Mailing List Archive

Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:

>Jimmy Wales wrote:
>
>
>>Now imagine that someone sets up a website that strongly implies that
>>paying him will get a company a good article in Wikipedia, and follows
>>that up by posting blatant PR puffery and claiming that it is NPOV.
>>That's a very serious problem, especially in an era when we are seeing
>>increasing attention paid to "how to manipulate wikipedia for the good
>>of your client" by the lower dregs of the PR industry.
>>
>>
>Exactly. Allowing this sort of thing leads to phone calls to Danny along
>the lines of "I paid X thousand dollars for an entry in Wikipedia, why
>has it been changed/deleted?"
>
You can't stop the phone calls or do anything about them. The payment
for writing an article is a contract between the complainant and the
article writer. If the writer promised something that was beyond his
control he misrepresented (perhaps fraudulently) the situation to the
payor. Any legal claim is between them; it's not our fight.

It might be useful to have a disclaimer somewhere that states that any
such arrangements are strictly between those parties.

If we want to pay to encourage articles in an underrepresented language
that could be mentioned in the relevant project.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 06/10/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge@telus.net> wrote:

> You can't stop the phone calls or do anything about them.


In particular, messing with the encyclopedia to try to slow down the
stupid people is not going to slow them down a jot. We're #12 today.
#5 in Europe. Not a jot.


- d.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Fri, October 6, 2006 22:36, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> It might be useful to have a disclaimer somewhere that states that any
> such arrangements are strictly between those parties.

Whilst it might be accurate I doubt it wuold be sensible. Those who hadn't
thought of it might see this clause and believe we were condoning such
activity and go search for someone whereas before they might not have even
thought of it.

Alison Wheeler
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Jimmy Wales wrote:

> There are two entirely separate issues here.

I agree, but the difference is apparently not about being paid,
but about the contents of the resulting articles.

We all agree that articles should be encyclopedic, NPOV and cover
relevant topics. Contributors who cannot learn to comply with
this can ultimately be blocked and banned, and will have their
edits reverted.

If they market themselves as Wikipedia-based PR agents, something
they cannot legally deliver, there are laws (in some countries, at
least) against false marketing. However, it seems more likely
that they would market themselves as PR agents without even
mentioning Wikipedia as part of the package. This probably
happens already. Do we know where all the detailed articles on
various BMW car models come from? Why does the [[en:Saab 9-5]]
article "require cleanup", while all BMW articles are good?
I don't want to start any witch hunt. I'm glad that there are
good articles about BMWs. I don't care who wrote them. Let's
hope other brands can radiate the same inspiration to contributors
of good articles.

When I edit Wikipedia, it's in my free time, when I could decide
to work instead, so I'm already paying a price (to myself) for
editing. Some people cannot afford this free time, but are forced
to have double jobs. Northern welfare states (Canada, Sweden,
Japan) have more people with computers, education, and free time
available to edit Wikipedia, so these societies will be covered in
more detail than other regions. If I get a scholarship, I can
spend more of my time editing Wikipedia. Next step, if the
tourist board of my region (or a health eduction organization)
would pay me, I could focus on covering topics relevant to them.
And perhaps some hotel chains (or drug companies) can add to that
money. Since I'm giving talks and technical consulting, I could
also advice PR firms on how to understand and interact with
collaborative Internet communities.

I don't see that I would step over some sharp border, were I to go
from paying myself to receiving scholarships or corporate
sponsoring for writing on Wikipedia. The sharp border is if I'm
starting to write bad articles.

It is possible that we should all openly declare any money we
receive for Wikipedia-related activities. Are there any
guidelines for this already? Would that include personal wealth
that enables us to spend time and resources on Wikipedia? Do
other organizations (churches, Red Cross, ...) have such ethical
guidelines?

> But we can and should stand firm on the ethical principles.

But which are the ethical principles here?


--
Lars Aronsson (lars@aronsson.se)
Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 10/6/06, Lars Aronsson <lars@aronsson.se> wrote:
> If they market themselves as Wikipedia-based PR agents, something
> they cannot legally deliver, there are laws (in some countries, at
> least) against false marketing.

They would also be on pretty thin ice regarding trademark law, if not
outright in violation of it.

> However, it seems more likely
> that they would market themselves as PR agents without even
> mentioning Wikipedia as part of the package.

Moreover, the hard part is *writing* the article. Simply adding it
into Wikipedia is easy, and need not be done by the same person who
wrote the article. In fact, there's little benefit to having the
person hired to write the article know it's getting put into Wikipedia
in the first place.

Of course, getting the article to *stay* in Wikipedia might be harder,
depending on how obvious it is that it's a PR article, but hiring
someone to edit war over an article or otherwise vandalize Wikipedia
is pretty obviously wrong.

In the end, short of disallowing anonymous/psedonymous editors,
there's probably little that can be done to stop people from getting
paid to create Wikipedia articles, even if it were something we wanted
to do.

Anthony
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2006/10/7, Anthony <wikilegal@inbox.org>:

> > However, it seems more likely
> > that they would market themselves as PR agents without even
> > mentioning Wikipedia as part of the package.
>
> Moreover, the hard part is *writing* the article. Simply adding it
> into Wikipedia is easy, and need not be done by the same person who
> wrote the article. In fact, there's little benefit to having the
> person hired to write the article know it's getting put into Wikipedia
> in the first place.

I think there is. Knowing that and knowing Wikipedia, one can adapt
one's style to the Wikipedia style and go further in removing/avoiding
PR buzzwords than one would in another publication. The hard part is
not writing the text (that's something that has often already been
done), but writing it in such a way that it is suitable for Wikipedia.

> In the end, short of disallowing anonymous/psedonymous editors,
> there's probably little that can be done to stop people from getting
> paid to create Wikipedia articles, even if it were something we wanted
> to do.

Well, we could have a stricter policy against advertisements. That
might make it less profitable for companies to hire someone to write
about them on Wikipedia. Then again, it might also mean that
abovementioned "wikipedia styling" might become *more* interesting.
And then there is the possibility that companies switch to less
obviously advertizing articles. Like writing an article not about the
company, but about the product in which it happens to be a major
player. Or, as someone else suggested, a pharmaceutical company
sponsoring articles about the conditions they sell treatments for (in
the Netherlands we had for example one company paying quite a lot of
money in television commercials intended to have people with
[[onychomycosis]] visit the doctor about it (whom they hoped would
then prescribe their drug).


--
Andre Engels, andreengels@gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 07/10/06, Lars Aronsson <lars@aronsson.se> wrote:

> This probably
> happens already. Do we know where all the detailed articles on
> various BMW car models come from? Why does the [[en:Saab 9-5]]
> article "require cleanup", while all BMW articles are good?
> I don't want to start any witch hunt. I'm glad that there are
> good articles about BMWs. I don't care who wrote them. Let's
> hope other brands can radiate the same inspiration to contributors
> of good articles.


OTOH, technology accumulates fanboys. I pay close attention to
[[:en:Canon Digital IXUS]] and [[:en:Casio Exilim]]. I particularly
keep the former in good shape because I buy and sell them on eBay
(which is how come I took the photos of quite a few of the camera
models) and the table full of model info is a fantastically useful
reference to *me*.


- d.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Andre Engels wrote:
> 2006/10/6, Jimmy Wales <jwales@wikia.com>:
>
> > Now imagine that someone sets up a website that strongly implies that
> > paying him will get a company a good article in Wikipedia, and follows
> > that up by posting blatant PR puffery and claiming that it is NPOV.

> The scary thing is... This already exists. [...]
> http://www.24-7pressrelease.com/view_press_release.php?rID=16892
> [...] [[en:User:MyWikiBiz]]

I didn't know about MyWikiBiz before this. Apparently the case
was discussed already in August 2006 on wikien-l, a list I don't
read. However, I fail to see what the problem is. Jimbo has now
blocked the user account based on their marketing, not based on
the content they contributed, which I find strange. Where can I
find any indication that MyWikiBiz has been "posting blatant PR
puffery" in articles?

Jimbo earned his money first, then retired and started Wikipedia.
Not everybody is so happy. Most need to earn their daily lunch
money. If they can do so by writing free software or contributing
free contents to projects such as Wikipedia, all the better. If
the content is good, I don't see why this should be a problem.

At 22:32, October 5 on the [[user talk:MyWikiBiz]], Jimbo says
MyWikiBiz "is resisting the new policy". Which new policy?
Where is this written? Jimbo also says WikiMyBiz "used the
Wikipedia trademarks inappropriately and did not warn customers on
some key pages that using his service is no guarantee of getting
an article into Wikipedia" and the obvious remedy would be to have
those details fixed, not blocking and banning the contributor for
good.

Perhaps MyWikiBiz is a really, really bad guy. If that is the
case, Jimbo has failed to show how or why.


--
Lars Aronsson (lars@aronsson.se)
Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Alison Wheeler wrote:

>On Fri, October 6, 2006 22:36, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>
>>It might be useful to have a disclaimer somewhere that states that any
>>such arrangements are strictly between those parties.
>>
>>
>Whilst it might be accurate I doubt it wuold be sensible. Those who hadn't
>thought of it might see this clause and believe we were condoning such
>activity and go search for someone whereas before they might not have even
>thought of it.
>
There is that. :-)

In a broader context, rules that prohibit relatively uncommon behaviours
can be an inspiration to evildoers.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 10/7/06, David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com> wrote:
> OTOH, technology accumulates fanboys. I pay close attention to
> [[:en:Canon Digital IXUS]] and [[:en:Casio Exilim]]. I particularly
> keep the former in good shape because I buy and sell them on eBay
> (which is how come I took the photos of quite a few of the camera
> models) and the table full of model info is a fantastically useful
> reference to *me*.

Worth remembering. It is hard to find a kind of product that SOMEONE
isn't geeky about. When researching what vacuum cleaner to buy, I
found some really scary vacuum-cleaner nerds, including people who
wired UK-compatible 240-volt sockets in American homes in order to use
British appliances ...

-Matt
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Matt Brown wrote:

>On 10/7/06, David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>OTOH, technology accumulates fanboys. I pay close attention to
>>[[:en:Canon Digital IXUS]] and [[:en:Casio Exilim]]. I particularly
>>keep the former in good shape because I buy and sell them on eBay
>>(which is how come I took the photos of quite a few of the camera
>>models) and the table full of model info is a fantastically useful
>>reference to *me*.
>>
>>
>Worth remembering. It is hard to find a kind of product that SOMEONE
>isn't geeky about. When researching what vacuum cleaner to buy, I
>found some really scary vacuum-cleaner nerds, including people who
>wired UK-compatible 240-volt sockets in American homes in order to use
>British appliances ...
>
That rewiring won't be that difficult if you accept the fact that North
American household voltage is 110 volts, which doubled will give 220
volts. 220 volt outlets are standard for air conditioners, kitchen
ranges and clothes dryers. If you wire a kitchen outlet according to
code you will have a split circuit with one part at +110v. and the other
at -110v. Joining the two will give 220v.

Proper 220v. outlets will have different pin configurations which also
vary according to the amperage to prevent having things plugged into the
wrong outlet.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 08/10/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge@telus.net> wrote:
> Alison Wheeler wrote:

> >Whilst it might be accurate I doubt it wuold be sensible. Those who hadn't
> >thought of it might see this clause and believe we were condoning such
> >activity and go search for someone whereas before they might not have even
> >thought of it.

> There is that. :-)
> In a broader context, rules that prohibit relatively uncommon behaviours
> can be an inspiration to evildoers.


[[WP:BEANS]]


- d.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

I've copied this back to wikien-l, as some of this is going to get
more specific for en.wikipedia than the foundation, though there are
some points for both in my reply. People may want to edit followups
if they're not cross-appropriate.

On 10/6/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales@wikia.com> wrote:
>[...]
> Now imagine that someone sets up a website that strongly implies that
> paying him will get a company a good article in Wikipedia, and follows
> that up by posting blatant PR puffery and claiming that it is NPOV.
> That's a very serious problem, especially in an era when we are seeing
> increasing attention paid to "how to manipulate wikipedia for the good
> of your client" by the lower dregs of the PR industry.

I think we've been missing something.

This is happening because of the law of supply and demand. Wikipedia
is important enough now that companies see not being listed as being a
Real Problem. Not really understanding Wikipedia, they're willing to
pay someone some money to fix that problem, and someone's willing to
accept money to do it.

I think that companies are right, that Wikipedia is important enough,
and not being listed is legitimately an actual marketing / PR /
customer information seeking problem for them.

So, what can we structurally do to resolve the problem that they're
seeking to use an ethically challenging commercial method to fix their
lack of entries?

I just went perusing through
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Business_and_Economics#Business

A lot of those are on first inspection not notable, but a lot of them
are quite notable. How long have they been sitting on the list?

Should we give them a better entry point than wandering around, trying
to figure out what Requested Articles is and where it is, and then
figuring out how to add themselves to the list?

Would it be unethical for a business to charge $25 or $50 to add a
requested article entry, along with a bunch of reference source links,
but not create or edit an article directly?

Are en wikipedia's notability standards appropriate still? There are
around 6,000 NYSE and NASDAQ listed US companies; is en-wikipedia
WP:CORP as it stands still the right filter, or should it be somewhat
loosened up? Would roughly 6k companies be inappropriate in 1.5
million total articles? Is mere listing on a major stock exchange
enough notability?


--
-george william herbert
george.herbert@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

George Herbert wrote:

>Would it be unethical for a business to charge $25 or $50 to add a
>requested article entry, along with a bunch of reference source links,
>but not create or edit an article directly?
>
>Are en wikipedia's notability standards appropriate still? There are
>around 6,000 NYSE and NASDAQ listed US companies; is en-wikipedia
>WP:CORP as it stands still the right filter, or should it be somewhat
>loosened up? Would roughly 6k companies be inappropriate in 1.5
>million total articles? Is mere listing on a major stock exchange
>enough notability?
>
Certainly it should be enough. Many of these companies do get write-ups
in the financial pages of newspapers, but I'm inclined to believe that
only a very small proportion of our editors read the financial pages.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l