Slashdot Mirror
Wikipedia Blocks Hundreds of Accounts Doing Paid Editing
jan_jes writes: After weeks of investigation, Wikipedia has blocked 381 user accounts for "black hat" editing. The reason for the ban is that the accounts were engaged in undisclosed paid advocacy — the practice of accepting or charging money to promote external interests on Wikipedia without revealing their affiliation, in violation of Wikimedia's Terms of Use. In addition to blocking the 381 "sockpuppet" account, the editors deleted 210 articles created by these accounts.
Was there ever a more vile and sociopathic concept than "reputation management"?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
English Wikipedia averages nearly 10,000 accounts registered every day. Who thinks 381 accounts blocked is going to make a difference?
Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
to be forewarned is to be forearmed. Anyway sockpuppets of the world better up their game cause they just lost a postiion to sock puppetry.
the list of articles that were deleted:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, and its open model makes it a rich and reliable resource for the world."
Or, in reality, a handful of basement dwellers sit on the edit history or every article and straight up harass you for making additions or corrections, because they are "wiki".
It's about as reliable as any web forum or blog at this point, maybe worse because it's as famous as google at this point. It's good to see them cutting out the blatant paid posters, but that's not even the bulk of the issue with wikipedia. It's the little closed circle of editors who believe they own the content and the rest of us peons aren't allowed to join the party.
Case in point, the last time I bothered modifying an article on a subject that I'm quite knowledgeable on. Modified an article to add some relevant information and provided sources and citations.
I was promptly banned from making edits and my changes were reverted. Ok great, whatever right? Well if I bothered to tell you which article I'm referring to, you could go look right now and see the content I added is now back, same source, same citations. The only difference is one of the super special wiki-gods didn't like that I, a lowly peon, posted it, so they banned me, then re-added everything they removed under their own name.
This is wikipedia in a nutshell.
Has Slashdot investigated if there are paid downmodders to hide comments certain factions don't like? Or upmod, for that matter?
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Was there ever a more vile and sociopathic concept than "reputation management"?
Yes. Quite a few of them actually. Reputation management is something we all do to some degree. I don't know how you would exist in a complex society without some amount of effort directed towards maintaining your reputation in the community.
Protecting your reputation is not in principle a bad thing. Sometimes false or misleading information becomes public and can cause problems - sometimes serious ones. Nothing wrong with taking reasonable steps to guard against such things. Of course like most things you can go too far and try to hide wrongdoing but just because something is bad in some circumstances does not make it bad in all circumstances.
Most of the socks identified are pointless spam. Theyre a drain on resources for articles pertaining to companies that exist to pump-and-dump stocks, or lend legitimacy to an advertising campaign. They arent the malicious chicanery that goes on in articles like the Iraq war where verbiage is literally inserted to de-emphasize for example the categorical failure of the united states to identify WMD's.
more attention needs to be lent to dealing with controversial articles on the RIAA, the trans continental partnership, and the nature of large entities that can afford to muddle their tracks. For example, how many edits to the Coca Cola wiki article have been made and by whom? What edits get made to pages on the gulf oil disaster and on Time Warners article?
Good people go to bed earlier.
you mean mi, crashmarik, superkendall, 0123456, phantomfive, jane q public, and a few dozen others, who are all probably the same person, always posting the same garbage on the same topics?
we can only hope.
I was sitting here drinking a refreshing Coca Cola when I started reading this story on my Apple iPhone 6 Plus. The level of paid shills that infested Wikipedia were getting bothersome. It was at the point that I started using my Encyclopædia Britannica (2015 edition).
Sorry if I don't get to your replies sooner, I'm taking the Prius to Chipotle for a GMO-free lunch.
Trolling is a art,
.
There are still too many tin-foil-hat editors on Wikipedia, making Wikipedia nice, even entertaining, to read, but I always go elsewhere when I need real information.
I like to see Wikipedia say "No paid postings/sock puppets" in their TOS and a $10,000 per violation click-wrap agreement.
Competition Good, Monopoly Bad.
@QuietLagoon: "You know, those people with nothing else to do in their lives except make sure that a Wikipedia article represents their view, in spite of factual evidence posted to the contrary??"
Do you mean something like this, where history is rewritten to show that Windows wasn't designed for the 'internet' :)
'Consumer versions of Windows were originally designed for ease-of-use on a single-user PC without a network connection, and did not have security features built in from the outset.[60] However, Windows NT and its successors are designed for security (including on a network) and multi-user PCs, but were not initially designed with Internet security in mind as much, since, when it was first developed in the early 1990s, Internet use was less prevalent.' ref
I'm sure there are plenty on the site who remain doing this. Still - it's a good move, and I hope they get better at filtering out the marketers.
Usually when people come into conflict with the regular editors its because the editor has found genuine fault with the edits. Usually the underlying problem is that they are pushing an agenda. For example there are many global warming deniers who try to edit, and claim they are providing "factual evidence" to backup their edits. But they are not. Wikipedia rightly concentrates on consensus science and covers denier stuff in "controversy" sections and articles.
Removing that thimble of water from that ocean is going to make a HUGE difference. Oh wait, no it won't.
Wikipedia has become another little internet fiefdom run by a bunch of backstabbing assholes who use their basement-dwelling power to rule capriciously and for personal gain.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Since the vast majority of them are PR stunts, create a Hall of Shame page where the subjects of these edited pages are reported. A good negative reinforcement.(The problem would be avoiding that this mechanism is used to discredit legit pages and edits)
I'm curious. Where do you go for real information?
You are welcome on my lawn.
And what about this Anonymous Coward fellow?? I've seen more tripe and shilling take place under that moniker than any other, the others seem to pale into insignificance when you consider the things that account posts!
It would almost lead one to believe that every paid shill and troll on the planet is sharing the username and password for that account, which amounts to abuse on a massive scale! We should ban this account, it seems that it would go a long way to restoring public decency here on /.!
This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
Wikipedia is ran by abusive admins. Many admins have extreme mental disorders, such as nawlinwiki and bsadowski1. There are the deletionists as well who keep deleting articles even when they are notable, such as the Cult TV show Cat's Eyes
Heres is what needs to happen to fix Wikipedia. Abusive admins need o get treatment for their mental disorders, deletionists shold be banned and make it impossible to delete notable articles, plus the $50 million that Wikimedia is hoarding needs to be given to proper charitiess who will spend the money better.
Wikipedia shouldn be compaining about "sockpupets" when they have a cabal of edit reverters who have no life. I'm talking about you MaterialScientist.
Yes, but most of us do our "reputation management" by, you know, behaving properly rather than going around trying to erase any record of our misdeeds.
You can behave properly all you want and still get screwed by false information or malicious deeds. A service that helps people combat this sort of problem is fine. Some people are just assholes and will try to ruin your reputation out of spite or just because they can. Ask any restaurant if they get nothing but fair and honest reviews on Yelp. Even if people aren't actively trying to ruin you, nobody is perfect and minor mistakes can sometimes cause major problems - problems far out of scale with the deeds.
Usually when people come into conflict with the regular editors its because the editor has found genuine fault with the edits....
"usually" but not "always", or even "most of the time", in my experience.
.
My experiences have nothing to do with the hot-button issues of climate change or other tin-foil-hat "denier" items.
For example, in one instance the summary of a TV episode was wrong. I had just watch the episode on DVD, and I was curious about something in the episode, so one of the items I checked was the Wikipedia article about the episode. Having just finished watching the episode, I noticed a spot where the summary was wrong. I even re-watched that portion of the episode, and the summary was indeed wrong. So I found an online transcript of the episode, checked it to be sure it matched the DVD episode, and then edited the article (with a pointer to the online transcript).
The hovering editor would not let my edit go through (i.e., he reverted my edit) because it did not agree with the version of the summary that he had posted.
When I pointed to the transcript, the editor then said he rejected my edit because I had used an incorrect tense for the verb in one of my sentences. (If he were interested in the accuracy of the article, why didn't he just correct the tense of the verb?)
At that point I realized the hovering editor would reject anything that changed his version of the summary, so I just punted. The whole episode confirmed what I had heard about Wikipedia, and started me on the path to forming the opinion of Wikipedia that I currently hold, i.e., that Wikipedia is entertaining, but don't go there to verify information.
I'm curious. Where do you go for real information?
No one place that I can say, "I go here." Google tends to put Wikipedia at or near the top of search results. So I just look further down on the search results, and typically I find a truly authoritative site for the information I need.
I want to make an anonymous donation to Wikipedia.
They provide with methods to use my credit card, transfer from my bank account, send a cheque (with my name)... why can't they post an account (bank, branch and account number) so that I deposit some change for them? (this will imply paying taxes before the money can leave the country)
Sorry for being OT.
What weird English you have, in which "usually" != "most of the time".
LOL My favorite tactic of that guy is when the post relates tearful and painful personal occurrences or details personal certificate quality awards, etc that support their point as if those things were real.
You must not be aware that WP:OWN already exists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_content
Problem is already recognized.
Addressing it is a continual process.
You do know that the first widely adopted version of Windows, version 3, did not even have a network stack? TCP/IP was only added to the 3.11 version, which was even renamed "Windows for Workgroups". That quote from wikipedia seems entirely accurate.
.
always = 100%
most of the time ~ 90 to 99%
usually ~ 70 to 89%
I'll admit that my interpretations thereof may not agree with your interpretations. :)
Wikipedia is at its best when its articles are properly referenced to decent published sources. That way in the humanities, it can be a starting point for further research or a quick guide to someone you've just come across for the first time. In STEM it can be a source for basic data. Where the model works badly is if people are undisciplined about providing good sources, or only present one side of a debate. It should be a term paper for undergraduates to write a decent Wikipedia article on a topic in their subject that is at the moment a mess, and having done that, they may begin to engage with it in an appropriate fashion. OTOH anyone who quotes Wikipedia as a source should lose a grade point...
Whilst in some controversial areas this may be true, in the corners of Wikipedia that are of interest to specialists in proper subjects (i.e. not media studies ;) we see some very good work. Don't discourage right use because of some abuse.
Ever wondered, how many of Russian paid trolls are on Wikipedia?
Heck, there is even:
Presidential Commission of the Russian Federation to Counter Attempts to Falsify History to the Detriment of Russia's Interests
It is not even all that hard to understand. When I go to a restaurant I expect good service.
It is human nature to not take notice of the expected so people are less likely to post a review when they get good service.
It is also human nature to take notice of the unexpected so when people have a bad experience they are more likely to post a review.
When looking at reviews I tend to look at the age of the review and the subject. If I see long waits as a complaint I will bet you that is valid. If someone is going off like a crazy person I will tend to ignore it as just a rant.
If I see something like "the food is not great" that is a red flag. If I see, "The food tasted like *&*#$" I take it with a grain of salt.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
"There are still too many tin-foil-hat editors on Wikipedia, making Wikipedia nice, even entertaining, to read, but I always go elsewhere when I need real information."
Funny but I often get miffed with I see extreme bias in articles.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
The internet is becoming a wonderful resource for fiction and stories, but as a credible source of information it is quickly unbecoming.
Personally, I have avoided wikipedia for about a year now because of revisionist history - it seems as though there are those from outside the United States who would prefer manipulating the public consciousness and this wikipedia is one tool they leverage to that end.
On numerous occasions, I have attempted to make edits - and quickly get someone from India who's banning my edits.
There's no real recourse against this, and these 'power users' - so rather than even mess with it or worry about it anymore, I view it as but one perspective of many, and in this case, a limited and wholly inaccurate view of the world.
Wikipedia is in a tough position. It's confronted with alternate realities directly, and manipulation accordingly - and some of us are simply not wanting to contribute or 'play this game' any longer because there's so many people convinced multiple realities is a theory to pick and choose from.
What would be cool is if there was an alternate version of wikipedia for every reality.
Boy i cannot wait for the flames from the misfiring neurons who don't understand this and call me crazy for the way I see the world!!
Russia Today
Like that shitlord APK!
This has nothing to do with basement dwellers and everything to do with very wealthy people who can afford to pay someone to go around sites on the internet whitewashing their misdeeds anywhere they might be found. If anything the basement dwellers along with the rest of us are losing out while the rich crooks who can afford this service continue to take advantage of us.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
As someone who actually lived through the 1990s and who actually used Windows 3.1/3.1.1/95/NT3/NT4/2000, I find the quoted paragraph to be pretty much on the mark.
Instead of being all cutesy & stuff, how about explaining to us exactly how this represents "history being rewritten"?
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Masem's very protective about the MLP TV series, largely because it's been a hotbed for vandals and trolls for a while, don't take it personally.
Now days its easy to edit wikipedia pages.
Web Hosting WordPress Themes
I have noticed there are so many resource links are dead links which is not removed by wikipedia. Need to re work on it. as now days people are trying to add there websites link in related Wikipedia pages for seo purpose.
Web Hosting WordPress Themes