Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

Considering the purpose of wikidata, it might make sense for it to have somewhat different rules also. Unlike Wikipedia, it is a directory On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 12:56 PM, James Heilman wrote: > The terms of use as explained on meta apply to all projects unless an >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

The terms of use as explained on meta apply to all projects unless an alternative is in place. So sister projects do have similar restrictions on undisclosed paid editing. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use#4._Refraining_from_Certain_Activities Different projects of course have varied

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

I agree wholeheartedly with Vito. Thank you for bringing up this issue. Wikidata is part of the umbrella group of Wikimedia projects. Wikipedia has strict rules governing paid editing (at least in EN), and these rules are not even the same across different language editions. Most of the other

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

We currently have some mean to fight paid editing, terms of services are "easy to violate" thus giving us a straightforward way to take action. But too often I see something like: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q16826370 obvious paid editors left totally free to do their job without even attracting

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

I would think this is up to the chapter/affilate organisation, but no harm in getting a more universal collection of opinions. Cheers, Peter -Original Message- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gabriel Thullen Sent: Sunday, 23 April 2017

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

I suggest another question, right after your #5. Undisclosed paid editing is one thing, dealing with disclosed paid editors within our community is another. You could add the following question: "Asking if we agree to let disclosed paid editors occupy key positions within the Wikimedia movement

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

I've proposed asking wikimedians at large what they think should be done about paid advocacy editing, as item number 5 on my periodic survey proposal composed of all the unresolved questions over the last quarter on this list at:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

> > Has there been a recent substantial discussion by the community surrounding > promotional/biased editting paid or otherwise, which had an outcome > resulting in a specific request for assistance or increased action by the > WMF? > Aside from the conversation on this list, I'm aware of the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

Pine, Has there been a recent substantial discussion by the community surrounding promotional/biased editting paid or otherwise, which had an outcome resulting in a specific request for assistance or increased action by the WMF? If there hasn't, I do not see grounds for you to be expecting an

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

I'm bumping this thread in the hope that there will be official comments from WMF regarding their willingness to take a more assertive legal approach to addressing and deterring promotionalism and other inappropriate changes to Wikipedia content by people and organizations who have conflicts of

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

Should the Communications team hold a contest asking wikipedians to propose new trademarks for Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods? Ref.: https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/64yf80/labgrown_meat_is_about_to_go_global_and_one_firm/dg6frig/?context=3 On a more serious note, why don't we

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

Hoi, The more we change our practice in order to be restrictve, the more we focus on corner cases like this one, the more we lose sight on what we aim to achieve. Our aim is to share in the sum of all knowledge. Giving a burger company or anyone a black eye by negative attention is fine. Getting

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

I take it that the issue here is that a COI editor changed the opening paragraph to be more complimentary of the product, rather than that someone reused content for commercial purposes. To me it is irrelevant whether they were paid or not, it is the quality of the editing that matters, and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

Gabe highlights the issue - its not easy to identify a paid editor with one or two edits only - Google home is the service creating the issue - this issue is just that first sentence. flagged revisions would work here to stop the immediacy but would never guarantee that a good faith

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

Paid editors have been adding content to Wikipedia for a long time. Some of them might even be doing so in accordance with the rules and guidelines, but that is not what makes this case stand out. The PR agency did a total of three edits, and the third one managed to pass under the radar. They

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

So the Americas favorite burger should have been "America's Favorite Burger(tm)". Agreed. Cheers, Peter -Original Message- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of FRED BAUDER Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2017 8:21 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

Add the information about their behaviour to the article. Just make sure it is accurate, near the top, and gets published somewhere that can be used as a reliable source. Even if this only sticks 50% of the time it is not something they will want to risk. If the foundation is willing to stick

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

"The Whopper, also known as America’s favorite burger, " is a problem as it implies that the Whopper is the favorite burger of the American public. Perhaps it is, but that is a trademark, not the result of a survey. The other stuff, "a flame-[[grilling|grilled]] patty made with 100% beef with

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

As far as I can see the edits are slightly peacocky, but not much worse than an ordinary fanboy might do on a game or music article. The big issue to me is the undisclosed COI, which is unethical. Proving that the edits were paid for does not seem reasonably practicable unless you start off by

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

James, Which parts of those statements to you consider factually inaccurate, and which parts do you consider misleading in some other way? Cheers, Peter -Original Message- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of James Heilman Sent: Friday, April

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

P.S. The paragraph ending "instead of backsliding, and" should have been followed by "proposing cuts to the payroll tax." On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 12:54 PM James Salsman wrote: > Is it better to think of the problem as paid editing or organized advocacy > for persuasion at

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

Is it better to think of the problem as paid editing or organized advocacy for persuasion at the expense of accuracy regarding all costs and benefits? Burger King is a commercial enterprise which makes money by mass production of beef products, which require more water and produce more greenhouse

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

I'm just a bit agog at the idea that this article became "advertising" when Burger King made the connection using Google Home. Since its very first edit, it has been an advertisement for this product. It may not have been intended that way, but that is the reality. Now it's almost 4200 words

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

On 14 April 2017 at 17:39, Gabriel Thullen wrote: > The damage has been done. Theverge.com claims to have done such a > modification on Wikipedia, to quote them "as did we, in a test yesterday". > We will probably see more of this. Yes. This is why we need to respond in

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

This advertising campaign is particularly interesting, it appears that this is the first time we can talk about an exploit (as is said in computer security). It has been done once so it can be done again. What worries me here is that an advertising campaign like this one, mixing TV advertising

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 5:23 AM, Gnangarra wrote: > > > but they didnt spam, nor did they introduce any false hoods, or remove > > controversial content, they just put a description of the Whopper for the > > opening sentence. I agree with James on this one. They

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

Wikipedia is not for sale. We are not simply another advertising venue available to the corporations of the world. We have mechanisms for corporations to suggest changes to our content and it is called the talk page. Lets look at the changes likely made by Burger King staff in more detail: In

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

but they didnt spam, nor did they introduce any false hoods, or remove controversial content, they just put a description of the Whopper for the opening sentence. As Andy said rather than biting and creating arguments amongst ourselves would it not be better to have used the opportunity to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

On 14 April 2017 at 11:38, Andy Mabbett wrote: > A far better (and less WP:BITEy) outcome would be to get then to Pretty sure WP:BITE doesn't apply in the case of deliberate abuse for clear purposes of spamming. - d. ___

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

On 13 April 2017 at 05:01, Pine W wrote: > I would like for WMF to make Burger King feel that their > misuse of WIkipedia was inappropriate and for WMF to hit them where it > counts -- in their checkbook -- and with enough force that corporations > will decide that messing

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

I really dont think the Whopper comparison is a good one because the change they made was reasonable and at least more consistent with my understanding of the english language as used here with us having distinct difference between what is a sandwich and what is a burger. The Whopper comment

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

Hi there, I agree that we should take action and make it real hard for any corporation financially to achieve this result. Legal action is one thing, but the first thing to be done is to ensure that all affairs of the type are detected and publicly outed, on the very articles if there is

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

With respect to Pine's request for more legal support to help deal with undisclosed paid editing issues, to that I strongly agree. To better address these concerns we need the WMF, communities, and affiliate organizations to collaborate. It is a difficult problem to address. James On Thu, Apr

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

I tend to think along James' lines more than Risker's. Responding to Risker: It seems to me that the key point that you're missing is that Burger King altered Wikipedia content in order to execute this campaign. This wasn't a simple case of an organization reusing existing Wikipedia content; the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

Looking at the Burger King case: I do not have a concern with the ad they created to have Google read the WP article about their product. My concern is them possibly altering the first sentence of said article. But we now have that under control and it was a fairly innocuous in the grand scheme

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

Without getting into the details of the situation, Pine, I'll simply point out that the budget for the legal team of an international corporation like Burger King is going to be significantly larger than the entire budget of the Wikimedia Foundation, and punishing organizations that have figured

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

I'm bumping this thread because there has been a somewhat high-profile incident of misuse of Wikipedia by a corporate entity. This is not entirely the same as undisclosed paid editing, but it was certainly a misuse of Wikipedia.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

Thanks, Molly. I encouraged people interested in understanding the different views on the topic as it relates to Wikipedia English (and perhaps other wikis) to read this discussion. Sydney Sydney Poore User:FloNight Co-founder Kentucky Wikimedians, Co-founder WikiWomen User Group, Co-founder

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

Following up, this is the conversation I was remembering: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Harassment/Archive_11 – Molly (GorillaWarfare) On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 11:59 AM, GorillaWarfare < gorillawarfarewikipe...@gmail.com> wrote: > Pine, > > We quite rarely receive requests to look

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

On 27/01/17 16:59, GorillaWarfare wrote: > Pine, > > We quite rarely receive requests to look into suspicions of paid editing > based on private information. We have historically been reluctant to act on > them for a number of reasons: it's very prone to error, it's often an > incredible amount

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

Pine, We quite rarely receive requests to look into suspicions of paid editing based on private information. We have historically been reluctant to act on them for a number of reasons: it's very prone to error, it's often an incredible amount of work, and we open ourselves up personally to legal

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

GorillaWarfare, Thank you for the statement. Perhaps you and your colleagues at Arbcom could explain your current efforts against COI editing when evidence of such activity is brought to your attention in private (in alignment with current ENWP Arbcom guidance), and also what more you think

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

I just want to note that the question i raised here was about what WMF itself was doing about paid editing. I was unhappy to see so much in that statement about what the community can/should do. I agree with the Arbcom statement that while it is good that Legal noted that its comments

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [arbcom-l] Where is WMF with pursuing companies that offer paid editing services

The Arbitration Committee has just published a response to this statement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation_statement_on_paid_editing_and_outing – Molly (GorillaWarfare) On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 9:17 PM, Jacob Rogers