Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

_ The Jimbo Phenomenon _ Bell Pottinger investigation

Posted by: mbz1

Jimbo http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEjbsnow&action=historysubmit&diff=464588817&oldid=464588288 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?

Posted by: cookiehead

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Wed 7th December 2011, 7:25pm) *

Jimbo http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEjbsnow&action=historysubmit&diff=464588817&oldid=464588288 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/2011/12/07/revealed-the-wikipedia-pages-changed-by-bell-pottinger/

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

QUOTE(cookiehead @ Thu 8th December 2011, 1:07am) *
QUOTE(mbz1 @ Wed 7th December 2011, 7:25pm) *

Jimbo http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEjbsnow&action=historysubmit&diff=464588817&oldid=464588288 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/2011/12/07/revealed-the-wikipedia-pages-changed-by-bell-pottinger/


He actually http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez&action=historysubmit&diff=464215971&oldid=464071566 this week. How often does that happen.

Posted by: cookiehead

He's determined to catch up to Cla68 in his value to the "project".

No word if "shoot on sight" has been sent out on the soopersekret list yet.

Posted by: mbz1

QUOTE(cookiehead @ Thu 8th December 2011, 1:07am) *

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Wed 7th December 2011, 7:25pm) *

Jimbo http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEjbsnow&action=historysubmit&diff=464588817&oldid=464588288 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/2011/12/07/revealed-the-wikipedia-pages-changed-by-bell-pottinger/

Ah, I see.http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-dark-arts-bell-pottinger-caught-rewriting-its-clients-wikipedia-entries-6273836.html
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 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bell_Pottinger_Group&oldid=464686247 there's nothing said about manipulating of wikipedia entries although
the article was tagged by Chase.

It is also interesting that http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&target=Biggleswiki, and discovered not by wikipedia. Besides everything else it was a payed editing. I wonder how many other similar situations exist on wikipedia.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Wed 7th December 2011, 7:25pm) *

Does somebody know what is Bell Pottinger investigation?

Yes, it's that thing I brought to http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=35751&view=findpost&p=290336. Please, pay attention. I am the bellwether around here.

biggrin.gif


Jimmy Wales commenting on ethics is a rather funny thing. Just ask his first two wives, and his ex-mistress. I don't know if PR professional Kate Garvey (the fourth woman, with whom he's fathered a child out of wedlock, before the divorce from Wife #2 was final in Pinellas County) has yet formed an opinion about Jimbo's ethics, but I say give it about 5 years, and then let's check in with her.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Wed 7th December 2011, 8:10pm) *

He actually http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez&action=historysubmit&diff=464215971&oldid=464071566 this week. How often does that happen.


More rarely than you think. Do you actually believe that Jimbo wrote all of that himself?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez&diff=440764594&oldid=439935290, Tungsten.

Posted by: mbz1

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 http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=35751&view=findpost&p=290336. Please, pay attention. I am the bellwether around here.

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.



Posted by: mbz1

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0d13cc7e-2104-11e1-8a43-00144feabdc0.html?ftcamp=rss#axzz1fuwuMJT9

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.”

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.”

Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Wed 7th December 2011, 8:10pm) *

He actually http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez&action=historysubmit&diff=464215971&oldid=464071566 this week. How often does that happen.
Hmmm, Wikimania Caracas coming soon? laugh.gif

If a guy happens to need shelter from the IRS or alimony debts, would Venezuela be a good place to shack up? hmmm.gif

Posted by: thekohser

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.”

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?

Posted by: Sololol

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.”

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.

Posted by: mbz1

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 http://www.wikipediareview.com/Johann_Hari_and_David_Rose 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 http://img68.imageshack.us/img68/1431/89587859ig5.jpg, but http://img362.imageshack.us/img362/6083/92979875oe7.jpg articles about herself only because she wrote http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALesbian_utopia&action=historysubmit&diff=157664628&oldid=157660279, and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Separatist_feminism&diff=prev&oldid=156808847
or even wikipedia co-founder Jimbo Wales, who http://workbench.cadenhead.org/news/2828/wikipedia-founder-looks-out-number-1...
how reliable wikipedia would look to you?

BTW I just found that not only me made a connection http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8942890/Wikipedia-suspends-accounts-over-Bell-Pottinger-claims.html
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 worse”.

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.


Posted by: Eppur si muove

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 http://www.wikipediareview.com/Johann_Hari_and_David_Rose 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 http://img68.imageshack.us/img68/1431/89587859ig5.jpg, but http://img362.imageshack.us/img362/6083/92979875oe7.jpg articles about herself only because she wrote http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALesbian_utopia&action=historysubmit&diff=157664628&oldid=157660279, and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Separatist_feminism&diff=prev&oldid=156808847
or even wikipedia co-founder Jimbo Wales, who http://workbench.cadenhead.org/news/2828/wikipedia-founder-looks-out-number-1...
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?

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Sololol @ Thu 8th December 2011, 9:14am) *

Jimmy's just a little upset that someone noticed this time.


Or rather, Jimmy has concluded that his reputation would be enhanced if he exhibits a reaction that seems like he is upset about this matter.

Posted by: Peter Damian

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.”


Haha http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1191474/Labour-councillor-David-Boothroyd-caught-altering-David-Camerons-Wikipedia-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.

Posted by: Abd

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 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BigglesFliesUndone&diff=next&oldid=464754133 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
Charlesstewart99 (T-C-L-K-R-D) blocked by WilliamH. Reg 21 September 2011
Diginerd84 (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

Techboy1900 (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.
Slaine1 (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 Slaine1

Prguruguru (T-C-L-K-R-D) (? seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bell_Pottinger_Group/Affected_articles#List_of_accounts) 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].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Bell_Pottinger, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=464770372#Bell_Pottinger

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.

Posted by: mbz1

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Thu 8th December 2011, 3:42pm) *



Haha http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1191474/Labour-councillor-David-Boothroyd-caught-altering-David-Camerons-Wikipedia-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.

Is there any govcom member and/or admin who has never been exposed in manipulating of any article confused.gif

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Wed 7th December 2011, 8:25pm) *
It is also interesting that http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&dir=prev&target=Biggleswiki, 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.

Posted by: Ottava

I saw a politician say that Wikipedia is democratic so paid editors shouldn't be around. I don't really think that makes sense.

If things are a democracy, don't people have the right to edit? Why can't they then pay someone who is a better writer to put together what they want? How is that really a problem? Because their writing might follow proper grammar rules? Might have actual information?

In a Democracy, it would seem that having paid editing would be allowable and essential. Otherwise, those who lack the ability to effectively write will be ignored.

Posted by: Abd

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8942890/Wikipedia-suspends-accounts-over-Bell-Pottinger-claims.html

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.)

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Abd @ Thu 8th December 2011, 10:57am) *

Wikipedia has never addressed the problem of COI editing in a sane way.


Excellent observation, Abd.

This all gives me an idea. I should find an unscrupulous client who wants to defame all of his competitors. He (or she, but this sounds like something a guy would do) would hire me to do all sorts of puffy edits on the competitors' articles. Then... whoopsie-daisy! I "accidentally" expose my IP address and get "caught" by the WikiPolice. Then the news would simply have to report that a PAID EDITOR (gasp!) was apprehended polishing up the articles about Company X, Y, and Z.

Client laughs all the way to the bank!

Posted by: thekohser

A worthwhile comment was left with The Independent:

QUOTE
Jimmy Wales really does seem to attack our basic human rights at times.

In my experience Wikipedia is a forbiddingly controlled environment. Of course PR people should be allowed to edit its entries! ie without ringing Jimmy and the 'Foundation' first – where they put their own select editors on the case.

Jimmy Wales is a notorious self-marketer, and lives by extremely oddball and right wing "Ayn Rand" Fountainhead politics. He lives in the UK now, and our media is more and more falling for the Cult of Jimbo - ('Jimbo Wales' being his Wikipedia name).

Wikipedia will never be remotely accurate unless people who know about things are "ethically" allowed to edit them. If information is inaccurate the idea is supposed to be that others rectify them (and vice versa - ie PR companies should be able to put things right). That's what PR is about isn't it? PR is a lifeline for many people – how dare Jimmy Wales keep making these judgement calls. He also won't allow people to pay others to do the quite technical act of editing a page for them (ie to rectify falsehoods). Millions of people are simply not allowed to be part of Wikipedia because of Jimmy's convoluted rules and tight-control of what is and isn't allowed.

Wikipedia has a famous "admin class" of anonymous, yet groupself and life-appointed people who ultimately decide what goes and what doesn’t. They follow the line that Mr. Jones is actually being “unethical” if he edits his own own article. For me that is something of a human rights abuse – esp as Wikipedia is absolutely full of filthy lies that only people in the know can properly correct (or at least attempt to balance).

People need to know that before Wikipedia Jimmy was a player in internet porn (via a company called Bomis) - he is really no modern 'hero' at all. In my personal opinion Jimmy's Foundation controls information the way the porn industry controls women – they call it liberating, but we must look underneath – and look philosophically ("ethically" if you will, Jimmy). And it also has to be said that Jimmy didn't invent anything – for many people he has simply taken tight control of a societal development that belongs to all of us: an online 'wiki' that is full of everything. All of us need to develop, control and improve it (ie does it have to cover “everything”? - and esp like a Hello magazine crossed with Penthouse via the Daily Mail?) - not Jimmy Wales (who incidentally often promotes his for-profit 'Wikia' business) and the some-how charity-status WikiMedia Foundation.

Well done the Independent for not allowing Jimmy to bully them into saying he is the sole Founder of Wikipedia (at least not inside the main article).

Posted by: SB_Johnny

Lulz from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=464810623#Bell_Pottinger:

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 way”. 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. dry.gif

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez

I see that PaoloNapolitano (T-C-L-K-R-D) , who http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2011/Candidates&diff=460377762&oldid=460333543, is attempting to capitalize on this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Biggleswiki&diff=prev&oldid=464773129

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=prev&oldid=464773936

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Bell_Pottinger&diff=464803059

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=464803843

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=464807609

He or she http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=prev&oldid=464773936 of an userpage that has never been vandalism, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=464803843, and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=464807609.

It's funny to watch someone trying to profit off of a scandal revolving around profit.

Posted by: mbz1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bell_Pottinger_Group/Affected_articles

Posted by: thekohser

Not surprisingly, my comments http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/wikipedia-founder-attacks-bell-pottinger-for-ethical-blindness-6273836.html#disqus_thread, pointing out Wales' own hypocrisy, have drawn replies that include Google Street View images of my home. So typical Wikipedian behavior.

Posted by: mbz1

QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Thu 8th December 2011, 7:39pm) *

and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=464807609.


I wonder if http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=464807609 Jimbo was giving only a barnstar or he was actually paid for giving his interviews. smile.gif

Posted by: Peter Damian

Some puzzling remarks by Jimmy on the BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16084861

QUOTE

"Mr Wales said he was "highly critical of their ethics". "I've never seen a case like this. In general when I speak to PR firms they have ethical guidelines that would prevent this kind of conduct." While anyone is free to edit the encyclopaedia, the site's guidelines urge users to steer clear of topics in which they have a personal or business interest. "I offered to pop by their office next week give them a speech on ethical editing of Wikipedia - but I guess they didn't think that was too amusing so they didn't respond," Mr Wales said.


Run that past me. You have never seen a case of PR firms editing Wikipedia? What? And what about "the site's guidelines urge users to steer clear of topics in which they have a personal or business interest." I have a personal interest in medieval philosophy. Does that mean I can't edit? What about all the marxists and anarchists and bondage fetishists who edit Wikipedia?

Or does 'personal interest' mean 'financial interest'? Yes but how do you separate financial interest from personal interest? If an anarchist group wants to advertise in a newspaper, it will cost them a lot of money. Advertising on Wikipedia is free, if you are an anarchist group, of course. Or advertising pornography. Or, er ... (ethical blindness onset)

Posted by: lilburne

Oddly enough I spent a weekend pounding the streets of Keighley leafleting for John Cryer's dad. I wonder how well he like the image of "bell tolling".

Posted by: Eppur si muove

QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 8th December 2011, 9:25pm) *

Not surprisingly, my comments http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/wikipedia-founder-attacks-bell-pottinger-for-ethical-blindness-6273836.html#disqus_thread, 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).

Posted by: cookiehead

Lessons learned from this?

it's not Ok to be a corporation rep on WP, but it is OK to edit in a reference to your book on every possibly related article under an assumed name.

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez

QUOTE(Eppur si muove @ Thu 8th December 2011, 7:45pm) *

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).


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Wales&diff=29882276&oldid=29772366

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Eppur si muove @ Thu 8th December 2011, 7:45pm) *

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).

I make hundreds of strategically sound comments every year. I hope I'm granted a single tactical mistake once in a while?

Anyway, if they want to post my townhouse on the Internet, that's fine. I'm happy to have any Wikipediot over for tea, if they'll only set an appointment with me, and that they've bathed in the past 24 hours. Jimbo not only wouldn't have them over to his house -- he won't even reveal where his house is!

Posted by: thekohser

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.

Posted by: Eppur si muove

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 http://socialfresh.com/why-wikipedia-needs-marketers/ 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.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Eppur si muove @ Thu 8th December 2011, 11:19pm) *

...admit to using hotspots...


Wikipedia has so many unusual rules that must be obeyed, like "when we ban you for criticism of Wikimedia ineptitude and graft, please don't use hotspots to help clients fix falsehoods in their Wikipedia articles".

Posted by: Zoloft

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.

Posted by: powercorrupts

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.

Posted by: mbz1

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=464908585

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?

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Fri 9th December 2011, 12:22pm) *

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=464908585
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?


Sigh...

Wikip/media people can say "disclose who you are, be open" all they like; but when a PR firm begins to try that technique, even to remove falsehoods from their clients' Wikipedia articles, "the community" will give them so much push-back and grief, it won't be very long before the PR firm throws up its hands in frustration and just goes back to the "old" way of doing things. Because going undisclosed and pseudonymous is the advantage of the incumbent Wikipediots, any sane person soon discovers that you have to fight fire with fire.

And Jimmy doesn't really care. In fact, the kerfuffle just gives the press another reason to contact him, and that's his objective -- to be in the spotlight.

Posted by: mbz1

QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 9th December 2011, 5:27pm) *

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Fri 9th December 2011, 12:22pm) *

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=464908585
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?


Sigh...

Wikip/media people can say "disclose who you are, be open" all they like; but when a PR firm begins to try that technique, even to remove falsehoods from their clients' Wikipedia articles, "the community" will give them so much push-back and grief, it won't be very long before the PR firm throws up its hands in frustration and just goes back to the "old" way of doing things. Because going undisclosed and pseudonymous is the advantage of the incumbent Wikipediots, any sane person soon discovers that you have to fight fire with fire.

And Jimmy doesn't really care. In fact, the kerfuffle just gives the press another reason to contact him, and that's his objective -- to be in the spotlight.


OK, but if we are to put all these arguments aside.
Isn't PR firms editing on behalf of their clients no matter how ethical and open it is going to be violates a policy about paid editing, or there are not such policy on wikipedia? confused.gif

Posted by: Abd

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Fri 9th December 2011, 12:22pm) *
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=464908585
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?
It already is allowed, in theory. If an editor discloses a conflict of interest, in theory they should be allowed to make suggestions about articles on Talk pages, and even, under some circumstances where opposition isn't reasonably expected, to actually edit. However, in practice, such editors may still come under attack. JedRothwell followed COI rules for years, confining himself to talk page edits on Cold fusion, and was still indeffed by an administrator (MastCell, as I recall) who was supporting his friend JzG, who had essentially lied about Jed, but in a way that easily escaped notice. His signature, which included a reference to the web site he runs (as "librarian," this is lenr-canr.org), but not a link, was the basis for claims by JzG that his talk page edits were "spamming," and that resulted in a meta blacklisting. With no improper links having been added, thus blatant violation of blacklisting policy. Let me present to you in his former glory, Mike.lifeguard, who made that decision after asking for evidence, which was supplied, and then ignored.

Until Wikipedia actually protects those who follow the rules, the rules are not going to be respected. Rules must cut in both directions, otherwise they are just excuses to slam people for "breaking the rules," excuses used by those who themselves are perfectly free to ignore rules, for their own purposes, without hindrance.

I eventually managed to get the meta blacklisting reversed, but the discussion there -- necessary in order to lay the foundation for delisting -- was the excuse for my renewed topic ban on Wikipedia. Yes, the admin had no compunction about using behavior elsewhere, that he found offensive (too wordy, completely neglecting context and necessity), to ban. That ultimately led to my giving up on WP due process, when an appeal was rejected without consideration by ArbComm.

SNAFU. Signing off, this is Kafkaesque (T-C-L-K-R-D) .

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Fri 9th December 2011, 12:57pm) *

...it is going to be violates a policy about paid editing, or there are not such policy on wikipedia? confused.gif


Two attempts were made to enact policies about paid editing -- one was a strict prohibition, and the other was a more tolerant and regulated view. Neither of them gained "consensus". There were also a few other blatherings about it, formalized in the Wikipedia way. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Paid_editing.

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

OMG, Jimbo's http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=464928062. I'd be shaking in my boots.

Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 8th December 2011, 9:37pm) *
Anyway, if they want to post my townhouse on the Internet, that's fine.

I really wish google would announce when the streetview van is in the neighborhood, so I could be sure to stand in the driveway with the dogs wearing my Elmer Fudd hat with a beer in one hand and picking my nose with the other. laugh.gif
QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 8th December 2011, 9:37pm) *
I'm happy to have any Wikipediot over for tea, if they'll only set an appointment with me, and that they've bathed in the past 24 hours.

The bathing requirement might be a deal breaker.
QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 8th December 2011, 9:37pm) *
Jimbo not only wouldn't have them over to his house -- he won't even reveal where his house is!

Well, to be fair, his baby-mama probably thinks the "WR community" has taken out a hit on him, and would prefer not to have to clean up after that. You could probably find out his address by researching the life insurance policy. hmmm.gif

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Fri 9th December 2011, 3:07pm) *

OMG, Jimbo's http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=464928062. I'd be shaking in my boots.


Yikes! And he "goes further":
QUOTE
But I'll go further: policy at Wikipedia is going to change to make it even more clear that PR firms can not behave in this way without facing the consequences.


How will Jimbo change policy? It's always fun when he tries to get involved in community policy changes.

Looks like I'll have to stay on my toes with all of the paid editing I have to do this week.

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Fri 9th December 2011, 1:52pm) *

I haven't looked through the edits made by the various accounts, but it appears that despite their rather naive approach, they managed to slant things they way they wanted them slanted. Of course, they didn't figure on getting caught because they bragged about it to the wrong people, but it seems to me that they has sussed that it wasn't necessary to do much more than what they did.


The depressing thing about this whole affair is that despite the naive approach of this sockfarm, Wikipedia's famed 'control and monitor' systems failed spot the problem editing. It was uncovered only after an undercover investigation into Bell Pottinger itself, run by the "Bureau of Investigative Journalism". They posed as agents for corrupt regimes and taped the conversations, in the course of which it was discovered that they were writing for Wikipedia. The Bureau report was published on December 6th, 2011, by the Independent http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/caught-on-camera-top-lobbyists-boasting-how-they-influence-the-pm-6272760.html. Only then was there a block on the sock master account (Biggleswiki) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Biggleswiki .

Thus, the naive approach to conflicted editing was not spotted by the Wikipedia control system, and even if it had been more sophisticated, it would not have survived the revelations by the Bureau.

Jimmy Wales is now appearing in the media looking like some sort of Jesus, complaining about the 'ethical blindness' of the conflicted editing in Wikipedia. And the media have bought his story. Nothing about the complete failure of controls that led to this happening at all.

Note there are still 4,000 conflicted articles according to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:COI

Wikipedia's main control mechanism is to slap a template on something, and hope somebody else will fix it. Which they clearly don't.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 8th December 2011, 9:22am) *
Or rather, Jimmy has concluded that his reputation would be enhanced if he exhibits a reaction that seems like he is upset about this matter.
Or rather, Jimmy has been advised that such a reaction would be in his best interest. You don't think Jimmy actually thinks that much, do you?

Posted by: SB_Johnny

Apparently Jimmy paid them a visit, and has http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=471488989#My_morning_at_Bell_Pottinger on his psychophants' favorite page.

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sun 15th January 2012, 1:36pm) *

Apparently Jimmy paid them a visit, and has http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=471488989#My_morning_at_Bell_Pottinger on his psychophants' favorite page.

Thanks for spotting.This is rich:
QUOTE
In their presentation of what went wrong, the main thing that leapt out at me is that they did not know how to appropriately escalate.

As are some of the comments, especially this
QUOTE
Thank you for getting so involved and taking on this important outreach task. We should all aim to move on from being adversarial to Wikimedia (esp. the Foundation and Chapters) being seen as a resource to provide help for organizations that will always have difficulty in helping the encyclopaedia with content, due to their conflict of interest highly likely to be fundamentally engrained. I would like to see such presentations and simple print quality self-help material, pitched for such tricky organizations, being captured and perhaps published on the :outreach wiki. Perhaps you would be interested in helping to make a good quality video that organizations can use for their own internal training? I'm thinking of our "classic" problematic organizations such as corporate marketing, religious evangelizing and political lobbying. As for not everyone providing an apology; well they are a PR company, you have to expect a jolly good spin. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

What is Fae counting as a 'classic' problematic organization here? At least I think I understand that puzzling word 'outreach'. It means going to people and organisations and institutions that exist in the wide world outside Wikipedia, and telling them how good Wikipedia is. I wonder now they have all that money, whether they could employ a PR firm to do this?

Oh and I just saw this
QUOTE
I'll just chime in to agree with Fæ—having assisted with similar outreach work on a smaller scale, I think it's very important that after we say "you screwed up there", we show them how to do things properly.

Posted by: dogbiscuit

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 15th January 2012, 3:17pm) *

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sun 15th January 2012, 1:36pm) *

Apparently Jimmy paid them a visit, and has http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=471488989#My_morning_at_Bell_Pottinger on his psychophants' favorite page.

Thanks for spotting.This is rich:
QUOTE
In their presentation of what went wrong, the main thing that leapt out at me is that they did not know how to appropriately escalate.

As are some of the comments, especially this
QUOTE
Thank you for getting so involved and taking on this important outreach task. We should all aim to move on from being adversarial to Wikimedia (esp. the Foundation and Chapters) being seen as a resource to provide help for organizations that will always have difficulty in helping the encyclopaedia with content, due to their conflict of interest highly likely to be fundamentally engrained. I would like to see such presentations and simple print quality self-help material, pitched for such tricky organizations, being captured and perhaps published on the :outreach wiki. Perhaps you would be interested in helping to make a good quality video that organizations can use for their own internal training? I'm thinking of our "classic" problematic organizations such as corporate marketing, religious evangelizing and political lobbying. As for not everyone providing an apology; well they are a PR company, you have to expect a jolly good spin. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

What is Fae counting as a 'classic' problematic organization here? At least I think I understand that puzzling word 'outreach'. It means going to people and organisations and institutions that exist in the wide world outside Wikipedia, and telling them how good Wikipedia is. I wonder now they have all that money, whether they could employ a PR firm to do this?

Oh and I just saw this
QUOTE
I'll just chime in to agree with Fæ—having assisted with similar outreach work on a smaller scale, I think it's very important that after we say "you screwed up there", we show them how to do things properly.


Professionally, the biggest lesson I learned was, except in the rarest of circumstances, that it was never appropriate to apportion blame if you want to have constructive relationships. In fact, I usually went overboard to ensure that the other side felt that they had solved problems themselves. Not only do people work better, it also doesn't blow back on you when you discover you'd been an idiot yourself (Jimbo take note!). The only time I would ever say "you screwed up there" would be with a big grin when the poor soul who had just done the recursive delete all on the root directory of the live production machine, when he and everyone else knew it to be true and they also knew that we were all going to work together to sort it out.

As far as Wikipedia is concerned, the lesson that they have totally failed to learn is that they should always assume that it is Wikipedia's own fault that outsiders do not understand how it works. For example, for all the money the WMF has gathered, where is the "Manual for Business Use" or "How to use Wikipedia successfully" book.

This is a double failure because the initial exhortation is "Just get stuck in". Jimbo is charging around essentially calling intelligent people idiots because they are bemused by the bizarre and illogical way Wikipedia is claimed to work (especially when it clearly does not work the way Jimbo thinks it might do).

It is classic programmer attitude: user error. Computers are hard work and I basically left the computer industry because I was fed up of how it has let people down in many ways. Wikipedia is a classic case of a poor computer system where the programmers blame the users for not being able to use the system.

If Wikipedians for one minute assumed that they had the problem, not the whole rest of the world, then they might then start thinking clearly about how to operate. For example, in these GLAM projects, they might discover that there is a better way of working. Instead, we can guarantee that they will drive people off casually or deliberately without it ever occurring to them that they had lost something to the project, and they will pat each other on the back for driving out the misfits. "Why didn't Joe90 turn up last week to the Monmouthshire meeting? I really needed to sort him out for all the fuck ups I told him about. Had to block the idiot - he seemed to think that being a professor of history counted for something in a history project - what a dork!"

Posted by: melloden

QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Sun 15th January 2012, 4:43pm) *

For example, for all the money the WMF has gathered, where is the "Manual for Business Use" or "How to use Wikipedia successfully" book.

That would be a waste of the money that should be going to genuinely useful charity activities. Like, hiring people to raise more money.

Posted by: Fusion

QUOTE
I'll just chime in to agree with Fæ—having assisted with similar outreach work on a smaller scale, I think it's very important that after we say "you screwed up there", we show them how to do things properly.

What, show these paid editors sick.gif how to game the system properly? wtf.gif

Posted by: Cedric

QUOTE(Fusion @ Sun 15th January 2012, 3:32pm) *

QUOTE
I'll just chime in to agree with Fæ—having assisted with similar outreach work on a smaller scale, I think it's very important that after we say "you screwed up there", we show them how to do things properly.

What, show these paid editors sick.gif how to game the system properly? wtf.gif

There is no need to worry. Despite Jimbo's "outreach" to the horrid infidels, this won't get past The Wiki Holy Office. Heretics and apostates are for burning; the fires have never gone out.

Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(Fusion @ Sun 15th January 2012, 4:32pm) *

QUOTE
I'll just chime in to agree with Fæ—having assisted with similar outreach work on a smaller scale, I think it's very important that after we say "you screwed up there", we show them how to do things properly.

What, show these paid editors sick.gif how to game the system properly? wtf.gif

Sometimes I envy the people that live in mom's basement. Life can only get better, right?

Posted by: Detective

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sun 15th January 2012, 11:59pm) *

Sometimes I envy the people that live in mom's basement. Life can only get better, right?

My parents' basement is distinctly damp. I'd call it unfit for human habitation, though arguably not unfit for WP editors.

Fortunately, when we stay with them we can use an upstairs bedroom. smile.gif