[Wikimedia-l] CNET News: "Corruption in Wikiland? Paid PR scandal erupts at Wikipedia"

[Steven Walling]

On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 6:58 PM, Sarah <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:

> > I don't know anything about this case, but it does seem that paid
> advocacy
> is increasing, and although the community seems opposed to it as a whole,
> that message isn't getting through to individual editors. It's becoming
> very discouraging to have to deal with it, or to edit alongside it.
>

Your concern is totally legit Sarah, but before we jump to saying paid
advocacy is actually increasing, I think it would be interesting to try and
think about whether it's merely that it's more prominent and open.

The kind of guidelines that PR orgs and Wikimedians are encouraging, such
as being transparent about a COI, could create the misperception that there
is more paid advocacy. Maybe it's just that we're actually starting to see
people be more open?

The thing that scares me the most is the kind of edits uncovered by
WikiScanner back in the day: those who are editing with a COI but who are
acting in secret. The thing that I don't even want to think about when it
comes to paid advocacy is how many skilled sockmasters are writing articles
that look okay but are really spam?

In short: I think people like Max and Roger, who make public declarations
about their identities and conflicts of interest, are not the ones who
scare me. We can always find those people and start a conversation with
them.

Steven