Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-12-27/Special report

Discuss this story

Thanks, @Newslinger:. This is a very good report on a very serious topic. It is incredibly time-consuming to check out this material in such detail. At the end of the day ... ? Well, we are certainly sure that the WSJ did not mess up it's reporting, or that there's not some simple explanation that "outside media" just don't understand. In other words Wiki-PR/Status Labs have been caught again, stealing "free advertisements" from Wikipedia. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC) (Editor-in-chief, The Signpost)[reply]

Great coverage of an important topic. We know that political editing occurs, and this reminds me of a case which was never fully resolved by appropriate sanctions. A slap on the hand and some perpetrators were just allowed to continue:
- Koch Industries Employs PR Firm To Airbrush Wikipedia, Gets Banned For Unethical ‘Sock Puppets’

Keep up the good work. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CORPSPAM is a problem that just won't go away. You can help too: just try to glance at several random company articles every day (or go through a stub category like Category:Japanese company stubs and try to nominate some trash for deletion every day. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:05, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inspired by (newly minted admin) Newslinger's special report, I finally finished Visium Asset Management which I plan to nominate for DYK. We can't prevent cases like this, but we can combat their usage through continuous productive editing. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:38, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
this excellent reporting reinforces what should be obvious: paid editing is not the problem, failure to enforce core policies is. I suppose the policy gives legal cover and allows for cease-and-desist letters, but paid or not biased editing is not okay, and neutral editing stands on its own regardless of motivation. We editors need to be more attentive rather than hiding behind a policy.~T P W 14:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing the hard work of ferreting out the truth from the intentional confusion slung by a highly motivated editor. Keep up the good fight. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 00:09, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A great report, but it rather depressingly highlights my own failings as an editor - and perhaps those of many others. I might think I'm fighting vandals and keeping the encyclopedia safe, but I would probably have glossed over many (all?) of these edits at Recent Changes as I personally have no interest and/or understanding in companies, trivial celebrities and political groups. If they're subtle or complex edits, and on topics I know zilch about, I'd probably have let them pass. That worries me. A lot. I can only hope that others who are motivated by these topics will indeed make up for the inevitable subject weaknesses in people like me, as we increasingly need your skills and commitment to stop Wikipedia being taken over by POV-pushers and paid editors. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:11, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]