Hello everyone,
Wikimedia UK has just published a blog post giving its response to today's news stories in The Times and The Daily Telegraph about paid editing of Wikipedia.
You can see the blog post at http://bit.ly/ZfSaln but the full content is below.
If you have any questions please do let me know.
Thanks,
Stevie
In response to today’s news articles in The Times and The Daily Telegraph about PR editing of Wikipedia
This morning The Timeshttp://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/business/industries/telecoms/article3597035.ece ran a story about how staff at the public relations firm RLM Finsbury edited the Wikipedia article on Alisher Usmanovhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alisher_Usmanov, including removing negative material. The story was also republished online by The Daily Telegraphhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/9671471/Finsbury-edited-Alisher-Usmanovs-Wikipedia-page.html .
Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and as such its articles should be written with a neutral point of view. To maintain this neutrality we recommend that anyone with a conflict of interest, such as PR professionals, follows the guidelines we created with the CIPRhttp://www.cipr.co.uk/content/policy-resources/best-practice-guides-toolkits/wikipedia-and-public-relations. When PR professionals engage with the volunteer community via talk pages, we almost always see good results. If you need to seek an urgent correction, you can email info-at-wikimedia.org for assistance – there is a volunteer team on hand 24/7 to help.
We are pleased The Times notes that, while it took more than a month for the Wikipedia community to initially spot the changes and undo them, once they were changed again it only took seconds for this to be picked up on and undone once more. This shows that the Wikipedia community is active and that protecting articles from this kind of editing is taken seriously. This is important for Wikipedia’s credibility and for its readers and editors.
We also welcome the CIPR responsehttp://newsroom.cipr.co.uk/cipr-responds-to-reports-of-rlm-finsbury-editing-wikipedia-pages-for-alisher-usmanov/ to these reports. It is clear that the majority of PR professionals are willing to work with the Wikipedia community and to follow the community’s guidelines. Problems arise when PR professionals try to “fix” articles by directly editing them, as this story shows.
Wikimedia UK is always happy to engage with anyone, including PR professionals, about how Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects work. You can contact us by emailing info-at-wikimedia.org.uk or by calling our office on 020 7065 0993.
On 12 November 2012 16:59, Stevie Benton stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Wikimedia UK has just published a blog post giving its response to today's news stories in The Times and The Daily Telegraph about paid editing of Wikipedia. You can see the blog post at http://bit.ly/ZfSaln but the full content is below.
I wouldn't say the Telegraph "republished" the Times story - that implies a reprint or licensed copy - though it's clear they just worked straight from it. Possibly "also ran the story".
- d.
Fair point. The reason I wrote it that way is because they basically took The Times story and repackaged it. But yes, a distinction worth making.
Thanks,
Stevie
On 12 November 2012 17:25, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 November 2012 16:59, Stevie Benton stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Wikimedia UK has just published a blog post giving its response to
today's news stories in The Times and The Daily Telegraph about paid editing of Wikipedia.
You can see the blog post at http://bit.ly/ZfSaln but the full content
is below.
I wouldn't say the Telegraph "republished" the Times story - that implies a reprint or licensed copy - though it's clear they just worked straight from it. Possibly "also ran the story".
- d.
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
If this diff was the change:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alisher_Usmanov&diff=482553850...
When was this undone? The deleted stuff about Kommersant (cited to the BBC, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16183112 ) is not in the article even now.
Andreas
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 5:27 PM, Stevie Benton < stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:
Fair point. The reason I wrote it that way is because they basically took The Times story and repackaged it. But yes, a distinction worth making.
Thanks,
Stevie
On 12 November 2012 17:25, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 November 2012 16:59, Stevie Benton stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Wikimedia UK has just published a blog post giving its response to
today's news stories in The Times and The Daily Telegraph about paid editing of Wikipedia.
You can see the blog post at http://bit.ly/ZfSaln but the full content
is below.
I wouldn't say the Telegraph "republished" the Times story - that implies a reprint or licensed copy - though it's clear they just worked straight from it. Possibly "also ran the story".
- d.
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
--
Stevie Benton Communications Organiser Wikimedia UK+44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173 @StevieBenton
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
According to the Times, the reverted edits referred to were made by 212.161.34.130. Looking through the history of the article, the relevant diffs seem to be: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alisher_Usmanov&diff=379790641... and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alisher_Usmanov&diff=392056591...
I'd encourage you to post a message on the article talk page pointing towards the diff that you link to, so that the editors that are currently looking at that article are aware of it.
Thanks, Mike
On 13 Nov 2012, at 20:40, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
If this diff was the change:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alisher_Usmanov&diff=482553850...
When was this undone? The deleted stuff about Kommersant (cited to the BBC, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16183112 ) is not in the article even now.
Andreas
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 5:27 PM, Stevie Benton stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: Fair point. The reason I wrote it that way is because they basically took The Times story and repackaged it. But yes, a distinction worth making.
Thanks,
Stevie
On 12 November 2012 17:25, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote: On 12 November 2012 16:59, Stevie Benton stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Wikimedia UK has just published a blog post giving its response to today's news stories in The Times and The Daily Telegraph about paid editing of Wikipedia. You can see the blog post at http://bit.ly/ZfSaln but the full content is below.
I wouldn't say the Telegraph "republished" the Times story - that implies a reprint or licensed copy - though it's clear they just worked straight from it. Possibly "also ran the story".
- d.
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
-- Stevie Benton Communications Organiser Wikimedia UK +44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173 @StevieBenton Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 8:59 PM, Michael Peel <michael.peel@wikimedia.org.uk
wrote:
According to the Times, the reverted edits referred to were made by 212.161.34.130. Looking through the history of the article, the relevant diffs seem to be:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alisher_Usmanov&diff=379790641... and
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alisher_Usmanov&diff=392056591...
I'd encourage you to post a message on the article talk page pointing towards the diff that you link to, so that the editors that are currently looking at that article are aware of it.
Thanks, Mike
Thanks Mike. Will do.
Andreas
On 13 Nov 2012, at 20:40, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
If this diff was the change:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alisher_Usmanov&diff=482553850...
When was this undone? The deleted stuff about Kommersant (cited to the BBC, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16183112 ) is not in the article even now.
Andreas
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 5:27 PM, Stevie Benton < stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:
Fair point. The reason I wrote it that way is because they basically took The Times story and repackaged it. But yes, a distinction worth making.
Thanks,
Stevie
On 12 November 2012 17:25, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 November 2012 16:59, Stevie Benton stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Wikimedia UK has just published a blog post giving its response to
today's news stories in The Times and The Daily Telegraph about paid editing of Wikipedia.
You can see the blog post at http://bit.ly/ZfSaln but the full
content is below.
I wouldn't say the Telegraph "republished" the Times story - that implies a reprint or licensed copy - though it's clear they just worked straight from it. Possibly "also ran the story".
- d.
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
--
Stevie Benton Communications Organiser Wikimedia UK+44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173 @StevieBenton
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On 13 November 2012 20:59, Michael Peel michael.peel@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
According to the Times, the reverted edits referred to were made by 212.161.34.130. Looking through the history of the article, the relevant diffs seem to be:
BTW - if you can get a copy of yesterday's Times, you should. That article has some of the best explanation for the general public of how to work a Wikipedia history tab that I've ever seen.
(It's such a pity the Times really doesn't want its stuff widely read on the net, i.e. by the people who would be most interested in this.)
0 d.
On 13 Nov 2012, at 21:16, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
(It's such a pity the Times really doesn't want its stuff widely read on the net, i.e. by the people who would be most interested in this.)
I completely agree. It's very scary that the Daily Mail is more accessible than the Times on the internet right now. :-?
Thanks, Mike
Along with MSN News, the Daily Mail is in fact the most read news source in the English speaking world, according to this article:
http://www.nouse.co.uk/2012/11/12/the-daily-mail-lolcats-with-a-masthead/
I don't know whether that is just online, or the combined number of online and print readers. In terms of print circulation, the Daily Mail is no. 2 in the UK (after The Sun), with close to 2 million copies sold.
The Mail Online website overtook the New York Times website in January of this year to become the most read newspaper website.
Andreas
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 9:19 PM, Michael Peel <michael.peel@wikimedia.org.uk
wrote:
On 13 Nov 2012, at 21:16, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
(It's such a pity the Times really doesn't want its stuff widely read on the net, i.e. by the people who would be most interested in this.)
I completely agree. It's very scary that the Daily Mail is more accessible than the Times on the internet right now. :-?
Thanks, Mike _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org