Wikipedia investigates unethical edits by PR firm, Bell Pottinger - The Next Web (blog) Options

[Newsfeed]

[url="http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&fd=R&usg=AFQjCNEooqSHokXCcMzlenZKjf8s3MTUBg&url=http://thenextweb.com/insider/2011/12/08/wikipedia-investigates-unethical-edits-by-pr-firm-bell-pottinger/"][img]http://nt2.ggpht.com/news/tbn/kpJu2572AW9jUM/6.jpg[/img]
The Next Web (blog)[/url]
<img alt="" height="1" width="1" />[b]Wikipedia investigates unethical edits by PR firm, Bell Pottinger[/b]
The Next Web (blog)
High profile PR agency Bell Pottinger has made over 1000 edits to their client's Wikipedia entries (with at least 10 different accounts), removing negative information and adding positive content, according to The BBC. Some press are now receiving a ...

and more »

View the article

[Fusion]

Basically, Bell Pottinger don't know the rules of the game.

Firstly, never edit through your usual office system. That is likely to reveal your IP, which can often be analyzed to reveal the name of your firm. Also, probably everyone working on Wikipedia is liable to have the same IP, which is a giveaway. (I assume most people here know this, but Bell don't or didn't.)

Secondly, don't spend all your time on this sort of work. If half your time is writing apparently good stuff about Nepal or the First Duke of Marlborough (or, better, both) you'll be less noticeable. I see accounts that spend all their time laundering, and they're fairly obvious.

Even better, diversify onto other WMF sites. Then you look less like an obsessive. Also, Wikinews provided some scope for laundering, although people are rarely worried abouty that site as hardly anybody ever looks at it.

Ideally, become an administrator. If you can do that, you're made, usually. (Cirt is a recent counter example, but they're rare.) But of course that's a lot of work. Alternatively, become an administrator on a less busy site, which gives you a lot of credibility although far less than being a WP admin.

I have a theory that I could lead a multilingual team to run an account that could become an admin on several sites in different languages. Then that account could become a steward. Even admins don't like arguing with stewards.

[Abd]

Ideally, become an administrator. If you can do that, you're made, usually. (Cirt is a recent counter example, but they're rare.) But of course that's a lot of work. Alternatively, become an administrator on a less busy site, which gives you a lot of credibility although far less than being a WP admin.

I have a theory that I could lead a multilingual team to run an account that could become an admin on several sites in different languages. Then that account could become a steward. Even admins don't like arguing with stewards.

It could be simple and cheap for a PR firm. Hire someone to edit Wikipedia and, first goal, become an admin and then a steward. Trivial. This "meat puppet" would use their own internet access, the vast bulk of their work would be uncontroversial and helpful, and would be essentially untraceable. They would avoid direct involvement, rather, they would support other accounts, who could be employees of the firm, all right, editing from home. Any serious PR firm, I'm guessing, could afford to create a number of such users. It would be cheap. The actual editing work would be very cheap, there are people who would love to have a home occupation like this, and it could even be fun for them. Recent Changes Patrol is fun, and it's a way to build up a huge positive edit record. The coordination, the structure that would guide the "meat puppets" like this, would be where more significant money would be spent.

It's only the stupid ones that would get caught.

Advice for a PR firm starting out: Hire some experienced Wikipedia users. Thekohser openly does this kind of consulting. Don't use him for actual editing, by him personally, my suggestion, though if you are small, you might consider it! Just pay him for advice, or for coordination/management.

There is no way to prevent "conflict of interest" editing. The only sane way to address the issue is to set up process that would make it irrelevant. Genuine consensus process can be tedious, but it is almost impossible to corrupt. What it builds will last.

However, if administrators have the power to exclude "disruptive users," completely, then corruption is trivial. You manipulate the consensus by manipulating who can participate. Get rid of "POV-pushers," which means anyone who disagrees with you and who has a point of view that isn't obviously popular, or who is unskillful in pushing advocating it. For corrupt users (i.e., paid administrators), simple: you don't block someone with whom you have had a personal conflict, you block someone who has had a conflict with a crony, and who has provided an excuse. It doesn't have to be a strong excuse, just enough that it isn't blatantly phony. And it's amazing what can escape notice by the "core."

It works. Obviously. There was (probably) no direct "corruption" behind the Global Warming cabal, but they, with techniques so simple that they could be applied even without direct, coherent planning, successfully owned a whole topic area for years, and still are pretty effective even after taking some hits.

This is why I put so much work into developing procedures for "banned users" to nevertheless be able to participate nondisruptivelyi, i.e., either through declared proxies or through devices as self-reversion "per ban" (which is highly efficient if it's accepted as not being a ban violation).

What I wonder -- and do not know -- is whether or not the strong resistance which appeared over this was planned or merely stupid.

[Fusion]

Ideally, become an administrator. If you can do that, you're made, usually. (Cirt is a recent counter example, but they're rare.) But of course that's a lot of work. Alternatively, become an administrator on a less busy site, which gives you a lot of credibility although far less than being a WP admin.

I have a theory that I could lead a multilingual team to run an account that could become an admin on several sites in different languages. Then that account could become a steward. Even admins don't like arguing with stewards.

It could be simple and cheap for a PR firm. Hire someone to edit Wikipedia and, first goal, become an admin and then a steward. Trivial. This "meat puppet" would use their own internet access, the vast bulk of their work would be uncontroversial and helpful, and would be essentially untraceable. They would avoid direct involvement, rather, they would support other accounts, who could be employees of the firm, all right, editing from home. Any serious PR firm, I'm guessing, could afford to create a number of such users. It would be cheap. The actual editing work would be very cheap, there are people who would love to have a home occupation like this, and it could even be fun for them. Recent Changes Patrol is fun, and it's a way to build up a huge positive edit record. The coordination, the structure that would guide the "meat puppets" like this, would be where more significant money would be spent.

It's only the stupid ones that would get caught.

Advice for a PR firm starting out: Hire some experienced Wikipedia users. Thekohser openly does this kind of consulting. Don't use him for actual editing, by him personally, my suggestion, though if you are small, you might consider it! Just pay him for advice, or for coordination/management.

There is no way to prevent "conflict of interest" editing. The only sane way to address the issue is to set up process that would make it irrelevant. Genuine consensus process can be tedious, but it is almost impossible to corrupt. What it builds will last.

However, if administrators have the power to exclude "disruptive users," completely, then corruption is trivial. You manipulate the consensus by manipulating who can participate. Get rid of "POV-pushers," which means anyone who disagrees with you and who has a point of view that isn't obviously popular, or who is unskillful in pushing advocating it. For corrupt users (i.e., paid administrators), simple: you don't block someone with whom you have had a personal conflict, you block someone who has had a conflict with a crony, and who has provided an excuse. It doesn't have to be a strong excuse, just enough that it isn't blatantly phony. And it's amazing what can escape notice by the "core."

It works. Obviously. There was (probably) no direct "corruption" behind the Global Warming cabal, but they, with techniques so simple that they could be applied even without direct, coherent planning, successfully owned a whole topic area for years, and still are pretty effective even after taking some hits.

This is why I put so much work into developing procedures for "banned users" to nevertheless be able to participate nondisruptivelyi, i.e., either through declared proxies or through devices as self-reversion "per ban" (which is highly efficient if it's accepted as not being a ban violation).

What I wonder -- and do not know -- is whether or not the strong resistance which appeared over this was planned or merely stupid.

One way of doing it is to get someone to work from home to do lots of useful edits nothing to do with your client. This is typically a new mother, who finds it useful to have a home job with no fixed hours, and they come fairly cheap even for good graduates. The skilled work for a client needs to be done by an in-house editor.

...they bragged about it to the wrong people...

This is one reason why I don't discuss absolute specifics or do any paid editing for a prospective client, until they have signed a mutual non-disclosure agreement (or have utterly convinced me of their integrity) and made a non-refundable cash deposit.

Besides, using different IPs and different user accounts for each client, even if I did get "stung", Wikipedia would (I hope) only be able to detect one COI client-account relationship. My other clients would be safe.

Do you feel Jimmy is right to say that undisclosed paid editing is dishonest and unethical? (Per email from Jimmy).

I can't see that it's in any way dishonest. Is it unethical? It depends on your ethics! It doesn't contradict the letter or spirit of the ethics code my company adheres to, or we wouldn't do it.