I take it that the issue here is that a COI editor changed the opening paragraph to be
more complimentary of the product, rather than that someone reused content for commercial
purposes. To me it is irrelevant whether they were paid or not, it is the quality of the
editing that matters, and particularly that they contravened the terms of use by failing
to declare COI.
Cheers,
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gnangarra
Sent: Saturday, 15 April 2017 1:35 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid
editing services
Gabe highlights the issue
- its not easy to identify a paid editor with one or two edits only
- Google home is the service creating the issue
- this issue is just that first sentence.
flagged revisions would work here to stop the immediacy but would never guarantee that a
good faith tidy up by an editor reviewing and edit would actually identify the problem.
Ok a flagged revision bot could do a cursory check and pass all non lead paragraph edits
to reduce the backlogs but it still needs a human and one thats skilled to identify paid
editors.
To solve the issue maybe we need google to be looking at a cache of an article not the
current version, that both works for us in managing this issue and for google in
preventing its service being ambushed... We'd have to create a way to for humans to
review leads less than x weeks old.
This ambush editing isnt the same as paid editing where all article content is susceptible
and should be treated differently, now one has succeeded we can assume others will also
try then without even warming up the beans we can be assured that someone will play the
negative side of the game as well. ie "Whopper is not as popular as the big mac made
fresh on demand at mcdonalds"
On 15 April 2017 at 18:58, Gabriel Thullen <gabriel(a)thullen.com> wrote:
Paid editors have been adding content to Wikipedia for
a long time.
Some of them might even be doing so in accordance with the rules and
guidelines, but that is not what makes this case stand out.
The PR agency did a total of three edits, and the third one managed to
pass under the radar. They deliberately inserted text with minor
grammatical errors to bait an editor into fixing it up while at the
same time leaving it as an introductory sentence. The TV ad came out one week later.
What disturbs me is that Wikipedia is being instrumentalized by these
big corporations, and we do not need to debate whether the text is
factually exact, if it is sourced, or if it is too peacocky. Most of
us are volunteer editors, and we must make sure that we do not have to
waste our time rooting out these malicious edits.
The PR company wrote the text to make it look like it was put there by
some ordinary "grammatically challenged" fanboy. A contributor reverts
the edit the first time around, saying rightly that it was too
promotional, then fixes up the grammatical errors the second time
around. Other contributors would no longer touch the article seeing
that a community member is already watching over it.
We will have the check out the introductory sentences in hundreds of
articles. When somebody asks Google Home "what is xyz..." in their own
voice, Google will very obligingly spew out the Wikipedia article.
IMHA, that is the real issue here. These paid editors are quite
willing to turn Wikipedia into the worlds biggest high-tech distributor of junk mail.
Gabe
On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 8:36 AM, Peter Southwood <
peter.southwood(a)telkomsa.net> wrote:
So the Americas favorite burger should have been
"America's Favorite
Burger(tm)". Agreed.
Cheers,
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org]
On Behalf Of FRED BAUDER
Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2017 8:21 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing
companies
that offer paid editing services
"The Whopper, also known as America’s favorite burger, " is a
problem as it implies that the Whopper is the favorite burger of the
American
public.
Perhaps it is, but that is a trademark, not the
result of a survey.
The other stuff, "a flame-[[grilling|grilled]] patty made with 100%
beef with no preservatives, no fillers and is topped with daily
sliced tomatoes and onions, fresh lettuce, pickles, ketchup and
mayo, served on a soft sesame seed bun." happens to be factually
true and cannot be said of the
products
of, say, McDonalds where the "fixings"
arrive in delivery trucks.
Fred Bauder
On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 08:06:50 +0200
"Peter Southwood" <peter.southwood(a)telkomsa.net> wrote:
James,
Which parts of those statements to you consider factually
inaccurate, and which parts do you consider misleading in some other way?
Cheers,
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org]
On Behalf Of James Heilman
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2017 5:32 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing
companies that offer paid editing services
Wikipedia is not for sale. We are not simply another advertising
venue available to the corporations of the world. We have
mechanisms for corporations to suggest changes to our content and
it is called the talk page.
Lets look at the changes likely made by Burger King staff in more
detail:
In this edit this sentence "The Whopper is a burger, consisting of
a flame-grilled patty made with 100% beef with no preservatives, no
fillers and is topped with daily sliced tomatoes and onions, fresh
lettuce, pickles, ketchup and mayo, served on a soft sesame seed bun."
<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whopper&type=revision&d
iff=
773836335&oldid=773833110>
was
added not once but twice. And than was added again following its
first removal.
In this edit this sentence "The Whopper, also known as America’s
favorite burger, has a flame-[[grilling|grilled]] patty made with
100% beef with no preservatives, no fillers and is topped with
daily sliced tomatoes and onions, fresh lettuce, pickles, ketchup
and mayo, served on a soft sesame seed bun. Whopper and America’s
Favorite Burger are trademarks of Burger King Corporation.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whopper&diff=
773807497&oldid=773585358>"
was added.
One of the accounts did not disclosed their relationship to the
company in question. And yes this is spam, so they did spam Wikipedia.
See [[WP:PEACOCK]]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_w
atch
#Puffery
and [[WP:NPOV]]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars>, the latter
of which is pillar number 2.
This is not the first time the marketing department at a multi
billion dollar company has tried to adjust our content for the
company's / shareholder's gains. A few years back a couple of the
heads of marketing at Medtronic
<https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/08/wikipedia-edi
tors -for-pay/393926/>, along with a number of physicians one of
whom they had paid more than a quarter of a million dollars, tried
to remove the best available evidence regarding vertebroplasty, a
procedure which medicare spent at the time more than a billion
dollars a year on.
Half a dozen paid editors working together can easily get a
majority in many of our decision making processes.
Our readers deserve a Wikipedia which is written independently of
the subject mater in question. Our readers have been harmed by
undisclosed paid editing in the past. These are individuals
typically less savvy and less wealthy than the executives at a
large corporation. I am sorry but our readers are the ones that
deserve our attention and our protection. We already have the
Wifione case
<http://www.newsweek.com/2015/04/03/manipulating-wikipedia-promote-
bogu s-business-school-316133.html> were Wikipedia was used to
promote an unethical Indian university and therefore we played a
role in misleading the students who applied. We must do better.
James
On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 5:23 AM, Gnangarra <gnangarra(a)gmail.com
wrote:
but they didnt spam, nor did they introduce any
false hoods, or
remove controversial content, they just put a description of the
Whopper for the opening sentence. As Andy said rather than
biting and creating arguments amongst ourselves would it not be
better to have used the opportunity to benefit the community in a positive way.
On 14 April 2017 at 18:44, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 14 April 2017 at 11:38, Andy Mabbett
<andy(a)pigsonthewing.org.uk
wrote:
> > A far better (and less
WP:BITEy) outcome would be to get then
> > to
> Pretty sure WP:BITE doesn't apply in the case of deliberate
> abuse for clear purposes of spamming.
> - d.
>
_______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to:
> Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe:
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscrib
e
--
GN.
President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU:
http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery:
http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to:
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscrib
e
--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG -
Version: 2016.0.8012 / Virus Database: 4769/14320 - Release Date: 04/15/17