Wiki-PR Wikipedia editing scandal: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Not public relations, neither in the traditional sense, nor as described on the website of the firm.
kohs not a reliable source, IBT summary was very biased
Line 25: Line 25:
}}
}}


'''Wiki-PR''' is a [[consulting firm]] that formerly marketed its ability to edit [[Wikipedia]]<ref name="vice_is">{{cite web|title=Is Wikipedia for Sale? |url=http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/is-wikipedia-for-sale|last=Robbins|first=Martin|date=2013-10-20|accessdate=2013-10-20|work=motherboard.vice.com|quote=We'll both directly edit your page using our network of established Wikipedia editors and admins}}</ref> and currently markets its ability to consult clients on how to interact with the Wikipedia community.<ref name= "Wiki-PR">{{cite web| url= http://wiki-pr.com/| title= Wiki-PR: The Wikipedia Consultants| work= Wiki-PR.com| accessdate= 2013-12-27|quote=We consult thousands of people and companies on how to interact with the Wikipedia community}}</ref> The company gained media attention in 2013 after reports suggested that as many as 300 suspected and six directly confirmed Wikipedia accounts were blocked for sockpuppetry in connection with the company.<ref name="vice_is"/> A later media report conducted by the [[International Business Times]] suggested that a competitor, LegalMorning, was responsible for the many of the blocked accounts thought initially to be linked to Wiki-PR.<ref name="International Business">{{cite web|title=Wikipedia Sends Paid Editors Cease-And-Desist: Sockpuppet Account Morning277, Not Wiki-PR |url=http://www.ibtimes.com/wikipedia-sends-paid-editors-cease-desist-sockpuppet-account-morning277-not-wiki-pr-1482738
'''Wiki-PR''' is a [[consulting firm]] that formerly marketed its ability to edit [[Wikipedia]]<ref name="vice_is">{{cite web|title=Is Wikipedia for Sale? |url=http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/is-wikipedia-for-sale|last=Robbins|first=Martin|date=2013-10-20|accessdate=2013-10-20|work=motherboard.vice.com|quote=We'll both directly edit your page using our network of established Wikipedia editors and admins}}</ref>. It was then banned, including all of its employees, contractors, and owners, by the Wikipedia community for unethical editing. Despite the ban, the firm currently markets its ability to consult clients on how to interact with the Wikipedia community.<ref name= "Wiki-PR">{{cite web| url= http://wiki-pr.com/| title= Wiki-PR: The Wikipedia Consultants| work= Wiki-PR.com| accessdate= 2013-12-27|quote=We consult thousands of people and companies on how to interact with the Wikipedia community}}</ref> The company gained media attention in 2013 after reports suggested that as many as 300 suspected and six directly confirmed Wikipedia accounts were blocked for sockpuppetry in connection with the company.<ref name="vice_is"/>
|last=Halleck|first=Thomas|date=2013-11-22|accessdate=2013-12-26|work=International Business Times}}</ref>


== Company ==
== Company ==
Line 36: Line 35:
An investigation of sockpuppet accounts on Wikipedia, beginning in 2012, implicated hundreds of accounts, with six accounts being traced back to Wiki-PR after four customers of Wiki-PR spoke anonymously to Daily Dot journalist Simon Owens, and two, [[Priceline]] and Emad Rahim, spoke to Vice journalist Martin Robbins.<ref name=Robbins>{{cite news|last=Robbins|first=Martin|title=Is the PR Industry Buying Influence Over Wikipedia?|url=http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/is-the-pr-industry-buying-influence-over-wikipedia|accessdate=2013-10-19 |newspaper=VICE|date=2013-10-19}}</ref><ref name=Owens>{{cite news|last=Owens|first=Simon|title=The battle to destroy Wikipedia's biggest sockpuppet army |url=http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/wikipedia-sockpuppet-investigation-largest-network-history-wiki-pr/ |accessdate=2013-10-20 |newspaper=[[The Daily Dot]] |date=2013-10-08}}</ref> 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 /><ref>{{cite news|url=http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/10/21/wikipedia-bans-250-users-for-posting-paid-promotional-entries/|title=Wikipedia Bans 250 Users for Posting Paid, Promotional Entries|last=Stampler|first=Laura|work=[[Time (magazine)|TIME]]|date=2013-10-21|accessdate=2013-11-19}}</ref>
An investigation of sockpuppet accounts on Wikipedia, beginning in 2012, implicated hundreds of accounts, with six accounts being traced back to Wiki-PR after four customers of Wiki-PR spoke anonymously to Daily Dot journalist Simon Owens, and two, [[Priceline]] and Emad Rahim, spoke to Vice journalist Martin Robbins.<ref name=Robbins>{{cite news|last=Robbins|first=Martin|title=Is the PR Industry Buying Influence Over Wikipedia?|url=http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/is-the-pr-industry-buying-influence-over-wikipedia|accessdate=2013-10-19 |newspaper=VICE|date=2013-10-19}}</ref><ref name=Owens>{{cite news|last=Owens|first=Simon|title=The battle to destroy Wikipedia's biggest sockpuppet army |url=http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/wikipedia-sockpuppet-investigation-largest-network-history-wiki-pr/ |accessdate=2013-10-20 |newspaper=[[The Daily Dot]] |date=2013-10-08}}</ref> 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 /><ref>{{cite news|url=http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/10/21/wikipedia-bans-250-users-for-posting-paid-promotional-entries/|title=Wikipedia Bans 250 Users for Posting Paid, Promotional Entries|last=Stampler|first=Laura|work=[[Time (magazine)|TIME]]|date=2013-10-21|accessdate=2013-11-19}}</ref>
{{external media | width = 210px | align = right | audio1 = [http://www.cbc.ca/day6/blog/2013/10/24/public-relations-and-suspicious-pages-on-wikipedia/ Public Relations and suspicious pages on Wikipedia], [[CBC Radio]], interview with Simon Owens, October 24, 2013 }}
{{external media | width = 210px | align = right | audio1 = [http://www.cbc.ca/day6/blog/2013/10/24/public-relations-and-suspicious-pages-on-wikipedia/ Public Relations and suspicious pages on Wikipedia], [[CBC Radio]], interview with Simon Owens, October 24, 2013 }}

A later investigation by the International Business Times found that Morning277, a prolific account thought to have been run by Wiki-PR, may not have been run by Wiki-PR but by a competitor from LegalMorning.com<ref name="International Business"/> In an interview with the IBT, Mike Wood, proprietor of LegalMorning.com, claimed that “Morning277 is my account, but I am not Wiki-PR nor do I have a relation with them…It was my original account on Wikipedia. The majority of the edits completed with this account were for free, non-paid edits. Very few edits were actually done for pay under this account.”<ref name="International Business"/>

The International Business Times stated that "the conclusions drawn by many media outlets (and Wikipedia’s investigators) are either oversimplified or dead wrong."<ref name="International Business"/>


In ''The Wall Street Journal'', French stated that Wiki-PR is a research and writing firm, counseling clients on "how to adhere to Wikipedia's rules." French stated that its paid work is part of the "fabric" of Wikipedia, complementing the work of unpaid volunteers. French acknowledged that Wiki-PR had sometimes made "bad calls" on notability of articles. However, French stated that Wiki-PR's editors are "real people and not sockpuppets."<ref name=wsj>{{cite web|last=Fowler|first=Geoffrey|title=Wikipedia Probes Suspicious Promotional Articles|url=http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2013/10/21/wikipedia-probes-suspicious-promotional-articles/|work=[[The Wall Street Journal]]|accessdate=2013-11-17|date=2013-10-21}}</ref>
In ''The Wall Street Journal'', French stated that Wiki-PR is a research and writing firm, counseling clients on "how to adhere to Wikipedia's rules." French stated that its paid work is part of the "fabric" of Wikipedia, complementing the work of unpaid volunteers. French acknowledged that Wiki-PR had sometimes made "bad calls" on notability of articles. However, French stated that Wiki-PR's editors are "real people and not sockpuppets."<ref name=wsj>{{cite web|last=Fowler|first=Geoffrey|title=Wikipedia Probes Suspicious Promotional Articles|url=http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2013/10/21/wikipedia-probes-suspicious-promotional-articles/|work=[[The Wall Street Journal]]|accessdate=2013-11-17|date=2013-10-21}}</ref>
Line 45: Line 40:
== Wikipedia and Wikimedia reaction ==
== Wikipedia and Wikimedia reaction ==


As of October 25, 2013, Wiki-PR, including all of its employees, contractors, and owners, were {{srlink|Wikipedia:Banning policy|community banned}} from Wikipedia. This ban will last indefinitely, but may be appealed if they change their practices to meet certain standards of transparency and alignment with Wikipedia norms.<ref name=ban>{{cite web|title=Wikipedia:List of banned users|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:List_of_banned_users&oldid=578665728#W|accessdate=2013-10-25}}</ref> [[Sue Gardner]], executive director of the [[Wikimedia Foundation]], stated that the Foundation was "exploring our options".<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/wikipedia-we-have-blocked-250-sock-puppets-for-biased-editing-of-our-pages-8895112.html|title=Wikipedia: We have blocked 250 'sock puppets' for biased editing of our pages|last=Burrell|first=Ian|work=[[The Independent]]|date=2013-10-21|accessdate=2013-11-19}}</ref> On November 19, 2013, Wikimedia's law firm, [[Cooley LLP]], e-mailed<ref> {{cite web |url=https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/6/6b/2013-11-19_C%26D_letter_to_WikiPR_from_Cooley.pdf |title=C&D letter to WikiPR from Cooley |quote=Via Email [...]}}</ref> a [[Cease and desist|cease-and-desist]] letter to Wiki-PR.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2013/11/19/wikimedia-steps-up-sockpuppet-fight/|title=Wikimedia Steps Up "Sockpuppet" Fight|last=Fowler|first=Geoffrey|work=[[The Wall Street Journal]]|date=2013-11-19|accessdate=2013-11-19}}</ref> French told ''[[The Guardian]]'' that Wiki-PR "is working with the Wikimedia Foundation and its counsel to sort this out," and hoped to have further information in a week's time.<ref name="The Guardian-21-Nov-13">{{cite news|last=Arthur|first=Charles|title=Wikipedia sends cease-and-desist letter to PR firm offering paid edits to site|url=http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/nov/21/wikipedia-cease-and-desist-pr-firm-offering-paid-edits|accessdate=22 November 2013|newspaper=The Guardian|date=21 November 2013}}</ref> One week after Cooley's cease-and-desist correspondence was issued, an investigative writer at [[Examiner.com]] provided evidence that Cooley employees had likely been editing their own Wikipedia article, without disclosing their conflict of interest.<ref>''Wikimedia law firm fiddles Wikipedia and Jimmy Wales hides'', Gregory Kohs, 25 November 2013.</ref><!--Link to article (spam blacklisted): www.examiner.com/article/wikimedia-law-firm-fiddles-wikipedia-and-jimmy-wales-hides ...Someone may whitelist this particular link, if it is deemed relevant to the Wikipedia article. -->
As of October 25, 2013, Wiki-PR, including all of its employees, contractors, and owners, were {{srlink|Wikipedia:Banning policy|community banned}} from Wikipedia. This ban will last indefinitely, but may be appealed if they change their practices to meet certain standards of transparency and alignment with Wikipedia norms.<ref name=ban>{{cite web|title=Wikipedia:List of banned users|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:List_of_banned_users&oldid=578665728#W|accessdate=2013-10-25}}</ref> [[Sue Gardner]], executive director of the [[Wikimedia Foundation]], stated that the Foundation was "exploring our options".<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/wikipedia-we-have-blocked-250-sock-puppets-for-biased-editing-of-our-pages-8895112.html|title=Wikipedia: We have blocked 250 'sock puppets' for biased editing of our pages|last=Burrell|first=Ian|work=[[The Independent]]|date=2013-10-21|accessdate=2013-11-19}}</ref> On November 19, 2013, Wikimedia's law firm, [[Cooley LLP]], e-mailed<ref> {{cite web |url=https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/6/6b/2013-11-19_C%26D_letter_to_WikiPR_from_Cooley.pdf |title=C&D letter to WikiPR from Cooley |quote=Via Email [...]}}</ref> a [[Cease and desist|cease-and-desist]] letter to Wiki-PR.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2013/11/19/wikimedia-steps-up-sockpuppet-fight/|title=Wikimedia Steps Up "Sockpuppet" Fight|last=Fowler|first=Geoffrey|work=[[The Wall Street Journal]]|date=2013-11-19|accessdate=2013-11-19}}</ref> French told ''[[The Guardian]]'' that Wiki-PR "is working with the Wikimedia Foundation and its counsel to sort this out," and hoped to have further information in a week's time.<ref name="The Guardian-21-Nov-13">{{cite news|last=Arthur|first=Charles|title=Wikipedia sends cease-and-desist letter to PR firm offering paid edits to site|url=http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/nov/21/wikipedia-cease-and-desist-pr-firm-offering-paid-edits|accessdate=22 November 2013|newspaper=The Guardian|date=21 November 2013}}</ref>


== References ==
== References ==

Revision as of 23:38, 8 January 2014

Wiki-PR
IndustryPublic relations
Founded2010[1]
Founder
Headquarters
Austin, Texas
,
U.S.
Key people
WebsiteWiki-PR.com

Wiki-PR is a consulting firm that formerly marketed its ability to edit Wikipedia[4]. It was then banned, including all of its employees, contractors, and owners, by the Wikipedia community for unethical editing. Despite the ban, the firm currently markets its ability to consult clients on how to interact with the Wikipedia community.[5] The company gained media attention in 2013 after reports suggested that as many as 300 suspected and six directly confirmed Wikipedia accounts were blocked for sockpuppetry in connection with the company.[4]

Company

Wiki-PR was created in 2010 by Darius Fisher, its current COO (chief operating officer), and Jordan French, its current CEO (chief executive officer).[3] Confirmed clients include Priceline and Emad Rahim, and suspected clients include Viacom among many others.[4] The firm claimed to have administrator access[4] enabling it to manage the Wikipedia presence of more than 12,000 clients.[6] Wiki-PR has been reported to use "aggressive email marketing" to acquire new customers.[7]

Investigation and company reaction

An investigation of sockpuppet accounts on Wikipedia, beginning in 2012, implicated hundreds of accounts, with six accounts being traced back to Wiki-PR after four customers of Wiki-PR spoke anonymously to Daily Dot journalist Simon Owens, and two, Priceline and Emad Rahim, spoke to Vice journalist Martin Robbins.[8][7] 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.[7][9]

External audio
audio icon Public Relations and suspicious pages on Wikipedia, CBC Radio, interview with Simon Owens, October 24, 2013

In The Wall Street Journal, French stated that Wiki-PR is a research and writing firm, counseling clients on "how to adhere to Wikipedia's rules." French stated that its paid work is part of the "fabric" of Wikipedia, complementing the work of unpaid volunteers. French acknowledged that Wiki-PR had sometimes made "bad calls" on notability of articles. However, French stated that Wiki-PR's editors are "real people and not sockpuppets."[10]

Wikipedia and Wikimedia reaction

As of October 25, 2013, Wiki-PR, including all of its employees, contractors, and owners, were community banned from Wikipedia. This ban will last indefinitely, but may be appealed if they change their practices to meet certain standards of transparency and alignment with Wikipedia norms.[11] Sue Gardner, executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation, stated that the Foundation was "exploring our options".[12] On November 19, 2013, Wikimedia's law firm, Cooley LLP, e-mailed[13] a cease-and-desist letter to Wiki-PR.[14] French told The Guardian that Wiki-PR "is working with the Wikimedia Foundation and its counsel to sort this out," and hoped to have further information in a week's time.[15]

References

  1. ^ "Wiki-PR: Wikipedia Writers For Hire". Wiki-PR.com. Retrieved 2013-10-22.
  2. ^ "Wikipedia probe into paid-for 'sockpuppet' entries". BBC News. 2013-10-21. Retrieved 2013-10-22.
  3. ^ a b c d e "Leadership". Wiki-PR.com. Retrieved 2013-10-20.
  4. ^ a b c d Robbins, Martin (2013-10-20). "Is Wikipedia for Sale?". motherboard.vice.com. Retrieved 2013-10-20. We'll both directly edit your page using our network of established Wikipedia editors and admins
  5. ^ "Wiki-PR: The Wikipedia Consultants". Wiki-PR.com. Retrieved 2013-12-27. We consult thousands of people and companies on how to interact with the Wikipedia community
  6. ^ "Wiki-PR homepage". Wiki-PR. Retrieved 2013-10-19.
  7. ^ a b c Owens, Simon (2013-10-08). "The battle to destroy Wikipedia's biggest sockpuppet army". The Daily Dot. Retrieved 2013-10-20.
  8. ^ Robbins, Martin (2013-10-19). "Is the PR Industry Buying Influence Over Wikipedia?". VICE. Retrieved 2013-10-19.
  9. ^ Stampler, Laura (2013-10-21). "Wikipedia Bans 250 Users for Posting Paid, Promotional Entries". TIME. Retrieved 2013-11-19.
  10. ^ Fowler, Geoffrey (2013-10-21). "Wikipedia Probes Suspicious Promotional Articles". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2013-11-17.
  11. ^ "Wikipedia:List of banned users". Retrieved 2013-10-25.
  12. ^ Burrell, Ian (2013-10-21). "Wikipedia: We have blocked 250 'sock puppets' for biased editing of our pages". The Independent. Retrieved 2013-11-19.
  13. ^ "C&D letter to WikiPR from Cooley" (PDF). Via Email [...]
  14. ^ Fowler, Geoffrey (2013-11-19). "Wikimedia Steps Up "Sockpuppet" Fight". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2013-11-19.
  15. ^ Arthur, Charles (21 November 2013). "Wikipedia sends cease-and-desist letter to PR firm offering paid edits to site". The Guardian. Retrieved 22 November 2013.

External links

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wiki-PR_Wikipedia_editing_scandal&oldid=589845510"