Hi Mario,

I don't think it will be considered harassment if the information is posted
here. I believe the WP:OUTING applies to the English Wikipedia and this is
not English Wikipedia mailing list.

Regards,

Isaac

On Jul 22, 2018 5:43 PM, "Mario Gómez" <mariogomw...@gmail.com> wrote:

There, is at least, one user that works for Go Fish Digital with a
sockpuppet account in English Wikipedia and has denied conflict of interest
or paid editing disclosure even if he was asked too, since some user was
suspicious. Should I send this privately? I don't want to incur in spurious
ousting/doxxing.

Best,

Mario

On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 12:24 AM, MZMcBride <z...@mzmcbride.com> wrote:

> Hi.
>
> Go Fish Digital is a company that whitewashes Wikipedia. From its own
site:
>
> >The primary platforms that define your online reputation include:
> > [...]
> > * Wikipedia
> > [...]
> >
> > With Online Reputation Management, we work hard to make all of the
> >positive information easy to find.  At the same time, we use many
> >different strategies and tactics to diminish the visibility of negative
> >content, or in some cases, remove it from the web altogether.  The end
> >result is a positive online reputation because when people search your
> >name or brand, they immediately find positive content.
>
> Source: https://gofishdigital.com/online-reputation-management
>
> Wikimedia Foundation Inc. has been working with this company on search
> engine optimization: <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T198970>. I have a
> few questions about this work.
>
> How was this vendor chosen? Which other vendors were considered?
>
> Why is this work being undertaken? At least the English Wikipedia has some
> of the best search engine results placement of any site on the Web, so I'm
> curious to know who's prioritizing Wikipedia's search engine optimization
> and for what reason.
>
> How is it appropriate for Wikimedia Foundation Inc. to work with a company
> that is, by its own admission, whitewashing Wikipedia? Doesn't this give
> Go Fish Digital a ton of legitimization by now being able to say it works
> directly with Wikimedia Foundation Inc. ("with Wikipedia")?
>
> Is it appropriate to give a company that sells whitewashing Wikipedia
> services access to private user data, as was done in
> <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T192893> and
> <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193052>? The Wikimedia Foundation Inc.
> legal department apparently approved this access, but I'm curious to know
> why, given the company's role in selling an "Online Reputation Management"
> product. This looks bad to me.
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to