Hi Mario,
I don't think it will be considered harassment if the information is posted here. I believe the WP:OUTING applies to the English Wikipedia and this is not English Wikipedia mailing list.
Regards,
Isaac
On Jul 22, 2018 5:43 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/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/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
_______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Without getting into whether an outing policy exists/applies here, please bear in mind that if redaction is required, it is rather difficult to do it on a mailing list, especially a mailman mailing list like this one.
i.e. Please avoid posting something here which may need redaction.
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018, 16:00 Isaac Olatunde reachout2isaac@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Mario,
I don't think it will be considered harassment if the information is posted here. I believe the WP:OUTING applies to the English Wikipedia and this is not English Wikipedia mailing list.
Regards,
Isaac
On Jul 22, 2018 5:43 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/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/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
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/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 _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I will not post actual evidence to this mailing list. My notes as of Sunday are already sent to functionaries and I'm sure they will act on it themselves. As I collect more evidence, I might open a sockpuppet investigation on English Wikipedia anyway if there is enough of it to continue even without personal data, which is just a small part.
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 11:29 AM, jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
Without getting into whether an outing policy exists/applies here, please bear in mind that if redaction is required, it is rather difficult to do it on a mailing list, especially a mailman mailing list like this one.
i.e. Please avoid posting something here which may need redaction.
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018, 16:00 Isaac Olatunde reachout2isaac@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Mario,
I don't think it will be considered harassment if the information is
posted
here. I believe the WP:OUTING applies to the English Wikipedia and this
is
not English Wikipedia mailing list.
Regards,
Isaac
On Jul 22, 2018 5:43 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/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/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
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/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 _______________________________________________ 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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I have gathered more evidence and opened a sockpuppet investigation, omitting any parts involving personal data: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/BurritoSla...
Personal data sent to functionaries-en@ is still relevant to verify some details, but I think that it is not crucial anymore to prove Go Fish Digital ongoing and undisclosed paid editing.
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 12:36 PM, Mario Gómez mariogomwiki@gmail.com wrote:
I will not post actual evidence to this mailing list. My notes as of Sunday are already sent to functionaries and I'm sure they will act on it themselves. As I collect more evidence, I might open a sockpuppet investigation on English Wikipedia anyway if there is enough of it to continue even without personal data, which is just a small part.
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 11:29 AM, jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
Without getting into whether an outing policy exists/applies here, please bear in mind that if redaction is required, it is rather difficult to do it on a mailing list, especially a mailman mailing list like this one.
i.e. Please avoid posting something here which may need redaction.
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018, 16:00 Isaac Olatunde reachout2isaac@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Mario,
I don't think it will be considered harassment if the information is
posted
here. I believe the WP:OUTING applies to the English Wikipedia and this
is
not English Wikipedia mailing list.
Regards,
Isaac
On Jul 22, 2018 5:43 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/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/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
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/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 _______________________________________________ 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@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/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
Hello,
Thank you to everyone that has provided thoughtful and constructive input on this discussion, and to the volunteers who are investigating the possible policy violations. We have some additional information on this vendor relationship and on steps being taken that we believe will be helpful to this discussion.
The Wikimedia Foundation entered into a short-term contract with Go Fish Digital to conduct a search engine optimization (SEO) audit on Wikipedia. They were contracted to provide information needed by the Audiences department to improve how our sites communicate with search engines and services which provide data to devices like artificial intelligence (AI) assistants. Overall, SEO performance is a strength of our projects, but we were able to identify areas for improvement, and the audit was helpful for Audiences to more effectively focus their efforts. During discussions about Wikimedia values and activities that were held in selecting the vendor, they did not disclose anything which raised suspicion, and we failed to identify this specific concern and question them about it more.
The Foundation's Legal department received the proposal after it had been approved by Audiences and drafted a contract for this agreement following standard procedures. This included a privacy review, which resulted in the inclusion of extra privacy and security protections in the contract. Their activities did not involve reputation management services, and they did not request or receive access to any Wikimedia user data. The contract concluded last month.
As we are now aware of the vendor's possible violations and feel they should have shared this information with us during discussions, we will not be pursuing any future working relationship with Go Fish Digital and will be requesting that they honor our contractual agreement by not discussing their past relationship with us for promotional purposes. Additionally, we are reviewing the way that this vendor was selected in an effort to see if we can identify what led to this issue and better identify these types of concerns when identifying future vendors and executing agreements with them. Finally, as they regularly do, our Trust and Safety team in Community Engagement are working with the functionaries investigating the possible policy violations.
Again, we appreciate the attention provided to this by the functionaries and others who raised these concerns. We agree that the Foundation should avoid working with vendors who violate our policies, and hope the discussion around this will help reduce the chances of this happening in the future.
Thank you, -greg
------- Gregory Varnum Communications Strategist Wikimedia Foundation https://wikimediafoundation.org/ gvarnum@wikimedia.org Pronouns: He/Him/His
On Jul 27, 2018, at 12:32 PM, Mario Gómez mariogomwiki@gmail.com wrote:
I have gathered more evidence and opened a sockpuppet investigation, omitting any parts involving personal data: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/BurritoSla...
Personal data sent to functionaries-en@ is still relevant to verify some details, but I think that it is not crucial anymore to prove Go Fish Digital ongoing and undisclosed paid editing.
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 12:36 PM, Mario Gómez mariogomwiki@gmail.com wrote:
I will not post actual evidence to this mailing list. My notes as of Sunday are already sent to functionaries and I'm sure they will act on it themselves. As I collect more evidence, I might open a sockpuppet investigation on English Wikipedia anyway if there is enough of it to continue even without personal data, which is just a small part.
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 11:29 AM, jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
Without getting into whether an outing policy exists/applies here, please bear in mind that if redaction is required, it is rather difficult to do it on a mailing list, especially a mailman mailing list like this one.
i.e. Please avoid posting something here which may need redaction.
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018, 16:00 Isaac Olatunde reachout2isaac@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Mario,
I don't think it will be considered harassment if the information is
posted
here. I believe the WP:OUTING applies to the English Wikipedia and this
is
not English Wikipedia mailing list.
Regards,
Isaac
On Jul 22, 2018 5:43 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/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/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
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/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 _______________________________________________ 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@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/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
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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 28 July 2018 at 03:19, Gregory Varnum gvarnum@wikimedia.org wrote:
Thank you to everyone that has provided thoughtful and constructive input on this discussion, and to the volunteers who are investigating the possible policy violations. We have some additional information on this vendor relationship and on steps being taken that we believe will be helpful to this discussion.
[...]
As we are now aware of the vendor's possible violations and feel they
should have shared this information with us during discussions, we will not be pursuing any future working relationship with Go Fish Digital and will be requesting that they honor our contractual agreement by not discussing their past relationship with us for promotional purposes. Additionally, we are reviewing the way that this vendor was selected in an effort to see if we can identify what led to this issue and better identify these types of concerns when identifying future vendors and executing agreements with them.
Thank you, it sounds like some lessons have/are being learnt.
On 28 July 2018 at 03:19, Gregory Varnum gvarnum@wikimedia.org wrote:
they did not request or receive access to any Wikimedia user data. The contract concluded last month.
This is interesting, considering they asked for and received some data according to: * https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T194287 - this one didn't happen but shows they requested some data * https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193052 - where they received the above data, I'm assuming that Googlebot etc. bots are not being considered Wikimedia Users under your definition. * https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T192893 - they have some access until Wednesday (while the contract ended last month)? That console apparently includes some PII, which may include 'actual users'? Are they 'Google users' instead of 'Wikimedia users' at that point? Some clarification on this might be a good idea.
On 28 July 2018 at 03:19, Gregory Varnum gvarnum@wikimedia.org wrote:
Again, we appreciate the attention provided to this by the functionaries and others who raised these concerns.
There's two more interesting things I noticed from looking at the SPI page: * The article on SurveyMonkey is listed in the current case. I believe that's another company/site that has been used by Wikimedia in the past. ** I'm not sure if it's still in use. ** I haven't looked into who made what edit, and the 'LinkedIn search' comment next to it doesn't tell me much. * In the history, Deskana (the volunteer account of an Audiences department PM involved in the Go Fish Digital engagement based on the above phab links, who is also a CU) was one of the people to have closed a case on this SPI page the past, for inactivity in December (a few months before the engagement): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/BurritoSlayer& diff=815611486&oldid=805166806&diffmode=source ** I'm not aware of any Go Fish Digital connection being known at that point in time so hopefully this was entirely normal and not of any concern. ** When did Go Fish Digital in particular first get proposed within the foundation exactly? ** Who has been included in the functionaries' discussion on this subject?
Thank you for the update!
On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 4:19 AM, Gregory Varnum gvarnum@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello,
Thank you to everyone that has provided thoughtful and constructive input on this discussion, and to the volunteers who are investigating the possible policy violations. We have some additional information on this vendor relationship and on steps being taken that we believe will be helpful to this discussion.
The Wikimedia Foundation entered into a short-term contract with Go Fish Digital to conduct a search engine optimization (SEO) audit on Wikipedia. They were contracted to provide information needed by the Audiences department to improve how our sites communicate with search engines and services which provide data to devices like artificial intelligence (AI) assistants. Overall, SEO performance is a strength of our projects, but we were able to identify areas for improvement, and the audit was helpful for Audiences to more effectively focus their efforts. During discussions about Wikimedia values and activities that were held in selecting the vendor, they did not disclose anything which raised suspicion, and we failed to identify this specific concern and question them about it more.
The Foundation's Legal department received the proposal after it had been approved by Audiences and drafted a contract for this agreement following standard procedures. This included a privacy review, which resulted in the inclusion of extra privacy and security protections in the contract. Their activities did not involve reputation management services, and they did not request or receive access to any Wikimedia user data. The contract concluded last month.
As we are now aware of the vendor's possible violations and feel they should have shared this information with us during discussions, we will not be pursuing any future working relationship with Go Fish Digital and will be requesting that they honor our contractual agreement by not discussing their past relationship with us for promotional purposes. Additionally, we are reviewing the way that this vendor was selected in an effort to see if we can identify what led to this issue and better identify these types of concerns when identifying future vendors and executing agreements with them. Finally, as they regularly do, our Trust and Safety team in Community Engagement are working with the functionaries investigating the possible policy violations.
Again, we appreciate the attention provided to this by the functionaries and others who raised these concerns. We agree that the Foundation should avoid working with vendors who violate our policies, and hope the discussion around this will help reduce the chances of this happening in the future.
Thank you, -greg
Gregory Varnum Communications Strategist Wikimedia Foundation https://wikimediafoundation.org/ gvarnum@wikimedia.org Pronouns: He/Him/His
On Jul 27, 2018, at 12:32 PM, Mario Gómez mariogomwiki@gmail.com
wrote:
I have gathered more evidence and opened a sockpuppet investigation, omitting any parts involving personal data: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_
investigations/BurritoSlayer
Personal data sent to functionaries-en@ is still relevant to verify some details, but I think that it is not crucial anymore to prove Go Fish Digital ongoing and undisclosed paid editing.
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 12:36 PM, Mario Gómez mariogomwiki@gmail.com wrote:
I will not post actual evidence to this mailing list. My notes as of Sunday are already sent to functionaries and I'm sure they will act on
it
themselves. As I collect more evidence, I might open a sockpuppet investigation on English Wikipedia anyway if there is enough of it to continue even without personal data, which is just a small part.
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 11:29 AM, jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
Without getting into whether an outing policy exists/applies here,
please
bear in mind that if redaction is required, it is rather difficult to
do
it on a mailing list, especially a mailman mailing list like this one.
i.e. Please avoid posting something here which may need redaction.
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018, 16:00 Isaac Olatunde reachout2isaac@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Mario,
I don't think it will be considered harassment if the information is
posted
here. I believe the WP:OUTING applies to the English Wikipedia and
this
is
not English Wikipedia mailing list.
Regards,
Isaac
On Jul 22, 2018 5:43 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/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/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
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/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 _______________________________________________ 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@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/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
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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Gregory Varnum wrote:
The Wikimedia Foundation entered into a short-term contract with Go Fish Digital to conduct a search engine optimization (SEO) audit on Wikipedia. They were contracted to provide information needed by the Audiences department to improve how our sites communicate with search engines and services which provide data to devices like artificial intelligence (AI) assistants. Overall, SEO performance is a strength of our projects, but we were able to identify areas for improvement, and the audit was helpful for Audiences to more effectively focus their efforts. During discussions about Wikimedia values and activities that were held in selecting the vendor, they did not disclose anything which raised suspicion, and we failed to identify this specific concern and question them about it more.
This is particularly bizarre since Google has, for years, special-cased its handling of Wikimedia wikis. As far as I know, the standard Googlebot crawler is not used for Wikimedia wikis, so it's very strange that a standard "search engine optimization" company would be hired. Go Fish Digital's online reputation management work is very prominently featured on its Web site (gofishdigital.com), so I'm curious how the most basic check by someone in the Audiences or Legal departments missed this.
The Foundation's Legal department received the proposal after it had been approved by Audiences and drafted a contract for this agreement following standard procedures. This included a privacy review, which resulted in the inclusion of extra privacy and security protections in the contract. Their activities did not involve reputation management services, and they did not request or receive access to any Wikimedia user data. The contract concluded last month.
Will anyone from the Audiences or Legal departments be commenting on this incident? Will anyone be outlining what steps will be taken to prevent a repeat of this incident?
It appears that Go Fish Digital has whitewashed its own site, removing "Wikipedia" from its list of "primary platforms that define your online reputation" at https://gofishdigital.com/online-reputation-management/.
MZMcBride
"On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 at 00:55, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
It appears that Go Fish Digital has whitewashed its own site, removing "Wikipedia" from its list of "primary platforms that define your online reputation" at https://gofishdigital.com/online-reputation-management/.
But still, on:
https://gofishdigital.com/create-google-knowledge-panel/
"How do I get a brand KP?
"So, what should you do to get a brand KP created for your organization? We recommend following these steps:
"Find someone to create your Wikipedia page or learn about the Wikipedia ecosystem and create it yourself..."
and on:
https://gofishdigital.com/online-reputation-management-expert/
"From Autocomplete to Search Results, Yelp to Wikipedia, there is an endless list of websites where you must pro-actively protect, and reactively defend to ensure that your brand is not adversely impacted by negative content."
Thanks for sharing, Greg.
As it proves to be quite hard to filter out this kind of companies, it must be even harder for affiliates that don't have the WMF infrastructure at hand. I can imagine there exists some kind of 'blacklist' of companies that the WMF doesn't want to work with for this kind of reasons. Does the WMF share that list (proactively or passively) with affiliates to avoid that they unknowingly end up hiring a company with undesired other activities such as in this case?
Best, Lodewijk
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 7:20 PM Gregory Varnum gvarnum@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello,
Thank you to everyone that has provided thoughtful and constructive input on this discussion, and to the volunteers who are investigating the possible policy violations. We have some additional information on this vendor relationship and on steps being taken that we believe will be helpful to this discussion.
The Wikimedia Foundation entered into a short-term contract with Go Fish Digital to conduct a search engine optimization (SEO) audit on Wikipedia. They were contracted to provide information needed by the Audiences department to improve how our sites communicate with search engines and services which provide data to devices like artificial intelligence (AI) assistants. Overall, SEO performance is a strength of our projects, but we were able to identify areas for improvement, and the audit was helpful for Audiences to more effectively focus their efforts. During discussions about Wikimedia values and activities that were held in selecting the vendor, they did not disclose anything which raised suspicion, and we failed to identify this specific concern and question them about it more.
The Foundation's Legal department received the proposal after it had been approved by Audiences and drafted a contract for this agreement following standard procedures. This included a privacy review, which resulted in the inclusion of extra privacy and security protections in the contract. Their activities did not involve reputation management services, and they did not request or receive access to any Wikimedia user data. The contract concluded last month.
As we are now aware of the vendor's possible violations and feel they should have shared this information with us during discussions, we will not be pursuing any future working relationship with Go Fish Digital and will be requesting that they honor our contractual agreement by not discussing their past relationship with us for promotional purposes. Additionally, we are reviewing the way that this vendor was selected in an effort to see if we can identify what led to this issue and better identify these types of concerns when identifying future vendors and executing agreements with them. Finally, as they regularly do, our Trust and Safety team in Community Engagement are working with the functionaries investigating the possible policy violations.
Again, we appreciate the attention provided to this by the functionaries and others who raised these concerns. We agree that the Foundation should avoid working with vendors who violate our policies, and hope the discussion around this will help reduce the chances of this happening in the future.
Thank you, -greg
Gregory Varnum Communications Strategist Wikimedia Foundation https://wikimediafoundation.org/ gvarnum@wikimedia.org Pronouns: He/Him/His
On Jul 27, 2018, at 12:32 PM, Mario Gómez mariogomwiki@gmail.com
wrote:
I have gathered more evidence and opened a sockpuppet investigation, omitting any parts involving personal data:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/BurritoSla...
Personal data sent to functionaries-en@ is still relevant to verify some details, but I think that it is not crucial anymore to prove Go Fish Digital ongoing and undisclosed paid editing.
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 12:36 PM, Mario Gómez mariogomwiki@gmail.com wrote:
I will not post actual evidence to this mailing list. My notes as of Sunday are already sent to functionaries and I'm sure they will act on
it
themselves. As I collect more evidence, I might open a sockpuppet investigation on English Wikipedia anyway if there is enough of it to continue even without personal data, which is just a small part.
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 11:29 AM, jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
Without getting into whether an outing policy exists/applies here,
please
bear in mind that if redaction is required, it is rather difficult to
do
it on a mailing list, especially a mailman mailing list like this one.
i.e. Please avoid posting something here which may need redaction.
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018, 16:00 Isaac Olatunde reachout2isaac@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Mario,
I don't think it will be considered harassment if the information is
posted
here. I believe the WP:OUTING applies to the English Wikipedia and
this
is
not English Wikipedia mailing list.
Regards,
Isaac
On Jul 22, 2018 5:43 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/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/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
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/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 _______________________________________________ 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@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/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
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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Commenting in my personal capacity, on English Wikipedia we have this community curated list off paid editing companies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PAIDLIST
Not sure if the foundation keeps an internal list. Some of the companies regularly change the names they are operating under. An exhaustive list will be difficult as most companies involved in this type of work try to operate covertly.
James
On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 8:14 PM effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for sharing, Greg.
As it proves to be quite hard to filter out this kind of companies, it must be even harder for affiliates that don't have the WMF infrastructure at hand. I can imagine there exists some kind of 'blacklist' of companies that the WMF doesn't want to work with for this kind of reasons. Does the WMF share that list (proactively or passively) with affiliates to avoid that they unknowingly end up hiring a company with undesired other activities such as in this case?
Best, Lodewijk
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 7:20 PM Gregory Varnum gvarnum@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello,
Thank you to everyone that has provided thoughtful and constructive input on this discussion, and to the volunteers who are investigating the possible policy violations. We have some additional information on this vendor relationship and on steps being taken that we believe will be helpful to this discussion.
The Wikimedia Foundation entered into a short-term contract with Go Fish Digital to conduct a search engine optimization (SEO) audit on Wikipedia. They were contracted to provide information needed by the Audiences department to improve how our sites communicate with search engines and services which provide data to devices like artificial intelligence (AI) assistants. Overall, SEO performance is a strength of our projects, but
we
were able to identify areas for improvement, and the audit was helpful
for
Audiences to more effectively focus their efforts. During discussions
about
Wikimedia values and activities that were held in selecting the vendor, they did not disclose anything which raised suspicion, and we failed to identify this specific concern and question them about it more.
The Foundation's Legal department received the proposal after it had been approved by Audiences and drafted a contract for this agreement following standard procedures. This included a privacy review, which resulted in
the
inclusion of extra privacy and security protections in the contract.
Their
activities did not involve reputation management services, and they did
not
request or receive access to any Wikimedia user data. The contract concluded last month.
As we are now aware of the vendor's possible violations and feel they should have shared this information with us during discussions, we will
not
be pursuing any future working relationship with Go Fish Digital and will be requesting that they honor our contractual agreement by not discussing their past relationship with us for promotional purposes. Additionally,
we
are reviewing the way that this vendor was selected in an effort to see
if
we can identify what led to this issue and better identify these types of concerns when identifying future vendors and executing agreements with them. Finally, as they regularly do, our Trust and Safety team in
Community
Engagement are working with the functionaries investigating the possible policy violations.
Again, we appreciate the attention provided to this by the functionaries and others who raised these concerns. We agree that the Foundation should avoid working with vendors who violate our policies, and hope the discussion around this will help reduce the chances of this happening in the future.
Thank you, -greg
Gregory Varnum Communications Strategist Wikimedia Foundation https://wikimediafoundation.org/ gvarnum@wikimedia.org Pronouns: He/Him/His
On Jul 27, 2018, at 12:32 PM, Mario Gómez mariogomwiki@gmail.com
wrote:
I have gathered more evidence and opened a sockpuppet investigation, omitting any parts involving personal data:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/BurritoSla...
Personal data sent to functionaries-en@ is still relevant to verify
some
details, but I think that it is not crucial anymore to prove Go Fish Digital ongoing and undisclosed paid editing.
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 12:36 PM, Mario Gómez mariogomwiki@gmail.com wrote:
I will not post actual evidence to this mailing list. My notes as of Sunday are already sent to functionaries and I'm sure they will act on
it
themselves. As I collect more evidence, I might open a sockpuppet investigation on English Wikipedia anyway if there is enough of it to continue even without personal data, which is just a small part.
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 11:29 AM, jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
Without getting into whether an outing policy exists/applies here,
please
bear in mind that if redaction is required, it is rather difficult to
do
it on a mailing list, especially a mailman mailing list like this one.
i.e. Please avoid posting something here which may need redaction.
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018, 16:00 Isaac Olatunde <reachout2isaac@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi Mario,
I don't think it will be considered harassment if the information is
posted
here. I believe the WP:OUTING applies to the English Wikipedia and
this
is
not English Wikipedia mailing list.
Regards,
Isaac
On Jul 22, 2018 5:43 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:
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > wiki/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>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/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>
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@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/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
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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org