Get PJ Media on your Apple

PJM Lifestyle

Wikipedia Stunned That Companies Pay Users to Write Favorable Articles

"With each article that is deleted by the community, there is another client looking to pay me to get the article back up..."

by
Bridget Johnson

Bio

October 22, 2013 - 6:00 pm
Page 1 of 2  Next ->   View as Single Page

wiki460

Wikipedia announced today that it’s investigating “as many as several hundred” users who may have been paid to promote organizations or products on the massive online encyclopedia.

“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,” Sue Gardner, executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation, said in a statement.

Wikipedia said it has already blocked or banned more than 250 user accounts for “non-neutral editing.”

Available in 287 languages, Wikipedia contains more than 29 million articles contributed by a global volunteer community of roughly 80,000 people.

“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,” Gardner said.

“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.”

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
As many as several hundred? HA!

I remember reading an article about the falling out the two founders had. The one who isn't there any more was trying to get Jimmy Wales to understand that the concept of Wikipedia just wasn't sound. He was trying to tell him that, without any accountability, the site would eventually become exactly what it HAS become - a platform for activists. Wales' response?

"You just don't get it."


That pretty much encapsulates the leftist response to reason, on any subject, on any issue.


Wikipedia is the 60s anti-authoritarianism in the flesh, er, web. The problems it has are not growing pains, or minor glitches. They are inherent to the concept.

No conservative should support Wikipedia in any way.

25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (3)
All Comments   (3)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Pinhead hit it right on the.......well, head. Thanks for quoting me in the article, but you missed one of the most important aspects of Wikipedia. They are creating an environment where paid editing thrives. They claim that paid editing is against their conflict of interest policy, yet they allow edits in favor of their backers (just Google search "Wikipedia Gibraltar paid."
25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
Wikipedia is doomed because it rejects the free market. It refuses to accept advertising and so is forced to rely on "unpaid" writers who are of course increasingly paid by somebody else. It sickens me to read their pleas for contributions. Their little bubble of progressive fantasyland non-commercial business model is about to pop because it cannot hope to stand up to the natural laws of the free market.
25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
As many as several hundred? HA!

I remember reading an article about the falling out the two founders had. The one who isn't there any more was trying to get Jimmy Wales to understand that the concept of Wikipedia just wasn't sound. He was trying to tell him that, without any accountability, the site would eventually become exactly what it HAS become - a platform for activists. Wales' response?

"You just don't get it."


That pretty much encapsulates the leftist response to reason, on any subject, on any issue.


Wikipedia is the 60s anti-authoritarianism in the flesh, er, web. The problems it has are not growing pains, or minor glitches. They are inherent to the concept.

No conservative should support Wikipedia in any way.

25 weeks ago
25 weeks ago Link To Comment
View All