Slashdot Mirror
Wikipedia Scandal: High Profile Users Allegedly Involved In Paid-Editing
An anonymous reader writes "A new Wikipedia scandal: two high profile users, one of them board member of Wikimedia UK seem to have been caught doing edits for personal profit. It was also discovered that they ran an SEO business related to Wikipedia. Quoting: 'Roger Bamkin, trustee of the Wikimedia Foundation UK, whose LinkedIn page describes him as a high-return-earning PR consultant, appeared to be using Wikipedia's main page "Did You Know" feature and the resources of Wikipedia's GLAM WikiProject (Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums) initiative to pimp his client's project. Bamkin's current client is the country of Gibraltar.'"
Where is the problem?
Gibralta is a region just north of Africa that is under British rule and all the inhabitants are perfectly happy with this state of affairs
As FUBAR as wiki is I don't see how it can possibly matter.
As an aside, there is data concerning impact craters that is no longer correct, I tried to edit the entry for the Moon and Mars; the hoops one has to go through made the entire process less than worthwhile.
It's not the fault of WP. As long as they toss him out, they've done the right thing and all's well.
If they act like the Catholic Church and protect the abusers, that's another matter.
Tom Geller
This is why most of the articles get written. Wikipedia is essentially SEO linkbait.
This is really, really good news. Because if anyone of the CIA or something like that would have been involved, corpses would have been found in local creeks. So now that everything is fine, we can all go to rest, knowing everything is all right.
PS: Please everyone please send me your cellphone number. Thanks!
"It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
If you remember DMOZ, the community edited links directory, that died a death because they didn't tackle paid interests.
I'd edit a category to remove keyword stuffing, and kill links to sites that were simply keyword stuffed pages with lots of links to another site. Obvious SEO stuff. As soon as I did that, a senior editor would drop buy, re-instate the links, and in coordination, the spammy gateway page would be replaced by a plausible site. After 2-3 months, the site would revert back to the spammy gateway page again.
Of course the senior editors were linked to those sites, and that's why there was such close co-ordination, but there was nothing you could do about it. DMOZ did nothing to fix it, and people just stopped caring, it went away.
From Jimmy Whales, the biggest WikiWhore of them all: "I'm shocked, SHOCKED, I TELL YOU"
Sure Jimmy, sure.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
It's not like that's the only wiki (what the fuck was that from ??) in the universe !!
Why would you trust anybody who(voluntarily no less) describes themselves as an 'SEO Consultant?
Surely such people would be as laboriously excluded from polite company as their abominable creations are from search indices and email queues?
First, I am very grateful for Wikipedia and would rather not imagine the world without it, even though one need only look back a decade to do so. As a fine and powerful, but fallible tool, it is like the scent of carrion to conniving circling buzzards -- and circling they be! Ahh, yes, the skies are clear you say; where are these buzzards?. Well, Chicken Little has been thoroughly plucked and I'm not following suit. Instead, I'll drop this link (this one too), say a few things, specifically that I suspect there is a problem, and hope this /. article will motivate some capable Slashers to do a little digging and telling, if they will.
The first link directs to a Wired article on Virgil Griffith, a CalTech grad student who did a little forensic prodding, tracing the IPs of certain chivalrous Wikipedia editors. While such agencies and corporations as the CIA and Microsoft have been observed doodling gleefully about, a plenitude of other interesting sources have too. Certainly the CIA and Microsoft are welcome to make appropriate edits to Wikipedia; however, what qualifies as "appropriate" could probably use a good public review.
The second link is simply damned interesting, IMO.
Warning: Rant Begins Here:
It beggars the mind of a bumbling patriot like myself to conceive jingo-seraphim such as Petraeus diverting their genial hoof garments hither domestic. And surely fables of Mocking Birds are no true tales of conniving buzzards. After all, elaborate psychological conditioning could never compete with the unhindered purity of the American phenotype shining so brightly amongst a world lightless without. No, it is not intentional manipulation that deserves credit for the strength of our glorious consumer might. It is far more likely the intrinsic virtue of any decent ape-in-transition to be just as we are, or worse to be fair. Critical-thinking is a disease which must be mitigated by central intervention, by those who know best. For the masses would be lost in an endless banquet of sodomy and cannibalism without the guidance of Malthusian oversight to cull them. Without such counsel, humanity would grovel in the sorry wake of cretins like Tesla, reeling through horrid century after century of wanton growth, like a wicked and vibrant cancer that cannot be controlled, spreading beyond the sweaty grasp of central planning and anthropoid politics. There is a stark and deep Universe beyond the smoke and mirrors of our terrestrial slave'osphere. The iron hand that presses your shoulder every time you gaze into that forbidden abyss of the anti-ape, it only strives to protect you. Baby, it's cold out there.
Forward! -- Emperor Norton, 2012
Letting anyone in "PR" be in a position of trust...
GLAM wasn't created by normal Wikipedia editors. It was something the foundation made up to draw in people who don't really give a shit about open source type ideals.
It's not really a surprise that it would end this way.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
So who wants to write the Wikipedia article on this scandal?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I use Wiki nominally so i don't care about this situation. I am personally not surprised about this because when it (the site) first popped up years ago i thought to myself "what's to keep someone who's pissed off at you putting up whatever they want about you?".
Think about it.
I'm here for the experience, not the Hyperbole.
This is not surprising, more surprising is that it's not more widespread.
I knew Gibraltar couldn't be trusted.
Just end all those "did you know", "in the news", "on this day", and "today's featured article" stuff - not only because they can potentially cause corruption (as maybe in this case) but mostly because they may be relevant for a "knowledge portal" but irrelevant for an -strict- encyclopedia.
This is just human nature. I'm sure even if it wasn't for financial reasons, the way wikipedia is written, it's purely worked on by people with interests in the topics they describe. Why would someone who has no vested interest in the page do any work on improving it?
the game
It really ????
Mua ban oto
Identify the cretins, remove them, shame them publicly and move on. Does not invalidate Wikipedia or its approach at all.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Gibraltar is not a country, it is a British overseas territory.
Sounds like an Onion story... I didn't RTFA though.
And in 'internet time' to boot.
Not in any good.
Wikipedia will NOT survive. :(
It's incredible how so many corrupt, self-absorbed people can make such a nice thing as Wikipedia.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
There is no such thing as "Wikimedia Foundation UK". There is "Wikimedia UK" (officially "Wiki UK limited"). The Wikimedia Foundation is a US-based organization that runs the servers that host Wikipedia and handles the associated administrative and financial matters. Wikimedia UK is just a local users' organization, also known as a "chapter".
By writing "Wikimedia Foundation UK", the article writer seemed to imply that Roger Bamkin was a powerful person regarding the management of Wikipedia / Wikimedia sites. This is not the case.
I for one am shocked!
From someone that works in SEO, Wikipedia is one of the highest page ranked websites available... and you can simply upload whatever you want (until it gets edited that is). I have used it in the past where a clients link was suitable. I always suspected that there was some dubious content that they let pass for the strangest reasons. Please visit my blog - http://rossdavie.com.au - Thanks.
wkipedia is an oligarchy full of trolls, gamers, bureaucrats and shills... has been for ages
anyone who thinks of wikipedia in the same light as britannica or world book is a moron
wikipedia is full of interesting stuff, but it should never be relied on as a reliable source
That's like saying the country of Guam, or the country of Puerto Rico. Gibraltar is a territory. Its inhabitants are British.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
So, assuming there is some corruption there, ( which is inevitable, there are humans here)
WHO gets the most benefit from the attempt to discredit Wikimedia?
Who is behind the accusations or expose, and who do they work for?
Let's face it, this is not about Wikipedia. It is about someone else who would discredit them for their own gain.
Apple?
Microsoft?
Amazon?
Fox?
All of the above?
This is how the known history is written, right?
Differing sets of conflicting rules, senior editors making their own personal information kingdoms, colliding and sometimes colluding with people who think they're editing UrbanDictionary.
I only edit anonymously, and I do not talk to any other editors.
There is no "country of Gilbraltar" as the anonymous coward who posted the article suggests. It is a British overseas territory. It's something akin to Guam or American Samoa which are territories of the USA and nobody thinks they are countries.
Is there any pr person who isn't completely soulless?
The other day there was a reddit thread on the front page about a billionaire allegedly buying off Wikipedia to erase mention of his alleged incest. Oddly enough, the thread itself then also disappeared from reddit due to some questionable mod decisions.
http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/102qtm/til_that_wikipedia_deleted_a_page_about_a/
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
http://armeco.ru/ - , , ...