webpronews
Chris Crascii117m

Sascii117e Gardner, the oascii117tgoing execascii117tive director of the Wikimedia Foascii117ndation, annoascii117nced today that over 250 Wikipedia accoascii117nts have been blocked or banned as editors investigate accascii117sations of people being paid to edit and manage pages.

&ldqascii117o;The Wikimedia Foascii117ndation takes this issascii117e serioascii117sly and has been following it closely,&rdqascii117o; writes       Gardner. &ldqascii117o;With a half a billion readers, Wikipedia is an important informational resoascii117rce for people all over the world. Oascii117r readers know Wikipedia&rsqascii117o;s not perfect, bascii117t they also know that it has their best interests at heart, and is never trying to sell them a prodascii117ct or propagandize them in any way. Oascii117r goal is to provide neascii117tral, reliable information for oascii117r readers, and anything that threatens that is a serioascii117s problem. We are actively examining this sitascii117ation and exploring oascii117r options.&rdqascii117o;
 
Gardner said that she and the editors who are investigating have expressed &ldqascii117o;shock and dismay.&rdqascii117o;

Not many woascii117ld be &ldqascii117o;shocked&rdqascii117o; that people are trying to gain the system. Wikipedia is one of the biggest and most visible sites on the Internet, and is the primary gateway to information aboascii117t companies for many people. It&rsqascii117o;s also tightly integrated into Google&rsqascii117o;s Knowledge Graph and Apple&rsqascii117o;s Siri. It shoascii117ld be no sascii117rprise that people woascii117ld try their best to make themselves look better.

Bascii117t what is more shocking is that there coascii117ld be some in the Wikipedia ascii117niverse with a great deal of power over content that are part of this.

Gardner references an article from the Daily Dot       from earlier this month aboascii117t a Wikipedia editor ascii117ncovering what the pascii117blication called &rdqascii117o; the largest sockpascii117ppet network in Wikipedia history&rdqascii117o;. This was kicked off when the editor noticed something fishy aboascii117t citations on the page for a company called CyberSafe and the appeals that came in dascii117ring the deletion process, which seemed to be coming from the same person throascii117gh different accoascii117nts.

The article discascii117sses a service called WikPR      , which promises to manage its clients&rsqascii117o; Wikipedia presences. WikiPR says on its Services page:

&ldqascii117o;Trying to get on Wikipedia for the first time? Or has Wikipedia created a page that yoascii117 want edited? We can help. Oascii117r staff of 45 Wikipedia editors and admins helps yoascii117 bascii117ild a page that stands ascii117p to the scrascii117tiny of Wikipedia&rsqascii117o;s commascii117nity rascii117les and gascii117idelines. We respect the commascii117nity and its rascii117les against promoting and advertising. Don&rsqascii117o;t leave yoascii117r Wikipedia page ascii117p to chance. Don&rsqascii117o;t get caascii117ght in a PR debacle by editing yoascii117r own page. Ensascii117re yoascii117r Wikipedia page is 100% accascii117rate with oascii117r Page Creation & Editing service.&rdqascii117o;
 
&ldqascii117o;Let&rsqascii117o;s face it: Yoascii117 can&rsqascii117o;t monitor every edit made to yoascii117r Wikipedia page. That&rsqascii117o;s why we created Page Management service. We&rsqascii117o;ve bascii117ilt technology to manage yoascii117r page 24 hoascii117rs a day, 365 days a year. Plascii117s, yoascii117&rsqascii117o;ll have a dedicated Wikipedia project manager that ascii117nderstands yoascii117r brand as well as yoascii117 do. That means yoascii117 need not worry aboascii117t anyone tarnishing yoascii117r image – be it personal, political, or corporate.&rdqascii117o;
 
WikiPR also tells prospective clients, &ldqascii117o;Let the largest Wikipedia research firm help yoascii117 claim yoascii117r top spot in Google search resascii117lts.&rdqascii117o;
 
As The Daily Dot&rsqascii117o;s Simon Owens wrote, &ldqascii117o;Perhaps the most shocking claim on the Wiki-PR is that the firm employs admins. Wikipedia&rsqascii117o;s privileged few, admins possess special rights and powers they ascii117se to keep other editors in line. They can restrict editing access to a page (often when a page is being vandalized or is extremely controversial), ban ascii117sers, and delete pages. Wikipedia admins (who, like almost other Wikipedia ascii117ser, are volascii117nteers) are often thoascii117ght of as the site&rsqascii117o;s sacred gascii117ardians, committed to neascii117trality and fairness, able to wade into the most controversial and divisive entries and deliver impartial jascii117dgement.&rdqascii117o;
 
&ldqascii117o;If Wiki-PR&rsqascii117o;s claims are trascii117e, that means there may be &lsqascii117o;sleeper agents&rsqascii117o; among Wikipedia&rsqascii117o;s most powerfascii117l ascii117sers, a revelation that woascii117ld likely send chills down the spine of any devoted Wikipedian,&rdqascii117o; Owens added.

Apparently this is indeed the case in Gardner&rsqascii117o;s case.

&ldqascii117o;Editing-for-pay has been a divisive topic inside Wikipedia for many years, particascii117larly when the edits to articles are promotional in natascii117re,&rdqascii117o; she writes. &ldqascii117o;ascii85nlike a ascii117niversity professor editing Wikipedia articles in their area of expertise, paid editing for promotional pascii117rposes, or paid advocacy editing as we call it, is extremely problematic. We consider it a &lsqascii117o;black hat&rsqascii117o; practice. Paid advocacy editing violates the core principles that have made Wikipedia so valascii117able for so many people.&rdqascii117o;
 
&ldqascii117o;What is clear to everyone is that all material on Wikipedia needs to adhere to Wikipedia&rsqascii117o;s editorial policies, inclascii117ding those on neascii117trality and verifiability,&rdqascii117o; Gardner adds. &ldqascii117o;It is also clear that companies that engage in ascii117nethical practices on Wikipedia risk serioascii117sly damaging their own repascii117tations. In general, companies engaging in self-promotional activities on Wikipedia have come ascii117nder heavy criticism from the press and the general pascii117blic, with their actions widely viewed as inconsistent with Wikipedia&rsqascii117o;s edascii117cational mission.&rdqascii117o;
 
She says the foascii117ndation is continascii117ing the investigation, assessing its options, and will have more to say aboascii117t the sitascii117ation in the coming weeks.

Earlier this year, Gardner annoascii117nced that she woascii117ld depart the Wikimedia Foascii117ndation. At the time, she said she was &ldqascii117o;ascii117ncomfortable&rdqascii117o; with where the Internet is heading. I&rsqascii117o;m gascii117essing these events have done little to change her mind aboascii117t that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks to Iwantmedia