Actually, it took just a couple of hours to find:
* Two obvious Go Fish Digital sockpuppets. * One article with high amount of evidence of COI / paid editing. * A few other articles with possible COI / paid editing. * Possible links to multiple big sockpuppet farms that were already blocked.
Since this involves a lot of research outside Wikipedia itself, as well as personal details of Go Fish Digital employees, I'll wait for guidance about how can this be disclosed. Also, with this evidence, it seems clear to me that legal should be involved as soon as possible and consider stop sharing Wikipedia data with this company.
Best,
Mario
On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 6:42 PM, Mario Gómez mariogomwiki@gmail.com wrote:
There, is at least, one user that works for Go Fish Digital with a sockpuppet account in English Wikipedia and has denied conflict of interest or paid editing disclosure even if he was asked too, since some user was suspicious. Should I send this privately? I don't want to incur in spurious ousting/doxxing.
Best,
Mario
On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 12:24 AM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Hi.
Go Fish Digital is a company that whitewashes Wikipedia. From its own site:
The primary platforms that define your online reputation include: [...]
- Wikipedia
[...]
With Online Reputation Management, we work hard to make all of the positive information easy to find. At the same time, we use many different strategies and tactics to diminish the visibility of negative content, or in some cases, remove it from the web altogether. The end result is a positive online reputation because when people search your name or brand, they immediately find positive content.
Source: https://gofishdigital.com/online-reputation-management
Wikimedia Foundation Inc. has been working with this company on search engine optimization: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T198970. I have a few questions about this work.
How was this vendor chosen? Which other vendors were considered?
Why is this work being undertaken? At least the English Wikipedia has some of the best search engine results placement of any site on the Web, so I'm curious to know who's prioritizing Wikipedia's search engine optimization and for what reason.
How is it appropriate for Wikimedia Foundation Inc. to work with a company that is, by its own admission, whitewashing Wikipedia? Doesn't this give Go Fish Digital a ton of legitimization by now being able to say it works directly with Wikimedia Foundation Inc. ("with Wikipedia")?
Is it appropriate to give a company that sells whitewashing Wikipedia services access to private user data, as was done in https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T192893 and https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193052? The Wikimedia Foundation Inc. legal department apparently approved this access, but I'm curious to know why, given the company's role in selling an "Online Reputation Management" product. This looks bad to me.
MZMcBride
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik i/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe