Bell Pottinger investigation Options

[mbz1]

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?

[cookiehead]

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]

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.

[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.

This post has been edited by cookiehead:

[mbz1]

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 "

Several Wikipedia accounts have been suspended pending an investigation instigated by the founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales.

Quotes from the article

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:

[thekohser]

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)


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.

This post has been edited by thekohser:

[thekohser]

He actually created some content this week. How often does that happen.

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

Not likely, Tungsten.

[mbz1]

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:

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]

Wikipedia probes edits by Bell Pottinger

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.”

[SB_Johnny]

He actually created some content this week. How often does that happen.

Hmmm, Wikimania Caracas coming soon? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

If a guy happens to need shelter from the IRS or alimony debts, would Venezuela be a good place to shack up? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

[thekohser]

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?

[Sololol]

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.

[mbz1]

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

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.

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[Eppur si muove]

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?

[thekohser]

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.

[Peter Damian]

(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-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]

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
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) (? 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.

[mbz1]

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.

Is there any govcom member and/or admin who has never been exposed in manipulating of any article (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

[Abd]

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.

[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.

[Abd]

The Telegraph.

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.)

[thekohser]

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!

[thekohser]

A worthwhile comment was left with The Independent:

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).

[SB_Johnny]

Lulz from the AN/I:

[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. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[Michaeldsuarez]

I see that PaoloNapolitano (T-C-L-K-R-D) , who failed at nominating him or herself for ArbCom, is attempting to capitalize on this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=464773129

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=464773936

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=464803843

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=464807609

He or she requested the preemptive protection of an userpage that has never been vandalism, created a special template, and has given Jimbo a barnstar.

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

This post has been edited by Michaeldsuarez:

[mbz1]

quite a few articles are affected

[thekohser]

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.

This post has been edited by thekohser:

[mbz1]

and has given Jimbo a barnstar.

I wonder if "For the way Jimbo have been dealing with the Bell Pottinger affair in the media! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) " Jimbo was giving only a barnstar or he was actually paid for giving his interviews. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[Peter Damian]

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

"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)

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[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".

[Eppur si muove]

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).

[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.

[Michaeldsuarez]

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=...&oldid=29772366

[thekohser]

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!

[thekohser]

Who is this "previousdenial" character on Independent? He says of me:

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.

[Eppur si muove]

Who is this "previousdenial" character on Independent? He says of me:

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.

[thekohser]

...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".

[Zoloft]

Who is this "previousdenial" character on Independent? He says of me:

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.

[powercorrupts]

Who is this "previousdenial" character on Independent? He says of me:

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]

"Jimmy" is teaching Bell Pottinger how to it right

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?