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

Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "For months, Wikipedia has been battling a company called 'Wiki-PR,' which purportedly sells paid editing services on Wikipedia and in October announced it had blocked or banned hundreds of Wiki-PR's sockpuppet accounts in response. Now Cyrus Farivar reports at Ars Technica that the Wikimedia Foundation (which runs Wikipedia) is escalating its game, issuing a cease and desist letter to Wiki-PR, demanding that the company immediately halt editing Wikipedia 'unless and until [Wiki-PR has] fully complied with the terms and conditions outlined by the Wikimedia Community.' The attorney representing the Wikimedia Foundation, Patrick Gunn, wrote that 'you admitted that Wiki-PR has continued to actively market paid advocacy editing services despite the ban — consistent with evidence that we have discovered independently. ... Should you fail to comply with the terms of this cease and desist letter, Wikimedia Foundation is prepared to take any necessary legal action to protect its rights.'"

Comments

First world problems

[wcrowe]

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?

Re:First world problems

[Piata]

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

[Joining Yet Again]

"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:I wish them success...

[devman]

Allows them to edit content pursuant to terms and conditions.

Re:How the hell did they get their edits accepted?

[Joining Yet Again]

This merely means that your edits were inconsequential to anyone with more free time than you.

Just destroy their business

[bluefoxlucid]

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.

Re:Just destroy their business

[Anonymous Coward]

So instead of getting paid to promo a company, they'll get paid by destroying the competitors?

Re:Charge them as felons!

[Joining Yet Again]

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.

suitable punishment

[FishTankX]

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:I wish them success...

[saleenS281]

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...

[Mitchell314]

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.

Hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

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:I wish them success...

[sjames]

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.

Vandalism as a business plan

[TapeCutter]

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.