, just one I made after they pointed out an inaccuracy in a conversation about a tangentially related subject. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Even were this not covered in the banning policy, I support accuracy (supported by verification) above all other aspects of rules and regulations here. If the edit has improved the article's accuracy I don't care if Willy on Wheels pointed it out. One very important thing is that the source of the discussion has been disclosed. I can;t see how anything could be more transparent than that. There are no hidden machinations here. Further, of WP:RS proves the edit to have been factually incorrect that will be put right at a later date. I suspect Kevin Gorman will be in the rush to do so. Fiddle Faddle 00:58, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps I came across as unduly harsh, and accept that the edit you made is fine. But caution is warranted. --TeaDrinker (talk) 01:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
"Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed." —rybec 10:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. In terms of whether to move or not there is a consensus in favour of not moving the article to Wiki-PR. This decision is based on two things, the first is that there is a rough consensus that the page not be moved (ie oppose !votes) and that a no consensus close, in this case, would default to the current page name. There is a (growing) number of votes suggesting that the article be nominated for deletion and/or merged with Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia (see previous discussion and decision here). Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 05:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Wiki-PR editing of WikipediaWiki-PR – The name of the company and the original title of this article. Several users, including myself believe that the current title violates WP:NPOV and WP:COATRACK due to focusing on only the event and not the organization as a whole. Relevant discussions include Talk:Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia#Proposed_merge_with_Wiki-PR, Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Wiki-PR_editing_of_Wikipedia.2C_originally_Wiki-PR, and Talk:Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia. --Relisted. Red Slash 04:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC) Super Goku V (talk) 06:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Support (Nominator):I believe that this issue has waited long enough. I was hoping one of the other editors who supported the move would of created this to end the debate, but I feel that this will have to do. To restate my reason, my issue with the name and style of this article is for WP:NPOV, WPLCOATRACK, and potentially even WP:ATTACK as this article only focuses on the events of the organization, but not the organization as a whole. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support: I don't know about neutrality issues, but "Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia" is non-standard, violates WP:NCCORP, and is just plain awkward. As another editor mentioned, it's akin to an article being called "Acme Widget Company's manufacturing of widgets." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose My basis for opposition remains that Wiki-PR as a corporation has no inherent notability, thought it may be WP:NOTEWORTHY. To be fair I am equally unsure that an article about its editing of Wikipedia is more than noteworthy either, and believe the article has been created to satisfy navel gazing and self righteous indignation following the use of Wikipedia, probably within the rules, to create a load of articles which people have not taken the trouble to edit into a better shape if possible or to delete if not. This article is a salve for our own inadequacies. I am clear that the only item here to have anything close to notability is an their editing of Wikipedia, though, frankly, we are at a borderline WP:NOTNEWS. This is yesterday's seven day wonder and it was a pretty slow news week anyway. Since the event is the thing reported upon, and since Wiki-PR is a flea bite organisation, Wiki-PR is not notable, just its actions. We are having broadly the same argument held often in Murder of Non-notable-person vs Non-notable-person articles. Foo is not notable, but, just sometimes, their murder is. Almost always that resolves to Murder of... with some exceptions.
If Wiki-PR ever becomes notable then my thinking will change. Fiddle Faddle 09:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • After the issue of the Cease and Desist letter by the WMF, something that I think is producing the Streisand effect, I see that this issue will run and run and gain significant and prurient media coverage. However it does not change my assertion that the corporation itself is a fleabite and not notable. It simply changes my thinking from a simple oppose to a strong oppose. I cannot conceive of the corporation itself being inherently notable. It is as significant, article-wise, as if I had been paid to create a load of poor articles, had succeeded for a while and been issued with a C & D letter. I would never be notable, but my actions would probably be recordable as such. Events may change my mind over the name of this article in the futire, but I have yet to be persuaded that an article on the corporation itself is correct. History shows that I proposed a merge to another article. My opinion has not changed on that, but consensus was, then, against such a merge. If the merge were proposed today by another editor I would support it. We are doing quite enough self righteous navel gazing indignation over this. Fiddle Faddle 08:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per Fiddle. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. In a previous discussion, I argued that this page should be renamed from Wiki-PR, and I still think it's the right choice. Wiki-PR itself is not notable; the controversy is the notable element here, and the controversy would quickly become WP:UNDUE in an article about Wiki-PR. This article would be best merged into Conflict of interest editing on Wikipedia, but the current title is probably the best one if it's to remain an independent article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
"the controversy is the notable element here, and the controversy would quickly become WP:UNDUE in an article about Wiki-PR" Correct... and the whole point of the rename-request, methinks. Support merge with COI-editing, and dropping the infoboxen which implicates the CFO and other BLPs as culpable in this alleged wikiCrime backed up by four anonymous email-responses. (talk) 13:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm not a fan of the title, but the only reason any news organizations are writing about Wiki-PR is the controversy written about in this article. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support rename-then-immediate-AfD followed by merging well-sourced content into the WikiPR-subsection of Conflict of interest editing on Wikipedia, with *no* corporation-and-founders-infoboxen. My stance is almost entirely on WP:BLP grounds. To quote FiddleFaddle, as a corporation the company has zero notability -- WP:BLPCRIME. The only item to have anything close to notability is their editing of wikipedia -- WP:BLP1E. But the most crucial problem is that WikiPR is a very small business, and their founders are individually named... not by multiple bullet-proof reliable secondary sources ("Founder X paid admin Y the sum of $N to whitewash article on client Z") ... but by not-very-damn-reliable-looking sources who think checkuser is magical and who want to believe that Morning277 is a sockpuppet for Founder X -- WP:NPF and maybe even WP:BLPNAME.
  p.s. Everything said here presumes the article is about some living person, so to forestall complaints that WikiPR is just a hyperconglomerate-multinational that deserves no such consideration, here is the WP:BLPGROUP snippet. "A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group. When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources." The sources are not good enough. The company is too small. The notability is a single 'wiki-criminal' event, of which they were never convicted in a court of law, stemming from a conflated sockpuppet-network that began two years before WikiPR was founded.
  p.p.s. I am happy to skip the rename and go straight to the delete-n-merge phase.   :-)   To my mind, the *only* point of the rename-discussion is to help hammer home the fact that this subject-matter is a borderline-WP:COATRACK for navel-gazing; don't we have User_talk:Jimbo_Wales for that? Hope this helps. Murder-of-$foo is the wrong analogy because $foo is a BDP not a BLP. See also WP:BHTT, WP:LOCALFAME, WP:INTHENEWS, and the ever-popular WP:LOUSYTITLE. (talk) 13:40, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with the IP editor comment immediately above this one. Or simply skip the renaming and merge into Conflict of interest editing on Wikipedia. Having this article on a company of marginal notability seems needlessly vindictive. Don't punish people or companies who exploit Wikipedia for their own ends; instead establish policies that prohibit them from doing so. Coretheapple (talk) 14:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
I should point out that I am not sure if it is allowed for an admin to consider a merge during a discussion on moving. If it is allowable, then I will also note that it is likely to prevent a consensus from forming as people who oppose or support a move might vote for a merge without mentioning the other. While that would cause an issue with the discussion, I will point out that according to WP:RM/CI and WP:NOCONSENSUS, "In article title discussions, no consensus has two defaults: If an article title has been stable for a long time, then the long-standing article title is kept. If it has never been stable, or has been unstable for a long time, then it is moved to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub." Not to mention this quote from WP:RM/CI, "However, sometimes a requested move is filed in response to a recent move from a long existing name that cannot be undone without administrative help. Therefore, if no consensus has been reached, the closer should move the article back to the most recent stable title. If no recent title has been stable, then the article should be moved to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub." If the discussion of merging leads to a result of "no consensus," then I believe that it would revert back to "Wiki-PR" per policy as there was at least two users, myself included who were opposed to the original move from the stable article name, in addition to Wiki-PR being the first non-stub name of the article as seen from the edits prior to the original move. I am saying this now to make sure you understand that in cause you or others want to suggest a potential move as it could lead to no consensus on the matter, while I would at least prefer some consensus on the issue over a default move occurring. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC), (Nominator)
  • Weak support of rename. There is a sense of irony in covering a story on Wikipedia in which folks with confirmed conflicts of interest edited Wikipedia. I tend to think that people with conflicts of interest should not be involved in editing on those topics at all. However the present article presents a paradox--no one else could possibly cover this on Wikipedia besides Wikipedia editors, all of whom have a conflict of interest by the fact they are editors. As such, I am inclined to err on the side of excessive care when it comes to judgement calls. To me the incident has reached a point of notability, and certainly sufficient sources exist to be verifiable. Fiddle makes a superb point, Wiki-PR is notable in the press, to my read, precisely over this one incident. However I think none of us is objective when it comes to this, so I think we should strive to give Wiki-PR the benefit of every doubt in the article, which can include naming. --TeaDrinker (talk) 19:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - for several reasons. Most significantly is the POV push of trying to turn this into a Coatrack article which IMHO also violates the foundational pillar principle of requiring a neutral point of view that all articles on Wikipedia simply should be following. Furthermore, this article started out about the company, and most of the POV push that I've complained about above stems from the fact that a half hearted job of trying to narrow the focus of this article simply to the editing behavior of this company. For those that suggest this company fails WP:NOTE, bring that to an AfD where such a discussion belongs. I think there are ample secondary reliable sources which can at least in outline describe the 5 w's of the company and perpare a proper corporate stub of an article. If this really is just about the one incident (or at least the notability for having been embroiled in a mass banning on Wikipedia that became public knowledge outside of Wikipedia), that really does need to be merged into Conflict of interest editing on Wikipedia. I really think it needs to be merged or renamed as the current state is horribly flawed at the moment. My own support is to be simply renamed and concentrating on what the company actually does in as objective of a fashion as possible. --Robert Horning (talk) 00:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I suspect there will be a queue of folk wishing to be the first to send to AfD if the name is returned to the corporation. At present I view it as ineligible because it is about the incidents. Fiddle Faddle 10:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I strongly think that an AfD will fail when viewed from an objective standard of trying to identify a rationale in WP:DP. Notability alone is at best the rationale, and even then there are about a half dozen independent reliable sources to at least put together an article. I didn't say it would be a GA or FA class article, but it would be a worthy start class based on available sources. --Robert Horning (talk) 06:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Fiddle and logic. The notability of the company is in question, though the event is not. This is an event article. And that COI Wikipedia article is stupid anyways. I still don't understand why people are throwing around the terms "coatrack", "attack", or "POV". All I can read is "IDONTLIKEIT". Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 11:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Give me a reason to believe that my edits won't get instantly reverted, and I might show you why this is most definitely a coatrack article that flagrantly violates the foundational pillar of Wikipedia having all articles written with a neutral point of view. --Robert Horning (talk) 06:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment (by Nominator): I would like to mention that I linked to this discussion for a reason. While the discussion was a bit informal to normal procedure you can see that there was a general agreement to consider this article as notable prior to you moving this article to 'Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia' through BOLD. If you believe the notability of this article is in question, we can have an AFD for this article after we have determined the name, as suggested in this discussion. I would like to note that even if you believe the Conflict of Interest article is stupid, that it was a potential location for this article to be merged to for the reason that it list all events such as the Wiki-PR editing situation that occurred. The fact that we have an article on COI events in general and an article on a single COI event is a problem to me. If we are only focusing on the COI events, then why do have these two articles separate? I feel that Wiki-PR is notable enough for the media reaction it generated, even appearing on international news for mostly issues on the English Wikipedia, but that we shouldn't have a separate article for only the event in question. The fact that Wiki-PR redirects to this page on the event only is a problem as it gives a bias view that mostly states that their editing is against several policies, while giving little to no coverage on anything else about Wiki-PR gives it a COATRACK feel. If a person wanted to find info on the company, all they would find is our issues with them, giving it a NPoV issue. This is why I feel that it is an ATTACK article, the name of the company redirects to what issues we have with them and even notes the cease and desist letter, but ignores anything else on the company. Which is why I nominated the page to be moved back to Wiki-PR since we couldn't move this page back without consensus. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment "The fact that we have an article on COI events in general and an article on a single COI event is a problem to me." Really, why? This sort of thing happens all over WP. Like there is an article on cheese in general then there is an article on a single kind of cheese, Cheddar cheese. There are hundreds if not thousands of examples like this, all over WP. I don't think this is a strong argument at all. Logical Cowboy (talk) 04:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
The problem with that analogy is that cheddar cheese is a sub-class as a type of cheese while the editing by Wiki-PR is still a COI issue. I will agree with you that there are other articles like this one, but I have an issue when Biosthmors says that the reason their edits shouldn't be undone it because the other article is "stupid" is something that I believe holds no place in this discussion. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Depends If the topic is Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia AND that topic is itself notable, then keep it the way it is. If the topic is not itself notable but the company is, then move. If neither is notable, AFD and possibly move content to some other place as mentioned in earlier comments by others. If both are notable then it doesn't matter whether it stays or moves, but if it is not moved then the article should be only about "Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia" with only minimal other information as required for context. If both are notable and the article is not moved, consider creating a separate article about the company. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Wiki-PR's editing of Wikipedia has been the subject of extensive and ongoing press coverage, and my google news alert for it is still popping up fairly often. Almost all RS coverage of Wiki-PR focuses on their editing practices and not the company as a whole, so an article focused on their editing practices makes more sense than an article focused on the company (of which fairly sparse info is available about.) This article as it stands fairly accurately reflects the views presented about Wiki-PR's editing practices as found in reliable sources, which means that it is not an attack piece or coatrack. I'm not sure I've ever seen the suggestion to delete as non-notable a topic that has been covered by more than sixty media outlets in multiple languages over a prolonged period of time before, heh. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Kevin, agree that almost all coverage of Wiki-PR is about their alleged wikiCrime. But the article "wikipr editing wikipedia and they are very bad for that" clearly is POV, and reminds me of intersecting articles like "females that ski the Andes". Methinks we need a standardized-existing-type-of-article. Either we need an article on the company which is not in violation of WP:BLP1E... and I think everybody agrees that is a non-starter... or we need to merge the content into a dedicated section of the parent-article about conflict of interest editing on Wikipedia.
  In particular, I want to stress I'm not putting forth criticism of the *body-content* here; I'm putting forth criticism of the *title* of the existing dedicated article, and of the lack of *context* that using a dedicated article inherently demands (doubly-especially when *all* the WP:RS are about the wikiCrime), and about the BLP concerns that a company-like-article-about-a-company-which-really-is-not-Notable-enough-for-their-own-article. Are you against the delete-n-merge, if 99% of the body-content remains, but the infoboxen-content (e.g. with the CFO's name and thus implied culpability) is dropped? Note also that merging with the more general article makes the conflation of Morning277 of 2008 with WikiPR of 2010 not as big a difficulty, and that a redirect from WikiPR to the relevant section makes sense. (talk) 02:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
This article is not covered by BLP1E. I support keeping it as a separate article because Wiki-PR's editing of Wikipedia is notable as an event. It's received a large amount of continuing and substantial press coverage over more than a month in at least ten languages, and it appears likely to receive an increasing amount of coverage in the future. That said, I agree that there is no reason why the article should continue to use its current infobox. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Agree it is no longer covered by BLP1E... although just barely. The company is now Notable both for the event of being accused of a wikiCrime by pseudonym-folks, and also for the related but distinct event of being 'separately' hinted-at-threateningly-and-publically by lawyers hired by the 'separate' WMF full-legal-name folks, which hit the news on November 19th. As you can tell from my comment on the 21st, not something I avidly keep up with.  :-)   And although the distinction seems pretty tiny and artificial on the face of it, I do agree the distinction is there; the C&D letter was specifically to a named person (the acting head), and specifically indicated that specific people had made specific promises. As you note, additional coverage seems likely in the future... and we have sufficient coverage now to keep the article, as an "event article" sans infoboxen and generic-client-lists and other unrelated-to-the-event-in-question factoids that may give unintended connotations to the readership. (talk) 00:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Merge into Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia. This is a close question. I am very concerned about this article, because of the fact that we Wikipedia editors have a COI writing about this ourselves, and it seems vindictive that we have an article about this situation. However, multiple reliable sources, including the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and Los Angeles Times, have discussed the recent lawyer letter sent to Wiki-PR. This definitely needs to be written about, but in the context of the pre-existing article, where it can be given full attention. Otherwise, this article does not belong in Wikipedia, as this company is otherwise not notable except for its activities on Wikipedia. We don't want to run an attack article on anybody, including Wiki-PR. Coretheapple (talk) 16:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
If the article accurately reflects what is represented in reliable sources, how is it an attack article? Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:01, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
+1. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 06:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Kevin, the article exists primarily to disparage the subject, per WP:ATTACK (interpreted broadly). Remember that Wiki-PR's entire purpose is to "edit Wikipedia." This is, essentially, an article on the company, which has no notability except for getting caught and banned. So the entire article focuses on its business model being repudiated. Ugh. Let's not. Pretty much all the information in this article can be inserted into the broader article. Coretheapple (talk) 13:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Comment Coretheapple, I ask that you WP:AGF. As a contributor to the article (e.g., I included quotes from Wiki-PR's CEO), it was not my intention to attack Wiki-PR. Instead, it was my intention to help tell both sides of the story in what is an ongoing and unresolved case. Thanks. Also, I think your suggestion to insert this material into the broader article is a non sequitur. If it's merely attack material, then putting the same material into another article does not address the problem. Finally, your suggestion about the broader article does not make sense because the broader article already includes links to several stand-alone articles. The suggestion to move material into the broader article is not policy-based and does not follow precedent in the broader article itself. I should disclose that I was involved in early stages of the Morning277 SPI, although as far as I know the cases I reported involved an individual editor and not the Wiki-PR company. Logical Cowboy (talk) 15:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
The article about the Boston Strangler exists primarily to disparage its subject. The article about Bernard Madoff exists primarily to disparage its subject (who is still living.) I'm not equating Wiki-PR with either of those guys, but only pointing out that your definition of "attack article" is not at all congruent with Wikipedia's definition of attack article. Wikipedia is 100% okay with articles that disparage their subjects. Similarly, your definition of notability is not congruent with Wikipedia's definition of notability. You don't these guys are important, fine, you can certainly think that. But Wikipedia judges notability by number and quality of independent reliable sources that have covered a topic, and Wiki-PR has been covered by hundreds of sources - and that coverage is ongoing. Move discussions are decided based on policy-based arguments; your arguments are not based on policy. Whatever uninvolved admin ends up closing this should, and probably will, discard your non-policy based arguments in the final calculus. Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Slight but crucial clarification. "Wikipedia is 100% okay with articles that disparage their subjects...." way of wikipedian editors neutrally summarizing exactly what very reliable sources have said. In other words, wikipedia is very much *not* okay with articles that speak in the voice of *editors* with intent to disparage. As wikipedians, we can neutrally report what the sources say. If the sources are disparaging, we can quote them. If pretty much *all* the sources are disparaging, then the article will, surprise surprise, also end up as being disparaging, though probably in a more dry and neutral tone (rather than the intentionally-provocative tone that 75% of journalists and 99% of bloggers seem to rely on to 'sell' their wares).
  But the intent of us editors must always be to fairly and clearly and neutrally convey the sources, and never to disparage. That is the distinction between reporting just the facts, and trying to put on a morality play. The wiki-PR article is very difficult, because even though "technically" the WMF is totally separate, and even though "objectively" individual wikipedia editors may not have heard of Morning277 before, it is still hard to stick to the sources, and stay neutral, and fairly-n- evenly summarize exactly what the Reliable Sources say, no more and no less, taking connotations and implicitness and all that jazz fully into account.
  That being said, I'm pretty-dern-well satisfied that everybody understands this now, here participating in the discussion, but figured I would take one more slash at clarifying, in case some lurker reads this later, and pulls that "100% okay" snippet out of context. *Speaking* of the future, is this about ready to be closed? Have we come close to consensus here? There is some push to merge with the conceptually broader 'upstream' article. Is there any push to rename, still? (talk) 18:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
No one has given any policy-based reason to merge. Logical Cowboy (talk) 03:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Additionally, no one has stricken out their comments yet, except for Fiddle Faddle, who only changed their opinion from an Oppose to a Strong Oppose. Thus, the opinion of the remaining users seems to have remained the same, including my nomination. As for the consensus issue, Red Slash seems to have relisted the discussion on November 25th, so I would say that a consensus wasn't formed before the 25th. My opinion right now is that it seems that we haven't come to a consensus, which is a problem due to WP:NOCONSENSUS, but that remains to be seen. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
"Gorman reads illegally-acquired porn, and takes astrology seriously." Dave Gorman, that is, no relation to Kevin so far as I know. Plus, it turns out Dave's a comedian, who did the stuff in this sentence for his humorous teevee show, so if he *is* related to Kevin, then congratulations are in order, for knowing a cool celeb.  :-)   That said, although the sentence is literally true, if it were stuck here *alone* as a single sentence by itself, no further comment to give context, out of place with respect to the rest of the discussion, and yet suspiciously close to Kevin Gorman... the readership would definitely be getting a misleading picture of the facts. We must be scrupulously careful to stay aware of more subtle types of "misleading facts". But per above, as of the LAX Times article which specifically mentions the company by name in the title, we have crossed the vaguely-relevant-WP:BLP2E threshold, into a Notable-for-more-than-one-"event" company. (talk) 00:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Weirdly enough, my dad actually happens to be Dave Gorman - although not that one. I agree with you that we need to stick carefully to the sources, and be BLP-aware. I've mostly avoided editing this article directly, but I do see BLP problems with the infobox as discussed elsewhere on the page, and am going to go ahead and be bold and remove it for now since BLP trumps my COI concerns in my mind. This company is now notable for two discrete events, has received continuing major coverage, and will soon likely be notable for more than two discrete events. Edit: I see that timtempleton actually already addressed the concerns that I had, so I won't be touching the infobox. Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Heh heh! Of course, woulda been funnier if that *was* your father. But still, I laughed when you said "my dad *is* Dave Gorman"....     :-)     Anyways, I think we are close to on the same page, though it took a bit of TLDR to get there. Thanks for improving wikipedia, and be sure to warn your dad about getting mistaken for that Other socially-unacceptable Dave-character. (talk) 18:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose rename to Wiki-PR. The company is not notable outside of the controversy around its interaction with Wikipedia. The article title complies with WP:POVTITLE except that "editing of Wikipedia" is so generic that it risks mischaracterizing of the nature of Wiki-PR's relationship with Wikipedia, which is more aptly described in reliable sources as false manipulation, sockpuppetry, black hat, and a scandal. If anything, the title should clarify that Wiki-PR is engaging in paid editing of Wikipedia. As for COATRACK concerns, I think they would be made worse by renaming the article to Wiki-PR, but would be alleviated by merging this article into Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia. Gobōnobō + c 20:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support the proposal. Like others, I question whether this article should be here at all, and an AfD may well be appropriate. But given that it is not yet deleted, the article should reside at the corporate name, not at some bizarre phrase describing what they do. The current title is akin to renaming Coca-Cola to Coca-Cola manufacturing soft drinks, or renaming New York Times to New York Times publishing newspapers.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
The naming is very strange... and all the more strange, when there is no article on Wiki-PR itself. But the reason there is no such article, is partly due to the secretive nature of their business model (they avoid publicizing *themselves* in WP:RSes ... as opposed to their clients), and partly due to the not-very-Noteworthy-as-yet nature of a small niche startup founded in 2010 at the intersection of marketing and webtech. I would still support subsuming the content into the more-generic-overall-article. But this is a very strange case, and I suggest that the rename cannot be justified any longer, after the spate of late-November coverage. Much of the earlier coverage was generalized, conflating Morning277 with Wiki-PR, but the later coverage is on the whole more than specific enough. We objectively-speaking should be renaming the article to insert "paid" in front of the word "editing" but per WP:NDESC it is more encyclopedic to describe it as simply editing, even though the bulk of the sources specify the former type. Along the same lines, the article on Jello is a direct link, rather than a redirect to edible ground-up north-american-style-footballs. (talk) 00:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I take a bit of offense at that since I believe it is notable, but I feel the article has a non-neutral focus due to the name and the focus right now which should be corrected. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose and merge per arguments above. Kaldari (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Which arguments above? Fiddle Faddle 17:28, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per Dr. Fleischman. The article is fundamentally about a company, which naturally discusses the company's activities. It appears this is another phenomenon of Wikipedians' inability to stay neutral on topics that hit close to home. --BDD (talk) 17:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

French in the WSJ, money buying speech, money buying lines on a Wikipedia article[edit]

I saw an interview published in a press release with French previously, but then I thought "self-published" and "unduly self-serving". So can people pay "reputable" journalistic outfits to reprint unduly self-serving material? In other words, does money buy speech, and can money buy lines on a Wikipedia article? It seems that that was part of their business model. At what point does Wikipedia draw the line between press releases and journalistic coverage? If it came out that there was money exchanged to get the opinion published in the WSJ (or coverage beforehand that ultimately led to the WSJ piece), could we remove it? I'm ignorant as to how American journalism works these days, but I know they are cash-strapped. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I think we're starting to move away from the topic of this talk page, and more into a sourcing discussion. Wikipedia in general does not consider regurgitated press releases, in whatever organ, to be more than Primary Sourced material. However, venerable, WP:RS sources tend not to carry pure press releases, writing their own article based upon the material. Sources like Reuters, while having the look and feel of press releases, tend to write their own stuff, but then syndicate it widely. Broadly, with such sources, the source of the story, such as Reuters, is the quotable material, amd the remainder start to be WP:BOMBARD material. Fiddle Faddle 16:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
The October 2013 Wall Street Journal article is NOT a press release! It is a rather scathing critique of Jordan French, and includes his response to the WSJ. I do not know to what Biosthmors referred specifically though, by,

"French in the WSJ... I saw an interview published in a press release with French previously..."

Note that press releases ARE published by both the Wall Street Journal and Reuters. When WSJ or Reuters do so, they note very distinctly that it is not news content. Usually a different typeface is used. Also, more important, there is a large disclaimer at the beginning and end of the article that states very explicitly that the content is a press release. There is nothing duplicitous about this, it isn't "buying news coverage". A legitimate purpose of news organizations is to disseminate information. Differentiation between advertisements i.e. paid endorsements and journalism is crucial. Recently, the line is becoming blurred due to native advertising. Traditional advertising companies are uneasy about it, as it is misleading to the public. But now that we have the Internet, it is apparently okay. I digress. Please, Biosthmors do not take this as hostility on my part. You stated that you were not familiar with U.S. laws about self publication, and made a legitimate inquiry, to which I am trying to respond. Wikipedia most certainly DOES draw the line between press releases and journalistic coverage. In fact, weeding through such is what I spend most of my time doing here. Honest, good faith motivated editors occasionally use press releases or primary sources. However, a good indicator of something amiss is an article that has almost nothing else besides press releases or paid promotional content as sources! Sometimes it is merely due to laziness, or inexperience on the editor's part, so one must not jump to conclusions either. --FeralOink (talk) 12:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for adding additional clarity to my short explanation. I was careful to use the words "tend to" in order to allow for someone with more information. Fiddle Faddle 17:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Biosthmors, what interview have you seen? I'll I've seen are brief statements. Coretheapple (talk) 15:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

WMF blog post of interest[edit]

[19] Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, yes, but it is news and a primary source. Fiddle Faddle 21:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Yep, but cautious use of primary sources is okay. This probably beats out the internal Wikipedia ban citations currently in the article. Although I hate to be crystalbally, also likely indicates that Wiki-PR is likely to continue to receive substantial coverage in RS'es (I've already been contacted by several journalists re: this blog post,) and is thus relevant to the notability discussions in the requested move. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I think that this is important for internal Wikipedia usage but has to be used cautiously, if at all, in an article on this company. Coretheapple (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)You make a persuasive point. What it shows, I think, is that a tiny corporation has got under a self declared small charitable foundation's skin. User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#WMF_cease_and_desist_letter has an interesting request, too, by Coretheapple Fiddle Faddle 21:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

edit request on 2013-11-23[edit]

old text: On October 25, 2013, it was accused of violating Wikipedia policies, including those on [[sockpuppetry]] and [[conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia|conflict-of-interest editing]], leading to hundreds of [[Block (Internet)|blocked]] accounts.

new text: On October 25, 2013, it was banned from Wikipedia for engaging in "consensus damaging practices".<ref name=wpban></ref>

reason: The present text says the acccusations were made on October 25, 2013, but that's just the date the ban was enacted. Accusations had been made at least as early as September 2012. [20]

disclosure: I have participated in the Morning277 SPI and was interviewed for the Daily Dot story. —rybec 18:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Are my changes OK? I just wanted to hedge the language a little. Coretheapple (talk) 14:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

edit request on 2013-12-03[edit]

old text: Wikimedia's law firm sent Wiki-PR a [[Cease and desist|cease-and-desist]] letter.

new text: Wikimedia's law firm e-mailed<ref> {{cite web |url= |title=C&D letter to WikiPR from Cooley |quote=Via Email [...]}}</ref> a [[Cease and desist|cease-and-desist]] letter to Wiki-PR.

reason: The document says "Via Email" and doesn't have the recipient's postal mail address.

disclosure: participant in Morning277 SPI, interviewed for Daily Dot story —rybec 07:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, done, but I don't see why you had to request this edit, and didn't just go ahead and make the change. It's a minor fix, and it doesn't involve you personally. Coretheapple (talk) 22:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I asked mainly because I wanted to use a primary source, and because the source is biased. Sorry if I was over-cautious —rybec 23:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
(ec) No problem. I was just about to say that I took out some text unintentionally. Glad you fixed. Coretheapple (talk) 23:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Real people vs sockpuppets?[edit]

That doesn't even make sense. "Sockpuppet" accounts are obviously run by real people, not bots. Is there any additional context from the source to clarify this for the reader, or was the person who was quoted deliberately ignorant of the actual definition of "sockpuppet"? Laval (talk) 03:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

He was intentionally obfuscating the matter, I assume. Herostratus (talk) 04:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Reverted anon[edit]

I've reverted an anon who states that Wiki-PR used to advertise their ability to edit on Wikipedia. Checking their site, they are avoiding those exact words, but are still advertising their ability to get material onto, or take material off of, Wikipedia. In other words, it's just all spin. The anon also extensively summarized an article on IBT. The IBT article to me seemed a bit biased, but the way the anon summarizes makes it 10 times worse. So my question is, who is the anon, and why is he spinning this article? Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

disclosure: I was involved in the SPI and one of the news reports about it, and I am biased against the subject of this article.
If there is reliably-sourced information about the identity of Morning277 (talk · contribs), including that in the article wouldn't violate the WP:OUTING policy, would it? Since the move proposal failed, the emphasis of the article remains on Wiki-PR's activity on Wikipedia, rather than on Wiki-PR as a company. In that slightly different context, the Morning277 account has more importance, perhaps enough to warrant a mention. There was a related discussion at [21] under the heading "Wiki-PR" and there was an SPI report [22] about —rybec 00:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
It's the day after Christmas and I'm not concentrating well right now - just doing maintenance type stuff - and will be traveling soon. But I was thinking about taking this to WP:AN. Wiki-PR is not following our ban, is likely editing this article, and its website is clearly trying to work around the ban. As I read it, they still do everything they did before except they tell their customers to put the text in themselves. This is clearly against our policy on avoiding bans. I'd think the solution is to extend the ban to their customers - if Wiki-PR is guiding them, they can't edit. Back (with concentration) in a few days. Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
What Wiki-PR does outside of Wikipedia to "work around the ban" is of no consequence how the article should read and reflect what independent sources say. Since there appear to be several points of contention, I will break them out below. Note that I have no affiliation or financial arrangement with Wiki-PR. - I'm not that crazy (talk) 22:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I notice that there is a dispute over some segments of text that you've restored. Can you explain your rationale please? Coretheapple (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, if you would have given me more than 6 minutes to continue, I wouldn't have gotten the edit conflict that I just had with your edit. - I'm not that crazy (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
You had an edit conflict with me over stuff you posted 31 minutes later? Yowza. Coretheapple (talk) 00:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Cooley LLP[edit]

  • Is it permissible to wikilink Cooley LLP into the article?
I believe that it is, as the primary source document features the name of the firm on the letterhead. - I'm not that crazy (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Is there published evidence that Cooley LLP edited its own Wikipedia article?
Yes, the article presented several pieces of evidence that this happened. - I'm not that crazy (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

One unmistakable IP address that is assigned to the Cooley firm is Here we find that IP removing from Wikipedia a reliably-sourced, but embarrassing paragraph about Kenwyn Williams, as recently as March 2013. How interesting that Kenwyn Williams is a Senior Paralegal for Cooley LLP in New York City. But the IP address editor never disclosed their conflict of interest, which is against Wikipedia guidelines. The same IP later removed a section from Cooley LLP that pointed out that the firm is not among the top 40 firms in the United States. That edit was only two months ago. Why did Cooley LLP disobey Wikipedia's editing rules shortly before issuing a legal command for another company to obey Wikipedia's editing rules?

We can also see the activities of Wikipedia user Rayvl2001. They are virtually fixated on editing Wikipedia's Cooley LLP article. If one assumes that this editor is also Twitter user Rayvl2001, then that happens to be Ray Leidle, who is Senior Network Technician at Cooley LLP. Again, no conflict of interest was ever disclosed.

Another deletion of information potentially embarrassing to Cooley came from a Cooley Internet connection in 2009. Several months later, along came Wikipedia user Hmmilne to make the same deletion. Presumably being actively against gay rights in the Silicon Valley isn't good for business. Is there any way we can know who "Hmmilne" is? Not exactly, but we can point out that the marketing manager at Cooley LLP is named Heather Milne.

  • Is acceptable as a source for Wikipedia?
Wikipedia has at least 800 links to the domain, many of which are being used as sources in articles. WP:RS tells us, "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." - I'm not that crazy (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Is something written by Gregory Kohs acceptable as a source for Wikipedia?
WP:RS tells us, "Sometimes non-neutral sources are good sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Kohs is certainly non-neutral, but the supporting information he provides certainly fleshes out a different viewpoint about Cooley LLP's role in this matter. Kohs or his MyWikiBiz enterprise have been cited as expert in Wikipedia in numerous reliable publications, including a book by Jonathan Zittrain, the Associated Press, Attack of the Show, and others. - I'm not that crazy (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The information about COI edits to the Cooley LLP article, [23] while verifiable, seems tangential to the topic of this article. If it's to be included, shall Gregory Kohs be mentioned as the author, and would it be acceptable to link his name?

disclosure: I have participated in the Morning277 SPI and was interviewed for the Daily Dot story. —rybec 23:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they are tangential and no, not reliably sourced per WP:SELFPUB. Coretheapple (talk) 00:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC) is not entirely a "self-publishing" platform. Examiner staff editors modify or pull stories on a regular basis, if they don't meet the newsgathering and writing criteria of the staff. - I'm not that crazy (talk) 14:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure you're familiar with Examiner editorial practices, but nevertheless this is a self-published work and cannot be used. Coretheapple (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

International Business Times story[edit]

It certainly appears to be. - I'm not that crazy (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
It certainly does not appear to be.[24] Coretheapple (talk) 00:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I was surprised to see recently that IBT is being accepted as RS on Wiki (though I can't point you to the article since I don't remember which one it was). petrarchan47tc 02:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
That's possible. I've seen all kinds of garbage accepted as sources, as well as good stuff from unimpeachable sources rejected. If it was up to me, this article wouldn't even be here at all. Wikipedia shouldn't be writing about itself if at all possible. Coretheapple (talk) 03:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
This particular article in IBTimes is not "garbage", and there are over 2,600 links to from Wikipedia. You're singling out this particular source because it presents facts about Wiki-PR and LegalMorning, and you're more interested in spin and revenge than in facts. - I'm not that crazy (talk) 13:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Come on now, you've been an editor on Wikipedia for years. You ought to know better than to not assume good faith. Coretheapple (talk) 14:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
AGF says "Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary". Fortunately, I have oodles of clear evidence that demonstrate that Smallbones and Coretheapple are working together on Wikipedia to push a particular agenda as regards paid editing. Thankfully, I have extended an invitation to other editors to weigh in here, so that we might see if this article merits an examination of more sources with factual POVs, to broaden the NPOV objective; or, whether you two will continue to railroad the content so that the article reads as an attack, regardless of the facts and the bigger picture. - I'm not that crazy (talk) 14:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Yep, you caught me! Ouch, that hurts. I'm so anxious to turn this into an attack piece that if you look above I've already called this article an attack piece and urged that it be merged out of existence.[25][26] You certainly have learned your stuff in all the years you've been hanging around the Wiki. Coretheapple (talk) 14:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • In the Morning277 SPI, Logical Cowboy made a report which mentioned the Legal Morning Web site [27]. Before the IB Times story came out, I noticed posts on Wikipediocracy by the person the story is about. He may well own a business of his own, distinct from Wiki-PR. There's evidence that Wiki-PR hired subcontractors to post articles on Wikipedia. It may be that Wood was such a subcontractor, or perhaps he indeed did not work with Wiki-PR. Certainly there's no indication that he is one of the principals of Wiki-PR. I had discussed this with Bilby, who brought it up on Wikipedia_talk:Long-term_abuse/Morning277. I see no reason to doubt that the person interviewed by IBTimes is the owner of the Morning277 account. As for his statement that he does not "have a relation with" Wiki-PR, I think it could be mentioned in the interest of fairness. He states "I do not provide any information about edits that were done under that account and do not disclose any work that I have done since that account." If, as I think it's reasonable to assume (the story doesn't say otherwise), his continued work includes editing Wikipedia after his Morning277 account was blocked and after he was banned from the site, that's exactly what was alleged in the sock-puppet investigation.
disclosure: I have participated in the Morning277 SPI and was interviewed for the Daily Dot story. I have a bias against Wiki-PR. —rybec 22:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Jordan French quote from WSJ blog[edit]

Currently this article says

However, French stated that Wiki-PR's editors are "real people and not sockpuppets."

The quote is taken from a paragraph which says in full [28]

Senior Wikipedia administrators closed the sockpuppet investigation after concluding that we were paid editors paying other editors. Volumes of Wikipedia pages we didn't work on were wrongly swept into that investigation. We do pay hundreds of other editors for their work—they're real people and not sockpuppets.

Could the beginning part of the last sentence be quoted? I think it's salient because the company's CEO is describing the general way that the company operates (operated?). I think it's credible because it's consistent with what critics of the company (including me) have alleged.

disclosure: I have participated in the Morning277 SPI and was interviewed for the Daily Dot story. I have a bias against Wiki-PR. —rybec 22:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

done Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
User:Goku V reverted, saying in the edit summary that the quote was taken out of context, and that it was essentially not about Wiki-PR. I've reviewed the WSJ blog and can reconfirm that the quote is not taken out of context and that it is only about Wiki-PR. I'll put it back and recommend that Goku discuss it here. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Whoops User:Super Goku V reverted a different quote - this one from a NYT reporter. I still don't understand "essentially not about Wiki-PR" Extended quote below- who is it about if not Wiki-PR?

"Mr. French and his company have been in the news lately, accused of “sock-puppeting,” which Wikipedia defines as creating online identities for the purposes of deception. Essentially he uses a lot of people, with different identities, to edit pages for paying customers and to manage those pages. The paid sock puppets are ready to pounce on edits that don’t adhere to the client’s vision. "

Smallbones(smalltalk) 05:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I reverted the NYT quote as it appears to be taken out of context. The first is that we are saying that the New York Times described it, when it was a writer at the NYT who did so. The more important problem is that the quote uses the word "Essentially" as a way to simplify what they do. (Ex: Essentially, Wikipedia is an online website with users who edit topics.) The article has substituted the word for Wiki-PR, as if the NYT described their actions as negative instead of simply explaining it for people to understand. I would prefer the extended quote as it also mentions sock-puppeting, which is what is essentially being described in the quote. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

How many accounts were blocked?[edit]

Smallbones, Re [29], neither source suggests that 300 accounts were blocked. We have a source saying 250 accounts were blocked, but not 300. Andreas JN466 19:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and which source are the "six directly confirmed Wikipedia accounts" based on? I can't find that either, neither in Vice nor in the Daily Dot (which are the only two sources cited). Cheers. Andreas JN466 19:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
That looks like an error. I think what was meant was the number of Wiki-PR clients who confirmed to the reporters that they had hired the company. The Daily Dot story says "Of the few dozen companies I emailed for this article, four got back to me." The Vice story names three specific clients, by my count. Perhaps someone added those together to get six, then someone else changed "clients" to "Wikipedia accounts".
About the number of accounts, I'm inclined to believe Mr. French when he says "we do pay hundreds of other editors for their work". The number is consistent with the SPI findings. The "their work" part is a bit misleading: a few editors said that they had been hired through freelancing sites to copy-paste pre-written articles.
(disclosure: I have participated in the Morning277 SPI and was interviewed for the Daily Dot story) —rybec 02:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I thought it interesting that in the Business Insider interview (now deleted from the article, see below) French says there were 45 people employed, none of whom used sockpuppets, and in the other statement he said he paid "hundreds". There is an obvious mismatch here, which was apparent to the reader before the deletion. At any rate, Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based on secondary sources – that's sourcing 101. If secondary sources are complemented with primary sources referred to in those secondary sources, that should be done with great care. I am concerned that this sensible rule is not being followed here, and that as a result erroneous information is present in the article. It should be put right, as a matter of urgency. Andreas JN466 11:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Some sources do say 300 although Sue's statement and most media coverage say 250. The difference is fairly immaterial. The actual number of tagged socks is around 400, and since a lot of socks were intentionally explicitly not tagged as such, from the other lists I have I'd guess around 650 total blocks were related to the SPI as a lower bound. My word on a talk page certainly isn't a source, though. I guess it could be argued that the relevant categories or the LTA or something are citable as primary sources to support a higher number, but I honestly don't think it matters much, and would just go with 250. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Andreas JN466 11:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Reworded. Andreas JN466 21:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Status of paid editing[edit]

As for [30], you wish for the article to say, The use of a company to manage the content of Wikipedia violates several Wikipedia rules, including the rule against asserting ownership of a page, and has led to the Wikipedia community blocking hundreds of paid Wikipedia editing accounts believed to be connected with activities of Wiki-PR contrary to Wikipedia's rules.. However, the cited source, Owens, actually says, Wikipedia has had a long, uneasy relationship with paid contributors. Many purists believe that a Wikipedia page’s subject, or anyone paid by that subject, has no business editing that page because his objectivity is compromised.. I cannot find anything matching your version in the source, and have reverted your edit accordingly. Please have another look. Best, Andreas JN466 19:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

We don't want Wikipediocracy spin here. It's obvious that article ownership is against Wikipedia rules. You do know this don't you? Then don't ask for a source for the obvious.
You change "all of its employees, contractors, and owners" to vague mumbo-jumbo and ask for a secondary source. Same problem, you know that "all of its employees, contractors, and owners" are banned, but you change the meaning (i.e. spin) by asking for a source that's not needed.
May I ask if you are a paid editor working for Wiki-PR? Your edits certainly look biased enough for that to be the case.
Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Andreas is certainly an interesting person with an interesting purpose... but I'm relatively confident he has no relation whatsoever to wiki-pr :p Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
For your reference, Smallbones, I have nothing to do with Wiki-PR, and had nothing to do with Owens' article. So let's do this again, s--l--o--w--l--y, as I seem to have trouble getting through to you. This is what the source you cite says:
Wikipedia has had a long, uneasy relationship with paid contributors. Many purists believe that a Wikipedia page’s subject, or anyone paid by that subject, has no business editing that page because his objectivity is compromised.
It's quite accurate, too. Now, this is what you're saying, while citing that source:
The use of a company to manage the content of Wikipedia violates several Wikipedia rules, including the rule against asserting ownership of a page, and has led to the Wikipedia community blocking hundreds of paid Wikipedia editing accounts believed to be connected with activities of Wiki-PR contrary to Wikipedia's rules.
Are you aware there is a slight mismatch? There is nothing about violating Wikipedia rules, nothing about WP:OWN in Owens' article, is there? So why do you insist on writing it in the article? And what do you have against actually writing in the article what the source you cite does say? Andreas JN466 10:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
If it's not obvious to you, it's still obvious to everybody else - we don't need to cite that there is a rule against page ownership in Wikipedia. The last half of the sentence accurately sums up the article. So you spin the whole sentence claiming it's badly referenced - pure nonsense. We don't need WO spin.
Just to be clear - are you saying that you have never been a paid editor? Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I have never been a paid editor, and never will be. Having said that, there are paid editors here in good standing, like User:CorporateM, who manage clients' pages without violating WP:OWN. More to the point, you cannot cite a source and then write original research in the article that flatly contradicts what the source is saying. I'll be giving this a little longer, and then take it further if need be. Cheers, Andreas JN466 20:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Not too sure about these recent additions[edit]

An editor (User:Jayen466) has added a significant amount of material here, which mainly consists of several paragraphs of quotes from a Mr French of Wiki-PR, for instance

A couple of things about this. This is giving an awful lot of weight to Wiki-PR, in that the "Community ban and cease-and-desist letter" section now consists of two-thirds of it being quotes from Wiki-PR, which is probably not ideal.

Secondly, you have to assume that French's statement isn't accurate. I mean, I know that we include rebuttals and so forth in issues like this and rightly so. But these sort of things are essentially pro-forma. Everyone understands that of course people are going to defend themselves, and, especially absent specific particulars which can be evaluated, this is near worthless compared to neutral third-party assessments. So while we do include rebuttals like this, leaving it simple, along the lines of "French denied the allegations", is a better service to the reader than including multiple paragraphs of self-serving flackery.

If we did want to leave the material in, I suppose as a service to the reader we'd then have to add material about our effective anti-libel mechanisms such as watchlists, notice boards, OTRS, and so forth. I don't know if we want to go down a point-counterpoint path like that. Better to stick mainly to facts of the case, and mostly leave assessments to reasonably neutral third-party sources if there are any, I would say.

It's frustrating because the editor making the additions,User:Jayen466, is a WO mod and I gather doesn't much like the Wikipedia or, I guess, the ideas behind it. I'm sure that he's confident that French is telling it like it is here, and it's reasonable to infer that his goal here is to help Mr French get his point across rather than construct the best article we can. That's a problem. Editors are generally advised to avoid areas where they're not able to be fair-minded or where their motivation is to have the reader come away with a particular take on a controversial issue. I like the Wikipedia and would prefer to see it thrive rather than fail or be degraded, and so persons such as Mr French are anathema to me, which is one reason why I don't much edit this article. It would be a kindness and show character if User:Jayen466 and other WO regular with the opposite view would follow a commensurate hands-off policy, I think.

Anyway, considering all this, I've undone these additions. I think it was better before. It's difficult to get editors on the Wikipedia who don't have an opinion one way or the other about the Wikipedia, which IMO is a good reason why this article shouldn't exist. But it does. Since it does, let's all try our best to be fair-minded in assessing edits like this. Herostratus (talk) 01:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be better to stick to coverage in reliable sources. One of which, by Thomas Halleck in the International Business Times, quite clearly pointed out that Morning277 was claimed by's Mike Wood, who asserts he has nothing to do with Wiki-PR. How do you justify deleting that? Andreas JN466 10:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Just for the record, I believe Halleck's article has been deleted at least three times from this article to date. I'll look for the diffs later, and will keep a running total here if need be. Andreas JN466 11:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Here are the promised diffs: [31] [32] [33] Three deletions of a reliable source pointing out that the on-wiki investigation apparently conflated two entirely unrelated paid editing services, and Wiki-PR. Andreas JN466 11:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Everybody, including Morning277, agrees that he was a paid editor inserting ads into Wikipedia. He was properly banned. Everybody, including Wiki-PR, agrees that they were using hundreds of paid editors to edit Wikipedia articles for the benefit of their clients. Now Morning277 says something like "but I didn't work for Wiki-PR." So how does this claim affect anything? Pure spin? An attempt to confuse the issue? Perhaps a footnote to a fine point? Best to leave it for an unbiased editor to decide whether it should go in the article. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Sure he is a paid editor, plying his trade as we speak no doubt. The point is that this reliable source comments on this specific investigation, and casts doubt on what this article asserts: that all the identified accounts were Wiki-PR accounts. Which happens to be what French is saying. There is such a thing as right to reply, and if you reflect sources neutrally, then you'll include those that put his side of the story. Again, I'll give this a little longer and then take it further. Cheers, Andreas JN466 20:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
You're not even pretending to be unbiased here and should stop editing this article. You say one paid editor says he wasn't paid by Wiki-PR. So what? Wiki-PR admits to paying hundreds of editors in thousands of articles. There's simply no argument about this, so bringing it up time and again makes no sense except to try to confuse the issue. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Honestly, you have no idea of what my views on paid editing are. Andreas JN466 21:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
For your and others' reference, I once outlined my views on paid editing, such as they are, here. They are essentially unchanged. I am currently actively involved in an editor review for an admin suspected of paid editing, here. And I am on the record as being highly critical of User:Bjoertvedt, who is a vice-chairman of Wikimedia Norway as well as the vice-president of Telenor, yet has no compunction about editing the articles on his own company and its competitors both here and in the Norwegian Wikipedia. Andreas JN466 22:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ah well, we're making progress, courtesy of Jinkinson and Smallbones. Yay! Face-smile.svg However, what isn't clear from what we now have in the article is that Morning277 wasn't just any old sockpuppet account caught up in the investigation, but the account after which the entire investigation was named. As Owens in The Daily Dot put it, "The oldest account associated with the sockpuppet network was called "Morning277". Halleck wrote, "one of the most-prolific accounts named in recent reports, Morning277, might not be run by Wiki-PR, as Wikipedia and media investigations, such this piece from the Daily Dot, have concluded." Vice said the year-long investigation was "[t]riggered by the unusual behavior of an editor named 'Morning277'". I think that should be made clear, and the account named, as it was named in dozens of reliable sources. Andreas JN466 21:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Just leave it alone - you've had your say, and I think you need to know when the consensus is against your beating a dead horse. It is just not important and you continue to try to confuse the matter. Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
It seems to me consensus just decided that the IB Times article, which you twice deleted wholesale, should be mentioned in this article. ;) Andreas JN466 22:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The matter seems fairly trivial. Let's see if I've got this right:

  • Wiki-PR ran a bunch of sockpuppets and got called on it
  • But it turned out a bunch of sockpuppets were run by a different person, Mike Wood, and he's not associated with Wiki-PR.
  • And the Wikipedia got this mixed up at first and thought Wood's sock team was part of the Wiki-PR sock team.
  • And as a matter of fact it was Wood's sock team that got the investigation rolling in the first place.

Not terribly important I don't guess, but I suppose it's OK to include it. The way it is now is a little confusing:

The sockpuppet investigation concluded that, among other accounts, an account named Morning277 was operated by a Wiki-PR employee. However, the International Business Times reported that the operator of the Morning277 account was not a Wiki-PR employee as had previously been reported, but rather was Mike Wood, the proprietor of, who said in an interview that "I am not Wiki-PR nor do I have a relation with them."

It's OK (maybe TMI) but it's sandwiched right in the middle of a paragraph discussing something else. So how about

The sockpuppet investigation concluded that one of the Wiki-PR sockpuppet accounts was an account named Morning277, but this turned out to belong to a person not associated with Wiki-PR.

I'm still not seeing where to fit this in. Between the first and third sentences of the "Investigation and company reaction" section breaks up the flow of the paragraph. I also don't see how this information is useful to the reader. I guess it could be on the grounds that "Morning277 Investigation" was used in some of the news reports. If that's the basis, maybe a separate small section explaining this, something alone these lines:

The internal Wikipedia name for the investigation was "Morning277", based on the (false, as it turned out) belief that an account named Morning277 was one of the Wiki-PR sockpuppet accounts, and this name was used in some media reports.

Maybe in a footnote rather than a separate section? Herostratus (talk) 01:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Business Insider interview[edit]

This interview with Jordan French in Business Insider came out just recently. Now, I can understand if people argue that I included too much material from it. I was wondering that myself. But it is now not reflected in the article at all. So, can we at least get the essential points from that interview in here? Neutrality demands it. We can't simply pretend it didn't happen. Andreas JN466 22:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Old non-news. Quit pitching your BS. Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree that the essential points should be included. However, they both need to be explicitly framed as French's opinions and not facts (since the interview portion of the BI piece effectively acts as a primary source for French's opinions) and in due weight. I'd say a couple sentences paraphrasing his thoughts would be worthwhile since this is the only lengthy public interview he's given (but it's also one of more than 500 RS'es talking about Wiki-PR, and not a particularly high quality outlet.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with Jayen, the interview needs to be included and given equal weight since it gives Wiki-PR's side of the story, which our neutrality policy mandates. Cla68 (talk) 00:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I think you may need to go reread NPOV. It in no way requires that an interview carried in one source be given equal weight to the other 499 sources on a topic. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
No straw men please. The item is singularly important because it gives Wiki-PR's side. It's the information that is given equal weight, especially when there are two sides to a dispute, as there is here. Cla68 (talk) 00:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Please go reread NPOV. I agree with you the article deserves some coverage as it does offer some unique information, but NPOV does not in any way require that we give two sides to a dispute equal validity. It requires that we represent them as they are represented in reliable sources. "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Kevin's reading is correct. One may argue that this source should be given a little more weight than 499 other brief reports that are essentially copied from each other and involved no independent research, but basically prevalence determines weight. Let's rather focus on what we agree on: we should have more of it than we have right now, which is nothing. Andreas JN466 01:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
The policy states, "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." This dispute is between two sides: (1) the WMF and (2) Wiki-PR. Wouldn't either side's opinion by equally significant thus, to the issue in question? If only one publisher has actually interviewed the Wiki-PR boss, then in order to present both sides equally in the article, per the policy, that one source is given a little more weight. That's how it was when I was writing all of those WWII articles. If 10 sources gave the US side and only one source gave the Japanese sides, which was often the case, then that one source got used a lot more often in order to ensure that both sides were represented equally in the article. I was never challenged on that in all the 20+ articles I submitted for FA. Why is this article different? Cla68 (talk) 01:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I think we are essentially in agreement. It should be given more weight than one of the cookiecutter sources, but it shouldn't be half the article. IMO. We need to pick out what the essential points are of what he is saying, and summarise those. Andreas JN466 01:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The IB Times piece may not necessarily represent Wiki-PR's viewpoint. It says "IBTimes interviewed Jordan French, CEO of Wiki-PR, the firm recently issued a cease-and-desist by lawyers from the Wikimedia Foundation, earlier this month for a story on Wikipedia and paid editing. He didn't respond to a request for comment for this story." The WSJ piece says: "Asked if the editor 'Morning277' had worked for Wiki-PR, French declined to comment."

The person who was interviewed by IB Times denies having any connection to Wiki-PR. If that's true, he doesn't speak for Wiki-PR. —rybec 01:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

It's the other way round. LegalMorning is Morning277 is Mike Wood, and says he's unrelated to Wiki-PR. Jordan French is actually the Wiki-PR CEO. Andreas JN466 02:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Never mind, I thought this was one of the sections about the IB Times story. Sorry about that. —rybec 03:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
No worries. Andreas JN466 04:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

French is making several points in the interview:

  1. He feels wrongly vilified.
  2. Not all paid editing is forbidden, and there is nothing about paid editing in the Terms of Use that he, as a licenced lawyer, can discern. (The Terms of Use indeed make no mention of paid editing.)
  3. Their work was conflated with that of someone else.
  4. While they feel they have been painted as people scrubbing truths from Wikipedia, their customers come to them in distress and complain of libel.
  5. He says they employed 45 people (note that earlier, here, he said it was hundreds), and that they did not use sockpuppets.
  6. They’re still in business, and as long as there is libel in Wikipedia will be.
  7. He says they’re restricting themselves to consulting now and that now they're "not touching Wikipedia. There’s no reason to directly edit." Andreas JN466 02:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Relevant to this discussion and a little bit awkward, but the BI article may be amended to include some alternative points at some point shortly. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Face-smile.svg Andreas JN466 02:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Kevin Gorman, I gather from what you said on Jimbo's talk that there will not be an update from BI, as the journalist isn't interested in investing more time in the story. So we have to work with the article as it stands. Andreas JN466 14:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

If we're going to have this dumb article, and not fold it into Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia, we should include a reference to the interview. I have to admit, as a personal aside, that I enjoyed seeing French rub salt into the wound. Good for him. He's right, there's nothing in WMF's terms of service that prohibits conflict of interest editing or paid editing. I hope the WMF is properly humiliated by the interview, as it richly deserves to be humiliated over this issue. Coretheapple (talk) 23:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

Smallbones has made another revert, changing a direct quote from the cited source to original research not contained in the cited source. Could some of you other guys weigh in here, please? Because this is getting silly, and I am beginning to feel I have entered the twilight zone.

For your reference, the source (Owens) says,

Wikipedia has had a long, uneasy relationship with paid contributors. Many purists believe that a Wikipedia page’s subject, or anyone paid by that subject, has no business editing that page because his objectivity is compromised.

Here is the wording established by my edit:

According to Owens, Wikipedia has had "a long, uneasy relationship with paid contributors. Many purists believe that a Wikipedia page’s subject, or anyone paid by that subject, has no business editing that page because his objectivity is compromised."<ref name=Owens /> The investigation led to the Wikipedia community blocking hundreds of paid Wikipedia editing accounts believed to be connected to Wiki-PR that had edited contrary to Wikipedia's rules.

This is a direct, attributed quote, that meets all the requirements of WP:V. Smallbones' revert returned this to the following:

The use of a company to manage the content of Wikipedia violates several Wikipedia rules, including the rule against asserting ownership of a page, and has led to the Wikipedia community blocking hundreds of paid Wikipedia editing accounts believed to be connected with activities of Wiki-PR contrary to Wikipedia's rules.<ref name=Owens />

Does Smallbones' edit have consensus here, and if so, on what grounds please? None of that wording or train of thought is found in the cited source. Thanks. Andreas JN466 14:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think Jayen466 or any dedicated Wikipediocracy-person should be making edits on this page. Their pov is that Wiki-PR is being persecuted, and they have been pushing that pov with very sharp elbows here. To quote from Herostratus above:
"It's frustrating because the editor making the additions,User:Jayen466, is a WO mod and I gather doesn't much like the Wikipedia or, I guess, the ideas behind it. I'm sure that he's confident that French is telling it like it is here, and it's reasonable to infer that his goal here is to help Mr French get his point across rather than construct the best article we can. That's a problem. Editors are generally advised to avoid areas where they're not able to be fair-minded or where their motivation is to have the reader come away with a particular take on a controversial issue."
Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
My point of view, especially after having discussed this with Kevin Gorman away from Wikipedia and looked at some examples of Wiki-PR's "work", is that Wiki-PR have behaved like cowboys and are rightly banned from editing Wikipedia. (It speaks volumes for Wikipedia's quality control mechanism that it took so long for that to happen. As good as Britannica? Sheesh.) This has nothing to do with what we are discussing here. Andreas JN466 14:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

This archived copy of the Wiki-PR home page says:

Through our Monitoring service, we watch your Wikipedia page 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to safeguard it from unwanted changes that will tarnish your Wikipedia brand.

The Wikipedia policy called "ownership of articles" [34] says "No one [...] has the right to act as though he or she is the owner of a particular article." The Wiki-PR page also said "With our Page Creation service you can ensure your Wikipedia is 100% accurate, well-researched and tells your story the way you want it told." Another Wikipedia policy page [35] says

Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. All Wikipedia articles [...] must be written from a neutral point of view.

rybec 20:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Rybec, that may be so, but (1) these are all primary sources, and Wikipedia articles are meant to be based on secondary sources, and, far more importantly, (2) this is not what the article text says. It says, The use of a company to manage the content of Wikipedia violates several Wikipedia rules, including the rule against asserting ownership of a page. We have several paid editors here who work transparently and do indeed manage their clients' Wikipedia pages for them, in a way that is compliant with policy and does not violate WP:OWN. CorporateM I mentioned earlier, William Beutler is another. There is no policy anywhere on the English Wikipedia that says that you cannot pay someone to manage your Wikipedia entry. It is demonstrably false to say that doing so is against policy. If it were, CorporateM and Beutler and others would be blocked and banned, rather than amiably discussing their paid editing with Jimmy Wales and other users here. The wording we have is original research, not based on any reliable source, and a falsehood that actively and blatantly contradicts the cited source. As such, it is in violation of several core policies, isn't it? If you think otherwise, could you tell me how it isn't? Andreas JN466 14:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Primary sources may be used, but we aren't supposed to interpret them (see WP:PRIMARY). Juxtaposing quotes isn't interpretation. —rybec 23:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, Rybec, but there is interpretation, and selection. For example, Wikipedia:COI#Paid_editing, now cited in the article, says: "There may be benign examples of editors being paid – for example, a university asking you to write up its warts-and-all history." But the article currently says, "The use of a company to manage the content of Wikipedia violates several Wikipedia rules". Our very own COI guideline gives an example where such an arrangement is acceptable. This is why WP:PSTS, which is policy and not just a guideline, advises so strongly against citing primary sources, and flatly forbids anything approaching interpretation of a primary source without citing a secondary source. And in this case, this is exactly what has happened: editors have interpreted the primary sources for themselves, coming to a different conclusion than the well-researched secondary source, and have substituted their own interpretation for that of the secondary source, in direct contravention of WP:PSTS policy. It won't do.
And that's before we even get to the fact that this makes a global statement about Wikipedia that is not just false for the English Wikipedia, but applies even less to other parts of Wikipedia. Tomorrow, for example, there is a TV programme on German TV where various PR agencies will be advising viewers on how to edit Wikipedia on behalf of a paying client, in full compliance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines and Wikimedia Foundation terms of use. They are all operating transparently, as various paid-editing outfits do in the English Wikipedia. So, please let's get this thing right. The cited secondary source, Owens, is absolutely correct, and we should say what the source says. Cheers. Andreas JN466 00:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Indeed there is no rule against hiring a company to write. There are, however, policies against so-called ownership of articles, against bias in articles, and against avoiding scrutiny; those aren't just the beliefs of a few "purists". If the quotes I found are too biased, then don't include them. If you'd like to only use secondary sources, Owens' statement that "most importantly, all paid work needed to be disclosed" isn't far from the truth. —rybec 02:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, Rybec, then it appears you agree with me that the current article wording "The use of a company to manage the content of Wikipedia violates several Wikipedia rules" is wrong. Can we please change it to what Owens says, and cite the secondary source in accordance with policy? To recap, Owens says, "Wikipedia has had a long, uneasy relationship with paid contributors. Many purists believe that a Wikipedia page’s subject, or anyone paid by that subject, has no business editing that page because his objectivity is compromised." I personally don't believe there is anything wrong with that statement, but if you don't like it and would prefer something else, please feel free to come up with an alternative. (If we want to use the "all paid work needed to be disclosed" wording as well, then we may need to make clear that this is presented in the source as the opinion of Jimmy Wales, rather than Wikipedia policy.) Andreas JN466 05:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
While I see how that's wrong, your alternative te4nds to create an impression that Wiki-PR followed all Wikipedia policies. My POV is that they didn't. If that POV can't be supported by proper sources, or isn't significant enough to mention, okay. I can't offer an objective opinion on the topic, especially not on the Owens article, since I was interviewed for it. I don't want to comment any more in this thread; this should be decided by others who are less involved. —rybec 07:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the acknowledgement that it is wrong. I have no intention to make it appear as though Wiki-PR did nothing wrong. You noted that I specifically added information spelling out what it was that Wiki-PR did wrong: "In addition to violating rules against sockpuppeting, Wiki-PR violated Wikipedia rules by citing articles planted on business content farms and various other websites that accept contributions from any Internet user as sources for Wikipedia entries, creating a false impression of credibility.[9] The same websites were used repeatedly, and their presence in various Wikipedia articles aided investigators in identifying articles the company had worked on." That's the two sentences immediately prior to this sentence that we're talking about. How could any reader, after reading that, possibly think that whatever Wiki-PR did was okay? Surely it is a lot clearer now in the article that Wiki-PR did something wrong, and what it was, than it was a week ago. But I'll leave you be. Thanks for your time, and well done for helping the Daily Dot with that story. Good stuff. Cheers, Andreas JN466 10:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I support Jayen's edit and I think that Smallbones' editing and edit-warring has not been in compliance with WP:NPOV. Cla68 (talk) 00:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Heh. This is actually amusing. Andreas makes a couple of points:

  1. The Wikipedia is a bad actor because they stopped Wiki-PR, who did nothing wrong. "You know as well as I do that paid editing is not forbidden by policy, and is not even forbidden by the WP:COI guideline... So the article still says, 'The use of a company to manage the content of Wikipedia violates several Wikipedia rules", and that is counterfactual.")
  2. The Wikipedia is a bad actor because they failed to stop Wiki-PR quickly and effectively. ("Wiki-PR... are rightly banned from editing Wikipedia. It speaks volumes for Wikipedia's quality control mechanism that it took so long for that to happen. As good as Britannica? Sheesh.")

Why would someone do this and not imagine that people would laugh? I know! If you happen to read Andreas's and Cla68's hangout website WO (not recommended generally; I do it when there are no good alcoholic-clown movies on TV) You see this all the time, so much that it's a "thing". In the same thread, you'll see people bitching because Jimbo is tyrannical dictator and bitching because Jimbo doesn't step in and stop various bad things. In the same thread you'll see people bitching because the WMF is totally corrupt and only interested in financial gain and people bitching that the WMF is moronic for leaving millions on the table. And so forth. Admin so-and-so is a tyrant and and a weakling, yadda yadda. The amusing thing is they never notice this. As long as the preface is "The Wikipedia sucks because..." it doesn't matter what follows. It's funny but also sad, like watching a puppy trying to figure out a pet door or something.

Doing this at WO gets applause and pats on the back, and if you do it enough I guess you start to forget that this doesn't work in the real world. Heh. Anyway, if there was a better way to show that Andreas is here at this article to try to get the point across to the reader that the Wikipedia sucks, however that may be done, I don't know of a better way to prove that then just point out Andreas's own words. Herostratus (talk) 03:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

That's a rather pointless essay, Herostratus. Wiki-PR were stopped, rightly, because they "violated Wikipedia rules by citing articles planted on business content farms and various other websites that accept contributions from any Internet user as sources for Wikipedia entries, creating a false impression of credibility.[9] The same websites were used repeatedly, and their presence in various Wikipedia articles aided investigators in identifying articles the company had worked on." As the article now makes clear. Face-smile.svg
They were not stopped because they were hired editors. Wikipedia has plenty of those who carry on their business in compliance with Wikipedia rules, doesn't it? And do please read the comments above regarding WP:PSTS. At any rate, we still have a wording in the article that contradicts both the primary and the secondary sources cited. It is not in itself against Wikipedia rules to employ a company to manage an article. Cheers, Andreas JN466 05:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm afraid that I have to disagree, and strongly, with Smallbones' edit. COI editing is one of the view vagaries of Wikipedia that I've studied. In point of fact, COI editing is not against any policy or rule. It should be, it is crazy that it isn't, but that is a fact. To say otherwise just isn't factually accurate, and the text in question does indeed appear to be original research. Even if a reliable source actually said it, that's no reason to use something that we know to be wrong. I think that this discussion underlines why we need to fold this article into Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia. This article is going to be a drama magnet as long as it exists. Coretheapple (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Thank you, Coretheapple. That is exactly the point. In my view, the Wikimedia Foundation and/or the Wikipedia community have some work to do to clarify what exactly is or isn't allowed. This sentence creates the impression that the work has been done already, and that just isn't so, as Owens points out when he speaks of an "uneasy" relationship and of divisions within the community. Those divisions are real. To pretend they do not exist misleads the public.
    • I've been accused by Smallbones of being in favour of paid editing. For the record, I think what should happen is one of the following:

Noticeboard discussion[edit]

As discussions here have stalled, with no clear consensus apparent, I have raised the issue for further discussion at the WP:ORN noticeboard. Andreas JN466 12:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The archived discussion is at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 28#Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

New name of company[edit]

This article is about this company's activities primarily when it was operating under the name "Wiki-PR". While the Wiki-PR web site is still active, the company is operating under a new name. This begs the question: Should the infobox reflect the company as it was in 2013, or as the company is now? I've WP:BOLDly made some updates to show its current status. Please don't revert unless you are also willing to discuss (WP:BRD). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Since there is so little consensus about what this article is even about and so little participation on the discussion of what the focus of this article should be, I don't think there is any reasonable way to say one way or the other to answer your question in an intelligent manner. Keep in mind that this article was started titled simply Wiki-PR, but was then subsequently renamed. I still think it would be best to make this an article about the company itself.... regardless of what flavor of the month name they happen to call themselves at the moment. Then again any effort I've made to try and make changes to this article has been instantly reverted with article ownership, so I really don't give a damn right now... just hoping that perhaps some people with a stronger stomach than I have will actually bother paying attention. --Robert Horning (talk) 11:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  • How do we know that Status Labs and Wiki-PR are the same? A Signpost contributor says they are, without explaining where that information came from. Both Web sites have a cyan-and-grey colour scheme, are published through the Wordpress software, and are privately registered with Godaddy. Are there any business filings or news stories about the new name? I searched but didn't find them. —rybec 00:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I did find a few Web pages which say Status Labs is in Austin: [36], [37], [38] and [39]. —rybec 05:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I responded there, and no one has responded to my response yet. Therefore I decided to remove it since I looked and looked and couldn't find any remotely reliable source (other than the Signpost) which says this, and the signpost article by The ed17 doesn't cite a reliable source either. Nevertheless, my edit was recently reverted by @Herostratus:, so as per WP:BRD I am coming here. To be clear, I am not sure whether it is actually true that Wiki-PR is now Status Labs. However, I don't think we should be saying that it is if the only line of evidence backing this up is something posted on Wikipedia's newsletter, which I don't consider to be reliable and which doesn't seem to have gotten much coverage in independent sources. Herostratus also contended in his edit summary that the Signpost is exempt from WP:WINARS because it isn't actually a Wikipedia article (though his ES got cut off so Im not totally sure). However, it is still written by anonymous people just the same way as anything else on Wikipedia. Jinkinson talk to me 02:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Right, OK, I asssumed that this was a case of "here's some info which is almost certainly true, but it's ref'd to an unreliable source so I'll remove it" which you do see from time to time, but IMO the correct step is to tag it for {{better source}} or whatever and wait a while, at least. However, I see that this is matter of info that is contested and which might not be true, so removing it might be in order, so I reversed myself and restored Jinkinson's edit.
As to Signpost, it's a better source than just a Wikipedia article. Unlike a Wikipedia article, it's not written by just anyone (I assume there's some kind of bar to cross to get an article in Signpost) and isn't subject to change at any time, and there may be some kind of minimal editorial oversight in the sense that a person(s) reads Signpost articles before they are published and could maybe flag egregious errors. So it's definitely a better source than a Wikipedia article and I guess better than some individual person's Wordpress blog (depending on who the person is and other factors), although maybe not a lot better (don't know). I've used worse sources, but not for contended and contentious material. Herostratus (talk) 02:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

recent IP edits[edit]

Though I'm normally loathe to make significant changes to this page, I've reverted the recent IP changes in favor of the last (kind of) stable version. Some of the changes appear to be rather transparent attempts at performing reverse SEO (removing info about the ban from the lede, removing client info, etc,) and in doing so also introduced terribly awkward prose. Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

questionable move[edit]

I'm pretty significantly confused by the recent move by User:Timtempleton claiming that consensus supports the action and that he took it because RM is backlogged. Although there appears to be a decent amount of agreement that the previous name was not appropriate, the previous RM explicitly closed as a failure. I'm not reverting it myself at the moment but it seems extremely questionable and is certainly irregular to move an article without even a talk page comment in a way that contradicts consensus in the previous move request. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

@Timtempleton, Kevin Gorman: In light of the November 2013 discussion that said "don't move" and in light of both Kevin's concerns and my similar concerns, I agree that this move is "controversial" and should not be done without a fresh discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Where do you see questionable consensus @Kevin Gorman, Davidwr:? I saw a long chain of comments in the talk section supporting that this article be based on the company name, rather than the reason for their notoriety. That info is already in the article and is easy for anyone to read. I wouldn't expect we'd change the Google article title circa 2003 to Google the search engine company. I also see other articles such as WikiExperts that are standalone articles for companies not only notable for one thing only, but for the exact thing as Wiki-PR. Sure, you can claim WP:OSE but we also strive for consistency. The only time I can remember seeing an article on an aspect of a company separate from the company article is with landmark court cases notable in their own way, and even then the company has its own article without the name of the court case in the title. If you can make a compelling case that this article shouldn't follow the format of almost every other company article, I'll be the first to jump ship and support a revert. Heck - I'll even do it myself. Perhaps as a compromise we create an article Wikipedia editing scandals and put in those two companies, along with other entries such as Robert_Clark_Young#Wikipedia_editing_controversy but leave their main articles with just the name?Timtempleton (talk) 18:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry - should have included the talk link that I was referring to Talk:Wiki-PR_editing_of_Wikipedia#Move_to_Wiki-PR_editing_of_WikipediaTimtempleton (talk) 18:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
That discussion was superceded by the later discussion #Requested move above. The result of that discussion was "not moved." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for showing me that link. After reading it, I can see why there was such a lengthy debate on this. I wish I had known to contribute while the discussion was going on. Here's how my thinking is going now. Please bear with me. No wallflowers here. :-) 1) The fact that we are all Wikipedia editors and some of the posts discussed the inherent conflict of interest shows how tricky this can be. Ultimately, though, if Wikipedia editors were not allowed to write about Wikipedia, there'd be very little content about Wikipedia, so that's a non-issue. 2) Because there was press coverage in mainstream media, the subject and the company are both notable. This is not just a big deal to Wikipedians, any more than a Facebook data breach should only matter to Facebook users. I just can't see consistency in having an article about a significant event without also having an article about the company, and there's no precedent to take the company article and name it to make it singularly focused on one item. The posts you showed me used numerous examples of how it would mess up the title naming consistency to do so with other companies, examples that I won't repeat here. Another consideration - who's to say the company doesn't do something else down the road - offer its services to Universities, for example? Did you see the recent Harvard news on Mashable about their editor-in-residence hire? Who gets to decide then whether it's time to change the company article name back to normal? Another example - does every new article about a new author have to have their only book name in the title? Do they get just their name as their article title only once they've written two books? This could get messy. The simplest thing is to have all article titles clean and generic - the way they should be from the start. The fact that this is a subject close to home for all of us shouldn't change the rules. That bias is more worrisome to me than the conflict of interest mentioned in 1) above. 3) I didn't realize that my idea about creating a Wikipedia editing controversy article was an old one, but there's already a list. This is where all the controversies should be further noted - not in the titles of company articles. The articles for every company and person involved in a Wikipedia controversy should have a note in the See also section, for further reading. 4) Finally, since I did move the article in apparent contradiction to the previous consensus that I was unaware of, in the spirit of collaboration I will be willing to move it back if nobody else is in agreement with me. I just can't see how treating this one article differently than all the others is anything but topic bias. Thanks for not reverting - let's see where this goes.Timtempleton (talk) 22:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
To answer your question "Who gets to decide then whether it's time to change the company article name back to normal?" - we do. Because the most recent discussion was relatively recent, the normal WP:Bold, revert, discuss method of doing things really should be just "discuss" then go with the current consensus. If the last discussion had been long ago, then a bold move by someone aware of the past discussion would not necessarily be out of line. By the way, I reverted your move at 17:06 27 March 2014 (UTC), less than 2 hours after you moved it (see the page history for details). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
OK - I'll go with the flow, since an incorrect, narrow consensus is still a consensus, per the site's self-policing guidelines. But I want to go on record here as one of many voices noting that the article title is a aberration on the site. The only logical explanation for the support for the unconventional title is misguided outrage at the company - a digital scarlet letter.Timtempleton (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
A great new test case opportunity came up which will either add or take away momentum for naming company articles based on notoriety from a single controversial event. Will a Wikipedia article be created for the otherwise not yet notable HiringSolved called HirigSolved mining of Linkedin? For background, see LinkedIn names company that used bots to steal profiles for competing Recruiter service Timtempleton (talk) 14:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Any test case for a hypothetical Wikipedia article where you link something on gigaom is almost definitely a bad test case. I'd also like to point out that the fact that one might disagree with a consensus doesn't really make it incorrect. Without having clicked through to the story you linked, if it got massive mainstream coverage focused on the controversy, I can see a title focused on the controversy as being appropriate, but that hasn't happeed yet, and theoretical WP:OSE is an even worse argument than actual WP:OSE. BTW: we already named articles directedly connected to people with the names of controversies rather than the names of the people themselves only. To pick a totally arbitrary example, Murder_of_Milly_Dowler is named Murder_of_Milly_Dowler, not Mily Dowler. If the controversy is what is notable, that's what the article should be titled after. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • There is absolutely no consensus for this move, which must be reverted. The only consensus reached here was specifically against moving. Fiddle Faddle 23:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I have been overtaken by events. I see it has been reverted already. Fiddle Faddle 23:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)