Talk:Wiki-PR Wikipedia editing scandal/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Not too sure about these recent additions

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

“ We’ve been painted like we’re some kind of evil entity out there scrubbing truths from Wikipedia that are bad about people and companies. What are we actually doing? We’re starting with legally actionable libel. People call us. They’re upset. They’re crying. They're pissed. They typically have a lot of money. They are one hair trigger away from suing the Wikimedia Foundation and/or trying to subpoena to find out who the editors are who smeared them, whether it is an anonymous IP [address], which is almost always the case, or an actual editor. ”

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

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

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

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

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

I think it would be better to stick to coverage in reliable sources. One of which, by Thomas Halleck in the International Business Times, quite clearly pointed out that Morning277 was claimed by LegalMorning.com's Mike Wood, who asserts he has nothing to do with Wiki-PR. How do you justify deleting that? Andreas JN466 10:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Just for the record, I believe Halleck's article has been deleted at least three times from this article to date. I'll look for the diffs later, and will keep a running total here if need be. Andreas JN466 11:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Here are the promised diffs: [1] [2] [3] Three deletions of a reliable source pointing out that the on-wiki investigation apparently conflated two entirely unrelated paid editing services, LegalMorning.com and Wiki-PR. Andreas JN466 11:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Everybody, including Morning277, agrees that he was a paid editor inserting ads into Wikipedia. He was properly banned. Everybody, including Wiki-PR, agrees that they were using hundreds of paid editors to edit Wikipedia articles for the benefit of their clients. Now Morning277 says something like "but I didn't work for Wiki-PR." So how does this claim affect anything? Pure spin? An attempt to confuse the issue? Perhaps a footnote to a fine point? Best to leave it for an unbiased editor to decide whether it should go in the article. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure he is a paid editor, plying his trade as we speak no doubt. The point is that this reliable source comments on this specific investigation, and casts doubt on what this article asserts: that all the identified accounts were Wiki-PR accounts. Which happens to be what French is saying. There is such a thing as right to reply, and if you reflect sources neutrally, then you'll include those that put his side of the story. Again, I'll give this a little longer and then take it further. Cheers, Andreas JN466 20:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

You're not even pretending to be unbiased here and should stop editing this article. You say one paid editor says he wasn't paid by Wiki-PR. So what? Wiki-PR admits to paying hundreds of editors in thousands of articles. There's simply no argument about this, so bringing it up time and again makes no sense except to try to confuse the issue. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, you have no idea of what my views on paid editing are. Andreas JN466 21:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

For your and others' reference, I once outlined my views on paid editing, such as they are, here. They are essentially unchanged. I am currently actively involved in an editor review for an admin suspected of paid editing, here. And I am on the record as being highly critical of User:Bjoertvedt, who is a vice-chairman of Wikimedia Norway as well as the vice-president of Telenor, yet has no compunction about editing the articles on his own company and its competitors both here and in the Norwegian Wikipedia. Andreas JN466 22:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Just leave it alone - you've had your say, and I think you need to know when the consensus is against your beating a dead horse. It is just not important and you continue to try to confuse the matter. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me consensus just decided that the IB Times article, which you twice deleted wholesale, should be mentioned in this article. ;) Andreas JN466 22:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Business Insider interview

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

Old non-news. Quit pitching your BS. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• I agree that the essential points should be included. However, they both need to be explicitly framed as French's opinions and not facts (since the interview portion of the BI piece effectively acts as a primary source for French's opinions) and in due weight. I'd say a couple sentences paraphrasing his thoughts would be worthwhile since this is the only lengthy public interview he's given (but it's also one of more than 500 RS'es talking about Wiki-PR, and not a particularly high quality outlet.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
• I agree with Jayen, the interview needs to be included and given equal weight since it gives Wiki-PR's side of the story, which our neutrality policy mandates. Cla68 (talk) 00:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you may need to go reread NPOV. It in no way requires that an interview carried in one source be given equal weight to the other 499 sources on a topic. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

No straw men please. The item is singularly important because it gives Wiki-PR's side. It's the information that is given equal weight, especially when there are two sides to a dispute, as there is here. Cla68 (talk) 00:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Please go reread NPOV. I agree with you the article deserves some coverage as it does offer some unique information, but NPOV does not in any way require that we give two sides to a dispute equal validity. It requires that we represent them as they are represented in reliable sources. "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Kevin's reading is correct. One may argue that this source should be given a little more weight than 499 other brief reports that are essentially copied from each other and involved no independent research, but basically prevalence determines weight. Let's rather focus on what we agree on: we should have more of it than we have right now, which is nothing. Andreas JN466 01:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The policy states, "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." This dispute is between two sides: (1) the WMF and (2) Wiki-PR. Wouldn't either side's opinion by equally significant thus, to the issue in question? If only one publisher has actually interviewed the Wiki-PR boss, then in order to present both sides equally in the article, per the policy, that one source is given a little more weight. That's how it was when I was writing all of those WWII articles. If 10 sources gave the US side and only one source gave the Japanese sides, which was often the case, then that one source got used a lot more often in order to ensure that both sides were represented equally in the article. I was never challenged on that in all the 20+ articles I submitted for FA. Why is this article different? Cla68 (talk) 01:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I think we are essentially in agreement. It should be given more weight than one of the cookiecutter sources, but it shouldn't be half the article. IMO. We need to pick out what the essential points are of what he is saying, and summarise those. Andreas JN466 01:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• The IB Times piece may not necessarily represent Wiki-PR's viewpoint. It says "IBTimes interviewed Jordan French, CEO of Wiki-PR, the firm recently issued a cease-and-desist by lawyers from the Wikimedia Foundation, earlier this month for a story on Wikipedia and paid editing. He didn't respond to a request for comment for this story." The WSJ piece says: "Asked if the editor 'Morning277' had worked for Wiki-PR, French declined to comment."

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

It's the other way round. LegalMorning is Morning277 is Mike Wood, and says he's unrelated to Wiki-PR. Jordan French is actually the Wiki-PR CEO. Andreas JN466 02:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, I thought this was one of the sections about the IB Times story. Sorry about that. —rybec 03:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

No worries. Andreas JN466 04:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

French is making several points in the interview:

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

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

Andreas JN466 02:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Request for comment

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

For your reference, the source (Owens) says,

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

Here is the wording established by my edit:

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

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

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

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

I don't think Jayen466 or any dedicated Wikipediocracy-person should be making edits on this page. Their pov is that Wiki-PR is being persecuted, and they have been pushing that pov with very sharp elbows here. To quote from Herostratus above:

"It's frustrating because the editor making the additions,User:Jayen466, is a WO mod and I gather doesn't much like the Wikipedia or, I guess, the ideas behind it. I'm sure that he's confident that French is telling it like it is here, and it's reasonable to infer that his goal here is to help Mr French get his point across rather than construct the best article we can. That's a problem. Editors are generally advised to avoid areas where they're not able to be fair-minded or where their motivation is to have the reader come away with a particular take on a controversial issue."

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

My point of view, especially after having discussed this with Kevin Gorman away from Wikipedia and looked at some examples of Wiki-PR's "work", is that Wiki-PR have behaved like cowboys and are rightly banned from editing Wikipedia. (It speaks volumes for Wikipedia's quality control mechanism that it took so long for that to happen. As good as Britannica? Sheesh.) This has nothing to do with what we are discussing here. Andreas JN466 14:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The Wikipedia policy called "ownership of articles" [4] says "No one [...] has the right to act as though he or she is the owner of a particular article." The Wiki-PR page also said "With our Page Creation service you can ensure your Wikipedia is 100% accurate, well-researched and tells your story the way you want it told." Another Wikipedia policy page [5] says

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

—rybec 20:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Rybec, that may be so, but (1) these are all primary sources, and Wikipedia articles are meant to be based on secondary sources, and, far more importantly, (2) this is not what the article text says. It says, The use of a company to manage the content of Wikipedia violates several Wikipedia rules, including the rule against asserting ownership of a page. We have several paid editors here who work transparently and do indeed manage their clients' Wikipedia pages for them, in a way that is compliant with policy and does not violate WP:OWN. CorporateM I mentioned earlier, William Beutler is another. There is no policy anywhere on the English Wikipedia that says that you cannot pay someone to manage your Wikipedia entry. It is demonstrably false to say that doing so is against policy. If it were, CorporateM and Beutler and others would be blocked and banned, rather than amiably discussing their paid editing with Jimmy Wales and other users here. The wording we have is original research, not based on any reliable source, and a falsehood that actively and blatantly contradicts the cited source. As such, it is in violation of several core policies, isn't it? If you think otherwise, could you tell me how it isn't? Andreas JN466 14:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Primary sources may be used, but we aren't supposed to interpret them (see WP:PRIMARY). Juxtaposing quotes isn't interpretation. —rybec 23:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, Rybec, but there is interpretation, and selection. For example, Wikipedia:COI#Paid_editing, now cited in the article, says: "There may be benign examples of editors being paid – for example, a university asking you to write up its warts-and-all history." But the article currently says, "The use of a company to manage the content of Wikipedia violates several Wikipedia rules". Our very own COI guideline gives an example where such an arrangement is acceptable. This is why WP:PSTS, which is policy and not just a guideline, advises so strongly against citing primary sources, and flatly forbids anything approaching interpretation of a primary source without citing a secondary source. And in this case, this is exactly what has happened: editors have interpreted the primary sources for themselves, coming to a different conclusion than the well-researched secondary source, and have substituted their own interpretation for that of the secondary source, in direct contravention of WP:PSTS policy. It won't do.

And that's before we even get to the fact that this makes a global statement about Wikipedia that is not just false for the English Wikipedia, but applies even less to other parts of Wikipedia. Tomorrow, for example, there is a TV programme on German TV where various PR agencies will be advising viewers on how to edit Wikipedia on behalf of a paying client, in full compliance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines and Wikimedia Foundation terms of use. They are all operating transparently, as various paid-editing outfits do in the English Wikipedia. So, please let's get this thing right. The cited secondary source, Owens, is absolutely correct, and we should say what the source says. Cheers. Andreas JN466 00:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed there is no rule against hiring a company to write. There are, however, policies against so-called ownership of articles, against bias in articles, and against avoiding scrutiny; those aren't just the beliefs of a few "purists". If the quotes I found are too biased, then don't include them. If you'd like to only use secondary sources, Owens' statement that "most importantly, all paid work needed to be disclosed" isn't far from the truth. —rybec 02:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, Rybec, then it appears you agree with me that the current article wording "The use of a company to manage the content of Wikipedia violates several Wikipedia rules" is wrong. Can we please change it to what Owens says, and cite the secondary source in accordance with policy? To recap, Owens says, "Wikipedia has had a long, uneasy relationship with paid contributors. Many purists believe that a Wikipedia page’s subject, or anyone paid by that subject, has no business editing that page because his objectivity is compromised." I personally don't believe there is anything wrong with that statement, but if you don't like it and would prefer something else, please feel free to come up with an alternative. (If we want to use the "all paid work needed to be disclosed" wording as well, then we may need to make clear that this is presented in the source as the opinion of Jimmy Wales, rather than Wikipedia policy.) Andreas JN466 05:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

While I see how that's wrong, your alternative te4nds to create an impression that Wiki-PR followed all Wikipedia policies. My POV is that they didn't. If that POV can't be supported by proper sources, or isn't significant enough to mention, okay. I can't offer an objective opinion on the topic, especially not on the Owens article, since I was interviewed for it. I don't want to comment any more in this thread; this should be decided by others who are less involved. —rybec 07:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the acknowledgement that it is wrong. I have no intention to make it appear as though Wiki-PR did nothing wrong. You noted that I specifically added information spelling out what it was that Wiki-PR did wrong: "In addition to violating rules against sockpuppeting, Wiki-PR violated Wikipedia rules by citing articles planted on business content farms and various other websites that accept contributions from any Internet user as sources for Wikipedia entries, creating a false impression of credibility.[9] The same websites were used repeatedly, and their presence in various Wikipedia articles aided investigators in identifying articles the company had worked on." That's the two sentences immediately prior to this sentence that we're talking about. How could any reader, after reading that, possibly think that whatever Wiki-PR did was okay? Surely it is a lot clearer now in the article that Wiki-PR did something wrong, and what it was, than it was a week ago. But I'll leave you be. Thanks for your time, and well done for helping the Daily Dot with that story. Good stuff. Cheers, Andreas JN466 10:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• I support Jayen's edit and I think that Smallbones' editing and edit-warring has not been in compliance with WP:NPOV. Cla68 (talk) 00:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

That's a rather pointless essay, Herostratus. Wiki-PR were stopped, rightly, because they "violated Wikipedia rules by citing articles planted on business content farms and various other websites that accept contributions from any Internet user as sources for Wikipedia entries, creating a false impression of credibility.[9] The same websites were used repeatedly, and their presence in various Wikipedia articles aided investigators in identifying articles the company had worked on." As the article now makes clear.

They were not stopped because they were hired editors. Wikipedia has plenty of those who carry on their business in compliance with Wikipedia rules, doesn't it? And do please read the comments above regarding WP:PSTS. At any rate, we still have a wording in the article that contradicts both the primary and the secondary sources cited. It is not in itself against Wikipedia rules to employ a company to manage an article. Cheers, Andreas JN466 05:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I'm afraid that I have to disagree, and strongly, with Smallbones' edit. COI editing is one of the view vagaries of Wikipedia that I've studied. In point of fact, COI editing is not against any policy or rule. It should be, it is crazy that it isn't, but that is a fact. To say otherwise just isn't factually accurate, and the text in question does indeed appear to be original research. Even if a reliable source actually said it, that's no reason to use something that we know to be wrong. I think that this discussion underlines why we need to fold this article into Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia. This article is going to be a drama magnet as long as it exists. Coretheapple (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Coretheapple. That is exactly the point. In my view, the Wikimedia Foundation and/or the Wikipedia community have some work to do to clarify what exactly is or isn't allowed. This sentence creates the impression that the work has been done already, and that just isn't so, as Owens points out when he speaks of an "uneasy" relationship and of divisions within the community. Those divisions are real. To pretend they do not exist misleads the public.
  • I've been accused by Smallbones of being in favour of paid editing. For the record, I think what should happen is one of the following:

Extended content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Option 1: The Wikimedia Foundation makes it clear in its Terms of Use that paid editing on behalf of an employer or paying client is forbidden. (That includes cases where users claim the editing was done in their spare time.) This will of course mean that edits of a type that has occurred tens of thousands of times in the past will be illegal under the new rules. It will be a major change, one that every new user would have to be advised of during account creation. Remember, even Sue Gardner has confessed that she edited articles on her then-employer, in violation of Jimmy Wales' bright-line rule, before becoming Executive Director of the WMF. (And so have many WMF staff, who have edited articles on their own organisation here. Even the legal firm that sent the cease-and-desist letter to Wiki-PR has violated this rule, by having staff edit the article on their own firm here.) Option 2: The Wikimedia Foundation clearly forbids paid editing on behalf of an employer or paying client in its Terms of Use, UNLESS people use a self-declared paid-editor account on those articles where they have a conflict of interest. Advice on this is made part of account registration. Edits made by such an account are flagged as paid edits in watchlists. Articles that have received such edits are automatically marked with a corresponding icon or heading. This would also meet disclosure requirements for paid editors, ensuring that they could not possibly fall foul of disclosure requirements under the deceptive advertising laws of various countries. The icon will have something like a "What's this?" pop-up or link to explain to the reader what a watchlist is, and how they can identify the paid-editor edits in it, and explain that the paid editor is a good guy/gal for having declared their interest. Eventually, this may change the current culture of secrecy, which leaves the reader ignorant about the amount of paid editing that has gone into any given article. My preference is Option 2. Now, I am not holding my breath. I rather fear that the Foundation and community will opt for Option 3, which is the one I would favour least: Do nothing until the project's reputation is further damaged by further scandals.

• Andreas JN466 00:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Noticeboard discussion

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

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

recent IP edits

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

questionable move

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

@Timtempleton and Kevin Gorman: In light of the November 2013 discussion that said "don't move" and in light of both Kevin's concerns and my similar concerns, I agree that this move is "controversial" and should not be done without a fresh discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Where do you see questionable consensus @Kevin Gorman and Davidwr:? I saw a long chain of comments in the talk section supporting that this article be based on the company name, rather than the reason for their notoriety. That info is already in the article and is easy for anyone to read. I wouldn't expect we'd change the Google article title circa 2003 to Google the search engine company. I also see other articles such as WikiExperts that are standalone articles for companies not only notable for one thing only, but for the exact thing as Wiki-PR. Sure, you can claim WP:OSE but we also strive for consistency. The only time I can remember seeing an article on an aspect of a company separate from the company article is with landmark court cases notable in their own way, and even then the company has its own article without the name of the court case in the title. If you can make a compelling case that this article shouldn't follow the format of almost every other company article, I'll be the first to jump ship and support a revert. Heck - I'll even do it myself. Perhaps as a compromise we create an article Wikipedia editing scandals and put in those two companies, along with other entries such as Robert_Clark_Young#Wikipedia_editing_controversy but leave their main articles with just the name?Timtempleton (talk) 18:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry - should have included the talk link that I was referring to Talk:Wiki-PR_editing_of_Wikipedia#Move_to_Wiki-PR_editing_of_WikipediaTimtempleton (talk) 18:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

That discussion was superceded by the later discussion #Requested move above. The result of that discussion was "not moved." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for showing me that link. After reading it, I can see why there was such a lengthy debate on this. I wish I had known to contribute while the discussion was going on. Here's how my thinking is going now. Please bear with me. No wallflowers here. :-) 1) The fact that we are all Wikipedia editors and some of the posts discussed the inherent conflict of interest shows how tricky this can be. Ultimately, though, if Wikipedia editors were not allowed to write about Wikipedia, there'd be very little content about Wikipedia, so that's a non-issue. 2) Because there was press coverage in mainstream media, the subject and the company are both notable. This is not just a big deal to Wikipedians, any more than a Facebook data breach should only matter to Facebook users. I just can't see consistency in having an article about a significant event without also having an article about the company, and there's no precedent to take the company article and name it to make it singularly focused on one item. The posts you showed me used numerous examples of how it would mess up the title naming consistency to do so with other companies, examples that I won't repeat here. Another consideration - who's to say the company doesn't do something else down the road - offer its services to Universities, for example? Did you see the recent Harvard news on Mashable about their editor-in-residence hire? Who gets to decide then whether it's time to change the company article name back to normal? Another example - does every new article about a new author have to have their only book name in the title? Do they get just their name as their article title only once they've written two books? This could get messy. The simplest thing is to have all article titles clean and generic - the way they should be from the start. The fact that this is a subject close to home for all of us shouldn't change the rules. That bias is more worrisome to me than the conflict of interest mentioned in 1) above. 3) I didn't realize that my idea about creating a Wikipedia editing controversy article was an old one, but there's already a list. This is where all the controversies should be further noted - not in the titles of company articles. The articles for every company and person involved in a Wikipedia controversy should have a note in the See also section, for further reading. 4) Finally, since I did move the article in apparent contradiction to the previous consensus that I was unaware of, in the spirit of collaboration I will be willing to move it back if nobody else is in agreement with me. I just can't see how treating this one article differently than all the others is anything but topic bias. Thanks for not reverting - let's see where this goes.Timtempleton (talk) 22:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

To answer your question "Who gets to decide then whether it's time to change the company article name back to normal?" - we do. Because the most recent discussion was relatively recent, the normal WP:Bold, revert, discuss method of doing things really should be just "discuss" then go with the current consensus. If the last discussion had been long ago, then a bold move by someone aware of the past discussion would not necessarily be out of line. By the way, I reverted your move at 17:06 27 March 2014 (UTC), less than 2 hours after you moved it (see the page history for details). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

OK - I'll go with the flow, since an incorrect, narrow consensus is still a consensus, per the site's self-policing guidelines. But I want to go on record here as one of many voices noting that the article title is a aberration on the site. The only logical explanation for the support for the unconventional title is misguided outrage at the company - a digital scarlet letter.Timtempleton (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

A great new test case opportunity came up which will either add or take away momentum for naming company articles based on notoriety from a single controversial event. Will a Wikipedia article be created for the otherwise not yet notable HiringSolved called HirigSolved mining of Linkedin? For background, see LinkedIn names company that used bots to steal profiles for competing Recruiter serviceTimtempleton (talk) 14:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Any test case for a hypothetical Wikipedia article where you link something on gigaom is almost definitely a bad test case. I'd also like to point out that the fact that one might disagree with a consensus doesn't really make it incorrect. Without having clicked through to the story you linked, if it got massive mainstream coverage focused on the controversy, I can see a title focused on the controversy as being appropriate, but that hasn't happeed yet, and theoretical WP:OSE is an even worse argument than actual WP:OSE. BTW: we already named articles directedly connected to people with the names of controversies rather than the names of the people themselves only. To pick a totally arbitrary example, Murder_of_Milly_Dowler is named Murder_of_Milly_Dowler, not Mily Dowler. If the controversy is what is notable, that's what the article should be titled after. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• There is absolutely no consensus for this move, which must be reverted. The only consensus reached here was specifically against moving. Fiddle Faddle 23:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• I have been overtaken by events. I see it has been reverted already. Fiddle Faddle 23:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

New name of company

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

Since there is so little consensus about what this article is even about and so little participation on the discussion of what the focus of this article should be, I don't think there is any reasonable way to say one way or the other to answer your question in an intelligent manner. Keep in mind that this article was started titled simply Wiki-PR, but was then subsequently renamed. I still think it would be best to make this an article about the company itself.... regardless of what flavor of the month name they happen to call themselves at the moment. Then again any effort I've made to try and make changes to this article has been instantly reverted with article ownership, so I really don't give a damn right now... just hoping that perhaps some people with a stronger stomach than I have will actually bother paying attention. --Robert Horning (talk) 11:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• How do we know that Status Labs and Wiki-PR are the same? A Signpost contributor says they are, without explaining where that information came from. Both Web sites have a cyan-and-grey colour scheme, are published through the Wordpress software, and are privately registered with Godaddy. Are there any business filings or news stories about the new name? I searched but didn't find them. —rybec 00:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I did find a few Web pages which say Status Labs is in Austin: [6], [7], [8] and [9]. —rybec 05:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• I've asked about this on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. —rybec 04:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I responded there, and no one has responded to my response yet. Therefore I decided to remove it since I looked and looked and couldn't find any remotely reliable source (other than the Signpost) which says this, and the signpost article by The ed17 doesn't cite a reliable source either. Nevertheless, my edit was recently reverted by @Herostratus:, so as per WP:BRD I am coming here. To be clear, I am not sure whether it is actually true that Wiki-PR is now Status Labs. However, I don't think we should be saying that it is if the only line of evidence backing this up is something posted on Wikipedia's newsletter, which I don't consider to be reliable and which doesn't seem to have gotten much coverage in independent sources. Herostratus also contended in his edit summary that the Signpost is exempt from WP:WINARS because it isn't actually a Wikipedia article (though his ES got cut off so Im not totally sure). However, it is still written by anonymous people just the same way as anything else on Wikipedia. Jinkinson talk to me 02:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Right, OK, I asssumed that this was a case of "here's some info which is almost certainly true, but it's ref'd to an unreliable source so I'll remove it" which you do see from time to time, but IMO the correct step is to tag it for {{better source}} or whatever and wait a while, at least. However, I see that this is matter of info that is contested and which might not be true, so removing it might be in order, so I reversed myself and restored Jinkinson's edit.

As to Signpost, it's a better source than just a Wikipedia article. Unlike a Wikipedia article, it's not written by just anyone (I assume there's some kind of bar to cross to get an article in Signpost) and isn't subject to change at any time, and there may be some kind of minimal editorial oversight in the sense that a person(s) reads Signpost articles before they are published and could maybe flag egregious errors. So it's definitely a better source than a Wikipedia article and I guess better than some individual person's Wordpress blog (depending on who the person is and other factors), although maybe not a lot better (don't know). I've used worse sources, but not for contended and contentious material. Herostratus (talk) 02:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

It appears to me that Status Labs is the new incarnation of Wiki-PR based on a job interview I recently had with Jordan French. Not fully aware of the Wiki-PR controversy, I interviewed for a PR position with French in their very scruffy office in east Austin. Darius Fisher was "supposed" to be in the interview but according to French, Fisher was in Dubai. As the interview progressed it was apparent that Status Labs is producing and/or editing Wikipedia pages, among other services for clients. Turned out the interview was bogus and instead French was on a fishing expedition for names of potential clients, even asking me who I knew that had a reputation or perception problem. He was rather persistent on this topic and happily filled me in on their referral program, which I believe they refer to as an affiliate program. I was pissed this was not a real job opportunity, did further research on the firm and became aware of the Wiki editing controversy. In my opinion, French and Fisher simply changed the business name and continue their dubious work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.13.80.131 (talk) 22:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Piñata store demolition

Wiki-PR founders Jordan French and Darius Fisher, through their F&F Real Estate Ventures, demolished a family-owned piñata store to make way for a SXSW party, comparing its tenants to cockroaches. Their actions prompted Texas congressman Eddie Rodriguez to draft legislation protecting tenants from landlords. gobonobo ^{+ c} 00:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Additional articles will be coming out at some point in the near future that talk about the current situation in greater depth (and to a greater degree put their current business dealings in the context of Wiki-PR) in the near future for those curious. Not sure how much depth it'll be appropriate to mention in the article, but this whole brouhaha at least already provides reliable sources saying that status labs an wiki-pr are one and the same, something that was previously lacking. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Audio link is dead

Regarding this on the article now: External audio Public Relations and suspicious pages on Wikipedia, CBC Radio, interview with Simon Owens, October 24, 2013... the link is dead. Also, since audio was removed recently from MyWikiBiz, why is this link tolerated here? - 2001:558:1400:10:35E7:5245:8541:897C (talk) 16:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The website, MyWikiBiz, has nothing to do with Wikipedia. Links to audio are allowed on Wikipedia, when the source is credible, e.g. CBC Radio.--FeralOink (talk) 09:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

2016 - list of businesses that offer services like Wiki-PR for a price: $2000

Does Wikipedia have a list of these companies somewhere? How is Wikipedia managing these in 2016? As a volunteer editor, paid editing like this is discouraging.

I came across this one Reputation (Archived). "Wikipedia Page Editing

"In today’s digital world, Wikipedia is one of the most trustworthy reference sources on the Internet. Wikipedia ranks as the 7th most popular website on the Internet worldwide and attracts millions of readers every day. Most importantly, having a Wikipedia page for yourself or your business is a tremendously powerful asset that will likely rank on your first page and will reinforce your positive reputation to those you work with." Oceanflynn (talk) 16:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia:WikiProject Integrity would be the place to keep track of stuff like it, if that project is active (not sure). Herostratus (talk) 01:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

References

Edit request

Hi, request for a minor change to wording: " in addition to planting articles online in order to try and gerrymander better potential notability for its clients" - "gerrymander" is not the right word, I would suggest "garner" as a replacement. Creffett (talk) 14:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done Gulumeemee (talk) 06:37, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was keep articles as they are. The World's Signature (talk) 03:08, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

---

Hello. I think that the information on the page for Status Labs should instead be merged here as its own section. Status Labs seems mostly notable for the fact that it is tied to Wiki-PR and currently has a notability tag at the top of the page. If the page for Status Labs is going to be only a few sentences long, seems more appropriate to have it as a section here.The World's Signature (talk) 01:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• This is a seperate company involved in the same industry and involved in a number of other unsavory actions separate from Wikipedia. I am fine with seeing it seperate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Doc. I'm assuming that silence means everyone agrees with you, so will keep things as they are.The World's Signature (talk) 03:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2019

Please add {{db-negublp}} to the top of the article. 2600:1010:B151:5BF4:C5C8:33B5:581A:F4E6 (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

That is only for requesting deletion of living person articles, which does not apply in this case. RudolfRed (talk) 20:00, 26 April 2019 (UTC)