|
|
|
Bell Pottinger investigation |
|
|
cookiehead |
|
Junior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 76
Joined:
Member No.: 23,420
|
QUOTE(mbz1 @ Wed 7th December 2011, 7:25pm) Jimbo declines unblock with a reason: "pending outcome of Bell Pottinger investigation" I do not recall seeing Jimbo declined unblocks. Does somebody know what is Bell Pottinger investigation? It's Jimmy's big comeback on Wikipedia, his charge up San Juan Hill. He's back, he's the founder, and he's personally kicking ass. http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2011/...bell-pottinger/
|
|
|
|
TungstenCarbide |
|
Allegedly shot down by stray Ukrainian missile
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,405
Joined:
Member No.: 10,787
|
QUOTE(cookiehead @ Thu 8th December 2011, 1:07am) QUOTE(mbz1 @ Wed 7th December 2011, 7:25pm) Jimbo declines unblock with a reason: "pending outcome of Bell Pottinger investigation" I do not recall seeing Jimbo declined unblocks. Does somebody know what is Bell Pottinger investigation? It's Jimmy's big comeback on Wikipedia, his charge up San Juan Hill. He's back, he's the founder, and he's personally kicking ass. http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2011/...bell-pottinger/He actually created some content this week. How often does that happen.
|
|
|
|
mbz1 |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined:
Member No.: 25,791
|
QUOTE(cookiehead @ Thu 8th December 2011, 1:07am) QUOTE(mbz1 @ Wed 7th December 2011, 7:25pm) Jimbo declines unblock with a reason: "pending outcome of Bell Pottinger investigation" I do not recall seeing Jimbo declined unblocks. Does somebody know what is Bell Pottinger investigation? It's Jimmy's big comeback on Wikipedia, his charge up San Juan Hill. He's back, he's the founder, and he's personally kicking ass. http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2011/...bell-pottinger/Ah, I see. "The 'dark arts': Bell Pottinger caught rewriting its clients' Wikipedia entries "QUOTE Several Wikipedia accounts have been suspended pending an investigation instigated by the founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales. Quotes from the article QUOTE Among the changes made in the past year by a user – traced to a Bell Pottinger computer – who made the alterations under the pseudonym "Biggleswiki" were:
* Removal of the reference to the university drugs conviction of a businessman who was a client of Bell Pottinger;
* Edited material relating to the arrest of a man accused of commercial bribery;
* Editing of the entries for prostate cancer expert Professor Roger Kirby and his firm, The Prostate Centre. Both are clients of Bell Pottinger. The user added Mr Kirby into a separate page on "prostatectomy" as a notable expert, and edited the entry on the Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi to include comments made by Mr Kirby about Megrahi's cancer.
* Editing the articles of both Chime Communications, parent company of Bell Pottinger, and Naked Eye Research after the former company bought 55 per cent of the latter. It is interesting that so far as of the last revision of the wikipedia entry's for Group there's nothing said about manipulating of wikipedia entries although the article was tagged by Chase. It is also interesting that it took a year before the user was discovered, and discovered not by wikipedia. Besides everything else it was a payed editing. I wonder how many other similar situations exist on wikipedia. This post has been edited by mbz1:
|
|
|
|
mbz1 |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined:
Member No.: 25,791
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 8th December 2011, 2:27am) QUOTE(mbz1 @ Wed 7th December 2011, 7:25pm) Does somebody know what is Bell Pottinger investigation?
Yes, it's that thing I brought to everyone's attention here YESTERDAY. Please, pay attention. I am the bellwether around here. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) Sorry. Btw have you noticed this exchange of comments on Independent article: QUOTE SimonJonston:the beauty of wikipedia is you can edit it (its not against the law!)
Roy Filer:However, in doing so renders Wikipedia useless and utterly pointless as an information resource because we'll never know what's accurate or not, unless we ourselves have the true knowledge of the subject. And then we won't be looking at things we already know about.
This is why I cannot trust its content, and I treat it with caution. This post has been edited by mbz1:
|
|
|
|
mbz1 |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined:
Member No.: 25,791
|
Wikipedia probes edits by Bell Pottinger QUOTE
John Cryer, the Labour MP who has launched a bid to establish a public register of commercial lobbyists with access to Parliament, said he was concerned about the suggestion that lobbyists were able to change clients’ profiles on Wikipedia.
Mr Cryer, MP for Leyton and Wanstead, said: “If they’re going in and editing Wikipedia that would be questionable, the whole idea is that the website is completely open encyclopedia, and it is open to anybody, it has a democratic function.â€
He added: “If people who are being paid to represent others are going in and editing, it sounds to me to be at the very least open to question. I would be interested to know how they justify that sort of activity, nobody reading it would be aware of what has happened, people read Wikipedia expecting total objectivity.â€
|
|
|
|
thekohser |
|
Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
|
QUOTE John Cryer, the Labour MP who has launched a bid to establish a public register of commercial lobbyists with access to Parliament, said he was concerned about the suggestion that lobbyists were able to change clients’ profiles on Wikipedia.
Mr Cryer, MP for Leyton and Wanstead, said: “If they’re going in and editing Wikipedia that would be questionable, the whole idea is that the website is completely open encyclopedia, and it is open to anybody, it has a democratic function.â€
He added: “If people who are being paid to represent others are going in and editing, it sounds to me to be at the very least open to question. I would be interested to know how they justify that sort of activity, nobody reading it would be aware of what has happened, people read Wikipedia expecting total objectivity.†That may be one of the most gullible, deluded politicians I've ever heard. I suppose he also imagines "people donate to the Wikimedia Foundation expecting total efficiency". Has anyone made the connection that this was just ONE public relations firm, out of probably thousands of such firms worldwide? If even 10% of them are fiddling with Wikipedia, there's still another thousand User accounts to ban, aren't there?
|
|
|
|
Sololol |
|
Bell the Cat
Group: Contributors
Posts: 193
Joined:
Member No.: 50,538
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 8th December 2011, 7:25am) QUOTE John Cryer, the Labour MP who has launched a bid to establish a public register of commercial lobbyists with access to Parliament, said he was concerned about the suggestion that lobbyists were able to change clients’ profiles on Wikipedia.
Mr Cryer, MP for Leyton and Wanstead, said: “If they’re going in and editing Wikipedia that would be questionable, the whole idea is that the website is completely open encyclopedia, and it is open to anybody, it has a democratic function.â€
He added: “If people who are being paid to represent others are going in and editing, it sounds to me to be at the very least open to question. I would be interested to know how they justify that sort of activity, nobody reading it would be aware of what has happened, people read Wikipedia expecting total objectivity.†That may be one of the most gullible, deluded politicians I've ever heard. I suppose he also imagines "people donate to the Wikimedia Foundation expecting total efficiency". Has anyone made the connection that this was just ONE public relations firm, out of probably thousands of such firms worldwide? If even 10% of them are fiddling with Wikipedia, there's still another thousand User accounts to ban, aren't there? Indeed. PR firms occasionally turn up in the nets of the Wiki-Inquisitors but no one usually gives a shit. There's also the issue of executives/investors taking it upon themselves to pimp their company and products. Not that anyone can stop them. Jimmy's just a little upset that someone noticed this time.
|
|
|
|
mbz1 |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined:
Member No.: 25,791
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 8th December 2011, 12:25pm)
Has anyone made the connection that this was just ONE public relations firm, out of probably thousands of such firms worldwide? If even 10% of them are fiddling with Wikipedia, there's still another thousand User accounts to ban, aren't there?
I believe a better question to ask is: If even all such accounts detected and banned would it resolve a problem, or for every account that is banned a new one would be made? If you are to add to this problem such people as Johann Hari who was using wikipedia entries to attack his real life opponents, or such admins as Fæ (T-C-L-K-R-D)
who wrote articles about his not notable friends, or such admins as Gwen Gale (T-C-L-K-R-D)
who wrote not just one, but two articles about herself only because she wrote an absolutely idiotic free e-book, and decided it was enough to call herself "Noteworthy separatist feminists." or even wikipedia co-founder Jimbo Wales, who used to edit his own bio... how reliable wikipedia would look to you? BTW I just found that not only me made a connection between Bell Pottinger and Hari QUOTE Meanwhile a number of users of micro-blogging site Twitter have been pointing out that one of the Independent’s own columnists has himself been caught up in controversy over the changing of Wikipedia entries.
One wrote: “It's laughable that the Independent can attack Bell Pottinger for changing Wikipedia entries but not fire Johann Hari who did much worseâ€.
Hari has apologised after it emerged that he had recycled quotes and used a false name to change his Wikipedia entry as well as those of his detractors. This post has been edited by mbz1:
|
|
|
|
Eppur si muove |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 304
Joined:
Member No.: 9,171
|
QUOTE(mbz1 @ Thu 8th December 2011, 2:36pm) QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 8th December 2011, 12:25pm)
Has anyone made the connection that this was just ONE public relations firm, out of probably thousands of such firms worldwide? If even 10% of them are fiddling with Wikipedia, there's still another thousand User accounts to ban, aren't there?
I believe a better question to ask is: If even all such accounts detected and banned would it resolve a problem, or for every account that is banned a new one would be made? If you are to add to this problem such people as Johann Hari who was using wikipedia entries to attack his real life opponents, or such admins as Fæ (T-C-L-K-R-D)
who wrote articles about his not notable friends, or such admins as Gwen Gale (T-C-L-K-R-D)
who wrote not just one, but two articles about herself only because she wrote an absolutely idiotic free e-book, and desided it was enough to call herself "Noteworthy separatist feminists." or even wikipedia co-founder Jimbo Wales, who used to edit his own bio... how reliable wikipedia would look to you? And then there is the faux-objectiveness of NPOV. The policy page on the English Wikipedia has links to other languages, for example Arabic, Hebrew, Greek and Turkish. Does anyone expect that the existence of similar policies will mean that the nationalist conflicts in Palestine and Cyprus will be written up in remotely similar ways in these different language versions of the encyclopedia?
|
|
|
|
Peter Damian |
|
I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined:
Member No.: 4,212
|
QUOTE (FT.com) “John Cryer, the Labour MP who has launched a bid to establish a public register of commercial lobbyists with access to Parliament, said he was concerned about the suggestion that lobbyists were able to change clients’ profiles on Wikipedia. Mr Cryer, MP for Leyton and Wanstead, said: “If they’re going in and editing Wikipedia that would be questionable, the whole idea is that the website is completely open encyclopedia, and it is open to anybody, it has a democratic function.†He added: “If people who are being paid to represent others are going in and editing, it sounds to me to be at the very least open to question. I would be interested to know how they justify that sort of activity, nobody reading it would be aware of what has happened, people read Wikipedia expecting total objectivity.â€
Haha http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11...edia-entry.html . For those too young to remember, labour party member David Boothroyd is Wikipedia’s ex-Arbcom member Sam Blacketer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Blacketer , caught manipulating Cameron’s biography.
|
|
|
|
Abd |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
|
Pope Catholic. Wikipedia incompetent. The encyclopedia that anyone can manage. Being given a little clue as to the accounts involved, I see just how well the community and Jimbo understand "due process." Biggleswiki (T-C-L-K-R-D)
checkuser block by WilliamH. No explanation. Reg 23 November 2010. I find this hilarious. Troll account, offensive username, warned for revert warring, then blocked for username similarity (to Biggles, obviously). Al Capone cited for jaywalking. Ejbsnow (T-C-L-K-R-D)
blocked by WilliamH. Reg 27 October 2011 Charlesstewart99Â (T-C-L-K-R-D)
blocked by WilliamH. Reg 21 September 2011 Diginerd84Â (T-C-L-K-R-D)
blocked by WilliamH. Reg 1 July 2009, last edit 24 November 2011 Pipsster (T-C-L-K-R-D)
blocked by WilliamH. Reg 17 October 2011 Smythej (T-C-L-K-R-D)
blocked by WilliamH. Reg 1 June 2011, last edit 25 October 2011 GBSewnlim (T-C-L-K-R-D)
blocked by WilliamH. This and above blocked December 6. Reg 25 October 2011 Techboy1900Â (T-C-L-K-R-D)
Reg 6 December 2011. Checkuser block by Keegan, 7 December 2011. Illyhawaii (T-C-L-K-R-D)
No undeleted contributions. Reg 30 June 2011. Blocked by Keegan, 7 December 2011. Slaine1Â (T-C-L-K-R-D)
Reg 9 September 2008. 3 contributions to Bell Pottinger. All socks now attributed to Slaine1, see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Slaine1Prguruguru (T-C-L-K-R-D)
(? see list.) Reg 3 October 2011 (However, now blocked as "checkuser block" by William H., December 8.) In the other direction, a Bell Pottinger spokesperson said "We have never added something that is a lie ..." It's probable that, for this to be true, we have to gloss it as "we have never added something to Wikipedia mainspace that is a lie," because ... [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Biggleswiki this is probably fraudulent representation]. It finally showed up on AN/I, (permanent link).Wikipedia is a sitting duck for manipulation, by even single users, all it takes is patience. Multiple users (i.e., a faction, or the employees of a company) if acting with any sophistication, can rule the place. And they do. Remember Raul654 and his essay on Civil POV pushers? His attitude and approach demonstrated successful Wikipedia factionalism. The lack of genuine due deliberative process makes Wikipedia continuously vulnerable, most easily when some point of view attracts a majority of knee-jerk responses, but also whenever admin and other activity flies below the radar, and, should it be detected, there are enough supporters to shoot down any response. The "community" is mostly asleep, and dislikes being disturbed. Bell Pottinger simply wasn't careful enough. Or are we seeing only a small fraction of what they did? The only sock "detected" from 2008 made only three edits that stand, to the article on Bell Pottinger itself. All other detections were apparently from recent edits, within the checkuser window. Given that Slaine1 was editing in 2008, and Biggleswiki in 2010, there are probably other accounts. I don't know if any of these are true socks. They may or may not be "meat puppets," they might be individual employees acting on their own. Prguruguru could easily be another person, at the parent company (Pelham Bell Pottinger), or simply someone knowledgeable and interested, but I assume that checkuser led to the company. Or some account activity might be coordinated. If the latter, then ... only the tip of the iceberg has been sighted. They already have a huge list of articles to be reviewed at Talk:Bell Pottinger Group/Affected articles. It is obvious to anyone who has studied and considered the matter that sock puppetry can be utterly indetectable, even if there is only one user involved. If there is a company, all the company has to do is prohibit editing from the company computers and IP, and then each "agent" uses their own outside access. If the company wants on-site editing, they just obtain independent internet access. The cost of that would be trivial, by comparison with the value of employee time. My guess, though, is that employees would love to work from home. And there you go. Each one develops their own identity and edit history, and can't be checkusered as socks. Someone would need to coordinate, to avoid undue article overlaps, and almost all employees would be prohibited from editing the company article. We are simply seeing a clumsy PR firm. My guess is that there are hundreds of firms, at least, which are not so clumsy. Wikipedians are not only trying to lock the barn door after the horse escaped, they haven't even locked the door. And they can't, not with the structure they saddled themselves with, years ago. The Wikipedians are very satisfied that nobody has been detected who had gained the special trust of the community. It is a practical certainty that such exist, if not from Bell Pottinger, then from others with a COI. It's trivial to gain admin privileges, if that's your goal. It takes a little work. At least one sock was detected and demonstrated, as reported by The Independent as having edited their user page while logged out, which revealed their IP, which was registered to Bell Pottinger. Damn! Don't you hate auto-logout? But if precautions were being followed, this would have had no effect at all, because the IP would not have been traceable to Bell Pottinger, except maybe through a court-ordered investigation that could dig into ISP records, etc. The fact is that there is a high probability, as well, that the articles, over which the community is now panicking, are better than average, if they were truly being edited by professionals. Wikipedia has never addressed the problem of COI editing in a sane way. COI editors are, almost by definition, more knowledgeable than "neutral" editors. The theory is that COI editors can operate openly, but the fact is that, if they disclose their Conflict of Interest, they will be attacked, and the community hasn't protected them. Anyone else notice the problem with the page listing "affected articles?" It's in Talk mainspace , where it clearly doesn't belong. It's not about the article! It's about the rest of the project as it might have been affected by some COI editing.
|
|
|
|
Abd |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
|
QUOTE(mbz1 @ Wed 7th December 2011, 8:25pm) It is also interesting that it took a year before the user was discovered, and discovered not by wikipedia. Besides everything else it was a payed editing. I wonder how many other similar situations exist on wikipedia. OMG! "Payed editing." Maybe someone who is paid will be able to spell the word. Wikipedia decided that free editing was Good. From this, it was concluded that the opposite, paid editing, was Bad. However, all editors are paid, it's just that some are paid in dopamine, as Moulton was fond of pointing out. Now, whom do you trust more, someone paid with dopamine or someone paid with cash? An addict or a professional? It does depend on what they are being paid for, I'm sure. To provide high-quality content that will stand examination is what a real professional would seek to do. A professional with an idiot for a client might try "astroturfing," which Bell Pottinger denies doing, and they might be right. Waste of money, genuine professionals may refuse to do it, out of hand. I have years of experience with both business and nonprofit organizations. The most cut-throat behavior I have found to be in non-profits. People will literally kill you for a "good cause," far more readily than for a modest amount of money. Wikipedia needed to use unpaid labor, but did not understand how to harness paid labor, which could, with sound structure, produce high quality content, neutral. Instead, Wikipedia becomes a battleground, no matter how much it's claimed that it isn't.
|
|
|
|
Abd |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
|
The Telegraph.QUOTE James Thomlinson, head of digital at Bell Pottinger, told the Independent that “Biggleswiki†was “one of a number of accounts†that had been used to edit Wikipedia entries.
He added: “We have never done anything illegal. We have never added something that is a lie or hasn’t been published elsewhere and we have never tried to ‘Astroturf’, ie create fake positive reviews to sell a product.
“If we have been asked to include things about clients that are untrue we have always said no and pointed to Wikipedia’s strict guidelines.
“We have also ensured that for every change that we have made we have sought the approval of the wider Wikipedia community first.†Like most text with words "always" or "never" or "every" in it, this may be puffery. However, I did notice Prguruguru (T-C-L-K-R-D)
did create Pelham Bell Pottinger, first in user space. It was then moved to Articles for creation, and from there to mainspace by another user unlikely to be affiliated with the company. The only impropriety here is that Prguruguru did not disclose conflict of interest, if any, and did then edit the article after the move. However, the edits seem reasonable, though I haven't checked in detail. In another post here I got the relationship of Pelham Bell Pottinger and Bell Pottinger Group backwards. The parent company is Bell Pottinger. All the flap over this, so far, yet there is no serious smoking gun, something where a Bell Pottinger employee drastically violated anything except for COI rules (and COI violation is extremely common, if we take COI seriously and include all forms of involvement that would, for example, cause a judge to recuse.)
|
|
|
|
SB_Johnny |
|
It wasn't me who made honky-tonk angels
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
|
Lulz from the AN/I: QUOTE [Note from Jimbo: As a part of this process, we should self-evaluate how we dealt with this systematic attack on our integrity. Outcomes can be classified in a few ways such as “community responded to POV pushing appropriately, ending in no overall impact†or “Bell Pottinger got away with something bad†or “Bell Pottinger successfully changed the entry, but in an innocuous wayâ€. We should be most interested in exploring whether and when we failed, so that we can think about how to improve things. So if you work through the history of an article and mark them with {{done}}, please also add a note reporting on the outcome.] Emphasis added. Presumably "we" and "our" are intended in the royal sense. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)
|
|
|
|
Michaeldsuarez |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 562
Joined:
From: New York, New York
Member No.: 24,428
|
|
|
|
|
mbz1 |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined:
Member No.: 25,791
|
|
|
|
|
Eppur si muove |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 304
Joined:
Member No.: 9,171
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 8th December 2011, 9:25pm) Not surprisingly, my comments on The Independent, pointing out Wales' own hypocrisy, have drawn replies that include Google Street View images of my home. So typical Wikipedian behavior. I think you made a tactical mistake. Rather than talking about Jimbo's playboy image, you should have talked about the edit history of Jimmy Wales (T-H-L-K-D).
|
|
|
|
Eppur si muove |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 304
Joined:
Member No.: 9,171
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 9th December 2011, 2:43am) Who is this "previousdenial" character on Independent? He says of me: QUOTE I am a decent person and you are a dishonest self-enriching hypocritical piece of keech. You smear Wikipedia while driving around WiFi hotspots disguising your IP and inventing new identities in order to post lies for cash. Rest assured that once I've investigated Bell Pottinger to my satisfaction then I'll start tracing your malign influence. He has made 1289 comments on the Independent site so he hasn't just turned up because Wikipedia was under discussion. At places such as here you sort of admit to using hotspots. SO he could have picked stuff up via a bit of googling. As I said, you might have succeeded more with his type if your attack on Jimmy had been more about the massaging of his wiki bio. You'll know better than me which of the discarded partners it was who came clean about her efforts on his behalf.
|
|
|
|
powercorrupts |
|
.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 716
Joined:
Member No.: 6,776
|
QUOTE(Zoloft @ Fri 9th December 2011, 6:57am) QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 8th December 2011, 6:43pm) Who is this "previousdenial" character on Independent? He says of me: QUOTE I am a decent person and you are a dishonest self-enriching hypocritical piece of keech. You smear Wikipedia while driving around WiFi hotspots disguising your IP and inventing new identities in order to post lies for cash. Rest assured that once I've investigated Bell Pottinger to my satisfaction then I'll start tracing your malign influence. He makes you sound a bit like a supervillain. Do you have a white cat willing to sit in your lap? I would send you a monocle. He looks to me like an arrogant paranoid who uses the Independent like Facebook, at least looking at his Scottish "pro independence" edits (which says it all in terms of common sense). He looks like he just hates Pottinger and knows little or nothing about Wikipedia. Those Facebook types on comment pages always seem to want the last word, and have little sense of putting new information in their posts. It would be interesting if he really was a Wikipedian, but I doubt it. What's interesting to me is people's response to what is "ethical" or not on Wikipedia. Of course St. Jimbo will always lead the way on this: Wikipedia is innocent and pure, and only a few "unethical" villains soil it. This post has been edited by powercorrupts:
|
|
|
|
mbz1 |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined:
Member No.: 25,791
|
"Jimmy" is teaching Bell Pottinger how to it right QUOTE Jimmy is supposed to be giving a talk to them on how to edit Wikipedia ethically, being open about who they are. I believe it is a very interesting development. If PR firms are allowed to edit on behalf of their clients,does it mean that a paid editing (which I personally have nothing against) is going to be officially allowed?
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |