Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by Unknown on 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.'"

13 of 186 comments (clear)

  1. How the hell did they get their edits accepted? by Anonymous Coward · · 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 Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

  2. First world problems by wcrowe · · 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 · · 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 Quince+alPillan · · Score: 4, Informative

      ....and erased because you commented on the story.

    3. Re:First world problems by Joining+Yet+Again · · 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.

  3. Charge them as felons! by NuAngel · · 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!

  4. Re:I wish them success... by 91degrees · · 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).

  5. Surprised by benjfowler · · 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.

  6. Just destroy their business by bluefoxlucid · · 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.
  7. Re:I wish them success... by saleenS281 · · 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.

  8. Re:I wish them success... by TheNastyInThePasty · · 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
  9. Re:I wish them success... by sjames · · 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.