Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-09-25/Op-ed
Discuss this story
- Paid editors are tantamount to sockpuppets. We must be able to link sockpuppets together, or bad things happen (they tend to release the magic smoke). This also touched on another problem: there are no regulations on this stuff that I am aware of in effect within San Francisco (except maybe that which you mention), the only legal jurisdiction of concern on any WMF project IMO. (Sounds like a good ordinance for the SF Board of Supervisors doesn't it!) Its all community policy predicated on a TOS, which is notoriously difficult to enforce IRL. But we are always in need of paid editors on Wikisource and Wikidata etc., though, so there shouldn't be a problem with that. Int21h (talk) 07:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- "It's crazy that blatant Wikipedia astroturfing firms are operating in broad daylight like it's a legitimate business that doesn't need to hide in the shadows." If you know of any such firms, consider reporting them to the Wikimedia Foundation's legal dept. The legal department is probably in a better position than anyone to either get an injunction and/or determine the IP addresses used by such companies so they can be blocked. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- I have direct knowledge of such ABF astroturfing firms and - in some cases - their specific activities. I wouldn't think WMF would be in a position to deal with it, but if there was a place to report them that would result in real consequences (legal ones) as oppose to blocking throwaway accounts, I would be very interested in supporting that. They are usually smart enough to use a variety of IPs though, so our limited toolset on-Wiki is not really effective long-term. CorporateM (Talk) 18:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- The contacts listed in foundation:Contact us and foundation:Staff and contractors#Legal and Community Advocacy are probably as good a place as any to ask "what are our options using the legal system?" or similar questions. Unfortunately, if such activities are originating in countries with weak or inaccessible court systems, it may be impossible to get that kind of remedy. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- I have direct knowledge of such ABF astroturfing firms and - in some cases - their specific activities. I wouldn't think WMF would be in a position to deal with it, but if there was a place to report them that would result in real consequences (legal ones) as oppose to blocking throwaway accounts, I would be very interested in supporting that. They are usually smart enough to use a variety of IPs though, so our limited toolset on-Wiki is not really effective long-term. CorporateM (Talk) 18:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
- English Wikipedia is F.U.B.B. --Atlasowa (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
One area where PR professionals should be encouraged to contribute is providing illustrative photos for articles, such as publicity shots of clients, product shots, corporate buildings, etc., to the extent that they are missing from articles. They would have to meet our Creative Commons licensing requirements of course and be reasonably neutral (though even smiling attractive publicity shots are useful), and not misleadingly composed or edited. --agr (talk) 23:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Very much so. A single, high quality, promotional picture of most any subject is of great value to both Wikipedia and the company. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
← Back to Op-ed