Wikimedia

[American Patriot]

I put this here - even though it isn't "government". This is a sign of the times folks.

This is a form of tyranny... forcing others to "accept" things they don't want to accept because of their own principles. When editors get together and try to force something, it is, as far as I am concerned "tyranny" against free thinking.

I don't give a SHIT if someone is "under recognized" - HELL, *I* am under recognized for what I do. Screw them all.

Wikimedia Foundation employee ousted over paid editing

Longtime advocate for female editors is dismissed after taking a $300 side job.

by Joe Mullin - Jan 9 2014, 5:49pm MST

Wikipedia

The Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit which owns Wikipedia, has apparently terminated an employee who was engaged in editing for pay. The issue of editing for pay has been a hot topic among Wikipedia editors, and it resulted in hundreds of account terminations a few months ago.


The employee, Sarah Stierch, was a "program evaluation coordinator" who was often quoted by journalists writing about Wikipedia, especially on the topic of how to get more women participating as editors. She was hired by the foundation in April 2013, where she was one of about 180 employees. Before that she had a paid fellowship at the foundation, where she did things like oversee an "edit-a-thon" in which editors worked to create new articles on under-recognized female historical figures.


Wikimedia's Senior Director of Programs, Frank Schulenberg, wrote a message on a public Wikipedia mailing list last night explaining why Stierch and the foundation had parted ways. It read:

The Wikimedia Foundation has recently learned that Sarah has been editing Wikipedia on behalf of paying clients, as recently as a few weeks ago. She did that even though it is widely known that paid editing is frowned upon by many in the editing community and by the Wikimedia Foundation.


The Wikimedia Foundation values Sarah a great deal. She has been an active Wikipedian since 2006... She is a good friend of many of us.
Everybody makes mistakes, and I would like to believe that the Wikimedia movement is a place of forgiveness and compassion. And so I ask you to respect Sarah's privacy at what is surely a difficult time for her and to join me in wishing her every future success.

In a blog post following the October account purge, foundation Executive Director Sue Gardner denounced the spread of "paid advocacy editing," a kind of "promotional" content that is "clearly problematic" and a "black hat practice" in the eyes of the foundation.


Stierch's dismissal came after a screenshot of her freelancing work was published to the "wikipedia-l" mailing list. The screenshot indicates she accepted $300 for working on a "Wikipedia Page for Individual" in December 2013.
Wikimedia spokesperson Jay Walsh declined to say more about Stierch's specific situation but did reiterate that the foundation takes a dim view of paid editing.


"There's a historical resistance towards it from early days within the project," said Walsh. "Wikipedia is a volunteer project written by people who were unpaid to support free knowledge by giving their work freely to the project."


The Wikimedia Foundation is the non-profit organization that owns Wikipedia, one of the most heavily trafficked websites in the world, as well as other community-driven projects like Wikinews, Wiktionary, and Wikimedia Commons. The foundation is based in San Francisco and has about 180 employees.
Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, who was alerted to the accusations about Stierch on his own Wikipedia user page, declined to comment on personnel matters. Wales did say that he "very very strongly condemn[s] such editing, and this is no exception."


An e-mail sent to Stierch through her personal website yielded only an "out of office" response. Stierch didn't respond to the incident on her Wikipedia user page or on Twitter, where she has continued to be active.
A screenshot leads to a public debate

The suggestion that Stierch may have done editing for pay was first noted by Tomasz Kozlowski, a Wikimedia Commons contributor who also maintains a blog that is sometimes critical of the Wikimedia Foundation.


"Paid editing thrives in the heart of Wikimedia," wrote Kozlowski. "It defies belief that Sarah would be oblivious to these issues and how they are perceived by the wider community... it can only be guessed for which article she was compensated."


The accusations were accompanied by a screenshot of Stierch's account on oDesk, a freelance writing site where she maintained an account. In an interview with Ars, Kozlowski said he was sent the screenshot by a fellow Wikipedian whom he had agreed to keep anonymous.


Kozlowski said he hasn't made up his mind on the issue of paid editing. "I haven't really thought about it much, because it concerns a project [English-language Wikipedia] I'm not active on," he said. "I just pointed out the hypocrisy. All that news about the scandal, and then a few months later, a Wikimedia Foundation employee engages in paid editing."


It isn't clear which pages were edited for pay. In his blog post, Kozlowski speculates about three different possibilities, all edited by Stierch under her own account.


Most responses to the news have been sympathetic to Stierch, including those from the users who publicized her paid editing in the first place.


"I'm not that happy about her being let go," said Kozlowski. "I don't think this was a fire-able offense, to be honest. For a very long time the foundation claimed that what their employees do in their free time isn't necessarily relevant to their job."


"I reckon it's total bollocks," said Scott Bibby, the sometimes-banned Australian Wikipedia user who published the accusations to the widely read Wikimedia-L mailing list. "I want the community to tackle this issue head on and deal with it. It doesn't require people being fired."


"I hope she will remain part of the Wikimedia community," wrote one user in a thread responding to Schulenberg's post. "It is extremely sad to lose one of our best and brightest," wrote another. "Was there no other way?? Was this even considered??"
At the top, support for a "bright line"

The idea of accepting money for edits isn't universally condemned among Wikipedia editors. Some activities, like "sockpuppetry"—the creation of multiple fake accounts in order to skew Wikipedia—are barred by the terms of use. But some cultural and academic workers are paid to write on Wikipedia as part of their jobs, a relatively uncontroversial practice. Some Wikipedians have argued that more types of paid editing should be allowed.


Founder Jimmy Wales has long advocated for a "bright line rule" that paid advocates shouldn't ever edit a Wikipedia page, instead limiting their comments to the "talk" page of an article.


In a 2012 interview with The Signpost, Wikipedia's in-house publication, Wales explained his point of view. "From the beginning, it was something I thought we should pay attention to and prevent to the maximum extent possible... It was obvious even then that there are some people who are willing to act immorally... If you're a PR professional editing on behalf of your client, then hiding behind the excuse that you're only making NPOV [neutral point-of-view] edits doesn't cut it with me at all."

[American Patriot]

The screen shot:

[American Patriot]

Forgotten Bits

« Wikimedia Polska, travellers welcome

Paid editing thrives in the heart of Wikipedia

Conflict of interest editing (COI) has been a highly controversial issue on the English Wikipedia for a long time; it has been thrust into the limelight in the past few months when the high-profile case of WikiPR (BBC report) reached the public eye. The case resulted in the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) issuing a cease–and–desist notice to WikiPR for the first time in the history of the on-line encyclopaedia.


In the lead up to the WMF issuing the cease–and–desist letter, Sue Gardner, the Executive Director of the Foundation, published a press release, in which she categorically stated:

Unlike a university professor editing Wikipedia articles in their area of expertise, paid editing for promotional purposes, or paid advocacy editing as we call it, is extremely problematic. We consider it a “black hat” practice. Paid advocacy editing violates the core principles that have made Wikipedia so valuable for so many people.

The issue was so visible in both the Wikimedia universe, and the public eye, that it prompted a response from Jimmy Wales, a co-founder of Wikipedia, who coined a Bright Line Rule which says:

Do not edit Wikipedia articles directly if you are a paid advocate. Instead, contribute proposed edits to the talk page, and escalate to appropriate venues on Wikipedia if you are having trouble getting people’s attention.
— Jimmy Wales, Paid Advocacy FAQ

It has come to the attention of this author that even in the heart of the Wikimedia Foundation, started by Wales in 2003, the issue doesn’t appear to be universally accepted as problematic.


None other than Wikipedia insider and the Foundation’s own Program Evaluation & Design Community Coordinator, Sarah Stierch, has been discovered to be violating the core principles re-inforced by Sue Gardner, and Jimmy Wales’ Bright Line Rule.


Part of Sarah’s role at the Foundation is as a Wikipedian–in–Residence in 2011^[1] was to educate GLAM institutions on issues relating to sourcing, original research, notability & conflict of interest. This presentation by Sarah includes a slide which states:

Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.

It defies belief that Sarah would be oblivious to these issues, and how they are perceived by the wider community. However, this screenshot shows that Sarah has been advertising her services on her profile on oDesk.com, a popular freelance marketplace, since September 2013, charging clients the respectable rate of US$44.44 per hour. The picture shows that in December 2013, she was paid US$300 for services rendered for a “Wikipedia Page for Individual.”


With the possibility of Sarah having used a different account or having edited as an anonymous contributor, it can only be guessed for which article she was compensated. A short investigation reveals that from the articles created by User:SarahStierch in December 2013, the following are most likely to have been a work–for–hire: Barry Posner (academic), Miriam Mörsel Nathan and Sally Hogshead, although—as a matter of course—none of them indicate the existence of a conflict of interest.


Given that Sarah has nominated the Sally Hogshead article for placement on the front page of the English Wikipedia on its coveted Did You Know column, it is entirely likely that it is our US$300 article^[2].
In the aftermath of the WikiPR scandal, and following on from other COI cases, critics of Wikipedia have asserted that Jimmy has been haphazard in the interpretation and application of his Bright Line Rule. His and Sue Gardner’s reactions to this latest of Wikipedia embarrassments remain to be seen…
References

• ^ Tilman Bayer (User:HaeB) pointed out that the statement claiming Sarah was employed by the Wikimedia Foundation in 2011 was incorrect. I have fixed this ommission following his suggestion.
• ^ On a second look, it appears that the culprit might have been the article on Barry Posner. One more mystery to solve in this shady enterprise…

This entry was posted on January 5, 2014 at 20:31 by Tomasz and is filed under Wikimedia, Wikipedia.

[American Patriot]

Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Sue Gardner’s response to paid advocacy editing and sockpuppetry

Posted by Sue Gardner on October 21, 2013


Editors on the English Wikipedia are currently investigating allegations of suspicious edits and sockpuppetry (i.e. using online identities for purposes of deception). At this point, as reported, it looks like a number of user accounts — perhaps as many as several hundred — may have been paid to write articles on Wikipedia promoting organizations or products, and have been violating numerous site policies and guidelines, including prohibitions against sockpuppetry and undisclosed conflicts of interest. As a result, Wikipedians aiming to protect the projects against non-neutral editing have blocked or banned more than 250 user accounts.
The Wikimedia Foundation takes this issue seriously and has been following it closely.


With a half a billion readers, Wikipedia is an important informational resource for people all over the world. Our readers know Wikipedia’s not perfect, but they also know that it has their best interests at heart, and is never trying to sell them a product or propagandize them in any way. Our goal is to provide neutral, reliable information for our readers, and anything that threatens that is a serious problem. We are actively examining this situation and exploring our options.


In the wake of the investigation, editors have expressed shock and dismay. We understand their reaction and share their concerns. We are grateful to the editors who’ve been doing the difficult, painstaking work of trying to figure out what’s happening here.


Editing-for-pay has been a divisive topic inside Wikipedia for many years, particularly when the edits to articles are promotional in nature. Unlike a university professor editing Wikipedia articles in their area of expertise, paid editing for promotional purposes, or paid advocacy editing as we call it, is extremely problematic. We consider it a “black hat” practice. Paid advocacy editing violates the core principles that have made Wikipedia so valuable for so many people.


What is clear to everyone is that all material on Wikipedia needs to adhere to Wikipedia’s editorial policies, including those on neutrality and verifiability. It is also clear that companies that engage in unethical practices on Wikipedia risk seriously damaging their own reputations. In general, companies engaging in self-promotional activities on Wikipedia have come under heavy criticism from the press and the general public, with their actions widely viewed as inconsistent with Wikipedia’s educational mission.


Being deceptive in your editing by using sockpuppets or misrepresenting your affiliation with a company is against Wikipedia policy and is prohibited by our Terms of Use.

We urge companies to conduct themselves ethically, to be transparent about what they’re doing on Wikipedia, and to adhere to all site policies and practices.


The Wikimedia Foundation is closely monitoring this ongoing investigation and we are currently assessing all the options at our disposal. We will have more to say in the coming weeks.


Sue Gardner
Executive Director, Wikimedia Foundation

[American Patriot]

← Back to Contents

View Latest Issue

1 October 2012

Paid editing Does Wikipedia Pay? The Founder: Jimmy Wales

[COLOR=#666 ]Watchlist new issues — [/COLOR]

Share this [show]

By Ocaasi

Jimmy Wales

Does Wikipedia Pay? is a Signpost series seeking to illuminate paid editing, paid advocacy, for-profit Wikipedia consultants, editing public relations professionals, conflict of interest guidelines in practice, and the Wikipedians who work on these issues... by speaking openly with the people involved.

A scandal centering around Roger Bamkin's work with Wikimedia UK and Gibraltarpedia (see Signpost coverage) erupted this week, making for a tumultuous time in paid editing. Negative attention was also directed at Wikipedia consultant Maximillian Klein, whose company advertised services for placing articles on Wikipedia. Media responses grabbed onto both as a sign of Wikipedia's corruptibility.

In light of these events, opinions on how to avoid future controversy are as important as ever. One of the most vocal contributors to the paid editing debate has been Wikipedia's co-founder, Jimmy Wales. Wales has consistently argued that paid advocates should always disclose their status, as Bamkin did, and never directly edit articles in that topic. He calls this the "bright line" rule and hopes it can set a clear boundary that paid COI editors simply do not cross.

The Signpost spoke with Jimmy Wales (user page) to better understand how he views the paid editing environment and what he thinks is needed to improve it.

---

Related articles Does Wikipedia Pay?

The Facilitator: Silver Seren April 16, 2012

The Consultant: Pete Forsyth April 30, 2012

The Communicator: Phil Gomes May 07, 2012

The Skeptic: Orangemike July 23, 2012

The Founder: Jimmy Wales October 01, 2012

When was the first time paid editing came onto your radar? When you conceived of Wikipedia, did you ever imagine that editors would be financially compensated for their work, or that companies would employ people to influence articles?



From the beginning, it was something I thought we should pay attention to and prevent to the maximum extent possible. I remember the feeling of the Internet community – the appropriate cynicism – when Yahoo introduced a system whereby you could pay them for expedited review of your website for possible inclusion in their directory. Allegedly, such review would be neutral with no guarantees, but many people quite properly had doubts.


It was obvious even then that there are some people who are willing to act immorally.


You've been the most visible and strident promoter of the "bright line" rule prohibiting direct editing by paid editors. What influenced your thinking around this practice, and why do you think it is so important?



The "bright line" rule is simply that if you are a paid advocate, you should disclose your conflict of interest and never edit article space directly. You are free to enter into a dialogue with the community on talk pages, and to suggest edits or even complete new articles or versions of articles by posting them in your user space.

“	There are easy means to escalate issues if you're having a problem. There is simply no excuse for editing directly.	”

I've been an advocate of this because I think it makes a lot of complicated problems vanish completely. First, it avoids the sort of deep embarrassment and bad press for the client that has become common. Second, it answers the concerns that some people have about how to interact with Wikipedia as an advocate. It's almost impossible (assuming you behave in a polite manner) to get into trouble suggesting things on a talk page. And finally: it works. There are easy means to escalate issues if you are having a problem. There is simply no excuse for editing directly.


In my reading, WP:COI at least allows uncontroversial or minor changes, and at most permits any non-promotional edits, even major ones, although they are "strongly discouraged". From the 2009 paid editing RfC to the 2012 COI RfC, a direct prohibition of paid editing has failed to gain consensus. Yet you've described those who support or tolerate paid editing as an extreme minority. Do you agree that the bright line rule is not policy? If it's not, why do you think the community hasn't implemented it yet?



One of the biggest problems in this area is a lack of precision in talking about this. Even in your question, you say "paid editing" but that's much too broad and tends to confuse the issue quite badly. If a university decides to encourage their professors to edit Wikipedia as a public service as a part of their paid duties, that's a wonderful thing (so long as they steer clear of advocacy!). It's paid advocacy that we should be talking about.


I'm unaware of any serious arguments that we should welcome paid advocates into Wikipedia to edit articles about which they have a financial conflict of interest. (To be clear, there are a few people who argue in favor of that, but their arguments are so implausible that it is difficult to take them seriously.)


You've made a distinction between an employed academic versus a PR professional – the first editing in their free time in the area of their expertise and the second as a tainted advocate who shouldn't edit directly at all. Does 'advocacy' lie in the person (and their context) or only the person's behavior?



Both are relevant. If you're a PR professional editing on behalf of your client, then hiding behind the excuse that you're only making NPOV edits doesn't cut it with me at all. There's simply no reason to do that, when working with the community openly, honestly, and editing only talkpages is more effective.


The Public Relations Journal of the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) published a report by Marcia DiStaso based on a survey of public relations professionals. That report stated that 60% of PR professionals said their clients' articles contained errors; this was more broadly used to claim that 60% of all articles contained errors. What did you think of that result, of the study, and of the attention it received?



It's useless nonsense that we should ignore completely.


The DiStaso study noted that when editors attempted to propose rather than directly make changes, responses were sometimes not received (in 25% of cases) and others took weeks or longer. Does promoting the bright line make it easier for PR professionals to blame Wikipedia for the errors they're presumably not allowed to correct? Would a fair or necessary corollary to the bright line be that Wikipedia should improve its responsiveness to PR editor suggestions and Template:edit request?

“	Here's a standing offer: any PR professional who feels their concerns have not been addressed in the English Wikipedia should come and post to my user talk page. I will personally see to it.	”

I think we should take seriously claims that PR professionals who try to do things the right way are ignored, and investigate every case that is put forward, but it's important to understand that those claims are largely false. One issue here is that PR professionals have not generally taken the time to escalate to the appropriate places.
Here's a standing offer: any PR professional who feels their concerns have not been addressed in the English Wikipedia should come and post to my user talk page. I will personally see to it. This idea that PR people have to edit Wikipedia article directly because they can't get a response any other way is sheer and total nonsense.


You started an FAQ page for your views on paid advocacy. What is the status of that page, and what are your hopes for it in terms of clarifying or influencing policy?



I expect that page will become the basis for a strict policy banning paid advocacy.


We assume good faith here. In what case is it appropriate to assume that a person, because they are paid of their job position, is out to spin rather than improve an article?



It doesn't matter, and this question is again the type of thinking that completely muddles the issue. The appearance of impropriety and the potential for scandal for the client is reason enough to avoid it.


I'm completely unpersuaded by arguments in either direction: that PR people are so evil that they will sneak around and edit if they are banned from doing so openly, or that PR people are so good that we should simply trust that they'll only want to be improving articles rather than spinning. Both of those positions are untenable, but more importantly, both those positions are absolutely irrelevant.


Have any paid or COI editors made positive contributions to the project?



I'm sure some have, but I fail to see any relevance to this question.


What do you think of collaborative efforts such as WikiProject Cooperation and Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement (CREWE)?



It's hard to have a simple opinion about complex and noisy community discussion areas. Basically, I can say that I'm happy for people to talk about it.


What role do you think PR organizations such as the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) and the Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) can play in improving the relationship between their industry and Wikipedia?



They can put forward clear ethical standards for their member organizations that ban paid advocacy in Wikipedia article space. That should be the clear and overwhelming message from them. They should offer suggestions for the right way to work with the Wikipedia community. They should make it 100% clear that I'm personally committed to this issue and willing to address concerns directly on my user talk page!


CIPR has published a Draft of Best Practices for their members. I worked on the Plain and simple conflict-of-interest guide and presented a version of it to the PRSA as a talk called Learning to speak in Wikipedia's language". Do you think providing resources and education such as these for PR professionals is part of the solution? If so, how can we get those resources into the hands of the PR industry so that we close the knowledge gap?



I do think part of the solution is education. PR professionals need to know that "dark arts" are counter-productive and not in any way necessary. If we have an error, just talk to us about it, we'll fix it. If we don't have sufficient information, just provide it for us (well-written, NPOV, and on the talk page of the article), and we'll deal with it appropriately. This is not mysterious or difficult.


You spoke to employees at Bell Pottinger after their COI editing scandal. Did you treat them as people who suffered from ignorance or as people who had conducted themselves with malice. In other words, is the PR profession just not informed, or does it need moral guidance as well?

“	If lying to people is not wrong in Lord Bell's world, well, I'm unable to respond except with astonishment. If I had worked there, I would have quit that day. If I were his client, I would have fired him.	”

I'm a really nice person who assumes good faith. People sometimes do bad things, whether from ignorance or malice, and it is possible to forgive them. I found the staff members there to be contrite and apologetic.
On the other hand, Lord Bell himself made it very clear to me, in the meeting, that his grasp of the ethics of the situation is essentially zero. After hearing me explain what was done wrong, including Bell Pottinger employees lying about their identity, he said – in the meeting in front of his entire staff – he said that as far as he could tell they had done nothing wrong. If lying to people is not wrong in Lord Bell's world, well, I'm unable to respond except with astonishment. If I had worked there, I would have quit that day. If I were his client, I would have fired him. His attitude is disgusting and dangerous for his clients.


There seems to be a trend, or at least the emergence of one, of experienced editors beginning to offer their services and expertise, as Wikipedia 'consultants'. What do you think of that trend? Is it compatible with a neutral encyclopedia?



I don't think there is any such trend, at least not among good editors. And no, it's not compatible with a neutral encyclopedia.


You once described Wikipedia as a novel economic development where distributed communities of people with time, knowledge, and interest produce content that would otherwise be economically unfeasible. You have also described Wikipedia as a "cathedral of knowledge", a place free from the detritus of commercial motivations and advertising in particular. Do you think paid editors or even advocates can ever be welcome in that picture?



Of course, we can be welcoming to anyone. But it's important that those who have a financial conflict of interest avoid direct article editing at all times, and disclose fully.


In 10 years, what would it meant to you if there was an entire cottage industry of Wikipedia editors who were paid for their work? Do you think the encyclopedia could survive such a development?



It's difficult to answer such a hypothetical. It's so at odds with reality that it just isn't going to happen.


You've identified paid advocacy as a unique problem, but unpaid advocacy is also something the encyclopedia deals with regularly. The worst of those cases result in ArbCom cases, blocks, and bans. As the community has mechanisms to deal with unpaid advocacy, do you think paid editing or paid advocacy is more uniquely or severely a threat?



In many ways, it's less of a threat. The point is that it's a simple and cleanly identifiable threat, and there's a mutual interest in following the bright line rule: it's better for clients of PR firms, and it's better for Wikipedia.


WP:BLP policy has gone a long way towards recognizing and remedying the real harm that Wikipedia can do to living people. Is there an imbalance in the fact that we don't have a corresponding policy protecting corporations from real harm?



WP:BLP applies to corporations, which are just collections of people. I don't see any need for extending the policy, although I could be convinced if evidence were produced of an ongoing problem that an explicit extension would help solve.


One of the challenges of updating COI policy has been the difficulty of codifying who exactly is an advocate versus just an editor, and what types of edits are controversial versus benign. What are your thoughts on the task of making COI policy more detailed, concrete, and ultimately effective?



I don't think it is difficult at all, as long as we trash this concept that it is ok for people with a financial conflict of interest to make "benign" edits directly. That opens a huge can of worms in terms of determining which edits are benign. Best to not edit article space directly at all.


I think we can be relaxed about "emergency" situations – vandalism or severe BLP violations. Even those kinds of edits should be generally avoided by those with a COI – better to raise the alarm at BLPN or similar noticeboards (again, my user talk page is highly effective at getting the attention of good editors). But if someone with a COI makes an edit like that, we don't need to freak out.

[Malsua]

There is so much advocacy on Wikipedia that I'm surprised that anyone is surprised.

[American Patriot]

I'm not surprised. Just reporting it. lol