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

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by Unknown on Wednesday November 20, 2013 @03:47AM from the going-out-of-business-sale dept.

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.'"

38 of 186 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

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.
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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
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
1. 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.
2. Re:First world problems by Notabadguy · 2013-11-20 04:22 · Score: 2
  
  In my hands. Applied due to agreement. :)
3. Re:First world problems by Quince+alPillan · 2013-11-20 04:27 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  ....and erased because you commented on the story.
4. 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.
5. 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
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!
1. 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.
2. 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: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).
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.
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.
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: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
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.
1. 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?
2. 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: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 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
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.
1. 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: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 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.
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...
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.
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 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 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.
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.