Jump to content

Wikipedia:Paid operatives: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Newt Gingrich: violates WP:BLP per se at this point
Undid revision 483755138 by Collect (talk). Erroneous tag. If of the opinion that there's cause for concern, go into specifics at Talk.
Line 53: Line 53:
In 2008 Griffith released an updated version of WikiScanner called WikiWatcher, which also exploited a common mistake made by registered accounts who accidentally forget to log in, revealing their IP address and subsequently their affiliations.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.forbes.com/2008/07/19/security-hackers-internet-tech-cx_ag_0719wikiwatcher.html |title=The Wiki-Hacker Strikes Again |publisher=Forbes.com |date=2008-07-19 |accessdate=2012-03-14}}</ref> As of March 2012 WikiScanner's website was online, but not functioning.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/|title=WikiWatcher.com|retrieved=March 15, 2012}}</ref>
In 2008 Griffith released an updated version of WikiScanner called WikiWatcher, which also exploited a common mistake made by registered accounts who accidentally forget to log in, revealing their IP address and subsequently their affiliations.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.forbes.com/2008/07/19/security-hackers-internet-tech-cx_ag_0719wikiwatcher.html |title=The Wiki-Hacker Strikes Again |publisher=Forbes.com |date=2008-07-19 |accessdate=2012-03-14}}</ref> As of March 2012 WikiScanner's website was online, but not functioning.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/|title=WikiWatcher.com|retrieved=March 15, 2012}}</ref>
===Newt Gingrich===
===Newt Gingrich===
{{pov}}
Around the beginning of 2012, it came to light that Joe DeSantis, the campaign communications director for American politician and presidential candidate [[Newt Gingrich]], had argued for and made changes to Gingrich's Wikipedia article.<ref name="politicaltickergingrich">{{cite web|url=http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/06/gingrich-spokesman-defends-wikipedia-edits/?hpt=hp_bn3 |title=Gingrich spokesman defends Wikipedia edits – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs |publisher=Politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com |date=2012-02-06 |accessdate=2012-03-14}}</ref> Some of the changes which DeSantis requested were minor, but he also tried to remove negative details which he thought unduly biased the articles,<ref name=politicogingrich/> including details about Gingrich's extramarital affairs, information about his financial expenditure, ethics charges against him, and his political positions on controversial issues.<ref name="politicogingrich">{{cite web|url=http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2011/12/newt-gingrich-communications-director-joe-desantis-107670.html |title=Newt Gingrich communications director Joe DeSantis works Wikipedia |publisher=Politico.Com |date= |accessdate=2012-03-14}}</ref><ref name=globalpost/> The incident was notable for DeSantis' switch from editing articles about the politician and his wife directly, to following Wikipedia' conflict of interest policy by using the linked discussion pages for each articles to suggest edits rather than make them himself. He said, "I stopped making direct edits in May 2011 because I was alerted to the COI rules...Earlier I thought that simply disclosing my affiliation was enough but it wasn't. So I started posting requests on the Talk page. This has been far more successful and the other editors on Wikipedia have largely received this very positively."<ref name="globalpost">{{cite web|url=http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/united-states/120206/newt-gingrich-communications-director-alters-wikipedia-page |title=Joe DeSantis, Newt Gingrich's communications director, made over 60 changes to the GOP candidate's Wikipedia page |publisher=GlobalPost |date=2012-02-06 |accessdate=2012-03-14}}</ref> He told the political journalism organization ''[[Politico]]'' that his approach of working with the Wikipedia community by discussing edits on talk pages to be more successful than making the changes himself.<ref name=politicogingrich/> Wikipedia editor Tvoz was quoted as critical of the practice; he wrote: "... I have to say this micro-managing by a Gingrich campaign director is a matter of concern to me even though you now are identifying yourself. Pointing out factual errors is one thing, but your input should not go beyond that, even [on a Talk page]."<ref name=politicaltickergingrich/>
Around the beginning of 2012, it came to light that Joe DeSantis, the campaign communications director for American politician and presidential candidate [[Newt Gingrich]], had argued for and made changes to Gingrich's Wikipedia article.<ref name="politicaltickergingrich">{{cite web|url=http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/06/gingrich-spokesman-defends-wikipedia-edits/?hpt=hp_bn3 |title=Gingrich spokesman defends Wikipedia edits – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs |publisher=Politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com |date=2012-02-06 |accessdate=2012-03-14}}</ref> Some of the changes which DeSantis requested were minor, but he also tried to remove negative details which he thought unduly biased the articles,<ref name=politicogingrich/> including details about Gingrich's extramarital affairs, information about his financial expenditure, ethics charges against him, and his political positions on controversial issues.<ref name="politicogingrich">{{cite web|url=http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2011/12/newt-gingrich-communications-director-joe-desantis-107670.html |title=Newt Gingrich communications director Joe DeSantis works Wikipedia |publisher=Politico.Com |date= |accessdate=2012-03-14}}</ref><ref name=globalpost/> The incident was notable for DeSantis' switch from editing articles about the politician and his wife directly, to following Wikipedia' conflict of interest policy by using the linked discussion pages for each articles to suggest edits rather than make them himself. He said, "I stopped making direct edits in May 2011 because I was alerted to the COI rules...Earlier I thought that simply disclosing my affiliation was enough but it wasn't. So I started posting requests on the Talk page. This has been far more successful and the other editors on Wikipedia have largely received this very positively."<ref name="globalpost">{{cite web|url=http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/united-states/120206/newt-gingrich-communications-director-alters-wikipedia-page |title=Joe DeSantis, Newt Gingrich's communications director, made over 60 changes to the GOP candidate's Wikipedia page |publisher=GlobalPost |date=2012-02-06 |accessdate=2012-03-14}}</ref> He told the political journalism organization ''[[Politico]]'' that his approach of working with the Wikipedia community by discussing edits on talk pages to be more successful than making the changes himself.<ref name=politicogingrich/> Wikipedia editor Tvoz was quoted as critical of the practice; he wrote: "... I have to say this micro-managing by a Gingrich campaign director is a matter of concern to me even though you now are identifying yourself. Pointing out factual errors is one thing, but your input should not go beyond that, even [on a Talk page]."<ref name=politicaltickergingrich/>


Revision as of 07:09, 25 March 2012

Essays are the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors (such as a WikiProject) for which widespread consensus has not been established. They do not speak for the entire community and may be created and written without approval. This is an essay about the issue of paid political operatives editing Wikipedia. It is a repository for editors to store information, arguments for and against paid operatives, conversations, and gleanings to do with the topic. This essay was formed to systemically address issues regarding paid editing of political articles and discussion pages on Wikipedia, in which political operatives are compensated to create and edit Wikipedia articles. While there are similarities, this essay is not about public relations (PR) or PR personnel.

  • Essay contents should not be contentious. Because they are supposed to represent opinions rather than being binding policy decisions, their content should only be substantially edited by those who agree with the stance espoused therein. If you disagree with the position taken by this essay, you're always permitted to write a counter-essay.
  • Discourse is limited by the expectation that even difficult situations will be resolved in a dignified fashion, and by policies which prohibit behavior such as personal attacks and legal threats. Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to use the dispute resolution mechanism rather than engage in unbridled criticism across all available forums. As previously stated, another option is to write a counter-essay.
  • Editors in general, regardless of permission level, are reminded to only engage in conduct that will directly improve the level of discourse in a discussion. Personal attacks, profanity, inappropriate use of humour, and other uncivil conduct that leads to a breakdown in discussion can prevent the formation of a valid consensus.

Blocks or other restrictions may be used to address repeated or particularly severe disruption of this nature. A prime consideration of all editors should always be to foster a collaborative environment within the community as a whole.

Political Campaigns

The objective of a political campaign is to create an organized effort to influence the decision making process within a group. In the case of this essay the focus is on the group know as The American Voting Public. The influence may be positive; to educate and inform. The influence may also be slanted only toward concealment and obfuscation. With that as a starting point, the essay hopes to focus on political operatives and their effect on the articles and talk pages of Wikipedia. There is considerable difference between, lets say, a political campaign for elected office and one that works to effect social change. Transparency, mobility, justification, mitigation, lawlessness, mobilization, single-mindedness, disdain, selectiveness, fervor, gratification, patronage, advocacy, contributor, contest, empower, critical, visionary, etc. are some characteristics that, depending on how these characteristics are implemented, will differentiate positive non-Point of View editing for the good of the reader with skewed, self-motivating editing for the good of the candidate. Personally I don't see any "pros" for paid political operatives being involved in political articles and talk pages. Any support of their active participation in the direct editing by themselves or by proxy is difficult to accept as neutral. While this may, on the surface, seem like taking a position against Paid Operatives, it is more of a wake-up call to fellow editors that Paid editing has drawbacks. Some might say that the 'insiders look" that paid editors bring is a balance. Others might wonder if that "insiders look" always comes with a price to pay.

from Paid editing on Wikipedia

In the context of Wikipedia, paid editing or paid advocacy is a type of conflict of interest editing in which Wikipedia articles are edited by individuals paid to do so, as employees, contractors, or through some financial connection to individuals, products, corporations, organizations, political campaigns or governments which are the subject of those articles. Although the edits may often involve minor factual corrections and changes, significant media attention has revolved around the editing of articles which removes or downplays negative information and adds or highlights positive information.

Wikipedia is free for anyone to edit, but the site maintains a neutral point of view policy. The encyclopedia's official stance on editors who have a conflict of interest strongly discourages them from working in areas where they would be intentionally or unintentionally biased. Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales has argued that editors who have a clear political or financial conflict of interest should never directly edit articles, but instead propose edits to other editors on article talk pages, and seek their feedback.

A number of scandals have risen around paid editing. In 2006 Wikipedia editor Gregory Kohs was banned from Wikipedia after he began openly soliciting for work as a paid editor. In 2007 a website called WikiScanner was founded which allowed users to match the IP addresses of Wikipedia editors with known company and organization offices. WikiScanner, and other investigations, revealed that Diebold, the CIA, The Vatican, Sony, Bell Pottinger, Portland Communications and many other individuals, companies, and politicians have edited or had people from their offices edit their own or related Wikipedia articles.

Several companies exist today which charge for Wikipedia editing. Public relations firms offer services related to the monitoring and editing of topics on the encyclopedia. As negative press has grown over conflict of interest editing, some public relations professionals have sought to improve the relationship between their industry and Wikipedia, as well as to influence its policies and procedures to be more accommodating of good faith efforts to edit from PR professionals. A Facebook group, Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement (CREWE) was started to work on these issues, and the Public Relations Society of America and the Chartered Institute of Public Relations have been involved in efforts with Wikipedia to improve guidance and develop best practices in this area.

Jimbo's opposition

Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales has personally maintained strident opposition to paid editing. In 2009 he stated that "It is not ok with me that anyone ever set up a service selling their services as a Wikipedia editor, administrator, bureaucrat, etc...I will personally block any cases that I am shown. There are of course some possibly interesting alternatives, not particularly relevant here, but the idea that we should ever accept paid advocates directly editing Wikipedia is not ever going to be ok. Consider this to be policy as of right now."[1]

On the topic of editing articles about oneself, Wales said, "People shouldn't do it, including me...I wish I hadn't done it. It's in poor taste.... People have a lot of information about themselves but staying objective is difficult. That's the trade-off in editing entries about yourself.... If you see a blatant error or misconception about yourself, you really want to set it straight."[2]

United States Congressional staffers

Main article: US Congressional staff edits to Wikipedia

One of the first revelations of Wikipedia editing by political operatives involved United States Congressional staffers in 2006.[3][4] It was discovered that more than 1,000 changes had been made to Wikipedia articles originating from the U.S. government IP addresses.[5] Changes were revealed to have been made to articles about Representative Marty Meehan,[5] Senator Tom Coburn,[6] Senator Norm Coleman[6] Representative Gil Gutknecht,[7] Senator Joe Biden, [7] Senator Conrad Burns [8] Senator Dianne Feinstein,[9] Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa)[9] Representative David Davis,[10] Tennessee state representative Matthew Hill[10][11] and Representative Mike Pence. [12] The edits removed accurate but critical information and embellished positive descriptions.[9]

In response to the revelations, certain affected IP addresses were temporarily blocked,[13] so that government staffers from those offices could no longer edit Wikipedia. The block was later lifted following a discussion by the Wikipedia community.[14]

Paying someone is a COI

Volunteer Wikipedia spokesperson David Gerard said, "[Wikipedia] tends not to look favorably in terms of conflict of interest, and paying someone is a conflict."[15] Gerard added that public relations representatives commonly get blocked from editing by Wikipedia administrators.[15]

In the same month that had seen conflict of interest issues raised by both Microsoft and MyWikiBiz, Wales stated that editors should not be paid to edit, and PR agencies would be banned if they persisted.[16]

A searchable Database is created

In 2007, Virgil Griffith, a Cal Tech computation and neural-systems graduate student, created a searchable database that linked changes made by anonymous Wikipedia editors to companies and organizations from which the changes were made.[17] The database cross-referenced logs of Wikipedia edits with publicly available records pertaining to the internet IP addresses edits were made from.[17]


Griffith was motivated by the edits from the United States Congress, and wanted to see if others were similarly promoting themselves. He was particularly interested in finding scandals, especially at large and controversial corporations. He said he wanted to, "create minor public relations disasters for companies and organizations I dislike (and) to see what 'interesting organizations' (which I am neutral towards) are up to."[18] He also wanted to give Wikipedia readers a tool to check edits for accuracy[17] and allow the automation and indexing of edits.[19]

A large number of embarrassing edits by politicians and companies were found, and received extensive media coverage worldwide. Included among the accused were the Vatican,[20][21] the CIA,[22][21][17] the FBI,[18] the US Democratic Party's Congressional Campaign Committee,[23][21] the US Republican Party,[23][19] Britain's Labour Party,[23] Britain's Conservative Party,[19] the Canadian government,[24] Industry Canada,[25] the Department of Prime Minister, Cabinet, and Defence in Australia,[26][27][28][29][30][31] the United Nations,[32] the US Senate,[33] the US Department of Homeland Security,[34] the US Environmental Protection Agency,[34] Montana Senator Conrad Burns,[17] Ohio Governor Bob Taft,[35] the Israeli government,[36] Exxon Mobil,[37] Walmart,[37][17] AstraZeneca, Diebold,[23][19][17] Dow Chemical,[19] Disney,[24] Dell,[37] Anheuser-Busch,[38] Nestle,[19] Pepsi, Boeing,[19] Sony Computer Entertainment,[39] EA,[40] SCO Group,[38] MySpace,[19] Pfizer,[34] Raytheon,[34] DuPont,[41] Anglican and Catholic churches,[19] the Church of Scientology,[19][24] the World Harvest Church,[35] Amnesty International,[19] the Discovery Channel,[19] Fox News,[23][42] CBS, the Washington Post, the National Rifle Association,[19] News International,[19] Al Jazeera,[34] Bob Jones University,[34] and Ohio State University.[35]

Although the edits correlated with known IP addresses, there was no proof that the changes actually came from a member of the organization or employee of the company, only that someone had access to their network.[21]

Wikipedia spokespersons received WikiScanner positively, noting that it helped prevent conflicts of interest from influencing articles[18] as well as increasing transparency[21] and mitigating attempts to remove or distort relevant facts.[19]

In 2008 Griffith released an updated version of WikiScanner called WikiWatcher, which also exploited a common mistake made by registered accounts who accidentally forget to log in, revealing their IP address and subsequently their affiliations.[43] As of March 2012 WikiScanner's website was online, but not functioning.[44]

Newt Gingrich

Around the beginning of 2012, it came to light that Joe DeSantis, the campaign communications director for American politician and presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, had argued for and made changes to Gingrich's Wikipedia article.[45] Some of the changes which DeSantis requested were minor, but he also tried to remove negative details which he thought unduly biased the articles,[46] including details about Gingrich's extramarital affairs, information about his financial expenditure, ethics charges against him, and his political positions on controversial issues.[46][47] The incident was notable for DeSantis' switch from editing articles about the politician and his wife directly, to following Wikipedia' conflict of interest policy by using the linked discussion pages for each articles to suggest edits rather than make them himself. He said, "I stopped making direct edits in May 2011 because I was alerted to the COI rules...Earlier I thought that simply disclosing my affiliation was enough but it wasn't. So I started posting requests on the Talk page. This has been far more successful and the other editors on Wikipedia have largely received this very positively."[47] He told the political journalism organization Politico that his approach of working with the Wikipedia community by discussing edits on talk pages to be more successful than making the changes himself.[46] Wikipedia editor Tvoz was quoted as critical of the practice; he wrote: "... I have to say this micro-managing by a Gingrich campaign director is a matter of concern to me even though you now are identifying yourself. Pointing out factual errors is one thing, but your input should not go beyond that, even [on a Talk page]."[45]

Bell Pottinger

Jimmy Wales called Bell Pottinger's actions "ethical blindness"[48] that had "embarrassed their clients".[49] Wales said, "I've never seen a case like this. In general when I speak to PR firms they have ethical guidelines that would prevent this kind of conduct."[49] and "That their strongest true response is they didn't break the law tells a lot about their view of the world, I'm afraid...The company committed the cardinal sin of a PR and lobbying company of having their own bad behaviour bring bad headlines to their clients, [and] did so in a fashion that brought no corresponding benefits...There are ethical PR companies out there."[48] The Bell Pottinger Wikipedia article noted this controversy and Wales' comments.[50]

In response to the revelations, James Thomlinson, head of digital at Bell Pottinger said, "We have never added something that is a lie or hasn't been published elsewhere and we have never tried to 'astroturf', ie create fake positive reviews to sell a product. If we have been asked to include things about clients that are untrue we have always said no and pointed to Wikipedia's strict guidelines... We have also ensured that for every change that we have made we have sought the approval of the wider Wikipedia community first."[48] Lord Bell launched an internal review into the incidents, but he disagreed with Wales' assessment that it reflected badly on the company. Bell said, "I can't see any bad headlines for our clients...You won't find anybody, including journalists, who doesn't do exactly the same thing."[49] He also emphasized that if requests were made by clients to post false statements on Wikipedia, they were refused.[49]

The incident raised discussions and debate about the PR industry's role editing Wikipedia.[51][50] Jimmy Wales said that the issue was of “great interest” to the encyclopedia.[52] UK MP Jon Cryer, said: “If [Bell Pottinger] is going in and editing Wikipedia that would be questionable, the whole idea is that the website is completely open encyclopedia, and it is open to anybody, it has a democratic function...If people who are being paid to represent others are going in and editing, it sounds to me to be at the very least open to question. I would be interested to know how they justify that sort of activity, nobody reading it would be aware of what has happened, people read Wikipedia expecting total objectivity.”[52] Alex Woolfall, prior head of issues and crisis management at Bell Pottinger said the "underhand tactics" would be lessened if Wikipedia's process for resolving controversies on the site was faster.[53] Head of digital at Bell Pottinger, Alan Parker, said: 'Wikipedia has a responsibility to have more editors in place to review changes and investigate whether they are legitimate.' [53]

PR Week characterized the issues as being deeper than merely "a nonprofit site - whose mission is 'to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content' - versus devious spin doctors motivated by filthy lucre."[54] The publication noted that Wikipedia's prominence in Google search results and massive scope makes it "more influential than any newspaper and takes up an increasing amount of effort for anyone managing a reputation".[54] He emphasized that "Wikipedia can damage reputations quickly and globally" but "the right of reply and the editing process are often arcane. There is no list of the site's authorised editors and, unlike most media, it is almost impossible to regulate or sue for defamation."[54] He noted that Bell Pottinger had defended themselves by citing incidents where its clients were victims of defamation on Wikipedia that were unresolved for years.[54][55]

Meeting with Jimmy Wales

In response to the incident, Jimmy Wales made an offer to visit Bell Pottinger to discuss these issues, which was accepted.[55][51] Wales admitted that there were weaknesses in the site's processes, stating that "Our policy around paid advocates is a bit mushy and we need to tighten it up. It's a bit of a grey area at the moment."[56] Among the major issues discussed was speed. Lord Bell said, "You can destroy someone's reputation in one minute and it will take years to rebuild."[56] Wales said that anything that was defamatory would be resolved quickly, but noted that in other instances, editors could be faster.[51][55][56][54] Another major issue was transparency; Wales said that all PR professionals clearly state who they are and who their clients are. PR Week noted that similar transparency is not required by editors.[56] Lord Bell said "It's important for Wikipedia to recognise we are a valuable source for accurate information" and that "apparently if you are not-for-profit what you say is true but that if you are a paid-for advocate you are lying."[56] Bell argued that "We don’t become criminals because we are paid. We find that offensive... We’ve done absolutely nothing wrong. We did not make any change that was wrong."[55] Wales was displeased by Bell's stance. He said, "We’re at an impasse. I’m uncomfortable when you say you have not done anything wrong."[55] He said that being under pressure from clients is not an excuse and "being desperate doesn’t make it right".[55] Bell did apologise to Wales for anonymously editing without declaring a conflict of interest.[54]

The head of digital at Bell Pottinger admitted to making mistakes,[51] blaming the incident on Wikipedia's “confusing” editing system and “the pressure put on us by clients to remove potentially defamatory or libellous statements very quickly, because Wikipedia is so authoritative.”[51] Wales admitted that Wikipedia's rules involved "hundreds of pages of policy",[55] but urged Bell Pottinger to seek community input rather than making changes themselves.[51] A large portion of the discussion focused on how to do that within Wikipedia's policies, with a variety of solutions suggested.[56] Lord Bell concluded by saying that he hoped for a positive outcome from the dialogue.[51]

United Kingdom Parliament

In March 2012, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism uncovered that UK MPs or their staff had made almost 10,000 edits to the encyclopedia, and that almost one in six MPs had had their Wikipedia article edited from within Parliament.[57] Many of the changes dealt with removing unflattering details from during the 2009 expenses scandal, as well as other controversial issues.[58][59] Former MP Joan Ryan admitted to changing her entry "whenever there’s misleading or untruthful information [that has] been placed on it."[58] Clare Short said her staff were "angry and protective" over mistakes and criticisms in her Wikipedia article and acknowledged they might have made changes to it.[58] Labour MP Fabian Hamilton also reported having one of his assistants edit a page to make it more accurate in his view. MP Philip Davies denied making changes about removing controversial comments related to Muslims from 2006 and 2007.[58] Some of the reported changes made by MPs were also mundane or comical.[60]

Other

Incidents of political operative editing continued to be discovered throughout the end of the decade and into 2011. In 2007, changes were made about Prince Johan Friso and his wife Princess Mabel of the Netherlands, which could be traced back to their palace.[61] In 2008, Phorm deleted facts from a Wikipedia article about the controversy over its advertising deals.[62] Also in 2008, pro-Israel group CAMERA launched a campaign to change the point of view in Wikipedia articles in their favour.[63] Later in 2010 two Israeli groups set up courses to instruct editors on successful advocacy in the debate over borders and politics.[64] In response the head of the Association of Palestinian Journalists called for Palestinians to prepare for a "public relations war".[65]

Another incident, culminated in the banning of an entire organization, the Church of Scientology.[66] In 2008, a long-running dispute between Church members and Wikipedia editors reached Wikipedia's highest court, ArbCom, which unanimously voted to block all edits Scientologists, due to complaints they were trying to influence articles in their favor.[67][68][69][70] Another heated example of conflicted editors arose around the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.[citation needed]

2008 General election

During the 2008 US presidential race, changes made by both Barack Obama and John McCain's campaigns made the news[71] and there were suspicious updates to Sarah Palin's Wikipedia biography after the announcement of her Vice-President running position.[72] "TitanGate", as it was dubbed, was a 2009 incident in which UK leader Gordon Brown compared himself to the Italian Renaissance artist Titian who was known for his late-in-life achievements and longevity. Brown said that Titan lived until 90, which was also stated in Titan's Wikipedia article. Conservative leader David Cameron said Titan did not in fact live that long, and pointed out the event as an example Brown's tendency for inaccuracy. Shortly after Cameron's comments, Titan's article on Wikipedia was edited to reduce his age; a search of the IP address that made the edit tracked back to the Conservative Party central office.[73][74]

In June 2011 PR Week reported on a 'fixer', a known but unnamed London-based figure in the PR industry who offered services to 'cleanse' articles.[75] Wikipedia entries this person was accused of changing included "Carphone Warehouse co-founder David Ross, Von Essen Group chairman Andrew Davis, British property developer David Rowland and billionaire Saudi tycoon Maan Al-Sanea" as well as Edward Stanley, 19th Earl of Derby.[75] According to PR Week's investigation, 42 edits were made from the same IP address, most of them removing negative or controversial information, or adding positive information.[75] Also in 2011 there were conflicted edits to US Congressional representative David Rivera's Wikipedia article.[76]

Public relations industry response

Although for most of the history of Wikipedia, discoveries of conflict of interest edits were seen as one-sided, embarrassing errors for those involved, in late 2011 and 2012 the public relations industry—motivated by a desire to clean up their image and change what they viewed as being shut-out from making legitimate edits—began taking organized steps to improve their relationship with the Wikipedia Community.

Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement (CREWE)

Main article: Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement

Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement (CREWE) is a Facebook group[77] created by members of the public relations industry that formed in January 2012 with the aim of improving the relationship between their industry and Wikipedia. They have lobbied for greater involvement by PR professionals on the site, with the stated goal of maintaining accurate articles about corporations.

The Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) and the Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR)

The Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) is a public relations industry group centered in the UK, similar in scope to the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) in the United States. CIPR publishes Social Media Guidance, but it was not until the Bell Pottinger and Portland Communications incidents that they began to collaborate directly with the regional UK chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation to provide guidance for CIPR members on how best to interact with the Wikipedia community and its policies. Both groups have increased their focus on Wikipedia editing since 2011.

CIPR plans to offer education for PR professionals to better follow Wikipedia’s guidelines. Roger Bamkin, chair of Wikimedia UK said, “Recent incidents highlighted by Tom Watson MP and in the national press show that in some parts of the PR profession, a lack of understanding on how to engage with the Wikipedia community persists. We will work with the CIPR to ensure that their members, and through them the wider PR Profession, have access to the clearest possible guidance on the best way to work with Wikipedia. We believe that attempts to mask the true identity of anyone seeking to edit the site are unethical as well as counterproductive.”[78]

CIPR said more work was needed to clarify best practices for changing Wikipedia articles. CIPR Policy and communications officer, Andrew Ross, emphasized the two way relationship of the project: 'We want Wikipedia to understand the role of communications and why communications professionals want to access the site and use it in a transparent way,' he said.[79]

Jane Wilson, CIPR CEO reasoned for a collaborative approach:

Stella Artois is on the "wife-beater" page because it is a nick-name in common currency for that brand of strong continental lager. The brand managers who want to change this have a wider repetitional issue to address, editing the term from a Wikipedia page will not get rid of this association....The CIPR has confirmed what we felt about the current negative view of public relations among Wikipedians. We will build upon our existing social media guidance, to provide public relations professionals with a best practice approach and an ethical case study that has wider relevance. After all, wiki's are a collaborative form of communication and for many who are used to corporate or press relations...This guidance will be the first step in the process of both communities reaching a better appreciation of each other's point of view....Ethical public relations professionals work in the public interest and have a contribution to make. What is needed is a widespread understanding and acceptance of the most appropriate way for public relations professionals to go about this. For the time being, we may have to start with an acceptance that Wikipedians have a problem with our profession and this reputation has unfortunately been earned. We can't change this overnight but by working in partnership with Wikimedia UK and Wikipedians, through outreach, diplomacy and dialogue, we can make a difference.[80]

CIPR's guidelines recommends that PR professionals editing Wikipedia be transparent about who they are and their motivations and to be open and honest at all times. A CIPR press release said, "There is a need to develop understanding of the mutual advantages of open, transparent engagement with the public through Wikipedia."[81][56]

Portland Communications welcomed CIPR's announcement of collaboration with Wikipedia and invited Jimmy Wales to speak to their company, as he did at Bell Pottinger.[82] MP Tom Watson, who revealed the Portland incident was optimistic about the collaboration: "PR professionals need clear guidelines in this new world of online-information-sharing. That's why I am delighted that interested parties are coming together to establish a clear code of conduct."[79]

PRSA head Gerald Corbett argued for greater permissions and access to Wikipedia:

"We believe there is a case to be made for PR professionals to responsibly edit client Wikipedia entries in an ethical and transparent manner. At its most basic level, it is a matter of serving the public interest. An accurate Wikipedia entry serves the public interest far better than inaccurate entries that are allowed to languish with errors because Wikipedia editors refuse to allow 'paid advocates' to make necessary, accurate changes. A disclosure of one’s professional affiliation with a business should not automatically exempt him or her from being allowed to responsibly edit Wikipedia entries. Greater accuracy and transparency within Wikipedia entries should be the basis of how Wikipedia goes about its practices. It should not matter who edits a page, so long as the information is accurate, unbiased and properly sourced. PRSA certainly does not condone behavior on the part of public relations people or PR firms that is unethical or dishonest in respect to their editing of clients’ Wikipedia entries. To be sure, there are some who wish to abuse the system... But on the whole, we believe that PR professionals, particularly those whose work adheres to the PRSA Code of Ethics, are responsible and respectful of the online communities in which they engage and seek to influence...Our position on this matter is simple: it's wrong for the PR profession to think it can run roughshod over the established Wikipedia community. PR professionals must engage with it in a reasonable manner that respects the community’s rules and protocols, while also ensuring they are acting in their clients' best interests. But the engagement should be a two-way street in which Wikipedia is willing to see and accommodate both sides of the issue. At the moment, we do not believe that to be the case. [83]

Wikipedia Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums (GLAM)

Although not implicated in any controversy, another form of paid editing involves Wikipedia editors who are hired to assist galleries, libraries, archives, and museums, in sharing their content in Wikipedia and its sister projects.[84][85] The British Library sought out their own Wikipedian in residence in 2012, offering a salary of £30,768 for "reviewing, improving and creating content" on the encyclopedia as well as offering training sessions at the library.[86][87] The British Museum offered a similar position in 2010, hiring Liam Wyatt.[88][87] In 2011 the US National Archives and Records Administration hired part-time Wikipedian in residence Dominic McDevitt-Parks, who worked on transcribing archived documents into searchable text on Wikipedia's sister project Wikisource.[89][90][91][92] McDevitt-Parks uploaded about 90,000 documents to Wikimedia Commons, the Wikimedia image repository.[93] Lori Byrd Phillips, was a Wikipedian-in-Residence at the Children’s Museum of Indianapolis.[94][95] [84] She also worked on transferring images from the museum to Wikimedia Commons.[96] In 2012, a Wikipedian in residence assisted with "MonmouthpediA" a project to assist the town of Monmouth in recording its history.[97]


Driving the bus

  • The Bus is symbolic of all political articles.
  • Paid operatives should never drive the Bus, and should not be allowed by other editors to have their hands on the steering wheel of the Bus.
  • Paid operatives are passengers on the bus just like the other editors. They have no special seating assignment, no reduced fare, no GPS control of where the Bus is headed, no special permission to be a spokesman for the Bus Company.
  • Paid operatives should only ask the opinions of the Bus drivers (other editors).
  • Paid operatives should never direct the drivers of the Bus where to go and what to say when they get there unless the direction is agreed upon via consensus of the passengers.

Conflict of Interest WP:COI

  • A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor. COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups.
  • Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.
  • See WP:COI/N

Whom are they trying to fool?

Answer: Our Reader.

WP:COO/Conflict of Objectives (instead of interest)

  • Focus [on WP:COI] is looking for the solution in the wrong place. It should be on "what is the Objective of this edit?" What is the objective, the intention, of the editor making this edit? Is it to hide, or to inform? Is it to broaden the readers knowledge on the subject or to restrict and hide verifyable facts which may change a readers mind.
  • The editor and the reader may have differing objectives. The reader comes to Wikipedia for information. The Paid Operative, in some cases, comes to Wikipedia to mold the article by providing limited information (Pro) or, by implementing negative, unverifyable subject matter (Con). Strict scutiny by all is required.
  • Paid Operatives confiscate our readers expectation of neutrality and conflict with the principles behind "everyone is free to edit".
  • rights as an editor curtailed????
  • conceal and conspire, contort and contravene
  • COO causes secret co-operation among editors to achieve a goal other than improving the article.


FROM:Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy ban appeal (section)

Conflict of Interest guideline

2) Many issues concerning paid editing, anonymous editing, outing and harassment, are unresolved. Our policies and guidelines are complicated and sometimes contradictory. Investigating, sanctioning and/or exonerating editors on the basis of who they are or what they do in real life is not only controversial but often impossible. Furthermore, extreme cases apart, there is no consensus about the extent that editors may edit articles on topics with which they are personally involved. Hence, of necessity, review must focus primarily on the editing patterns of those editors about whom problems are claimed.

Passed 14 to 0, 00:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments from around Wikipedia

  • Because of the essentially non-actionable nature of WP:COI, my firsthand impression of COI/N is that it mostly inflames situations rather than help solve them. 21 February 2012
  • A small coterie of editors used the noticeboard as just another platform to air their views without restraint while they treated the actual conflict of interest policy as a minor side show few cared to see. At WP:COI, 2007
  • The main problem is where to draw the line. Is common membership of an external site sufficient to qualify as a conflict of interest? What about members of the same WikiProject? People editing from the same household? The same university? Married couples, de facto couples, girlfriends, associates? Members of the same Wikimedia chapter who work together? People self-identifying as belonging to the same club, group or political party? People from the same city, state or country? There is serious potential to create a precedent that bestows momentum to the issue, starting its movement down that slippery slope. If ArbCom is going to make a ruling on conflict of interest, it would be in ArbCom's best interests to establish as bright a line as possible in defining what does or does not constitute a conflict of interest. If such a line can't be defined, any decision ArbCom were to render on the matter would be at serious risk of being undermined by its own ambiguity. Precedents are even more subject to the doctrine of unintended consequences than anything else. From a User talk page (22Feb2012)
  • But I believe the process works - there are enough editors on all sides of issues and on no side of issues, to keep these articles balanced, accurate, and shaped in the way they want, without any chilling effect or hesitance to shoot down the respectfully worded campaign requests. Joe is doing what we told him is ok to do - my quarrel is not with how he has proceeded after he stopped editing directly - my concern, as I have said, is that we have here an imbalance, where by definition he is going to be viewed as more of an "expert" on the subject than the rest of us, but his expertise is of course biased, and I think the organic development and editing of articles by people with opinions of course, but not paychecks fueling them, is what makes Wikipedia great. From Talk:Gingrich Campaign, 2012, 22Feb2012
  • Well, as to the first, the idea that we should permit (or perhaps even encourage) paid agents and not ask them to self-identify is a position that very few if any other editors have advanced, and is certainly contrary to WP:NOPAY, a policy (although granted it only states that "it is advised" to provide this info). And I think there's a good reason that this is accepted by most Wikipedians. For instance, I as a volunteer would not wish to engage in a time-consuming back-and-forth with another editor without knowing that (say) that he actually agrees with me but is required by his employers to maintain the position that he is advocating, so that the entire engagement is a sham. Would you? ....., and I think that knowing that one is engaging with a paid agent is useful information, and useful information ought to be presented in several different places where a person might look for it, when appropriate and if not causing information overload. From WP:PAW mid January, 2012
  • Wow. Its rare I come across an editor who argues at me as forcefully and with as much fire and brimstone as I frequently do at others in AfD. Bravo for that (seriously)! I now fear I've waded into an area where I know less than ideally I should. So, let me say, my experience with probable paid editors is seeing them lurking around articles that few pay attention to. Such as BLPs I worked on at Wikipedia:Unreferenced BLP Rescue or helped out on at via Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron; they are all over the place and I informally keep tab on their edits via my watchlist and freely revert when necessary. They aren't trying to be bad, usually. They want their company or client's article to look decent and will indeed shade it some, so they DO MERIT watching. So I watch. See, e.g., Tire Kingdom (comment in its AfD: "This is our second largest company"), Chris Hicks (record executive), City Limits (New York magazine), Jennifer Nicole Lee, Sleepy's. Is my watching comprehensive? Probably not. That's why I could see a disclosed paid editor list as being a useful project group tool, just like New Page Patrol watches new articles or the Article Rescue Squadron patrols deletion processes. Both those groups/tools are also possibly subject to abuse (e.g., the NPP newbies drive me crazy when they try to speedy delete highly notable subjects) but that doesn't mean they shouldn't exist. So that's where I'm coming from. lifted from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Herostratus, Wikiproject;Paid Editing Watch, Editor Registry 12:26, 10 March 2012

Employer Satisfaction

Like any other job, a paid operatives continued employment is based on success. Patron satisfaction is the number one goal. A paid operative that is unable to sway article edits away from criticism of the candidate, that is unable to convince fellow editors to make unquestioned changes to the article, that is unable to prevent a duststorm of controversy over editing, that allows blemishes to remain visible within the article may not remain employed for the duration of the election. His paycheck and his capacity to pay his personal bills (Mortgage, multiple car payments, school loans, college funds, food, clothing, entertainment, etc.) depend on his ability to skirt neutrality, to conceal any bias, to appear impartial while favoring his employers views over all else.

Wikipedia articles

If the candidate is unhappy with the inclusion of what may, by some, be considered negative "press" in a Wikipedia article, the OP's position and title is in jeopardy. With molding the voting public as the main objective, no edit or entry by any other editor is insignificant or trivial. If it sheds a dim light on the candidate it must be extracted from the article. If not by the Operative then by a proxy. This fact alone is of major consequence when considering whether or not paid operatives should openly orchestrate Wikipedia articles and/or talk pages. They have a skewed reason to edit (or to have others edit at their behest). Their edits are for the good of the candidate and the Campaign. Always! Their livelihood depends on it. Wikipedia is the most visible and visited vehicle on the Internet. 7 Billion visitors a month. That, ladies and gentleman, is a HUGE audience. In the heat of a major political campaign, thousands of members of the Voting American Public come to Wikipedia for information. Wikipedia has a responsibility to serve the public, the patron, the reason the Encyclopedia exists. Defending the legitimacy of public reliability is important. A paid operative is not paid to make sure that Wikipedia rules, guidelines, positions or suggestions by Jimbo are adhered to. He is paid to edit the article to promote the candidate, enfluence the voting public, and get his employer elected to office.

Under the Radar

An important consideration of paid operatives is to remain concealed and hidden, outside the notice of Wikipedia's readers/visitors/researchers. Control and manipulation of article and talk page substance in order to enhance positives or conceal negatives is imperative for a successful paid operative career. "Their most important role is arguably the developement and production of Mass media" (see WP:Political consulting) such as TV, Direct Mail, Wikipedia and other much-visited Internet sites (facebook, Twitter, MySpace, etc.).

Get out the Vote

Getting the target voter to vote for the chosen candidate (and employer) is another important and primary paid political operatives duty. It is the basic reason for any campaign operative to be employed by a campaign. It's all about the vote. All the political campaign staff are dependant on the successful election of their candidate. Their jobs and future success depend on it. Envolvement in too many un-successful political campaigns will result in necessary career changes for those individuals. However, successful operatives that "get the job done' can often be earmarked for major positions within the new administration. With a myriad of positions to fill, the campaign staff is a logical and reasonable source of like-minded individuals who can function well within the new administration causing very little friction for the newly elected official.

Sources

[1]

Jimbo's support of a paid political operative's openness and modus operandi

  • == Thank you ==

Thank you for being open about your identity and treating the community with respect. Reviewing your edit history, I see that you have not made any edits to article space (only talk pages) for many months - this is a very good thing indeed. Please know that as long as you continue following these practices, I will support your participation and use it as a model for others.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

from the operative's talk page, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Jimbo recommends vigilance

" ... I think it is good to keep a close eye on [the operative] - the media will be watching his every edit..." Jimbo Wales

from Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • A discussion by Paot Ops...[[2]]

Publicity about operatives covertly working on Wikipedia political articles

The issue of covert political editing was aired in 2006 in an article covering some examples current at the time, and also one from a year earlier.

Q&A

  1. Question #1 -- If paid operatives disclose their vested interest in, say, their WP signature and also include a statement of self-disclosure with each edit request they post to (1) the Talk pages of articles about the people and/or organizations that pay them to promote their interests, and (2) the Talk pages of the editors they ask to act on their behalf, then their activity here does not contravene WP:COI. But as their paid work is to promote the interests of a politician or a party-political apparatus, doesn't their concern for promoting their paymasters' images and interests (and thus their own interests) ultimately and inevitably trump their concern for the interests of Wikipedia?
    Reply #1: Not necessarily. Their interests very often coincide with the interests of Wikipedia. Their edits improve the encyclopedia by removing information that is libellous, incorrect, uncited, misleading, given undue emphasis, unnecessarily negative, prejudicial, tasteless or otherwise unencyclopedic. Anyone who makes such edits is improving Wikipedia, regardless who their employer is. If a paid operative makes edits that don't conform to policy, then he will be reverted, especially in an election year when lots of others are watching.
    Reply #2: It is logical to assume that a paid operative's real life responsibilities (home mortgage, car payment, college funds, bills, etc.) are of more concern to him than the unbiased status of a Wikipedia article. He fulfills his RL commitments via his employer, not Wikipedia.
  1. Question #2 -- The issue is not just one individual, but paid political operatives in general. Most will work here unnamed, undisclosed and undercover. We only know one by name, and the name of his employer. That's because he operates here under his own name and also clearly discloses his job as communications director for a political campaign organization. For other paid political operatives, his transparent modus operandi is an exemplary guide to obeying the letter of the WP:COI guideline. Yet no others have emulated him. Why?
    Reply #1: Perhaps they've been watching and noticed how the self-identified operative has attracted attention here and in the media and decided that they just don't want the aggravation.

Conversations at Jimbo's talk page and at ANI

Archives

Elsewhere on WP

Pertinent guidelines

Request edit

The following Request edit box should accompany ALL edit requests by a Paid Operative as advised at WP:SCOIC which reads;
  • 3)....Create a new section by clicking the "+" or "new section" tab at the top of the page. Title it "Proposed change" or "Proposed addition." Type {{request edit}}.

{{Request edit}}

Astroturfing

A type of or part of a political campaign that is conducted via public relations, television, radio, the Internet, demonstrations, etc. that seek to use aspects within the popular culture to influence the voting public and thereby the voting outcome. Astroturf refers to a synthetic grass replacement for real grass popular in outdoor sporting venues in the 70s, 80s and 90s. Astroturfing is a strategy using a specific demographic or a diverse group of people to push a political agenda, sometimes without their knowledge. Astroturfers promote others to action by spreading disinformation and/or minimizing the dissemination of negative information either for or against a specific politician, political organization or legislation. Astroturfers most often act at the behest of an organization or individual with a stake in the successful outcome of a political campaign.

Crowdturfing

Available Sources for Editor Use

[3]

Further reading

References

  1. ^ Metz, Cade (2009-06-12). "Jimbo Wales: No one can make money from Wikipedia... ...except me. And maybe this spammer". The Register. Retrieved 2012-02-12.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Jimmy was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ "Wikipedia Objects to Editing for Political Incorrectness - Los Angeles Times". Articles.latimes.com. 2006-02-12. Retrieved 2012-03-14.
  4. ^ Anderson, Nate (2006-01-30). "Congressional staffers edit boss's bio on Wikipedia". Arstechnica.com. Retrieved 2012-03-14.
  5. ^ a b Evan Lehmann (January 27, 2006). "Rewriting history under the dome". Lowell Sun. Archived from the original on 2006-02-02. Retrieved 2012-03-14.
  6. ^ a b Rhys Blakely (February 9, 2006). "Washington's politicians edit Wikipedia". The Times. Archived from the original on 2011-06-11. Retrieved 2012-03-14.
  7. ^ a b "Gutknecht joins Wikipedia tweakers". Star Tribune. August 16, 2006. Archived from the original on 2006-08-21. Retrieved 2012-03-14.
  8. ^ "Burns' office may have tampered with Wikipedia entry - The Bozeman Daily Chronicle: News". The Bozeman Daily Chronicle. Retrieved 2012-03-14.
  9. ^ a b c "Wikipedia's Help From the Hill". Washingtonpost.com. 2006-02-09. Retrieved 2012-03-14.
  10. ^ a b Humphrey, Tom. "Entries on Wikipedia edited by Davis aide » Knoxville News Sentinel". Knoxnews.com. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |retrieved= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
  11. ^ Collins, Michael. "Lawmaker's office awaits panel's verdict on aide's act". Knoxnews.com. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |retrieved= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
  12. ^ "Did Mike Pence's Office Edit His Wikipedia Page To Make It More Flattering?". Huffingtonpost.com. Retrieved 2012-03-14.
  13. ^ "Wikipedia Now Blocking US Congress From Making Edits". DailyTech. Retrieved 2012-03-14.
  14. ^ "Wikipedia:Requests for comment/United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". En.wikipedia.org. Retrieved 2012-03-14.
  15. ^ a b "Should Microsoft Pay for Wikipedia Edits?". PCWorld. 2007-01-23. Retrieved 2012-02-13.
  16. ^ Cite error: The named reference kohsmediaweek was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  17. ^ a b c d e f g Borland, John (2005-11-17). "See Who's Editing Wikipedia - Diebold, the CIA, a Campaign". Wired.com. Retrieved 2012-02-13.
  18. ^ a b c Mikkelsen, Randall (2007-08-16). "CIA, FBI computers used for Wikipedia edits". Reuters. Retrieved 2012-02-12.
  19. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o "Wikipedia and the art of censorship - Life & Style". Belfasttelegraph.co.uk. 2007-08-18. Retrieved 2012-03-14.
  20. ^ "Did Vatican alter Wikipedia info on Adams? - Local & National, News". Belfasttelegraph.co.uk. Retrieved 2012-02-13.
  21. ^ a b c d e Fildes, Jonathan (2007-08-15). "Technology | Wikipedia 'shows CIA page edits'". BBC News. Retrieved 2012-02-13.
  22. ^ "CIA caught rewriting Wikipedia biographies | Mail Online". Dailymail.co.uk. 2007-08-15. Retrieved 2012-02-13.
  23. ^ a b c d e Bobbie Johnson, technology correspondent (2007-08-14). "Companies and party aides cast censorious eye over Wikipedia | Technology". The Guardian. Retrieved 2012-02-12. {{cite web}}: |author= has generic name (help)
  24. ^ a b c "Government computers linked to Wikipedia edits | CTV News". Ctv.ca. Retrieved 2012-02-13.
  25. ^ "Government buffing Prentice's Wikipedia entry - Technology & Science - CBC News". Cbc.ca. 2008-06-04. Retrieved 2012-02-13.
  26. ^ "Defence blocks staff's Wikipedia access - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)". Abc.net.au. 2007-08-24. Retrieved 2012-02-13.
  27. ^ August 23, 2007 11:30PM (2007-08-23). "PM's staff edit Wikipedia entries". Adelaide Now. Retrieved 2012-02-13.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  28. ^ "PM's Dept denies making Wikipedia changes - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)" (in Template:Zh icon). Abc.net.au. 2007-08-24. Retrieved 2012-02-13.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)
  29. ^ "PM 'not behind Wikipedia edits' - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)". Abc.net.au. 2007-08-24. Retrieved 2012-02-13.
  30. ^ "Government caught Wiki-watching - National". theage.com.au. 2007-08-23. Retrieved 2012-02-13.
  31. ^ "PM's staff sanitise Wikipedia - Technology". smh.com.au. Retrieved 2012-02-13.
  32. ^ "`Wikiscanner' reveals source of edits". Taipei Times. 2012-03-11. Retrieved 2012-03-18.
  33. ^ Heffernan, Virginia (2008-11-21). "WIKISCANNER - The Medium Blog - NYTimes.com". Themedium.blogs.nytimes.com. Retrieved 2012-03-18.
  34. ^ a b c d e f "Behind the e-curtain". The Boston Globe. August 26, 2007. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |retrieved= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
  35. ^ a b c "Wikipedia 'editors' have vested interests | The Columbus Dispatch". Dispatch.com. 2007-09-06. Retrieved 2012-02-12.
  36. ^ Books. "Wikipedia and the art of censorship - Lifestyle". Independent.ie. Retrieved 2012-03-23.
  37. ^ a b c "Big Name Firms Accused Of Wiki Cover-Up | Business | Sky News". News.sky.com. Retrieved 2012-02-13.
  38. ^ a b Hafner, Katie (2007-08-19). "Seeing Corporate Fingerprints in Wikipedia Edits". NYTimes.com. Retrieved 2012-02-12.
  39. ^ computerandvideogames.com Andy Robinson (2007-09-04). "Xbox News: SCEE caught editing Halo 3 wiki". ComputerAndVideoGames.com. Retrieved 2012-02-13.
  40. ^ computerandvideogames.com Stuart Bishop (2007-08-16). "News: EA caught fiddling Wikipedia". ComputerAndVideoGames.com. Retrieved 2012-02-13.
  41. ^ Biuso, Emily (2007-12-09). "Wikiscanning - New York Times". Nytimes.com. Retrieved 2012-02-12.
  42. ^ "Wikipedia is only as anonymous as your IP - O'Reilly Radar". Radar.oreilly.com. Retrieved 2012-02-13.
  43. ^ "The Wiki-Hacker Strikes Again". Forbes.com. 2008-07-19. Retrieved 2012-03-14.
  44. ^ "WikiWatcher.com". {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |retrieved= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
  45. ^ a b "Gingrich spokesman defends Wikipedia edits – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs". Politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com. 2012-02-06. Retrieved 2012-03-14.
  46. ^ a b c "Newt Gingrich communications director Joe DeSantis works Wikipedia". Politico.Com. Retrieved 2012-03-14.
  47. ^ a b "Joe DeSantis, Newt Gingrich's communications director, made over 60 changes to the GOP candidate's Wikipedia page". GlobalPost. 2012-02-06. Retrieved 2012-03-14.
  48. ^ a b c "Wikipedia founder attacks Bell Pottinger for 'ethical blindness' - UK Politics - UK". The Independent. 2011-12-08. Retrieved 2012-03-14.
  49. ^ a b c d Cite error: The named reference bbcbell was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  50. ^ a b "CorpComms - Features - 1972 Should Prs Edit Wikipedia Pages". Corpcommsmagazine.co.uk. Retrieved 2012-03-15.
  51. ^ a b c d e f g Bradshaw, Tim (2012-01-13). "Wikipedia in clash over editing rights". FT.com. Retrieved 2012-03-14.
  52. ^ a b Bradshaw, Tim (2011-12-07). "Wikipedia probes edits by Bell Pottinger". FT.com. Retrieved 2012-03-15.
  53. ^ a b "Call for transparency as agencies slam Bell Pottinger's Wikipedia use | PR & public relations news". PRWeek. 2011-12-15. Retrieved 2012-03-14.
  54. ^ a b c d e f "Danny Rogers: CIPR must set bar high on Wikipedia code &#124 (subscription required)". PRWeek. 2012-01-18. Retrieved 2012-03-15.
  55. ^ a b c d e f g "Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales and Chime's Lord Bell in editing row | PR & public relations news". PRWeek. 2012-01-17. Retrieved 2012-03-14.
  56. ^ a b c d e f g "Wikipedia - Wikipedia: friend or foe? (subscription required)". Prweek.com. 2012-02-02. Retrieved 2012-03-15.
  57. ^ Wikipedia. "MPs Wikipedia pages 'changed from inside Parliament'". Telegraph. Retrieved 2012-03-14.
  58. ^ a b c d "Wikipedia: 'Bob Crow, The Lord of the Rings and Notable DJs': TBIJ". Thebureauinvestigates.com. Retrieved 2012-03-14.
  59. ^ Eddie Wrenn (2012-03-09). "MPs and their staff make 10,000 changes to Wikipedia pages in bid to hide embarrassing information | Mail Online". Dailymail.co.uk. Retrieved 2012-03-15.
  60. ^ "Thousands of changes made to Wikipedia from within House of Commons: TBIJ". Thebureauinvestigates.com. Retrieved 2012-03-15.
  61. ^ "Leading News Resource of Pakistan". Daily Times. 2007-09-03. Retrieved 2012-03-14.
  62. ^ Christopher Williams (2008-04-08). "Phorm admits 'over zealous' editing of Wikipedia article". The Register. Retrieved 2012-02-12.
  63. ^ "The Mideast Editing Wars". Prospect.org. Retrieved 2012-03-14.
  64. ^ Rachel Shabi in Jerusalem and Jemima Kiss. "Wikipedia editing courses launched by Zionist groups | World news". The Guardian. Retrieved 2012-03-14.
  65. ^ Issacharoff, Avi (2008-04-02). "Palestinians prepare to battle 'Zionist editing' on Wikipedia - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News". Haaretz.com. Retrieved 2012-03-14.
  66. ^ "AFP: Wikipedia blocks Scientology from altering entries". Google.com. 2009-05-29. Retrieved 2012-03-14.
  67. ^ Wikipedia. "Church of Scientology members banned from editing Wikipedia". Telegraph. Retrieved 2012-03-14.
  68. ^ Cade Metz (May 29, 2009). "Wikipedia bans Church of Scientology". {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |retrieved= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
  69. ^ Metz, Cade (2009-05-29). "Wikipedia bans Church of Scientology". The Register. Retrieved 2012-02-12.
  70. ^ "Wikipedia blocks Scientology from altering entries - Economic Times". Articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com. 2009-05-30. Retrieved 2012-03-14.
  71. ^ "Staffs for US presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama caught making questionable edits to Wikipedia". Mister-Info.com. Retrieved 2012-03-14.
  72. ^ Noam Cohen (September 1, 2008). "Editing - and re-editing - Sarah Palin's Wikipedia Entry". {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |retrieved= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
  73. ^ Robert Booth. "Titian, the Tory and Wikipedia: a modern morality tale | Politics". The Guardian. Retrieved 2012-02-13.
  74. ^ Lanxon, Nate (2009-02-12). "Titiangate: Conservative party caught vandalising Wikipedia | CNET UK". Crave.cnet.co.uk. Retrieved 2012-02-13.
  75. ^ a b c "'Fixer' cleans Wikipedia entries for senior business figures | PR & public relations news". PRWeek. 2011-06-09. Retrieved 2012-03-15.
  76. ^ "Rep. David Rivera's war with Wikipedia - Marin Cogan". Politico.Com. Retrieved 2012-02-13.
  77. ^ Harrison, Clare (2012-02-24). "Time for Wiki Editing". CorpComms: The Magazine for the Corporate Communicator. London, UK: Hardy Media. Retrieved 2012-03-01.
  78. ^ "Communicate Magazine". Communicate Magazine. 2012-01-09. Retrieved 2012-03-14.
  79. ^ a b "CorpComms - News - 2047 Cipr To Work With Wikipedia". Corpcommsmagazine.co.uk. Retrieved 2012-03-14.
  80. ^ "Jane Wilson: Wikipedia: the real public relations opportunity". Huffingtonpost.co.uk. 2012-02-06. Retrieved 2012-03-14.
  81. ^ CIPR 12:21PM, 6th January 2012 2 comments (2012-01-06). "CIPR to work with Wikipedia on clear guidance for PR profession". Cipr.co.uk. Retrieved 2012-03-14.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  82. ^ "Portland welcomes CIPR's plans to work with Wikipedia on industry guidelines | PR & public relations news". PRWeek. 2012-01-12. Retrieved 2012-03-14.
  83. ^ "Thursday, February 2, 2012". Techdirt. 2012-02-02. Retrieved 2012-03-14.
  84. ^ a b Česky (2012-02-28). "Wikipedia:GLAM - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". En.wikipedia.org. Retrieved 2012-03-14.
  85. ^ Solon, Olivia (2011-01-11). "A Decade Of Wikipedia, The Poster Child For Collaboration | Epicenter". Wired.com. Retrieved 2012-03-14.
  86. ^ Andrew Orlowski (February 16, 2012). "British Library seeks taxpayer-funded Wikipedia-fiddler". {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |retrieved= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
  87. ^ a b Geere, Duncan (2012-02-23). "The British Library is looking for a Wikipedian-in-residence (Wired UK)". Wired.co.uk. Retrieved 2012-03-14.
  88. ^ Noam Cohen (June 4, 2010). "Venerable British Museum Enlists in the Wikipedia Revolution". New York Times. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |retrieved= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
  89. ^ Lipowicz, Alice (2011-07-13). "NARA enlists Wikipedia volunteers to help put historic documents online - Government Computer News". Gcn.com. Retrieved 2012-03-14.
  90. ^ "National Archives hires Wikipedian in residence - Baltimore Sun". Articles.baltimoresun.com. 2011-07-13. Retrieved 2012-03-14.
  91. ^ "National Archives hires 'Wikipedian in Residence'". Boston.com. 2011-06-01. Retrieved 2012-03-14.
  92. ^ "Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia Go To College". Fast Company. 2011-06-20. Retrieved 2012-03-14.
  93. ^ Pulley, John (2011-11-07). "National Archives to launch Citizen Archivist Dashboard". Nextgov. Retrieved 2012-03-14.
  94. ^ InsideIndianaBusiness.com Report. "Museum Hires First Wikipedian-in-Residence - Newsroom - Inside INdiana Business with Gerry Dick". Insideindianabusiness.com. Retrieved 2012-03-14. {{cite web}}: |author= has generic name (help)
  95. ^ "IUPUI student is serving as "Wikipedian in Residence" at The Children's Museum of Indianapolis". Iupui.edu. Retrieved 2012-03-14.
  96. ^ Jennifer Messmer (2011-04-01). "What's that Wikipedian-in-Residence been up to? - Children's Museum Marketing | The Children's Museum of Indianapolis". Blog.childrensmuseum.org. Retrieved 2012-03-14.
  97. ^ Steven Morris. "Wikipedia puts Monmouth on frontier of a new kind of local history | UK news | guardian.co.uk". Guardian. Retrieved 2012-03-14.

General


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Paid_operatives&oldid=483811494"