Talk:Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia

Companies have argued for leeway with "ignore all rules"

@SlimVirgin: This text:

Companies have argued for greater leeway in conflict-of-interest editing, citing Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, a policy, which states: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."

References

was just deleted as unsourced. You last revised it here. Do you have a better source? I wouldn't be surprised if it is true. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:13, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

@TeleComNasSprVen: You added the original text here. Do you have a source? --David Tornheim (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

David, that edit of mine you linked to was just a light copy edit. I may not have looked at the source. As for the source, it said at the time (February 2014): "Wikipedia's de-facto ban on paid editing is universally ignored. In a recent study conducted by the Public Relations Society of America, 40% of PR professionals admitted to having edited Wikipedia. It amounts to over a quarter of million of PR pros who take refuge in the Wikipedia’s "Ignore All Rules" policy which says: 'If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.'" [1] I don't know whether source still says that or how it should be interpreted. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: Thanks for the response. It seems likes something from that quote belongs in the main text--with mention of date. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:56, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Chiming in since I'm the one who deleted this text. Technically my edit summary used the phrase "poorly sourced", not "unsourced". What I meant was that I don't think that WikiExperts FAQ page is WP:RELIABLE for the purposes of verifying the claim that companies have cited WP:IAR in arguing for greater leeway in COI editing. It's an FAQ page on the website of a company that does paid Wikipedia editing - it's going to be coming at the issue with a heavy bias, and it basically falls under WP:SPS. I'd be okay with including the statement if it could be supported by a reliable, independent source. Or the WikiExperts source could potentially be used to support a weaker claim like "WikiExperts, a company that offers paid editing services, despite being banned for undisclosed paid editing, has justified its methods by citing Wikipedia:Ignore all rules which says blah blah". But I think that's giving WP:UNDUE weight to a passing comment made by one specific company in an FAQ. Colin M (talk) 15:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Parque da guarita pedra sul.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:24, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Now NBC on the Weinstein Scandal:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/ronan-farrow-overcame-spies-and-intimidation-to-break-some-of-the-biggest-stories-of-the-me-too-era/2019/10/10/9cc46c9a-eac1-11e9-85c0-85a098e47b37_story.html

"Interestingly, NBC doesn’t dispute one of Farrow’s scoops, a minor one but telling nonetheless. In the wake of the Weinstein imbroglio, he writes, the network hired a “Wikipedia whitewasher” to scrub references to the episode from some of its pages, a curious decision for a news organization dedicated to transparency. To this day, there’s no reference to the Weinstein affair under Oppenheim’s Wikipedia entry, and only a fleeting one in Lack’s."

Also:

https://www.newsweek.com/nbc-wikipedia-whitewashing-matt-lauer-weinstein-ronan-farrow-1464118

Ocaasi ^{t | c} 08:26, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Where to report companies?

I just got a letter from a company offering to make a Wikipedia page for me, stating

We own multiple accounts on Wikipedia with page curation and new page reviewer rights, so we can create and moderate pages with almost zero risk of another mod taking it down.

Where do I report companies like this? That should be a section in this article. --WiseWoman (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@WiseWoman: per our reader focus, we shouldn't link from mainspace to WP-space, but it'd absolutely be a good idea to add a header to this talk page directing there; I'll whip that up. To answer your question, you're looking for Wikipedia:COI noticeboard. Sdkb (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

"Paid advoacy" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Paid advoacy. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 24#Paid advoacy until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm _Talk 18:04, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

New Haaretz

Noting that this article [2] makes some comments on the topic in general, may be good for some content. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

WikiScanner - too many examples?

As above, really. Do we really need three lines of nothing but examples? Couruu (talk) 08:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Why not? They're all well sourced and demonstrate the extensive misuse of Wikipedia across dozens of industries and corporate/political leaders. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 09:11, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I think a sentence like "extensive misuse of Wikipedia across dozens of industries and corporate/political leaders" with a few examples would read better than a single comma-separated sentence of 49. The full list can be (and currently isn't) listed in the WikiScanner article. Belbury (talk) 10:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

@Belbury +1 on this. If the entire list needs to remain, I'd vote for moving it to WikiScanner. Couruu (talk) 11:15, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, moving it to Wikiscanner is a nice solution. Ok... let's just keep some examples from the more prominent and diverse names in this article (fewer than 10, but I'll leave it to you!) Ocaasi ^{t | c} 12:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan to me, but it doesn't seem to have gotten done. This isn't my sort of topic area, so I'm not sure I would do it in cases I bollixed something up.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

"WikiProject Integrity" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect WikiProject Integrity has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 11 § WikiProject Integrity until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:43, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

"WikiProject Integrity"

We're "tracking", if you will, something called "WikProject Cooperation", but it is defunct. It seems to have been replaced by Wikipedia:WikiProject Integrity, but this article no longer has any information about or even mention of it. It presumably did earlier, because in the above-mentioned RfD about the cross-namespace WikiProject Integrity redirect, the nominator linked explicitly to Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia#WikiProject Cooperation and WikiProject Integrity, a heading that has since been renamed (without an anchor for the original name) to #WikiProject Cooperation. I would think that the material should be restored or new material written, so that those with an interest in the CoI stuff know it exists and has taken over (doing whatever it is doing) where WikiProject Cooperation left off.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:57, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Request Edit: WhiteHatWiki on Rene Gonzalez

I have a conflict of interest as an employee of WhiteHatWiki, which was written about on this page. I'd like to request the removal of a serious fabrication on this page.

In the subsection Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia#2020s 2, in the section Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia#Miscellaneous, the editor fabricates that a story in The Oregonian says that WhiteHatWiki was hired to edit a page about a city council person in order to justify inclusion of the event on this page.

The story is about whether city funds were properly used by a council member to hire a firm to advise them on how to make request edits on Wikipeda. The story specifies the request edits on the Talk page were made by a staff member of the city council person and it provides a hyperlink to the relevant Talk page, which shows the staff member disclosed they worked with the council member. The story emphatically does not say that WhiteHatWiki was hired to edit the page about the council person. The story goes into detail describing how of 8 edit requests that were submitted by the council staff member, 4 approved by a Wikipedia editor reviewing the requests. The council person's staff was also adamant in the article that it was a proper to hire a a consultant to educate their staff on how to combat distortions on Wikipedia.

Only the fabrication that WhiteHatWiki was hired to directly edit the council person's page justifies its placement in this section. Every other example in this section is of undisclosed COI editing.

Here is the full text of the article in The Oregonian in a free version: [3] The editor used a citation to a pay-walled version, making it impossible for non-subscribers to find the fabrication.

Please remove:

On August 7, 2024, The Oregonian reported that Rene Gonzalez spent $6,400 of city taxpayer dollars to hire a contractor, WhiteHatWiki, to make edits to the Portland city commissioner's Wikipedia page in an effort to "spruce up his profile" as part of his mayoral bid.

Here's what it says in the passages relevant to WhiteHatWiki's involvement:

Gonzalez’s office at City Hall hired a New York-based company in March to develop a handful of requested edits to the Wikipedia page and also train a “designee” on the submission process, records obtained by The Oregonian/OregonLive through a public records request show.

The contractor, WhiteHatWiki, ultimately helped craft eight requested edits, confirmed Shah Smith, Gonzalez’s chief of staff. Smith offered a full-throated defense of the city-funded service in a statement Wednesday.

....A Gonzalez staffer submitted the proposed changes to Wikipedia on June 25, according to an edit history published on the website and the commissioner’s office. Only four of the eight requested changes were ultimately approved by a volunteer editor who works under the username Rusalkii.

BC1278 (talk) 18:54, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I would be interested to hear the input of user:Graywalls in relation to this request. Axad12 (talk) 20:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Auditor's office didn't find wrong doing initially then re-opened the investigation. There's a newer media coverage on this matter since the last time I touched it. I've been meaning to update it. https://www.koin.com/news/portland/gonzalez-wikipedia-spending-investigation-reopens-after-new-information/ is a source I'm considering to use. Just haven't got around to it. I object to removal but my understanding is that Code Name Enterprises dba WhitehatWiki didn't edit it directly, so I think rewording, rather than removal is in order. Graywalls (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's also my impression. Thanks. I would agree that the text is inaccurate on that particular point, but to describe the story as a fabrication is going a bit far. Also, the story clearly warrants inclusion but it could do with some rewording. While we have WhiteHatWiki here, can they confirm that the story has the dollar figure correct? Axad12 (talk) 21:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Wow, four uses of the word "fabrication" seems excessive. Here's the diff for Graywalls' changes to the article in response to this request.

Note it was added to this article on August 7, the update to Oregonlive's article happened on August 9. So it was correct at the time it was added to this page. Seems like bad faith to call it a fabrication. tedder (talk) 00:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Graywall's edit. I think it describes the events accurately.

Based on information on their own website, WhiteHatWiki specializes in “white hat” ethical Wikipedia strategy and problem solving, offering the highest possible level of writing and research, while strictly abiding by official Wikipedia policies.

I would therefore request that WhiteHatWiki retract the repeated use above of the term 'fabrication' which was a very obvious breach of the Wikipedia policy on assuming good faith in other editors (WP:AGF). Axad12 (talk) 04:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Axad12: I don't see how anyone reading the original article can fail to distinguish between the article's clear description of a request edit proposal submitted by a member of the council person's staff, who disclosed COI (not a policy violation) and WhiteHatWiki being hired to do direct editing (a policy violation). [4] Nowhere does the original article say WhiteHatWiki edited or was hired to edit the page. For once, a reporter was careful to describe the RE process, the COI disclosure, the username of the independent reviewer, and that only half the requests were approved. There is no interpretation of the article that allows for a reading by a reasonably educated person that there was direct editing of the page or WHW being hired to directly edit the page, given the great level of detail that describes an RE proposal. Either the editor made it up after reading the article or, they did not even read the article. The claim was made up in exact the way needed to justify inclusion on this page, which is otherwise exclusively about nothing other than Wikipedia COI policy violations. 16:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay, so basically you are doubling down on the refusal to assume good faith, and adding a breach of WP:NPA into the mix (claiming that the editor who made the edit and some who have commented above are all educationally subnormal). And that is supposed to be 'white hat' activity?Axad12 (talk) 21:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, please note that the article under discussion here is about "COI editing on Wikipedia" and not "COI editing violations on Wikipedia".

Thus the idea that The claim was made up in exact[ly] the way needed to justify inclusion on this page is incorrect, as no reference to a violation would have been required.

It is rare that discussions on COI editing appear in WP:RS sources, and when they do it is usually in relation to cases where the editing was a policy violation. However, that should not be misinterpreted to suggest that only violations fall under the article subject matter.

(Please note that this post was constructed without alleging either bad faith or poor educational attainment on your part. Hopefully you will reciprocate in your future contributions.) Axad12 (talk) 04:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Graywalls: I think your rewording does not reflect what these stories are about. All these reports are about the proper expenditure of city funds. If he had paid personally or used campaign funds, there would be no story or investigation. So you've omitted the main focus of the stories and instead highlighted COI editing. In the original article, the nature of the proposals on Wikipedia are discussed in order to help evaluate whether it was a proper use of funds, not because there is any allegation about improper COI editing. Your basic description of the event is still factually incorrect. Given a COI-disclosed RE is described in detailed, why did you say to "assist with edits"? The Request Edit proposed process was described in depth. The reporting does not allege that the council person's staff member (who you have named, bringing the mischaracterization into the much higher standard of WP:BLP) edited a Wikipedia page -- quite the opposite. A reader of the newspaper article would not think this to be the case, but a reader of this language on Wikipedia will. You also did not fix the citation so it leads to the full, free version of the story, instead of the paywalled version, so readers can evaluate the facts for themselves. Here it is again: [5]

The paragraph is only marginally improved because the next sentence says "Wikipedia edit requests" (without an internal link, Wikipedia:Edit requests, to let readers learn more, by the way.) You've also omitted the statement from the council person's office that says they were seeking to correct distorted information from political opponents, and that it is perfectly legitimate to invest in educating staffers. They are entitled to their defense. WP: DUE. Finally, you've adopted biased language from the Oregonian article - it's fine for them to say "spruced up" and "taxpayer money" but no so Wikipedia. "Taxpayer" is something politicians typically say to get voters riled up. Cities have lots of money from bonds, federal grants and sources other than taxpayers. Likewise, "spruce up" is colorful, biased language the newspaper may use to imply the proposal was to make the council person look better, rather than correcting distortions, as his office maintains. Wikipedia should not adopt bias. Why not say "to prepare a proposal to ask Wikipedia editors to consider updates to the page"? This is the simple truth, not spin. If the language actually reflected the events in an unbiased fashion, it would become apparent this event does not fit into a long page just about COI violations. BC1278 (talk) 20:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@BC1278:, Can you propose a suggested version? There's no guarantee that it will go as you propose, but I'm open to take a look. Also, I suggest you reach out to the news outlets to correct the errors. As you're well aware, whatever version that gets said on the article has to be directly supportable per WP:V. Some of them referred to the discussions on talk pages as contacting "Wikipedia administrators" so, they don't seem to quite understand how Wikipedia works. Graywalls (talk) 20:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Tedder: can you take a look? I pinged you because you've recently engaged on this topic. Graywalls (talk) 23:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Personally I don't see any major problem with the current wording. However, I'm inclined to agree with BC1278 that there is at least room for discussion on whether city taxpayer money and spruce up are emotive turns of phrase. I'd suggest that there is probably room for compromise there.

Despite the wall of text above I don't see any other issue. E.g.: BC1278 points out that The reporting does not allege that the council person's staff member [...] edited a Wikipedia page, but the Wikipedia article text doesn't make such an allegation and says only that edit requests were subsequently submitted by that individual. Similarly I don't see that naming an individual in accordance with a published source has any bearing on WP:BLP.

Also, the idea that the story does not belong in the article at all is clearly untrue (as pointed out by me upthread) because the article is about "COI editing on Wikipedia", not "COI editing violations on Wikipedia".

I'd suggest a revised wording as follows, which hopefully all parties will find satisfactory (removals are struck through, additions are in bold):

In August 2024, Government of Portland, Oregon's commissioner Rene Gonzalez spent $6,400 of city taxpayer money funds to hire a contractor WhiteHatWiki to assist with requesting edits to spruce up the commissioner's page. Wikipedia edit requests were subsequently submitted by commissioner's policy advisor Harrison Kass.

There is also the question of adjusting one of the sources to a non-paywalled version, which seems a reasonable suggestion.

I'd love to discuss further but unfortunately I need to address my remedial education requirements, as so charitably pointed out by BC1278 above. Axad12 (talk) 05:32, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Just a final point here... I do wonder if it is important context in relation to this story that 4 of the 8 edit requests were turned down (as reported in The Oregonian). I accept that that point could perhaps be argued either way, but since we are discussing textual amendments I thought I should mention it.

Most of the 4 declined requests were rather trivial and declined on technical grounds, but one (#4 here [6]) was a rather lengthy request to remove criticism (based on what was deemed to be a flawed appeal to policy). The other 7 elements of the overall request were asking for very minor adjustments to the article text and I think most handling editors would have deduced that #4 was the point of the exercise. Therefore, stating that 4 of the 8 requests were turned down may be relevant context for how the story should be presented in this article.

I'll put it no stronger than that, but I think the issue is at least worthy of consideration. Axad12 (talk) 06:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

To give further context here, as BC1278 said earlier All these reports are about the proper expenditure of city funds. That being the case, the concrete results of the $6,400 can be seen in this edit [7], which may support the idea that the '4 out of 8' figure is indeed relevant. Axad12 (talk) 08:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)