Slashdot Mirror
Major Wikipedia Donors Caught Editing Their Own Articles
An anonymous reader writes "As reported before on Slashdot, one of the most terrible sins on Wikipedia is to edit articles for pay, or otherwise violate the 'neutral point of view' policy, per their co-founder Jimmy Wales. And yet, the Wikipedia-criticism website Wikipediocracy recently began a study showing that dozens of the Wikimedia Foundation's largest cash donors have violated that policy. Repeatedly, and wantonly. In short, they wrote articles about themselves or their companies, then gave the WMF big donations — and were not confronted about violating the NPOV policy."
Do the proposed TOS changes address this? Note that they also found that many of the donors adequately documented their conflict of interest.
Editing your own article on Wikipedia is not prohibited as long as you disclose your conflict of interest and follow the rules, so I have trouble seeing how this submission is anything other than yet more manufactured controversy and/or anti-Wikipedia astroturfing.
It's true that in theory, it's a conflict of interest to edit an article about one's self/company, but these are also the people most knowledgeable on the subject and have the most to contribute. I imagine the people who are large cash donors aren't trying to do it as a bribe, they're just heavy wikipedia users that wanted to help the site. Ideally they should document a conflict of interest, but that's not very clear how it should be done.
I'm sure others will tell me why I'm mistaken, but this doesn't bother me so much, mainly because it doesn't surprise me.
Basically, you're telling me that a document that can be edited by anyone is being edited by people to show themselves in a more positive light, ToS be damned.
Well, yeah.
I'm shocked, shocked to find non-neutral points of view in Wikipedia!
Companies and individuals edit articles about themselves, if they ARE or ARE NOT donors.
Please explain the logic that says you should not donate to Wikipedia, if you have edited an article about yourself?
OK, just because you edited your own article doesn't mean it's not NPOV. But let's say it was biased in your favor...
So what if the article is not NPOV? Other editors will participate in its development.
Also, if you can't prove your notability beyond a shadow of a doubt, there turn out to be an army of deletionists visiting all the articles who will be more than happy to nominate you for deletion in a few heartbeats.
If they "adequately documented their conflict of interest" then they were not "caught."
The summary seems to have the wrong idea about what the NPOV policy actually means. Straight from the link it provided to Wikipedia's definition:
Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view.
Note that it does NOT indicate who can or cannot participate in editing an article. So long as their interests are disclosed, it's quite possible that people with vested interests in a subject will be able to contribute more meaningfully to a page than those without firsthand experience on the subject. Their contributions may in some cases need to be revised by others to better conform to NPOV, but they may bring to light facts and sources that would have otherwise gone unnoticed.
It's one thing to edit articles for pay--where your obligation to your employer exceeds your obligation to the policies of the site--but if you're just someone with an opinion or a vested interest, you should be perfectly capable of setting those aside in order to help construct pages that are balanced, fair, and neutral in their approach to the subject at hand, and that's exactly what I've seen people do. Though, I'll certainly grant that the cases where someone hasn't done so are much more memorable. ;)
And is it really any surprise that the people donating to Wikipedia are the ones editing it? It's a self-selecting sample: people donate to Wikipedia because they're the ones getting the most out of the site, rather than the other way around, which seems to be the perspective that the criticism is coming from.
So some people made donations, then followed all the rules for editing their own stuff ... and you're getting your panties in a twist because?
No one is even bitching that what they wrote was misleading. The entire complaint is simply that it happened at all.
Thats fucking retarded, shut up and crawl back in your scumbag, drag others down to your level hole. Slashdot should go with it for posting this kind of crap.
What the fuck is wrong with you people, most of the big donators are fucking editors, these people are 'in to' wikipedia, of course they edit stuff THEY KNOW ABOUT ... which is THEIR STUFF.
Unless they are lying, misleading or misrepresenting, then whats the problem? Come up with an actual problem with what they did before you blow it out of proportion.
They followed the rules and aren't a problem, STFU FFS.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
To me, the problem is that it breaks promise of neutrality, and deceives anyone who believes it's a neutral piece. I don't fault anyone for spinning their story in a way that benefits themselves; that's inevitable. But don't show me a NPOV policy that implies otherwise.
It's worth noting that the Wikipedia article on the game was created four days before the launch of the game's hardcopy version. Basically, it would have supported the launch. In the 2013 Christmas season, the article got over 120,000 views (around 4,000 views a day throughout December 2013). Smart marketing.
one of the most terrible sins on Wikipedia is to edit articles for pay, or otherwise violate the 'neutral point of view' policy,
I'm shocked, shocked to find that illicit editing is going on in here!
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Note that the author made clear that the Cards Against Humanity editing was merely "a 'mid-grade' violator of conflict-of-interest norms". And note that he said that more reports would emerge in this series, which would suggest that there are worse offenders waiting in store. Yet, we see the typical low-grade reading comprehension folks who jump to words like "butthurt" and "doubt... anything to worry about". It is no wonder Wikipedia is trusted by so many people, considering how many people can't read a short blog post and come away with accurate conclusions!