Wikimedia Sends Cease and Desist Letter To Firm Providing Paid Editing Services

I wish them success... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-20 03:50 · Score: 0

With how easy it is to create accounts, it is similar to blocking email addresses with spammers... they will just create a new account, come from a new IP block, or if push comes to shove, seize via malware established Wikipedia accounts.

Re:I wish them success... by 91degrees · 2013-11-20 04:01 · Score: 5, Interesting

or if push comes to shove, seize via malware established Wikipedia accounts.
Slightly risky though. At the moment, this company is just breaching terms and conditions.

If you use stolen accounts, you're well into the territory of criminal hacking (unauthorised acces to computer systems).
Re:I wish them success... by Midnight_Falcon · 2013-11-20 04:20 · Score: 1

Well, that's just thinking about the technological countermeasures. They're changing the game here from technological (blocking accounts) to add a legal dimension.
If they keep editing articles for money and violating Wikipedia's terms of service after getting the demand letter, they expose themselves to massive civil claims. Since they make money, this creates assets that can then be sued for and seized/garnished via court order.
Also I severely doubt they'd go the malware/malicious route because they'd have to stop being a open company and retreat into the shadowy branches of the interwebs and thus limit their client base. Once they get caught sending malware, they expose themselves to criminal charges in addition to civil charges, and a whole host more civil damages due to clear malice.
Re:I wish them success... by Albanach · 2013-11-20 04:22 · Score: 1

If you are knowingly not following the terms and conditions that allow you to edit, then surely your use of the computer system to do so is just as unauthorized as if you had stolen an account to do so?
If my front door is left unlocked, you still wouldn't have a defense to burglary if you come in and take my TV.
Re:I wish them success... by devman · 2013-11-20 04:25 · Score: 3, Insightful

Allows them to edit content pursuant to terms and conditions.
Re:I wish them success... by biodata · 2013-11-20 04:36 · Score: 2

This. If you access someone else's computer system outside of the allowed terms and conditions it sounds very much like it might come under the Computer Misuse Act in the UK, I guess other jurisdictions have similar laws preventing unauthorised access to computerised information systems.

--
Korma: Good
Re:I wish them success... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-20 04:41 · Score: 0

Right now, the guy running Wiki-PR is simply going onto freelance sites and hiring people willing to write an article for $30 or so. Then he charges companies $500+ for that service. The Wiki-RP articles are generally easy to spot since they use the same 3 crappy websites as "references". I only know of a couple exceptions, and they were companies which would have been considered "notable" anyways. Those articles have been kept though.
Re:I wish them success... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-20 04:42 · Score: 0

The US Government has taken the position that a breach of the T&C of a website falls under the CFAA and can be prosecuted with jail time.
Re:I wish them success... by Albanach · 2013-11-20 04:42 · Score: 2

They can do it with or without the terms and conditions.

Funny, here's what the edit page says: Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions.
Looks to me like if I want to edit, I am subject to the terms and conditions.
Re:I wish them success... by BradMajors · 2013-11-20 04:44 · Score: 1

You do not have to create an account to edit a Wikipedia article.
Re:I wish them success... by Albanach · 2013-11-20 04:44 · Score: 1

Clicked submit too quickly...
And when you go to submit your edit on wikipedia you are told "By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, "
Re:I wish them success... by Mitchell314 · 2013-11-20 04:49 · Score: 3, Funny

Yes, good ol' Libertarian "The government shouldn't violate my right to violate others rights!"

--
I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
Re:I wish them success... by saleenS281 · 2013-11-20 05:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

So you don't have a problem with me repeatedly spray painting racial slurs on your house then, right? No need to get "government thugs" involved. You can just re-paint your house if you don't like it.
Re:I wish them success... by i+kan+reed · 2013-11-20 05:10 · Score: 1

Of course, we've railed against this here on slashdot in the past. Because it was abused to silence dissenters. The plague of unilateral unread contracts and contract-like-legal-entities are putting people under thousands if not tens of thousands of stipulations they don't even know about.
I don't like spammers, and I wish they'd burn forever, but these laws make me extraordinarily wary. I read somewhere that if every agreed-to-EULA was analyzed and explained properly by a lawyer, it would take far, far more than 24 man-hours per lawyer in the world per day to do. That's just a symptom that something is terribly, terribly broken.
Re:I wish them success... by 91degrees · 2013-11-20 05:10 · Score: 2

It's not as clear cut as that. The intent of the law is not to criminalise failing to adhere to the T&Cs. A good defence lawyer will argue that access was authorised, and editing was authorised. The specific editing they do is outside of the scope of the law and entirely a matter of contract. A Jury is likely to be pretty reluctant to find guilty in a case that's clearly a contract dispute.

Stealing a television is stealing a television whether there's a contract clause in place or not.

The case law is inconclusive. There has been a case covering this but while the initial finding was a guilty verdict, this was set aside on appeal. I could certainly imagine others agreeing with the judges point "Allowing a conscious violation of website's Terms of Service to be a misdemeanor violation of the CFAA would essentially give a website owner the power to define criminal conduct".

If you use somebody else's access for a system that you have been explicitly barred from though, it's pretty clear cut.
Re:I wish them success... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-20 05:12 · Score: 1

If I came into your house and spay painted your walls because you left your door unlocked and left a note on the door saying please don't spray paint my house when I am away, would you sue me?
Re:I wish them success... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-20 05:14 · Score: 0

That has never stopped them before. All it takes is an offshore address and using offshore VPNs, and the chance of getting hammered by the CFAA in the US (especially with all the anti-US sentiment worldwide) is next to zero.
Anonymizing the service can be easy too... just have a BitCoin wallet that is used for payments.
Re:I wish them success... by eyrieowl · 2013-11-20 05:14 · Score: 1

This, 100 times over. TOC should not be enforced by any criminal court in any country. Civil courts is a different matter. Breaking actual criminal laws is a different matter. Those criminal laws, however, should clearly spell out the crime and should not leave its definition up to anything a random person or company wants to throw into a TOS.
Re:I wish them success... by eyrieowl · 2013-11-20 05:15 · Score: 1

The US Government is, however, wrong. (a distinction which may not change the outcome, but which is, I think, very important).
Re:I wish them success... by 91degrees · 2013-11-20 05:16 · Score: 1

As I mentioned in another comment in this thread US District judge George H. Wu has ruled otherwise. The US government's position is a legal opinion not a ruling.
Re:I wish them success... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-20 05:33 · Score: 0

You can't serously want it to be a criminal offense to not do any random thing that Slashdot (or Amazon or the BBC or any other website you frequent) adds to their terms and conditions? Do you actually check each time you go to a web site (or even the first time), that it doesn't have a term requiring payment, or that you dye your hair green, or change your name to Alfric, or refrain from posting negative comments about the site or anything else?
Re:I wish them success... by Mr+D+from+63 · 2013-11-20 05:40 · Score: 1

The way to stop undesired behavior is to have it result in negative consequences. Just place the names of the offending companies on a T&C violators list at the bottom of each article.
Re:I wish them success... by bigwheel · 2013-11-20 05:47 · Score: 1

Yes, good ol' Libertarian "The government shouldn't violate my right to violate others rights!"
I assume you made that up to sound clever.
From the very first part of their faq: http://www.lp.org/faq "Essentially, we believe all Americans should be free to live their lives and pursue their interests as they see fit as long as they do no harm to another." I'm pretty sure that the "do no harm to another" phrase applies here.
Re:I wish them success... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-20 05:51 · Score: 0

Everyone just clicks through cease and desists anyway.
Re:I wish them success... by Archangel+Michael · 2013-11-20 05:59 · Score: 1

You forget what Liberals call "rights" are their right to take from you to support whatever cause their heart bleeds for.

--
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Re:I wish them success... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-20 06:09 · Score: 0

I like how spray painting someone's house is the same thing as editing a website on the open Internet that calls to be edited in ways the owners don't like.
Re:I wish them success... by TheNastyInThePasty · 2013-11-20 06:22 · Score: 4, Interesting

Better yet, place a banner at the top of each page found to be edited for pay. The banner can read "Company/Person X has been found to pay to edit this article to hide the truth from you. We have reverted those changes but here is a list of things that they don't want you to know: " I'd think that this behavior would end real quick when the dirt they're trying to hide becomes the highlight of the article.

--
The best thing about UDP jokes is I don't care if you get them or not
Re:I wish them success... by Russ1642 · 2013-11-20 06:29 · Score: 1

Yes. Of course. The laws don't change based on doors being locked or unlocked.
Re:I wish them success... by Mitchell314 · 2013-11-20 06:29 · Score: 1, Insightful

So what? Doesn't change the hypocrisy that a good deal of libertarians only pay lip service to freedom with the ulterior motive of getting the government out of the way so that they themselves can infringe on others liberties and rights. Some line on a stupid website doesn't change that fact.

--
I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
Re:I wish them success... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-20 06:53 · Score: 0

The company that does the editing won't care, as that is essentially free advertising for them. Finding out who paid them to do the editing is going to be a lot more difficult. If you started making assumptions based on what the edits were, false flag actions could then become pretty useful. Now instead of paying to have Wikipedia's article on you sound better, you pay to have an opponent's article sound way too good to be true, and get an banner saying your opponent has been caught trying to subvert Wikipedia.
Re:I wish them success... by timmyf2371 · 2013-11-20 06:55 · Score: 2

So, it's the equivalent of a click through EULA?
I thought we didn't like those around here.

--

Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
Re:I wish them success... by saleenS281 · 2013-11-20 07:02 · Score: 2

The outside of your house is open for the whole world to spray paint. There's absolutely nothing preventing me from walking up to 90% of the houses in the US and doing so. If the owners give me permission, there's absolutely nothing wrong with me doing so either. If you tell me you're not OK with it though, that's a problem. Regardless of whether you told everyone on your block it's OK, if you tell me no, I'm breaking the law. Should you have to put up a 20 foot razor wire fence to keep me out? Or should the fact it's private property be enough?

Private property is private property.
Re:I wish them success... by jeffmflanagan · 2013-11-20 07:09 · Score: 2

You sound like a hate-radio gasbag.
Re:I wish them success... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-20 07:32 · Score: 0

According to what we've seen lately, violating the TOS *is* legally criminal hacking.
Re:I wish them success... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-20 08:30 · Score: 0

If you are knowingly not following the terms and conditions that allow you to edit, then surely your use of the computer system to do so is just as unauthorized as if you had stolen an account to do so?
If my front door is left unlocked, you still wouldn't have a defense to burglary if you come in and take my TV.
A EULA/TOS about provided content is slightly more difficult to enforce than the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse act...
Re:I wish them success... by sjames · 2013-11-20 08:35 · Score: 1

The fact that Wiki-PR not only freely confesses to the violations but crows proudly about them in their own promotional literature helps Wikimedia should it ever go to court.
Re:I wish them success... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-20 08:37 · Score: 0

You forget what Liberals call "rights" are their right to take from you to support whatever cause their heart bleeds for.
They haven't done a thing to your right to GTFO. We are in this society together, you can like it and we can work together, or you can move to Somalia. Make a choice quick, I am tired of your nonsense.
Re:I wish them success... by sjames · 2013-11-20 08:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

Unlike the hated EULA, here the T&Cs are presented up front and before you have paid money (in fact, you never have to pay money). The EULA is hated because it's sealed away in the box so you can't see it before you buy, and is generally a nearly unreadable wall of text packed with unconscionable conditions.
Re:I wish them success... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-21 00:25 · Score: 0

If government thugs didn't protect vandals, how long do you think you'd survive spray painting racial slurs on people's houses?
Re:I wish them success... by AbominousSalad · 2013-11-21 07:57 · Score: 1

The good news is, the more they repeat the crime, the worse it looks in court.

--
Every trollism an AC posts is prefixed, in my mind, with "A. Coward whined, in a weak and cowardly voice:"
Re:I wish them success... by stoatwblr · 2013-11-21 21:34 · Score: 1

There's an established precedent for all this - Compuserve vs Cyberpromo. Tresspass to Chattels. Wikimedia has the upper hand.
Re:I wish them success... by Optali · 2013-11-22 03:47 · Score: 1

Well, yes, but if they can demonstrate that this company is behind it they may get a few thousand bucks compensation ;)
And a legal precedent that can have two possible scenarios:
A) Other such companies stop spamming Wikipedia
B) Wikipedia finds a new source of income suing the spammers ;)

--
-- 29A the number of the Beast
Re:I wish them success... by cwsumner · 2013-11-25 07:10 · Score: 1

Around here, I would have to sue your estate because you would be dead...

enforceable? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-20 03:52 · Score: 0

As much as they have a point here, how do the WM people actually want to enforce this? All Wiki-PR is gonna do is remove the explicit reference to WP editing and make it part of a broader "PR campaign" offer.

Re:enforceable? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-20 05:06 · Score: 0

They'll get a court order. Judges may or may not always enforce the law, but they always kick someone's ass who violates their court order.

How the hell did they get their edits accepted? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-20 03:53 · Score: 5, Funny

Any time I try to contribute to wikipedia it's just reverted by some 15 year old control freak. What we need is an open platform where anyone can contribute.

Re:How the hell did they get their edits accepted? by bill_mcgonigle · 2013-11-20 04:00 · Score: 1

Any time I try to contribute to wikipedia it's just reverted by some 15 year old control freak
One one hand I donated to WP on their last appeal, and on the other hand what you write here is why I don't even care about this story.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:How the hell did they get their edits accepted? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-20 04:13 · Score: 2, Interesting

I've made a few dozen major edits to articles -- I mean edits that add or completely rewrite at least one section of an article. I don't think I've been reverted once.
I've had my contributions modified, of course -- usually for the better -- but that's the whole point.
I don't know what you're doing wrong, honestly.
Re:How the hell did they get their edits accepted? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-20 04:21 · Score: 0

I can only assume you are from the wikimedia foundation.
Re:How the hell did they get their edits accepted? by 0racle · 2013-11-20 04:31 · Score: 1

I'm willing to bet the wiki nazis aren't 15 year olds.

--
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
Re:How the hell did they get their edits accepted? by Joining+Yet+Again · 2013-11-20 04:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

This merely means that your edits were inconsequential to anyone with more free time than you.
Re:How the hell did they get their edits accepted? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-20 04:36 · Score: 0

You mean somewhere where anyone can revert your edits?
Re:How the hell did they get their edits accepted? by interkin3tic · 2013-11-20 06:23 · Score: 1

I notice you don't mention what you were editing. Was it highly technical, cutting edge research in an area where you are a leading expert? Because if not, then it sort of makes sense. Wiki has been going on for quite a while now. Current events obviously will attract other wikipedians at the same time. Stuff that is not current, wiki has been going on for quite a while, so most edits on those should probably be rejected.
Re:How the hell did they get their edits accepted? by melikamp · 2013-11-20 07:01 · Score: 2, Informative

The platform you speak of is called "the Internet". Buy cheap hosting and post whatever you want. If your Wikipedia edits keep getting reverted, there's probably a good reason for it, likely having to do with editing guidelines, most likely with NPoV.
Re:How the hell did they get their edits accepted? by Mashiki · 2013-11-20 07:29 · Score: 1

I've done several major edits, with cited sources, and several minor contributions with clearly cited sources. All of them were either reverted, or nuked from orbit. When the information which came from more than one source, and backed up didn't fit within their groupthink.
What most people are "doing wrong" is not fitting in with the highly selective groupthink. If you do that, then it's a-okay, don't do that, and they'll revert.

--
Om, nomnomnom...
Re:How the hell did they get their edits accepted? by excelsior_gr · 2013-11-20 07:37 · Score: 1

How come this troll is modded "insightful"?
The GP stated that his contributions were modified "usually for the better". This obviously means that the GP's edits were definitely not inconsequential: people saw them as improvements that can be further enhanced.
Re:How the hell did they get their edits accepted? by ottothecow · 2013-11-20 08:18 · Score: 1

I once tried to add a section to Bennett Haselton's wikipedia highlighting his absurd set of slashdot "essays" (the ones questioning the 5th ammendment).
I mean...I was doing it to call out the fact that he is an idiot, but the content itself was accurate and cited to the original stories. I think it is notable enough for inclusion--thousands of people read and commented on those stories and I wouldn't have any idea who Bennet Haselton is if not for those posts. His wikipedia page even includes a section for "Other Internet Activities".
Still got nuked from orbit almost immediately.

--
Bottles.
Re:How the hell did they get their edits accepted? by geekoid · 2013-11-20 08:39 · Score: 1

OR maybe you were wrong?

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:How the hell did they get their edits accepted? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-20 09:00 · Score: 0

Of course not. If he provided an example, we'd all be agreeing with the 15-year-old control freak.
Re:How the hell did they get their edits accepted? by david_thornley · 2013-11-21 06:05 · Score: 2

I suspect that, if he were a leading expert in highly technical, cutting edge, research, he might stray from the "no original research" principle. It's an easy one to fall into when you really know what you're talking about (that and not citing enough, which has bitten me in some fields of expertise).

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:How the hell did they get their edits accepted? by Rich0 · 2013-11-21 07:51 · Score: 1

Any time I try to contribute to wikipedia it's just reverted by some 15 year old control freak. What we need is an open platform where anyone can contribute.
That's like asking how the RIAA manages to sue people - anytime I've gone to court I get buried in a ton of procedure and documentation. Well, if you did nothing but sue people all day long, chances are you'd have a good system in place for dealing with all that.
If you ran a business that did nothing but astroturf Wikipedia all day then you'd have marketing/content experts who do the authoring. You'd have an operations team that monitors all the pages you're astroturfing to make sure your messages get/remain there. When somebody else changes one of your messages you'd have an army of people and their sockpuppets to revert those changes and mount a full-scale war on the Talk pages. When somebody reverts your changes you'd likely have an army of specialists to mount a war. They would be experts in the ins-and-outs of WP:ADNAUSEUM, and you'd probably even have an R&D team working on getting policies created that work more towards your goals. Maybe you'd even work on infiltrating the admin community.
Oh, and those 15 year olds are the whole reason that companies like this are in business. If it were easy to astroturf then nobody would have to hire professionals to do it for them.
Half of modern business thrives on red tape. Red tape makes it hard for newcomers to get in, but established players have economies of scale that let them deal with that. If you want to ship one package from the US to Indonesia and follow all the rules, you have to dig through a ton of crazy local laws/etc. If you ship 1000 packages a day there then you just create another order in your trade management system and your army of experts expends an extra 2 minutes processing it.

Soon by fragfoo · 2013-11-20 03:53 · Score: 1

Wikimedia soon to implement that sound business model.

--
Sig? Heil

i hear... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-20 03:54 · Score: 0

it came with a huge 11x17 picture of Jimmy Whale's huge head. ...and the law firm has already surrendered.

First world problems by wcrowe · 2013-11-20 03:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

Geez, I don't have the time to edit this Wikipedia thingy. Can't I pay someone to do it for me?

Seriously -- and I'm just playing Devil's advocate here so don't flame me -- but don't companies pay people in their communications departments to edit wikis related to their business? So, is it any different if you outsource it?

--
Proverbs 21:19

Re:First world problems by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-20 04:00 · Score: 1

In general you are not allowed to make a business out of violating the terms of service of a website. It doesn't matter whether you outsource it or not. Wikimedia is going after the big fish rather than the small fish because legal action is expensive and they don't have enough money to go after all the small targets.
Re:First world problems by Piata · 2013-11-20 04:13 · Score: 5, Insightful

If this is allowed then it completely undermines Wikipedia as a reliable source of information. It will be just another marketing platform doomed to a slow death as it loses all relevance.
Re:First world problems by Kardos · 2013-11-20 04:18 · Score: 1

These two sentences summarises the entire discussion. Where are the mod points when you need them!
Re:First world problems by Notabadguy · 2013-11-20 04:22 · Score: 2

In my hands. Applied due to agreement. :)
Re:First world problems by Quince+alPillan · 2013-11-20 04:27 · Score: 4, Informative

....and erased because you commented on the story.
Re:First world problems by Air-conditioned+cowh · 2013-11-20 04:32 · Score: 1

Paid editing isn't banned. Frowned on a bit, maybe, but not banned. It is creating loads of sockpuppets and editing deceptively and disruptively that seems to have got these guys in trouble.
Re:First world problems by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-20 04:32 · Score: 0

In general you are not allowed to make a business out of violating the terms of service of a website
Really? Under what law? What about ToS that contradict governing law?
Re:First world problems by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-20 04:34 · Score: 0

If you do so with an eye towards PR spin or market manipulation, yes, it is absolutely different. This isn't a case of a company hiring someone to be their media copyrighter. The company sells its services to clients who want to frame the discussion (whatever their particular discussion happens to be) by manipulating the information.
Re:First world problems by gajop · 2013-11-20 04:34 · Score: 1

Wikipedia is about facts, and shouldn't be used as your PR/marketing platform.
This is good.
Re:First world problems by Joining+Yet+Again · 2013-11-20 04:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

"Notability not truth" and "volunteer democracy" (i.e. truth by consensus of people with the most time to waste) are what undermines Wikipedia as a reliable source of information.
EVERYONE is biased. If someone pays to express their bias on Wikipedia, all they're doing is paying for the time to compete. This may make things worse, better, or change nothing much at all, depending on whether the paid-for bias is more or less truthy than other bias.
Re:First world problems by steelfood · 2013-11-20 04:52 · Score: 1

I don't have the time to edit this Wikipedia thingy. Can't I pay someone to do it for me?
Why? What article are you editing, that you'd be willing to pay someone to do it instead of yourself?

companies pay people in their communications departments to edit wikis related to their business?
You're not allowed to put in original content. You're not allowed to edit articles about yourself or articles with content that involve you or your affiliations in any way. Paying someone else to do it on your behalf is equally unacceptable. So excluding these, what type of edits could you possibly want to pay to be done?

--
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Re:First world problems by ak3ldama · 2013-11-20 05:00 · Score: 2

You mean like happened to Sarah Palin's page the night before she was chosen to be the VP candidate? Or on any other such page where there is a desire to scrub past or present? I am at least happy that we have a relatively transparent view into the history of these articles - but it has already been completely undermined.

--
"but money is the God of Algiers & Mahomet their prophet." - Rich. O'Bryen June 8th 1786
Re:First world problems by EvilSS · 2013-11-20 05:13 · Score: 1

In the US that law would be the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). A favorite of the feds since it can be used to make just about anyone a felon.

--
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
Re:First world problems by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-20 05:29 · Score: 1, Funny

Who would have believed a Sarah Palin supporter could edit a wiki page?
Re:First world problems by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-20 06:39 · Score: 0

Edit reverted to previous version. ~~~
Re:First world problems by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-20 07:41 · Score: 0

That presumes Wikipedia was ever a source of reliable information
It's not.
Re:First world problems by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-20 08:14 · Score: 0

This isn't a case of a company hiring someone to be their media copyrighter.
What's © got to do with it? Or did you mean copy writer?
Re:First world problems by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-20 08:38 · Score: 0

*puts on Tina Turner wig*
What's © got to do got to do with it?
What's © but a sweet old fashioned notion?
What's © got to do got to do with it?
Who needs DRM when DRM can be broken?
Re:First world problems by lgw · 2013-11-20 08:43 · Score: 1

A better platform would have multiple pages for contentions issues. For most of Wikipedia, there's no drama, and it's a good source of information. But for the remainder, often the most interesting parts, there is constant drama, page locks, revert wars, and so on. All of that should be solved by admitting that Wikipedia doesn't list "facts", it lists "consensus opinions", and where there's no consensus it needs to let each side have it's page.
Note at the top in bold text which page represents the consensus of published scientists, where that's available, and leave the rest to the readers' judgement.

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:First world problems by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-20 10:31 · Score: 0

Who would have believed an Obama supporter could create a website? Too many people, apparently.
Re:First world problems by excelsior_gr · 2013-11-20 10:35 · Score: 1

I will take unpaid-for bias against paid-for bias every time. Yes, I get bias both ways, but at least it comes from the poor side.
Re:First world problems by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-20 11:31 · Score: 0

Kill yourself.
Re:First world problems by Joining+Yet+Again · 2013-11-20 13:34 · Score: 1

Note at the top in bold text which page represents the consensus of published scientists,
"And of course the consensus is..."
"No, it isn't!"
and so it continues.
I am still intrigued by the idea of competing factions forming to create separate editions of pages. Like for "Israel" you can have a page for people who are basically pro-Israeli-government-behaviour and others who are basically anti-. The problems are, then:
- You have "pro-NPOV" people who try desperately to correct obvious biases in each version;
- You have subversive editors who come from one faction to subtly remove anything they perceive as biased for being "wrong" in their eyes;
- You have extremists who are initially welcomed but then fuck things up by going too far, e.g. the anti-Israeli-government editor who actually just hates Jews, or the pro- who ends up being a violent ZIonist who believes in a divine right to destroy all non-Jews in the area;
- Then these all create more versions...
- Then most versions languish as people don't have fights to renew their vigour;
- But the strongest verion(s) just become(s), once again, whatever's maintained by people with most time on their hands.
Re:First world problems by Joining+Yet+Again · 2013-11-20 13:39 · Score: 1

1) I am not sure how it's improving the plight of the poor (since I assume that is a concern of yours) to allow poor people to spread nonsense just to spite richer people;
2) Those with a lot of time on their hands to edit an online wiki tend not to be very poor.
Re:First world problems by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-20 13:47 · Score: 0

Hypothetically, what if I'm too busy to edit and filthy rich? What if I were to pay some people to fill in some articles which are kind of thin. Maybe there's a not-so-popular TV show I like, and decide to crowd source it by paying multiple people to watch the show and fill in what's missing? Would that violate their ToS?
Even if it weren't a paid service, and friends and colleagues were to do it free of charge, the problem is bias. The problem is that those editors are doing it to bias something in the favor of an individual or organization. I am not so sure Wikimedia has a case. I mean, the only case I see is if they're banning individuals from registering, and those individuals are finding ways to bypass it thus ignoring the ToS,. If I were to get banned from a store, and if I kept going in, then shouldn't I be liable for the increased security they may have to have in order to keep me out? The lawsuit should only be viable if they're having to pay for increased IT to keep certain people out.
Re:First world problems by lgw · 2013-11-20 14:25 · Score: 1

Oh, yeah, you definitely still have control by those with too much time to kill, but at least the reader sees the whole picture. I think most people in the West, to use your example, would be shocked by the "Evil Zionist Menace" page and enlightened in ways that the page "owners" didn't intend. It would be more educational all around, IMO.

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:First world problems by Tom · 2013-11-20 15:14 · Score: 1

This, a thousand times this.
WP is a collection, and like all collections reflects the bias of the collectors. Including their pride and egos and and turf-wars and mood and a dozen culture artifacts such as "notability" and deletionism.
The problem is that WP is utterly unscientific, and thus a throwback to dark ages times. The requirement for "citation" is meaningless once you get to stuff like this - astroturfing, PR companies, etc. - there's nothing easier than buying an article in your favor and then "citing" that same article you bought in the WP page.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Re:First world problems by 10101001+10101001 · 2013-11-20 19:29 · Score: 1

"Notability not truth" and "volunteer democracy" (i.e. truth by consensus of people with the most time to waste) are what undermines Wikipedia as a reliable source of information.
No, it undermines Wikipedia as a complete source of information. Now, one could interject some comment about requiring a "complete picture" to have a reliable source, but the completeness in question is that an article about X is incomplete. It's that article Y just doesn't exist, nor do a lot of articles like Y because they're not "notable". Well, that's life. Anything less than a raw dump of everything involves some sort of filter process, so unless you're asking for that, at some level--and I think Wikipedia mostly gets it right--you want a filtration process of "notable" vs merely "facts". As for "volunteer democracy", well, everything else is some sort of tyranny*.

EVERYONE is biased. If someone pays to express their bias on Wikipedia, all they're doing is paying for the time to compete.
Uh... Everyone is biased. Person A and B are biased. Person A pays person B to express person A's opinion on Wikipedia and..hmm..why exactly is it that person A has any standing to complain/sue if person B just does whatever the fuck they want again in pursuing their bias? Oh, right, somehow you're silently acknowledging that as much as everyone is biased, they can quell their own bias in one area in exchange for bias in another area: money. In short, you rather undermine your implication about Wikipedia having some sort of pre-constructed bias because obviously people can act beyond their innate biases.

This may make things worse, better, or change nothing much at all, depending on whether the paid-for bias is more or less truthy than other bias.
Well, history has shown that it tends to make things worse. Why? Because there's basically three situations: (a) money is used to make good things look bad, but that doesn't tend to have a feedback cycle except with monopolies and even they tend to crumble after a long enough time if they depend on smearing everyone else, (b) money is made to make unrelated things look good/bad/neutral, which just is unrelated and has no real feedback cycle, or (c) money is used to make bad things look good, which can fundamentally change the expectations of people and has a great feedback cycle--it's why ads are still such a major financial investment by companies even though ads so rarely do anything but, directly or indirectly, try to make their product look good (implying it isn't already). But, yea, let's just pretend that feedback cycles don't exist or we don't have a history to base predictions upon or that all situations are equally probable.
*There's a reason I bolded the parts I did and jump off here. You seem to be complaining about one of the few true democracies that exist: one related to the devotion of one's time. Time and money aren't synonymous. Instead of leaving it to the owner of a company to personal have an edit war with one or more people, wasting their "precious" time, they can buy off people to do the work for them. Yet, time is the great equalizer. Everyone has their own and you can't give it to anyone else. But just like votes or "campaign contributions", money can try to buy it from others. In essence, you fundamental complaint is that Wikimedia strives to maintain the one true equalizer that the internet was, in many ways, envisioned to bring by allowing everyone their own voice. And you even complain about "everyone is biased", as if they shouldn't be. Yet you think money can or should be used in some fashion to magical erase that bias. In short, you make no sense.
PS - If you want to compete, use your own time just like everyone else can. Next up you'll be bitching that most MMORPG players are against being able to buy level-up potions and unbalancing weapons and that money is some magic equalizer there too. Make up your mind if you want to compete and play the game or buy your way out of having to play the game.

--
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
Re:First world problems by Joining+Yet+Again · 2013-11-20 21:11 · Score: 1

No, it undermines Wikipedia as a complete source of information.

Your hypothesis is that people who have time on their hands are motivated primarily to neutrally increase the quality or quantity of information on Wikipedia. My hypothesis is that people are primarily interested in promoting their bias, whether that's conscious or based simply in their desire to reproduce what they know.. It's so much easier to dump what's in your head than perform research. Again, "notability, not truth".

why exactly is it that person A has any standing to complain/sue if person B just does whatever the fuck they want again in pursuing their bias?
What do you mean by this? Are you strawmanning or am I missing the point? Paying someone doesn't necessarily exchange one bias on Wikipedia for another - the person being paid might not have written on Wikipedia anyway, or they might have agreed with what they're being paid to write. Paying someone to edit Wikipedia is just separating the task of choosing what to say from the technical job of writing - a skill which most Wikipedia editors sorely lack.

Well, history has shown that [money] tends to make things worse.
I agree that money in general can try to distort in the senses a)-c), but that doesn't necessarily make Wikipedia worse unless its model is already such as to minimise distortion.

You seem to be complaining about one of the few true democracies that exist: one related to the devotion of one's time.
Rubbish. Suggesting that people have equal copious free time is as absurd as suggesting that society is egalitarian. Your 25 year old intelligent, unemployed person living at home (please take that as a description, not an insult) has all day to contribute - your full-time office workers with 2 kids might reasonably have half an hour every evening. Your fast writer might be able to dump a thousand words an hour - your good writer (remembering that only a tiny proportion of Wikipedia readers are editors, so representative judgment of text quality never actually happens) might take an hour to perfect a hundred. The "basement dweller" and the "fast writer" can always decide to engage in a war of attrition and win, because their decisions about where to focus fixed units of time either affect them less or have greater impact.

Next up you'll be bitching that most MMORPG players are against being able to buy level-up potions and unbalancing weapons and that money is some magic equalizer there too. Make up your mind if you want to compete and play the game or buy your way out of having to play the game.
I am glad you put this bit in here because this is exactly how I see Wikipedia: as an MMORPG with arbitrary rules. I don't see any problem with people having to play a game by the rules, but they shouldn't then pretend that it's anything more than a game.
Re:First world problems by 10101001+10101001 · 2013-11-21 03:27 · Score: 1

My hypothesis is that people are primarily interested in promoting their bias, whether that's conscious or based simply in their desire to reproduce what they know.. It's so much easier to dump what's in your head than perform research.
And...so "what they know" is their bias? A businessman that knows and writes about business is biased? He's not, just, oh, experienced? You see, you're mixing up bias, knowledge, experience, etc into a blender and then complaining about certain parts while ignoring the rest. But, all things considered, I'd trust more a person who knows a subject and will devote their time to it than a person who knows a subject and will spam, through money, to have his knowledge put in place. I say this primarily because there are people (and their companies) with insanely disproportionate amounts of money to spam their views.

What do you mean by this? Are you strawmanning or am I missing the point? Paying someone doesn't necessarily exchange one bias on Wikipedia for another - the person being paid might not have written on Wikipedia anyway, or they might have agreed with what they're being paid to write. Paying someone to edit Wikipedia is just separating the task of choosing what to say from the technical job of writing - a skill which most Wikipedia editors sorely lack.
You are missing the point. You argue everyone has a bias and then seem to overlook that the person being paid has a bias. Yet obviously the whole contention is precisely that the person paid is usually not being paid to write on their bias, as most people so interested would be writing in it already or at best are being financial supported for their views--open source developers being supported comes to mind and that sort of patron system is the exception to the rule. But such is obviously a distorting based on money and the vast majority of such financial interests are more about writing in support of things that go against one's own biases--or at least one would otherwise be neutral about. The end result is, of course, precisely to shift the bias to the buyer's position and there's no real reason to believe that because one person has more money they're inherently more right, so there's no real basis to view money as any sort of equalizer--without specific exceptions proven, of course.

Rubbish. Suggesting that people have equal copious free time is as absurd as suggesting that society is egalitarian. ...
I never suggested that at all. I stated everyone has equal, approximately, total time in their life--there are, of course, major exceptions for some people. That one person has "free time" more than another is a choice they make. Hence, it's more fair if not more egalitarian.

Your 25 year old intelligent, unemployed person living at home (please take that as a description, not an insult) has all day to contribute - your full-time office workers with 2 kids might reasonably have half an hour every evening.
And? Your full-time office workers with 2 kids aren't the people who are spamming Wikipedia. It's the full-time office workers's company owners who make 300x the wage of the office worker--and the office worker makes 2-3x what a lot of people make. So, the 1-2% of the population have an effective monetary voice of 300-600x their size, presuming they can find "your 25-year-old intelligent, [now employed] person living at home [who] has all day to contribute". Not only are they now doing nothing more productive than they were before, but they're not allowing for money to distort the discussion way more than "free time" can--just some simple math, but even your simple example only has the unemployed person who never sleeps only being able to distort at a 48:1 ratio.

The "basement dweller" and the "fast writer" can always decide to engage in a war of attrition and win, because their decisions ab

--
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
Re:First world problems by Rich0 · 2013-11-21 07:56 · Score: 1

Geez, I don't have the time to edit this Wikipedia thingy. Can't I pay someone to do it for me?
Seriously -- and I'm just playing Devil's advocate here so don't flame me -- but don't companies pay people in their communications departments to edit wikis related to their business? So, is it any different if you outsource it?
Editing Wikipedia is a bit of a specialty these days. Even Jimbo had trouble creating a stub without it getting deleted.
Anybody can add a sentence to an article. However, if some company for a flat fee would watch a list of articles of interest to my company, keep them friendly for me, and deal with all the edit wars on the talk page without bothering me with the details I could see that being worth something.
Re:First world problems by Joining+Yet+Again · 2013-11-21 22:26 · Score: 1

Q.E.F.
Re:First world problems by excelsior_gr · 2013-11-22 08:04 · Score: 1

It's not improving the plight of the poor. It improves my perception of a situation. Let me elaborate: The "rich" side has many ways of expression available, advertising bombardment through the media being the most obvious example. The "poor" side has much less (e.g. a website, which is also more passive than, say, TV advertisements). Of course getting unbiased information is the best, but if a website or two is biased towards the opinion of the "poor", it doesn't worry me. The "rich" side will get their opinion through to me in some other way eventually.
Of course, I'm mostly referring to topics that have to do with commerce (although the same applies for politics and similar topics). There are other topics, e.g. science, where getting the most unbiased information possible is of much larger importance. Also, the meaning of "rich" and "poor" is always relative. Owning a computer and casually surfing the internet would grade you in the upper class in many countries.

Re:Koch Brothers on the prowl! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-20 03:56 · Score: 0

"Kock Brothers"

Unintentional of course, but please spare me the juvinile cock jokes. Fat chance I know.

Oh well.

Charge them as felons! by NuAngel · 2013-11-20 03:56 · Score: 4, Informative

Under our current (ridiculous) law, it is a felony to break a website's ToS. Go on, Wikimedia, don't just sue them, make them into life-long criminals!

Re:Charge them as felons! by gl4ss · 2013-11-20 04:10 · Score: 3, Informative

but the right to do business trumps that.
besides, that law is there just as joke and as a tool for the feds so that everyone is a potential felon.

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Re:Charge them as felons! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-20 04:15 · Score: 0

Under our current (ridiculous) law, it is a felony to break a website's ToS.

What's ridiculous about it? A site's ToS is the only thing granting you permission to access the site. If you violate them, you're accessing their computers without permission, which is illegal.
Now, granted, most websites have a default ToS of "read whatever you can get to", but sites which allow changes/updates are generally more restrictive, allowing only limited (by the ToS) changes.
Re:Charge them as felons! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-20 04:30 · Score: 0

Except of course, that the nature of the web is publicly accessible pages which one can link to. There are plenty of ways to not have completely publicly accessible internet content.
It's like putting up a billboard, then having a TOS in small print on the back.
Re:Charge them as felons! by Joining+Yet+Again · 2013-11-20 04:41 · Score: 3, Insightful

And that right there is fucking retarded.
The public web is an open medium. That is why I get to access web sites, not because of some 10-page list in size 8 font linked to at the bottom of a page, which I can't even have read unless I visit the site in the first place, and which I may not even have to read in order to continue using the site.
"Use of this web site indicates your acceptance of these T&C" is as silly as "reading this comment indicates that you promise to send me a cupcake". No it doesn't, and no it doesn't.
Re:Charge them as felons! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-20 05:12 · Score: 0

I could have the same thing with my house/residence - a ToS that visitors have to sign if they want to cross the doorway.
But what I couldn't do is get the police to enforce to it... which is what websites can do?
That's the difference - once again private companies can use our legal system to screw us - but we can't do it to them.
Re:Charge them as felons! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-20 05:17 · Score: 0

Your house is an open medium. You left your rear windows unlocked and left for the weekend. That is why i get to access it, not because of some 10-page list in size 8 font linked to at the bottom of some law book.
Re:Charge them as felons! by 91degrees · 2013-11-20 05:56 · Score: 1

According to slashdot media's T&C's if you are under 18 you need your parent or guardian's permission to access Slashdot.

Would you consider it reasonable to charge a 17 year old with a crime for using Slashdot without parents' permission?

Bear in mind, Slashdot media wouldn't need to be involved. The government could choose to prosecute anyway.
Re:Charge them as felons! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-20 06:02 · Score: 0

Yeah but there is now the matter of "Citizens United". SCOTUS says that corporations are people??? Why not carry that stupid decision to its logical conclutions. Prosucute them as people under this law!
Re:Charge them as felons! by parkinglot777 · 2013-11-20 06:10 · Score: 1

Could you define the word public web in your post? It seems that many people think that a web page/site which allows to be viewed by anyone is so called public. Is this your meaning?
Re:Charge them as felons! by Rob+Riggs · 2013-11-20 07:48 · Score: 1

SCOTUS says that corporations are people??? Why not carry that stupid decision to its logical conclutions. Prosucute them as people under this law!
It may drive some people question their opposition to the death penalty.

--
the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
Re:Charge them as felons! by Joining+Yet+Again · 2013-11-20 11:35 · Score: 1

That's good enough for general access, yes.
Re:Charge them as felons! by Joining+Yet+Again · 2013-11-20 11:44 · Score: 1

No, you oaf - it's what it means to leave port 80 open to the world, plonk yourself on search engines, etc. Otherwise no site would be accessible, because I wouldn't be able to check any site to visit check the access policy. Think!
But, interestingly, in the UK, you are precisely correct. There is no such thing as criminal trespass here, except on certain government sites and power stations. If you leave your door or window open, I can walk into your house without committing any crime. Leaving your door open IS interpreted in criminal law as allowing someone to walk into your house. (There may be civil liability for trespass, but that requires loss.)
Re:Charge them as felons! by chrisautrey · 2013-11-20 20:39 · Score: 1

Not really. They can just go and modify the Wikipedia page to conform to their opinion.
Re:Charge them as felons! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-23 10:05 · Score: 0

That is why I get to access web sites, not because of some 10-page list in size 8 font linked to at the bottom of a page, which I can't even have read unless I visit the site in the first place, and which I may not even have to read in order to continue using the site.
If we don't allow contract law to be anything and do anything, that reduces the long term economic demand for legal professionals (who, after all, spend most of their profession doing contract related matters). You clearly don't appreciate the critical need to keep the legal profession fully employed! Think about those poor lawyers that would be walking the streets if mean and cruel people like you had their way and starting insisting that bogus contracts were bogus!
Fortunately, with the various legislatures, the judiciary, and the prosecutors all being composed primarily legal professionals, the fix is already in. It's time to welcome your new legal overlords.

tough by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-20 03:58 · Score: 0

noogies

What about IAR? by JDG1980 · 2013-11-20 04:02 · Score: 1

Considering that the "terms and conditions outlined by the Wikimedia Community" include a specific directive to "ignore all rules" if they get in the way of improving the encyclopedia, it's going to be really hard to make this stick. I don't see this legal threat going anywhere and I suspect it will simply be disregarded and forgotten.

Re:What about IAR? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-20 04:24 · Score: 0

As per your link, Wikipedia is very explicit that IAR is a defined phrase, and includes a definition as to its meaning. A judge is going to read that definition, and understand very quickly that the Wiki-PR company has violated that rule as well as many others, in principle, spirit, and fact.
Therefore, it won't be hard to make it stick.
Re:What about IAR? by Joining+Yet+Again · 2013-11-20 04:44 · Score: 1

A judge may not be happy with a contract which only one party had the chance to write and which contains deliberately misleading phrases.
"You agree to send me $10. [...] In this contract, references to $10 should be read as $1000."
Re:What about IAR? by kaizendojo · 2013-11-20 05:01 · Score: 1

I respectfully disagree with you. While it is 'defined', the very definition is vague, subjective and open to interpretation. For example: "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them." Define "improve" and "maintain". An agent for another may feel that they are "improving" an entry by providing their clients information or point of view. Same for "maintaining" their client's entry. IANAL, but there seems to be way more than enough room to argue one way or the other.
Re:What about IAR? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-20 07:00 · Score: 0

It explicitly points to "rule" meaning the editorial policies. It doesn't say you can violate the Terms and Conditions, which supersede any such policies.

cease to exist letter for WMD on credit genociders by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-20 04:06 · Score: 0

dear corepirate nazi genociders;

your selfish murderous ambitions are not in alignment with the new universal native spiritual awakening, so change your tune or face the music. thank you.

least regards,
former customers

Wikipedia turns to the dark side. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-20 04:08 · Score: 2, Funny

This is bullshit and a clear indication of the authoritarian/statist bias of wikipedia. Wikipedia should base its work on the concept of LIBERTY, not locked down by self-proclaimed strongarm rulers and kings. What a joke wikipedia has become. I hope someone starts up a new one that is, you know, actually FREE to edit. In a TRULY free wikipedia, only the best articles will naturally emerge. Guaranteed.

Re:Wikipedia turns to the dark side. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-20 04:45 · Score: 0

Pretty much. I enjoyed the old wikipedia where there were edit wars on articles. I enjoyed the occasional humorous troll editing political articles. Now all we have is locked down articles and policemen keeping you from editing anything anymore who also have political agendas. No longer can we write "bad" things about political figures on wikipedia. No longer can we write about or list controversial issues about certain corporations. This is not the wikipedia I remembered. There's more information in wikipedia talk than on the main wikipedia article.
Re:Wikipedia turns to the dark side. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-20 04:51 · Score: 0

"I hope someone..."
Why don't you do it?
Re:Wikipedia turns to the dark side. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-20 04:59 · Score: 1

When you say 'free', do you mean 'free' as in liberty or 'free' as in socialism?
I ask because the Wikipedia you describe lacks purity in its freedom. A truly liberated Wikipedia must be based on market principles. By charging for edits to articles and creating an auction process for edit wars, Wikimedia would both satisfy its own natural self interest, and ensure that only the most dedicated and meritorious get to decide the content of the encyclopedia.
Down with Statism! Towards a monetized wikipedia!
Re:Wikipedia turns to the dark side. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-20 05:30 · Score: 0

Feel free to start your SPAMpedia or LETTHEMARKETDECIDEpedia. Just don't expect any user who doesn't get paid to visit...
Re:Wikipedia turns to the dark side. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-20 08:01 · Score: 0

Costs should be borne by END users, not contributors. They should periodically publish a complete "Wikipedia" for their diffrent markets (say one for the Brittanica countries, etc) and then people can buy it all in one go to use as a reference. Then with the profits they can pay editors to create better more accurate articles.
What an innovation that would be!
Re:Wikipedia turns to the dark side. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-20 19:01 · Score: 0

stop talking to myself

[citation needed] by Nam-Ereh-Won · 2013-11-20 04:11 · Score: 0

Can't wait to see how this pans out and how they traced the accounts back to Wiki-PR.

Editing requires time, and time is money by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-20 04:21 · Score: 0

To become admin nowadays you need to show significant involvement (i.e. time) and significant skills (i.e. education, experience). Having both is practically impossible for a normal guy, unless he/she is paid to do it. I know of at least an admin that edited for 20 hours/day for months and with considerable efficiency. He finished by imposing his political bias. And of course, I believe he was paid to do it. But this is life. This is why I quit editing. I already have a job.

Re:Editing requires time, and time is money by Joining+Yet+Again · 2013-11-20 04:50 · Score: 1

Bingo.
All you're doing is paying for time, in order to compete with people who have copious free time.
Wikipedia is a war of attrition.
Re:Editing requires time, and time is money by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-20 08:46 · Score: 0

20 hours/day? Something more stimulating than coffee must have been involved.

Why do people think "free" means free? by erroneus · 2013-11-20 04:22 · Score: 2

Having to comply with terms of service, regardless of whether or not money gets involved is normal.

Re:Why do people think "free" means free? by MickyTheIdiot · 2013-11-20 04:32 · Score: 1

Complying with contracts is only for the little people!

Surprised by benjfowler · 2013-11-20 04:25 · Score: 4, Interesting

Every complex ecosystem has parasites and bottom-feeders. The internet and Wikipedia is no different.

I wish them luck in shutting these guys down.

completely undermines Wikipedia by wiredog · 2013-11-20 04:25 · Score: 3, Informative

as a reliable source of information

You mean it wasn't already?

--

Best Slashdot Co

Re:completely undermines Wikipedia by interkin3tic · 2013-11-20 06:28 · Score: 1

Show me a source of information on as many topics as wikipedia that is more accurate.

There are plenty of anecdotes of wikipedia being vandalized or wrong, and that's amusing, but many people mistake that to mean that wiki is bad, which is foolish. Numbers rather than anecdotes are needed for that. Last study I heard, wikipedia was competitive with the professional encyclopedias in terms of accuracy, and had them easily beat in terms of breadth.

A lot of people also seem to assume that because anyone can edit it, it's not as good as professional editors. Which I think is laughable.
Re:completely undermines Wikipedia by excelsior_gr · 2013-11-20 07:41 · Score: 1

You mean you have a golden "bible" that contains the absolute truth and can be completely trusted? Because if you do, you may own an actual Bible.

CFAA for the Win! by Java+Pimp · 2013-11-20 04:26 · Score: 1

Score one for ToS violations punishable under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act! Throw the book at 'em I say!

--
Ascalante: Your bride is over 3,000 years old.
Kull: She told me she was 19!

Re:CFAA for the Win! by MickyTheIdiot · 2013-11-20 04:31 · Score: 1

Funny person! CFAA is only for companies with 50 lawyers or more on staff!
Re:CFAA for the Win! by TechyImmigrant · 2013-11-20 11:01 · Score: 1

Oooh. I have one of those.
Oh wait. It's a CFFA, not a CFAA.

--
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.

Re:Koch Brothers on the prowl! by Joining+Yet+Again · 2013-11-20 04:31 · Score: 1

> juv(e)nile cock joke
fat chance

Hue.

Just destroy their business by bluefoxlucid · 2013-11-20 04:37 · Score: 5, Insightful

This page has been reverted and locked due to repeated marketing edits to the benefit of the subjects [X, Y, Z] and/or the detriment of subjects [A, B, C]. Page has been reverted to a pre-marketing edit and locked pending review.

--
Support my political activism on Patreon.

Re:Just destroy their business by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-20 06:02 · Score: 3, Insightful

So instead of getting paid to promo a company, they'll get paid by destroying the competitors?
Re:Just destroy their business by interkin3tic · 2013-11-20 06:30 · Score: 2

How did their attempts to counter scientology's crap go? I remember hearing they blocked all edits from known scientology IP addresses, or something similar, but I remember people here saying that was futile and easily defeated. I'm guessing if there was a simpler way to solve the problem than threatening legal action, they would have done it already, since they've faced this problem before.
Re:Just destroy their business by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-20 07:13 · Score: 0

That opens up the possibility for a Joe-job. Pay someone to repeatedly edit the page of your competitor in a favorable manner, but do it in a not to subtle way, and it will get reverted and locked down together with a message that basically states that you competitor is an ashole. Mission accomplished.
Re:Just destroy their business by Kardos · 2013-11-21 01:42 · Score: 1

Nah, that's free advertising for them
Re:Just destroy their business by bluefoxlucid · 2013-11-21 02:45 · Score: 1

Yes but that falls under libel and is much more clear cut legally.

--
Support my political activism on Patreon.

PR has been a problem since its inception. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-20 04:46 · Score: 0

There was a problem years ago when Wiki was just getting started. A bio was placed on Wiki (I can't remember who it was and I'm having trouble getting a cite since it was so long ago. Anyone remember?). The subject of the bio did not like what was said - they did not want some of the true negative things to be published up there. He then deleted them or changed them - or it was his staff.

The original author went back up and changed the article and added back some of the controversial things that were said about this individual (I think it was a politician).

The politicians staff went back and deleted things and changed text .....

The the original author went back .... and on and on it went.

So, depending on when you looked at the article, you would get a completely different impression of the subject.

Wiki had to get a little controlling to stop some of this PR horseshit.

There are always some assholes who have to fuck it up for everyone else.

suitable punishment by FishTankX · 2013-11-20 05:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

They could just lock and revert any page that has shown evidence that it has been edited ny paid pr companies and put a banner ontop of the page in question stating that the page has been locked for six months due to paid editing from a pr company. This would encourage companies not to do such things for fear of looking bad. The opposite of what they were hoping for.

Re:suitable punishment by LunaticTippy · 2013-11-20 05:56 · Score: 2

Pay the PR company to spiff up your competition's page(s) and they get punished.

--
Man, you really need that seminar!
Re:suitable punishment by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-20 06:03 · Score: 0

That would encourage businesses to pay PR firms to edit their competitors' pages.
Re:suitable punishment by gsslay · 2013-11-20 06:13 · Score: 1

Who says its the opposite of what they were hoping for? You don't know what they were hoping for.
It sounds like an excellent way of stopping any bad news ending up on your company's wiki page. Start editing it prior to the bad news breaking, make sure everyone knows you're paid editing it. Page gets locked. No-one can then add the bad news when it breaks.
Or an excellent way to ruin a competitor's article.
One of the key principals of Wikipedia is that page locking is a last resort, for as short a time as possible. Otherwise it wouldn't be the encyclopaedia everyone can edit. Page locking is not a device to shame companies.
Re:suitable punishment by FishTankX · 2013-11-22 15:44 · Score: 1

If so, then could you just keep the banner at top saying it has been PR edited, then highlight the edited portion in blue or something to show which part was added by a paid PR company?

TOS Violation = Jailtime? by Thruen · 2013-11-20 05:12 · Score: 2

It seems as though this company is violating Wikimedia's ToS. Doesn't that mean the same law they used against Aaron Schwartz applies to them? Maybe Wikimedia can press charges and have these people who actually have malicious intent and are knowingly breaking the law can serve some jail time. If only there were some system in place that could apply laws evenly to all people...

Re:TOS Violation = Jailtime? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-20 06:11 · Score: 0

Well I doubt what they're doing is as blatantly criminal as Schwartz did, but yes, they're potentially in deep shit if they knowingly violate the C&D.
Re:TOS Violation = Jailtime? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-20 07:25 · Score: 0

Of course not. In cases like this corporations aren't people and shouldn't be punished as harshly, if at all.

Wikipedia is a reliable source of information? by mveloso · 2013-11-20 05:13 · Score: 1

Even the Wikipedia people say that there's lots of information on Wikipedia that isn't reliable. Wikipedia should never be relied on as a source of truth or accuracy.

In any case, wasn't there a thing a few months ago where the editors were getting paid on the side?

If a company employee changes an article, why is that worse than a volunteer changing an article?

I wish upon them Anonymous success... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-20 05:17 · Score: 0

An attack on Wikipedia deserve a punch in the nose of the attacker. Screw the lawyers, this calls for an Anonymous response. Wiki-PR would be a fun sock puppet. Just imagine what fun could be had with their client list.

This one milliardth times over. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-20 05:54 · Score: 1

No.

You see what will happen is that this will be taken by WikiMedia as a civil claim since it

a) can award them money
b) has less of a burden of proof
c) sends a message to other astroturfers

Do you know why?

Because the criminal option is the first option of psychopaths, and it is those who slashdot rail against, not the application of law.

Moreover, the first option of psychopaths when their M.O. is being used against them in potentia is to whine about how that should not ever happen.

Moreover, for example with the McKinnon case and with Aaron more recently is that there was never any attempt to actually show the intent prohibited. Indeed the case for the claims were entirely empty. While in this case, those abusing TOS for WikiMedia are 100% ABSOLUTELY doing what is described as wrong in the TOS DELIBERATELY.

Where McKinnon never cracked passwords and those machines were never showing an internet access TOS because they were not ever supposed to have been visible from random user on the internet, and where Aaron ABSOLUTELY had right to access the documents, the astroturf group here is deliberaltely and with malice aforethought disobeying the TOS.

Where McKinnon and Aaron were doing so for altruism or conspiracy ideation reasons, this astroturf group is doing so purely for personal profit.

Climate Change by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-20 05:57 · Score: 0

I can't wait until it is inevitably revealed that Wikipedia is being systematically edited by hired firms to suggest that there is no real scientific opposition to the climate change hysteria prompted by the ringleaders at the IPCC. Many young people who blindly rely on the information in Wikipedia will start to realize that they have been duped by hucksters.

Yes you can. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-20 06:06 · Score: 0

"But what I couldn't do is get the police to enforce to it.."

Yes you can.

The more influential you are, the more likely that an attempt to get the police to enforce it is, but the police WILL, when asked to evict someone or even charge them with trespass, will absolutely be able, if not really willing to put the effort in for a pleb, enforce your TOS-breking eviction of a trespasser.

Ask any Mall Operator in the USA.

Universal problem by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-20 06:08 · Score: 0

Any and all sources of information will be subject to distortion by individuals and organizations with a financial or political interest. It doesn't matter whether the source is a wiki or some commercial entity or some govt. agency or some professional organization. That's why it is critically important to pay attention to where information comes from. One huge> problem is that a single bogus insertion of malfeasant misinformation into the right hands can be picked up by the mass media, generating hundreds of stories in hundreds of media outlets, creating a society-wide impression of truth based on a single lie.

Wikipedia is an MMORPG by mythosaz · 2013-11-20 06:14 · Score: 3, Interesting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_an_MMORPG

They're just banning griefers. It upsets the vocal high-level players who don't want to have their fun (squashing noobs) ruined.

Legal options by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-20 06:19 · Score: 0

If Wiki were to sue for damage to its reputation, the discovery process might net a list of the accounts and pages involved.

It would be pretty hard for the other part to argue that no I need to keep that secret because X, where X is what the suit is about.

They don't mind EULAs by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-20 06:20 · Score: 0

Or ISP ToS. Or standard contracts. Or work contracts. Or any other contracts where your agreement is required.

The only thing is that the contract should be legally enforceable, which your strawman one isn't since it confers no rights or benefits that refusing to agree withholds.

Re:They don't mind EULAs by Joining+Yet+Again · 2013-11-20 11:30 · Score: 1

Please try to read the whole post, numbnuts. A click-through contract is enforceable, but (at least in my jurisdiction) more likely to be interpreted in favour of the person who got no say in the language. So, if it is click-through AND misleading then etc.

Hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-20 06:53 · Score: 0, Insightful

If this company were hacking into some other site, stealing content, and publishing information, then Slashdot would be all about defending them and cheering them on for any number of reasons such as:

1. The security was lax so it's our duty to expose the weakness.
2. Information should be FREE!
3. Copyrights are theft!

etc.

But when it's YOUR ox being gored, then you sing a different tune.

Re:Hypocrisy by Mitchell314 · 2013-11-20 08:47 · Score: 1

MY ox? No I bloody wouldn't be cheering them on, and you have no reason to believe I would. So now we're going from hypocrisy to outright dishonesty. I doubt it's even what the majority of slashdot thinks, but that doesn't matter.

--
I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
Re:Hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-20 09:05 · Score: 0

I have the postings of the Slashdot community to support the statement.

Slashdot doublespeak on the CFAA by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-20 07:52 · Score: 0

So this law is perfectly valid tool of law enforcement when it comes to paid editors of wikipedia, but a sinister form of corporate fascism when it is applied to hacktivists. Nice double standard we have here on slashdot.

Firefly by DarthVain · 2013-11-20 08:25 · Score: 1

Shepherd Book: If you take advantage of her, you're going to burn in a special level of hell. A level reserved for child molesters and people who talk in the theater.

Vandalism as a business plan by TapeCutter · 2013-11-20 10:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

They're not taking anything

That is every vandals excuse and it's a lie. What all vandals take from their victim is hard work and pride. But this is not random teenage vandalism, this is vandalism as a business plan, propaganda companies must not be allowed to profit at the expense of every other internet user. Conservapedia is more than happy to serve up propaganda, why did the company not post it's crap there?

I'm not an American, but the popular US attitude that it's ok for companies to be dishonest and immoral in business dealings has completely fucked that country in the last 20yrs. It's the root cause of the GFC and the reason why the whole planet is pissed at the US right now, economic spying on friendly nations is cheating, and the US was caught systematically cheating. But hey, the fastest gun in the west can do whatever he likes, right?

Wall Street tip: Gordon Gecko was the villain of the story, not the hero.

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.

Re:Vandalism as a business plan by cwsumner · 2013-11-25 07:17 · Score: 1

...I'm not an American, but the popular US attitude that it's ok for companies to be dishonest and immoral in business dealings has completely fucked that country in the last 20yrs. It's the root cause of the GFC and the reason why the whole planet is pissed at the US right now, economic spying on friendly nations is cheating, and the US was caught systematically cheating. But hey, the fastest gun in the west can do whatever he likes, right?...
Only in the Movies. Don't confuse Hollywood with reality.
The gunfighters did what they wanted until they pissed off the citizens, and then they were outnumbered and outgunned.
Corporations are bigger, but not that much bigger. But they are better at hiding what they are doing...

Semiprotection by tepples · 2013-11-20 10:23 · Score: 1

You do when the vast majority of "interesting" articles are semiprotected, or when you share an IP block with someone with a history of vandalism.

Aren't you assuming..? by UpnAtom · 2013-11-20 11:26 · Score: 1

... that Wikipedians can't be overprotective of their edits or biased against newbies or can't be zealots or um paid advocates?

Try making significant improvements to the Slashdot lead. I guarantee you'll be reverted within a week.

Each edit should be as valued as a mp3 by ralphaostrander · 2013-11-20 13:35 · Score: 1

Just explain it to the court like that to get damages.

'Anyone" ? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-20 15:08 · Score: 0

"Welcome to Wikipedia,
the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."

Well, almost anyone...

Sorry, but there's a serious misconception here by Mr.+Somey · 2013-11-21 19:20 · Score: 1

Many commenters here have, unfortunately, assumed that Wikimedia and its lawyers are acting in good faith, when in fact they are not and almost never do. Wikimedia's Terms of Service actually say nothing at all about what Wiki-PR has been doing - not even implicitly. The ToS prohibits "misrepresentation of affiliations," and it says nothing about non-representation of affiliations, people using multiple accounts, or even people editing for pay, all of which are allowed (and sometimes even encouraged) on most (if not all) Wikimedia "projects," depending solely on who is doing it. My guess would be that the lawyers hired by Wikimedia deliberately lied about the content of the ToS because they assumed (perhaps correctly) that nobody would actually read them, and the strongly-worded letter featuring this lie would make it appear as though the Wikimedia Foundation is willing to take an active role in combating commercial activity on Wikipedia, something it has never really done in the past.

The reality is that if this case were to actually go to court, Wikimedia would have no case - and not only would they lose, but the loss could set a dangerous precedent that could conceivably make it much more difficult for other interactive website operators to fully control who can say what, anonymously or otherwise, on sites they own.

US case law is already heavily slanted towards commercial interests, to the point of having corporations defined as legally equivalent to actual people, etc. It would be incredibly stupid for Wikimedia to mount a legal challenge of this nature in this kind of legal environment (though of course I should add that the stupidity of the Wikimedia Foundation is legendary, and unusually bad even for a social media property). If they really want to stop the activities of paid PR consultants on Wikipedia, they should devote their considerable financial resources to developing software features to help identify such people, and they should also hire paid investigators to ferret them out, rather than rely on their already overly-exploited volunteers to do it.

legitimate paid editing by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-27 06:00 · Score: 0

Uploading false info on Wikipedia or elsewhere is wrong, but it shall not be confused with legitimate Wikipedia visibility services.

If some lawyer were caught committing fraud on the court, nobody would argue that all legal services shall be prohibited nationwide. Similarly, sockpuppeting and faking sources is NOT what legitimate Wikipedia visibility services are about.

Wikipedia traffic is commerce-dominated nowadays. 21 out of the 25 highest-traffic articles on Wikipedia are related to commercial subjects: corporations, movies, books, TV series, etc. A Wikipedia profile can add or detract tens of millions of dollars from the value of a brand or market cap of a company, so it’s to be expected that companies seek to participate in shaping their Wikipedia profiles.

It comes as a surprise to many, but: paid editing is NOT prohibited on Wikipedia; all efforts to ban it have failed, see the FAILED policy proposal at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Paid_editing_%28policy%29

Not only it’s not prohibited, it’s massive: in a recent study conducted by the Public Relations Society of America, 40% of PR professionals admitted to having edited Wikipedia.(http://www.mediabistro.com/prnewser/study-wikipedia-errors-damage-brands-reputations_b73200) In other words, hundreds of thousands of PR pros do Wikipedia visibility work.

The study also showed that "24% of company pages were created by a PR team". I suspect that the true percentage is much higher, as many companies and PR pros do not admit editing Wikipedia fearing the backlash from those who equate PR with spreading lies. At WikiExperts, we have done ethical Wikipedia visibility work for some of the largest corporations in the world, never violating any Wikipedia rule.

Slashdot Mirror

Wikimedia Sends Cease and Desist Letter To Firm Providing Paid Editing Services

186 comments