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

[Abd]

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.

We are shocked, shocked that someone would edit "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Not only that, they would do so anonymously, not disclosing who they are and where they work and what biases they might have. Shocking! What is the world coming to?

Jimmy Wales has spoken out to the press and on Twitter:

Some press are now receiving a statement from Bell Pottinger that they followed Wikipedia guidlines. That is flatly false.

Citation needed. Note: it is impossible to follow all Wikipedia guidelines. Jimbo doesn't follow guidelines, and if he did, he'd be violating Wikipedia Rule Number One: Ignore All Rules. I.e., in one formulation, if a rule prevents you from improving the project, ignore it. Notice that this is in the imperative. It's not stated as an option.

Gee, Jimbo forgot about that one.

Bottom line, Jimbo's "ethical violations" boil down to "they did what I don't like." It's pretty obvious that from Bell Pottinger's perspective, they were improving the encyclopedia, and what I've seen, so far, doesn't contradict that. Obviously, there might be exceptions in any large body of work.

There might even be many, but specific allegations seem to be quite scarce. What is cited about article protection is not an ethical violation. It was a request. Was it granted?

Bell Pottinger behaved unethically and broke several Wikipedia rules in doing so. The public record can be seen by anyone.

What ethical violation took place that doesn't take place constantly? With Jimbo and administrators really not caring until there is a big media flap, when they take a few editors out back and shoot them and pronounced the problem solved.

Bell Pottinger continuing to insist that they did nothing wrong at Wikipedia is a total farce.

Well, I've spent some time looking, I've read the block logs, looked over some of the edits, and I've examined the AN/I report. I've not seen anything that would be "wrong" in the ordinary meaning of the word, or "unethical" as to any established standard that isn't just something made up by the collection of "anyones" who edit the project, and that has managed to stand because a majority of anyones who care and who aren't blocked keep it. Official policy? (I.e., WMF policy, not that this would be enough to establish an ethical violation.) User agreement?

[i]There is no structure that could establish binding rules. There is just a pile of assumptions and wiki pages. You know, those pages that anyone can edit. Or, if they are protected, pages that any of how many administrators can edit. Used to be about 1600. So which version is official? The one when an account registered? The current one, which can frequently change?

The BBC reports that for some pages, like the Paramount Group, Bell Pottinger ‘requested “edit protection” after altering a page in the hope that other users would not be able to change the most recent amendments.’ David Gerard, a Wikipedia volunteer and spokesperson, told The BBC that this event has caused Wikipedia to review the effectiveness of their system for catching blatantly suspicious edits.

OMG, David Gerard speaks for whom?

Gee, they have a problem with the effectiveness of their system? Nothing that another few million active users couldn't mess up even further. How much is Wikipedia going to spend to solve this problem, what's in the budget? Blatantly biased edits pass all the time, not to mention "blatantly suspicious" ones. There is no system, there is just an ad hoc hope that somehow, somebody will catch stuff. All attempts to set up a true system have been rejected, it would interfere with the ability of the cabal to do what they want.

But not even the cabal has real power; basically, Wikipedia is a disaster, careening from drama to drama. It burns out those who imagine they control it. Winning is losing.