Since we're all aware of the magic of the Wiki scanner tool, and the ensuing media firestorm, how can Wikipedia make substantial and permanent use of this tool? This shouldn't just be a toy for journalists to create a scoop.
Bored recently, I uncovered some seriously POV edits by the Miller Brewing Company to its main articlehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Miller_Brewing_Company#COI_and_Wikiscannerand to the Miller Lite articlehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Miller_Lite#COI_and_Wiki_scanner. I reverted to versions before the company was shown to have edited, and made some talk page notices. But isn't there a more comprehensive, semi-official way to prevent such a thing?
Though of course the devil is (as always) in the details, I think creating a permanent talk page template which can warn users which specific IP addresses have been linked to the article's subject might be a good idea. Showcasing in advance the IPs that should not be say, removing critical content about the odd chemical composition of Miller Lite, might not only make it easier for Wikipedians to remove COI and POV, but it might discourage the corporations from making such edits in the first place.
Of course, this could easily be misused. It should in no way be used to publish personal and private material or real identities. Restricting its usage to corporate entities, rather than subjects that fall under the BLP, definitely might be in order.
Bear in mind that it's quite likely that many of these edits are not by people authorized to speak for the company, but rather by loyal employees without management sanction.
-Matt
On 12/09/2007, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
Bear in mind that it's quite likely that many of these edits are not by people authorized to speak for the company, but rather by loyal employees without management sanction.
Yes. It's important to assume cluelessness rather than malice.
(Besides, if it weren't cluelessness, they'd be smart enough to create a login.)
- d.
Honestly, it doesn't if it's "cluelessness" or not. When employees of the Miller Brewing Corporation significantly alter, or even remove altogether, content critical of their company, it is COI editing that has resulted in a slanted article. I think the idea that "they'd be smart enough to create a login" is a fallacy. If the CIA wasn't smart enough to create a login, who is?
On 9/12/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/09/2007, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
Bear in mind that it's quite likely that many of these edits are not by people authorized to speak for the company, but rather by loyal employees without management sanction.
Yes. It's important to assume cluelessness rather than malice.
(Besides, if it weren't cluelessness, they'd be smart enough to create a login.)
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/09/2007, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
Honestly, it doesn't if it's "cluelessness" or not. When employees of the Miller Brewing Corporation significantly alter, or even remove altogether, content critical of their company, it is COI editing that has resulted in a slanted article. I think the idea that "they'd be smart enough to create a login" is a fallacy. If the CIA wasn't smart enough to create a login, who is?
What you're missing is that the wikiscanner *only* shows the anon edits. We don't see the ones who are logged in. And we do get plenty of edits on company articles from company users, just not in a nicely set-out and mediapathic format like the wikiscanner provides.
- d.
On 9/12/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
Honestly, it doesn't if it's "cluelessness" or not. When employees of the Miller Brewing Corporation significantly alter, or even remove altogether, content critical of their company, it is COI editing that has resulted in a slanted article.
Why would it [make a difference] whether such edits are made by beer manufacturers or, for example, beer consumers? The focus in either case should be to encourage the users to do something other than drunkenly removing content. We're not here to rub their nose in the barrel of some smoking gun of sorts. Bloggers will handle that.
On 9/11/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
Showcasing in advance the IPs that should not be say, removing critical content about the odd chemical composition of Miller Lite, might not only make it easier for Wikipedians to remove COI and POV, but it might discourage the corporations from making such edits in the first place.
I'd prefer we didn't discourage non-vandal edits from anybody, regardless of whom we have reason to believe they work for.
Restricting its usage to corporate entities, rather than subjects that fall under the BLP, definitely might be in order.
Yay, another free pass for celebrities. I see that disclaimers like this one have become robotic. :)
—C.W.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Exatly, many corporations provide proxied Internet access to their staff. Any of their employee's who know about wikipedia are bound to come across their companies article and want to change it one way or the other. Some of these people may by nature of their occupation be subject matter experts on the article and related subjects, in the example below it could bring in [[beer]] or [[Brewing (beer)]] experts. If we want to come up with some sort of templated response to them it shouldn't be one that discourages them from editing so much as one that stresses the importance of [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:V]].
en:user:Xaosflux
- ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 3:32 AM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] preventing COI edits by corporations
On 12/09/2007, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
Bear in mind that it's quite likely that many of these edits are not by people authorized to speak for the company, but rather by loyal employees without management sanction.
Yes. It's important to assume cluelessness rather than malice.
(Besides, if it weren't cluelessness, they'd be smart enough to create a login.)
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/09/2007, xaosflux xaosflux@gmail.com wrote:
Exatly, many corporations provide proxied Internet access to their staff. Any of their employee's who know about wikipedia are bound to come across their companies article and want to change it one way or the other. Some of these people may by nature of their occupation be subject matter experts on the article and related subjects, in the example below it could bring in [[beer]] or [[Brewing (beer)]] experts. If we want to come up with some sort of templated response to them it shouldn't be one that discourages them from editing so much as one that stresses the importance of [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:V]].
Better yet, do nothing broad and mechanical like this in the first place. If they're of good faith and cluifiability they'll get the idea soon enough. If they're not one of those two they won't understand or won't care.
Guidelines directed at anyone who isn't of good faith *and* cluifiable are a waste of breath and show a fundamental misunderstanding.
- d.
xaosflux wrote:
Exatly, many corporations provide proxied Internet access to their staff. Any of their employee's who know about wikipedia are bound to come across their companies article and want to change it one way or the other. Some of these people may by nature of their occupation be subject matter experts on the article and related subjects, in the example below it could bring in [[beer]] or [[Brewing (beer)]] experts. If we want to come up with some sort of templated response to them it shouldn't be one that discourages them from editing so much as one that stresses the importance of [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:V]].
My aversion to templates aside, one always has to "beer" in mind that many of the most loyal employees of a company edit with an authority, eloquence and common sense that reminds one of a typical British football fan's support of his favourite team. The offerings of these employees may show considerable contrast from the company's public relations strategy. Companies that are reasonably cluefull about PR know to avoid certain losing strategies.
A brewmaster working for a major company may be in the best position to explain how his company distinguishes between the different styles of beer produced by the company. One should not presume a conflict of interest in a topic where there is no conflict at all in the first place. If a food manufacturing company claims a certain level of sodium in one of its products it is important to show that that is its claim and the source of that claim can be as ephemeral as the paper label on a can, but if independent testing shows a much higher level of sodium that should be reported too.
Any of these issues need to be approached with a more sophisticated analysis than has heretofore been the case. We could start scanning the labels on cans, and before anyone gets the idea that such an act would be copyright infringement, I would bring their attention to position in law that it is expression rather than fact and ideas that are copyright.
Ec
From: "David Gerard"
On 12/09/2007, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
Bear in mind that it's quite likely that many of these edits are not by people authorized to speak for the company, but rather by loyal employees without management sanction.
Yes. It's important to assume cluelessness rather than malice.
(Besides, if it weren't cluelessness, they'd be smart enough to create a login.)
On 9/13/07, xaosflux xaosflux@gmail.com wrote:
If we want to come up with some sort of templated response to them it shouldn't be one that discourages them from editing so much as one that stresses the importance of [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:V]].
Yes, teach them the policies, or failing that, direct them towards article talk pages, or WikiProjects, where their contributions can be mediated through other editors. It's always more effective to show someone the right way to do something than it is to merely tell them that what they are doing is wrong.