Wikimedia cracks down on 'paid' writing, editing; 250 editors dismissed

In an effort to bolster its accuracy and credibility, Wikipedia has hit down hard on members who edit the open-source online encyclopedia for profit.

 

The foundation behind Wikipedia on Monday (US time) cracked down on so-called "paid advocacy editing and sockpuppetry," initially banning at least 250 user accounts suspected of deceiving readers.

 

In a blog post, Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Sue Gardner said editors of the English Wikipedia are investigating "suspicious edits" to see if some were paid articles meant to promote organizations or products.

 

"At this point, as reported, it looks like a number of user accounts — perhaps as many as several hundred — may have been paid to write articles on Wikipedia promoting organizations or products, and have been violating numerous site policies and guidelines, including prohibitions against sockpuppetry and undisclosed conflicts of interest," she said.

 

For now, she said "more than 250" user accounts have been blocked or banned for "non-neutral editing."

 

She defined sockpuppetry as the practice of "using online identities for purposes of deception."

 

"The Wikimedia Foundation takes this issue seriously and has been following it closely," Gardner said.

 

"The Wikimedia Foundation is closely monitoring this ongoing investigation and we are currently assessing all the options at our disposal. We will have more to say in the coming weeks," she added.

'Shock and dismay'
 

Gardner said Wikipedia has half a billion readers, and is an important informational resource for people worldwide.

 

"Our readers know Wikipedia’s not perfect, but they also know that it has their best interests at heart, and is never trying to sell them a product or propagandize them in any way. Our goal is to provide neutral, reliable information for our readers, and anything that threatens that is a serious problem. We are actively examining this situation and exploring our options," she said.

 

Gardner also said Wikipedia editors have expressed shock and dismay, adding the foundation is grateful to the editors "who’ve been doing the difficult, painstaking work of trying to figure out what’s happening here."

 

Divisive topic

 

She also said editing-for-pay has been a divisive topic inside Wikipedia for many years, especially if the edits to articles are promotional in nature.

 

Gardner said the foundation considers paid editing for promotional purposes or paid advocacy editing is considered a “black hat” practice.

 

"Paid advocacy editing violates the core principles that have made Wikipedia so valuable for so many people.
 

What is clear to everyone is that all material on Wikipedia needs to adhere to Wikipedia’s editorial policies, including those on neutrality and verifiability," she said.

 

"It is also clear that companies that engage in unethical practices on Wikipedia risk seriously damaging their own reputations. In general, companies engaging in self-promotional activities on Wikipedia have come under heavy criticism from the press and the general public, with their actions widely viewed as inconsistent with Wikipedia’s educational mission," she added.

 

Thus, Gardner said being deceptive in editing by using sockpuppets or misrepresenting an affiliation with a company violates Wikipedia policy.

 

She urged companies to "conduct themselves ethically, to be transparent about what they’re doing on Wikipedia, and to adhere to all site policies and practices."

 

'Wiki-PR'

 

A separate report on tech site Ars Technica said Gardner's statement came amid reports of "increasing amounts of money flowing toward paid editing of English-language Wikipedia pages."

 

It cited The Daily Dot and Vice reporting that Wikipedia editors "attribute the growth in paid edits to a company called Wiki-PR."

 

Quoting The Daily Dot, Ars Technica indicated Wiki-PR clients paid between $500 and $1,000 to have articles written and then $50 a month for ongoing "page management" services.

 

It cited the Vice article that said a college dean paid $1,500 for a profile to be written, then was asked to pay $800 for 30 days of "media relations efforts" when the page was deleted. — TJD, GMA News