General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWikipedia Declares All-Out War On PR Sock Puppets
Wikipedia editors are actively engaged in a wide-ranging battle against PR firms attempting to edit the crowdsourced encyclopedias entries to reflect their clients best interests.
Over the past couple weeks, those Wikipedia editors have isolated several hundred user accounts linked to people paid to write articles on Wikipedia promoting organizations or products, according to Sue Gardner, executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation, which oversees Wikipedias operations. Those users accounts violate Wikipedias guidelines, including prohibitions against sockpuppetry and undisclosed conflicts of interest. Some 250 suspicious user accounts have already been nuked.
Our readers know Wikipedias not perfect, but they also know that it has their best interests at heart, and is never trying to sell them a product or propagandize them in any way, Gardner added. Our goal is to provide neutral, reliable information for our readers, and anything that threatens that is a serious problem. We are actively examining this situation and exploring our options.
The idea of pay for play is a contentious one among Wikipedias editors, many of whom pride themselves on a high standard of impartiality when it comes to managing content. But the platforms crowd-sourced nature often works against them in that regard, with pages about controversial subjects often turning into battlegrounds as multiple parties attempt to edit and re-edit content to fit a particular visionunless Wikipedia opts to lock a page down, as it does with George W. Bush or Scientology. No matter how hard the editors work, though, Wikipedias gargantuan size also means they cant eliminate every single vanity page set up by insecure and ambitious types.
Indeed, correcting biased text is a thankless job for those Wikipedia editorsthe literary-world equivalent of killing endless hordes of zombies approaching your protective fence.
MORE...
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/10/22/wikipedia-declares-all-out-war-on-pr-sock-puppets/
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)pscot
(21,024 posts)Help them keep it clean. It's a valuable resource.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)Re: donations
I like that when I send them money, they do not hound me for more.
pscot
(21,024 posts)Almost surprised.
mikeysnot
(4,757 posts)from them. Personalized and they list all the editors names. I have mine somewhere.
Warpy
(111,274 posts)because I can finally afford to. I've been an editor but I'm mostly inactive, flagging biased prose for review for the people who actually know what they're doing.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)CarrieLynne
(497 posts)pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)Papagoose
(428 posts)Plucketeer
(12,882 posts)Thanks for the chuckle! One turkey dies - one lives on. Truly sad in both cases.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)She actually said, "You need a little levity in this job." and "Certainly we'll probably invite criticism for doing this too but at least this was fun."
It became known as "Wattlegate".
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)LongTomH
(8,636 posts)Cleita
(75,480 posts)get state AGs to look into political organizations like the good ole right wing think tanks and lobbying firms. It is rumored that many are running boiler room operations with interns doing just that, altering Wikipedia entries. It would be good to know for sure and to make them stop it.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)subsidized by the government. You know, to combat the threat of communism.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)corrupt system.
SunSeeker
(51,571 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,366 posts)Thanks for the thread, Purveyor.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)DU is thick with it.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Zorra
(27,670 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)judesedit
(4,439 posts)purge your site of the racist, sexist, homophobic, idiot text coming in. It may seem thankless, but, believe me, we are very, very thankful to you.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Can you imagine DU without the sockpuppetry!
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)I have a soft spot for Lamb Chop.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)The best safeguard against what the paid flacks do is that there are volunteer editors who monitor articles and revert the inappropriate changes. If the flack comes back and tries again, there are mechanisms for involving the community, so multiple volunteers will be working to keep the article accurate.
I'm often frustrated that there's so much good information on DU that amounts to preaching to the choir. Spread some of that knowledge beyond our closed circle! You can help improve Wikipedia articles, notably by adding useful information that the MSM downplay or ignore. The only requirement is: "Write what you know or are willing to learn about." Also remember another maxim -- you don't have to make the article perfect, you just have to make it better.
Anyone who wants help with the wiki markup (it's about as complicated as DU's) or with other Wikipedia issues, please feel free to PM me. I'll be glad to help people get started. With the constant assault from the right, we need all the help we can get.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)KitSileya
(4,035 posts)I tried to access it right now, but it is unavailable - a retaliation perhaps?