In a practice which is classified as ?black hat editing? editors were making money by creating promotional pieces and protecting against ?vandalism?.
Outlining the development on the Wikimedia blog Ed Erhart and Juliet Barbara, editorial associate and senior communications manager at the Wikimedia Foundation respectively, said that after ?weeks of investigation? it was determined the editors were engaged in ?undisclosed paid advocacy?. ?Neutrality is key to ensuring Wikipedia?s quality. Although it does not happen often, undisclosed paid advocacy editing may represent a serious conflict of interest and could compromise the quality of content on Wikipedia,? they added. ?The practice is in conflict with a number of English Wikipedia?s politics, including neutrality and conflict of interest, and is a violation of Wikimedia Foundation?s terms of use.? Read more about trust and neutrality:
As well as blocking the 381 accounts volunteer editors also deleted 210 articles cerated by these accounts. Revealing that many were related to businesses or business people, biased or skewed information was provided featuring unattributed material and ?potential copyright violations?. The blog went on to say that not all paid editing is a violation of Wikipedia policy as many museums and universities use employees to edit by disclosing official affiliations. The scam of charging businesses to protect pages sees rogue editors pose as genuine editors or Wikipedia administrators, charging a fee for an edited article previously determined to be too promotional. Furthermore, some businesses were asked to pay a monthly fee to save from changes or deletion. Keeping the integrity and validity of Wikipedia has been an ongoing struggle due to the ability for edits to be made freely. In 2013, a cease-and-desist letter was sent to a US PR company that was reportedly offering to help clients by editing entries favourably. The PR firm had been found to have created 300 ?sockpuppet? accounts. “Readers trust Wikipedia to offer accurate, neutral content, and undisclosed paid advocacy editing violates that trust. Sadly, it also deceives the subjects of articles, who may simply be unaware that they are in violation of the spirit and policies of Wikipedia. No one should ever have to pay to create or maintain a Wikipedia article,” Erhart and Barbara said. By Hunter Ruthven
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
