Wikipedia:WikiProject Integrity

What we do

This project is to discuss, raise awareness of, and hopefully address issues regarding paid advocacy editing on Wikipedia, in which people are compensated to create and edit Wikipedia articles.

Background: and also:

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Websense, Inc.
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Paid Advocacy Watch/Archive 2#On this list

Who we are

Editors who are troubled to some degree by the presence of paid advocates on the Wikipedia.

• Some of us are opposed to paid advocates editing the Wikipedia at all, recognizing that this occurs anyway and that prohibiting would only drive it completely underground, but that this is either a net positive or worth the cost, overall.
• Some of us are concerned about paid advocates editing the Wikipedia (at least in some cases), but feel that banning it completely would only drive it underground, and this is not an improvement. Instead, paid agents should self-identify, follow Bright Line, be watched closely, and perhaps be subject to other controls.
• Others of us have other or more nuanced views. Editors who believe that paid advocates are an overall net positive to the Wikipedia might take more of a welcoming-and-helping stance toward paid agents.

What is a "paid advocate"?

Editors who are 1) editing the Wikipedia for pay (on a contract or as part of their salaried duties) and 2) editing the Wikipedia at the behest of someone else (a boss or client). To this may be added 3) to promote a particular point of view (however subtly), but generally we are to assume that persons who meet criteria #1 and #2 generally must meet #3, absent proof to the contrary.

In a nutshell, we are most often talking about either public relations (PR) agents or else employees of a corporation acting under orders.

The following cases are not considered paid advocates, and not considered problematical, for the purposes of this project:

• Anyone writing on their own initiative, with no direct material compensation or expectation of personal gain, even if they are technically "on the clock" somewhere. In particular, academics writing in their field of expertise (or any field), even if they are technically doing this during normal work hours and using university equipment most always qualify for this exemption.
• Participants in the Wikipedia:GLAM (Galleries, Libraries, Archives, Museums) initiative, even if paid for editing the Wikipedia. And in most (but not necessarily all) cases, editors being paid by academic grants to contribute to the Wikipedia.
• Editing by employees of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Anyone else who is editing the Wikipedia for pay, and editing at the behest of another person, is possibly or at least potentially a problematic paid advocate (even if working for a non-profit entity).

(We're not dogmatic about this. If, for instance, ExxonMobil was (for some reason) to hire a person to edit Byzantine Empire under the Heraclian dynasty, it's quite possible that there'd be no problem there. However, this isn't really the core of the problem we're dealing with here, and exceptions like this, as well as classes of exceptions, can be discussed and handled using reason and common sense.)

Notes

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI) is the primary guideline. See also plain and simple COI help.

Founding principles

See Principles.

Goals

• Collect material regarding paid advocacy editing on Wikipedia. A lot is written on this subject and we need to keep some of it as an easily available collective memory. Editors are encouraged to contribute links to outside articles, internal discussions and pages, and other material in the appropriate sections at the bottom of this page.
• Develop strategies for better control of paid advocacy on Wikipedia. And/or, develop strategies for the elimination or banning of paid advocacy on Wikipedia.
• Advocate for the better control of paid advocacy on Wikipedia. And/or, advocate for the elimination or banning of paid advocacy on Wikipedia.
• Identify, watch, publicize, and, as needed, correct articles for which third parties are known to have engaged persons to edit in return for compensation.

Coordination IRC channel

#wikipedia-en-paw on irc.freenode.net

Alerts

Articles to be checked and corrected (if required)

This list is incomplete; you can help by adding missing items.

• Large-scale spam associated with Lobo Instiute, see workspace at User:MarioGom/LoboReview (WP:COIN thread). MarioGom (talk) 21:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• WESSA - The article sounds like an advertisement for WESSA, and has had some advertising added on by the WESSA za user. The WESSA za user has not edited any other article. now OK, but needs watching DGG ( talk ) 22:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
• Blackboard Inc.‎ - several paid editors working together have created a one-sided article where the "most hated company in education" had almost no negative information about the company. Paid editor wants to move the criticism section. Paid editors arrived on this article after the article was mentioned in BusinessWeek
• The Art Institutes - EDMC employee is restructuring the article and selecting which legal issues are presented with another "Barnstar" editor. Negative information is being deleted.
• U.S. Corrugated - Subject of a discussion on AN/I. now redirected to Kapstone#acquistions--they purchased USCorrugated in 2011. DGG ( talk ) 22:07, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
• Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement — created by member of the group Ocaasi, then largely edited thereon after by, with other members Silver seren and Fred Bauder; also participating heavily in the deletion discussion
• Hydraulic fracturing - this is a hot topic because of the lucrative nature of the business and the yet unknown environmental consequences. There has been paid advocacy on this page previously and there is the potential for it to occur again.
• Websense now redirected to its current name Forcepoint. still contains extensive promotional content, DGG ( talk ) 01:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Jill Kenton - The subject of this article recently contracted for paid editing on the article, as noted here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jill_Kenton. JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jill_Kenton&diff=487743783&oldid=487620997 – The article has been redirected to the newly-created Rigby & Peller article. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
• Zappos - My company was contacted by a guy who offered to rewrite my companys Wikipedia article. He said he had been paid to rewrite the Zappos article. SPU whistelblower (talk) 12:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
• Asure Software - Has twice had the original content replaced by a bland corporate bio. First time by a username which is identical to the name of Asure's VP of marketing, and the second time from an IP address that appears to be registered to the company.

continued editing, thus time under company name; I blocked, and removed the advertising. Needs further watching. DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• Adam Kluger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (deleted twice), Kluger Agency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (redirected) and The Kluger Agency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Ongoing removal of sourced content from The Kluger Agency#Controversy and Product placement#Music and recording industries. Repeated re-creation of promotional text using various WP:SPA's and IP's, edit pattern also touches various individual musician articles, the Musicians Institute and a pair of high schools which Adam Kluger supposedly once attended.
  • keywordrenewals (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (original creator of three promotional pages, not currently in use)
  • 66.202.128.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 69.84.115.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (not currently in use)
  • 74.51.231.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 72.28.222.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 67.88.44.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) removing content from The Kluger Agency in August 2012.
  • Shahs227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) attempting to re-create the deleted Adam Kluger promotional article through WP:AFC in August 2012 and adding a non-free logo to The Kluger Agency by uploading it to commons: with bogus PD and OTRS licence tags. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 13:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Live Gamer, LingQ ,Epom Ad Server, Swap-O-Matic, Mobile Fun, Horace Alexander Young, Soojin Lee, Computer Troubleshooters, Tango (application), Crest Capital, High-Tech Bridge, Lucibel, Paul Fix (racing driver), Sean Macias , Nigeria_Sovereign_Investment_Authority, Eugene Patterson Harris cleaned, DGG ( talk ) 22:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC) , Lan_Turner, Wilddesign, Ace_Parking_Management_Inc, TextMarks, David_Carter_(entrepreneur),Pride_of_Dixie_Marching_Band, Sahpreem_A._King, Vorsight,Nimbo (company),Epom, Giggem,Storage Made Easy are new articles.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
• Investor State Dispute Settlement -editors adding multiple unreferenced claims supporting the concept which allows large corporations to sue governments where profits are impededNimbusWeb (talk) 00:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
• Sustainocene concept of a post-corporate world powered by artificial photosynthesis as a distributed fuel and food source disrupted by editor deleting published materialNimbusWeb (talk) 00:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC) HELP. This editor is now deleting referenced material from other articles such as Rights of Nature. See discussion here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsNimbusWeb (talk) 04:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
• HUNDREDS of sentences where specific text differs from its reference to such an extent as to prove editor conflict of interest. I don't think tracking being "paid" covers most of the grossly biased content problem. Please direct me elsewhere if there is a Wiki page where I can present these abuses.32cllou (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Project news

• Has anyone seen this:  ? One editor is taking credit for having manipulated Wikipedia such that 20% of GA articles on companies were created by this company which apparently maps to User:CorporateM. That seems fundamentally broken to me. The Dissident Aggressor 06:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying that the GA process is broken? -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 07:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@DissidentAggressor: CorporateM, from statements I have seen, tends to take his paid articles to GA which, on the whole, is good because of the added scrutiny of the review process. I am amazed he has done 20% of the company GA's though! I would love to see paid editing prohibited but a requirement for paid articles to be GA before going live would be a great second choice and CorporateM already does that.

Your edit summaries like this are not helpful. There is already a {{Connected contributor (paid)}} disclosure by CorporateM on the talk page. If you find any of his articles that do not have the disclosure bring it up on his talk page. As long as paid editors stay within the terms of use they must be tolerated, or even supported. The ones that do not must be directed to our policies, {{uw-paid1}} is a good thing to use if you suspect an undisclosed paid editor. If they do not comply they can be blocked. If you want to change this please participate in the various discussions about paid editing that pop up every couple weeks or do some work at WP:COIN. Cheers. Jbh^Talk 13:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Templates

WikiProject Integrity (for article talk page)

{{WikiProject Integrity}}

	Integrity (defunct)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Integrity, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.IntegrityWikipedia:WikiProject IntegrityTemplate:WikiProject IntegrityIntegrity

COIN usage templates

{{Connected contributor}} - for article talk page

The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this page. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

{{COI}} - for article page

A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page. See our advice if the article is about you and read our scam warning in case someone asks for money to edit this article. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Userbox

Project userbox:
{{User:UBX/INTEGRITY}}

This user is a member of the Integrity Project

Alternate project userbox, based on an earlier version:
{{User:UBX/PAIDWATCH}}

This user is a member of the Paid Advocacy Watch Project (WP:PAIDWATCH)

Project barnstar

Suitable for awarding to anyone who has made a material contribution to the project's goals. (Improvement by better artist welcome.)

Internal links

• wikimedia:Terms of Use#4. Refraining from Certain Activities, cross-project prohibition of undisclosed paid editing
• Category:Articles with a promotional tone
• 2013 summary on the German Wikipedia (in English) on their discussions re paid editing, which have been extensive
• Extensive 2013 RfC on the matter on the German Wikipedia (in German)

External links

Pertaining specifically to paid editing of Wikipedia

Not sure about this. On the one hand, some of these links provides a kind of one-stop shop for people looking for ways to influence Wikipedia or sign on with entities that are. On the other hand, forewarned is forearmed. It's no good to blunder about in ignorance. It makes sense to us to have materials collected that would be helpful to Wikipedians wishing to consider and discuss this phenomenon.

• Wikipedia for Marketers: The Last Word, David King, 13th February 2012 — Article encouraging ethical editing on Wikipedia.
• CREWE (Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement) Facebook page CREWE was created on January 5 2011; as of January 12 2011 it had 105 members on Facebook. Widely acknowledged as a pressure group in support of paid advocacy, paid editing and paid political operatives.
• "An Open Letter to Jimmy Wales and Wikipedia" on Where the Fisherman Ain't, Phil Gomes's blog
• Post on John O'Dwyer' blog re CREWE (January 2012)
• Edelman, a PR firm. According to their Wikipedia article they're world's largest independently owned public relations firm. They apparently consult with clients on their Wikipedia image, we don't have details at this time (there's this podcast.) A number of Edelman employes are CREWE members, and CREWE was founded by Phil Gomes, an Edelman employee.
• The Wikipedian, a blog by William Buetler (Wikipedia editor WWB and, as a paid agent, WWB Too.) The Blog just discusses Wikipedia generally (and well, too) rather than paid editing per se.
• "Grande Guide to Wikipedia" by the marketing firm Eloqa, written by Mr Buetler (according to this) or at least partly (according to this.)
• Wiki Experts "You cannot afford to leave the editing of your Wikipedia profile to strangers".
• Wiki-PR "The easy way to accurately tell your story on Wikipedia".
• Waggener Edstrom, a PR firm. Their article is here. Where they fit in is not clear, but according to this they've had involvement with Wikipedia.
• Bell Pottinger Group, a PR firm. According to their article they've had involvement with Wikipedia.
  • Here's a 2011 article on some of Bell Pottinger's activities; their Wikipedia involvement is mentioned in passing.
  • BBC story on Wikipedia and Bell Pottinger
• A plain old solicitation for paid Wikipedia editors. How typical this sort of thing is we don't know.
• Corruption in Wikiland? Paid PR scandal erupts at Wikipedia 2012 piece by Violet Blue on CNET re Gibraltargate and WMUK trustees
• Now here's a thread at Wikipediocracy, where Greh Kohser investigates and describes specific instances of covert paid agents editing Wikiedia. It's Wikipediocracy, so it's not exactly peer-reviewed and may contain libel etc., but quite interesting. FWIW here it is.
• Everything You Wanted to Know about Wikipedia and Your SEO from Search Engine Journal, September 13. SEO is "Search Engine Optimization" and refers to the dark art of getting a given page to appear high in a google search. Herostratus (talk) 16:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
• Wikipedia Best Practice Guidance for Public Relations Professionals — CIPR, an 18 page PDF booklet, updated 2014. Include 1 page case studies about BP and the ICE GLAM editathon.

Pertaining to the BP contretemps of 2013

• Much Of BP's Wikipedia Page Allegedly Written By Company Employee Arturo Silva HuffPost
• BP accused of rewriting environmental record on Wikipedia CNET
• BP Has Nothing Better to Do Than to Rewrite Its Own Wikipedia Entry BetaBeat (New York Observer)
• BP accused of rewriting Wikipedia records SmartPlanet (CBS Interactive)
• Wikipedia editors accuse BP of rewriting page about itself, CNET reports New Orleans Times-Picayune
• For Over a Year, BP Has Worked Hard to 'Clean Up' Its Wikipedia Pages Motherboard (VICE)
• BP edited its own environmental record on Wikipedia Salon
• Wikipedia: BP-Mitarbeiter schreibt am BP-Eintrag mit Der Spiegel ((in German))
• BP accused of rewriting environmental record on Wikipedia Parset ((in English) - Parset is an Iranian source)
• BP soll Wikipedia-Einträge manipuliert haben ZDNet Germany ((in German))
• Report: Did BP help re-write BP's Wikipedia page? WWL AM 870, New Orleans
• BP attempts to polish image on Wikipedia Digitaledge (Excite UK)
• GREENWASH: Wikipedia Editor: ‘Around 44%’ Of BP’s Wikipedia Entry ‘Has Been Written By BP’ All Tech Voices
• La BP riscrive il 44% della propria pagina su Wikipedia: la marea nera arriva in Rete (Fanpage) ((in Italian))
• Conflitto su Wikipedia: la British Petroleum si auto-descrive (La Stampa) ((in Italian))
• BP liet informatie op Wikipedia vervalsen Het Laatste Nieuws (Belgian) ((in Dutch))
• Acusan a BP de reescribir su entrada en la Wikipedia Baquia (Spain) ((in Spanish))
• Big Oil's Wikipedia cleanup: A brand management experiment out of control, a later followup at ZDNet

These are some PR people's takes:

• Wikipedia editors debate role of PR professionals PR Week (paywall)
• Wikipedia considers rules on PR contributions following BP rewrite accusations March 27, 2013. Brittaney Kiefer, PRWeekUS
• PR, Wikipedia and BP–a sorry tale (first published at conversation.cipr.co.uk^{[dead link]}) March 28, 2013. Stuart Bruce / CIPR (Chartered Institute of Public Relations) (UK)
• BP’s Use of Wikipedia is Transparent and Beneficial (PulsePoint Group house organ)

Forums:

• reddit thread
• A couple of threads about the matter on Jimbo's talk page: here and here.

Here's a couple of older links (preceding the contretemps) about BP greenwashing in general:

• Recapping on BP's long history of greenwashing Greenpeace (2010)
• BP’s Greenwashing Masked Dangerous ‘Drill, Baby, Drill’ Reality Think Progress (2010)
• Greenwash: BP and the myth of a world 'Beyond Petroleum' The Guardian (2008)

Pertaining to the Wiki-PR.org contretemps of 2013

• Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia, Wikipedia article created October 19, 2013

External links

• Wiki-PR's web page "The easy way to accurately tell your story on Wikipedia".
• Simon Owens (October 8, 2013). "The battle to destroy Wikipedia's biggest sockpuppet army". The Daily Dot. Retrieved October 9, 2013. -- the Daily Dot article, October 8 2013, exposing Wiki-PR's extensive sabotage here, which brought the issue to general attention.
  • Library Journal article, basically a summary of previously reported information.
  • Article in Ragan's PR Daily, not really adding much.
  • Article in Social Times, not really adding much.
  • Digital Journal, short article not adding much.
• "Is the PR Industry Buying Influence over Wikipedia? Article in Vice magazine, October 2013. Lengthy and detailed article.
• "Wikipedia Probes Suspicious Promotional Articles" Wall Street Journal article, October 21 2013. Wiki-PR is given some space to state their case.
• "Is Wikipedia For Sale?" Article at Motherboard.
• "Click capitalism: PR firms cash in cleaning up clients’ Wikipedia pages" Washington Times article, October 21 2013
• "Wikipedia’s Sockpuppet Problem" Slate article, October 23, 2013
• "Wikipedia sockpuppet saga threatens users' trust of the service" Article on Sophos Security's blog.
• Blog post regarding a Big Pharma person who supposedly and allegedly was a Wiki-PR client.
• Discussion on Wikipediocracy which I think touches on this a bit. The thread also has an interesting list of paid editing websites.

Internal links

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Morning277/Archive. "[A]llows you to appreciate the sheer magnitude of the legwork involved" in trying to clean up this mess. The actual SPI (Sock Puppet Investigations) page just says it's mostly meatpuppets and so out of the their purview, though.
• Meta-Wiki page on Morning277
• Signpost article October 10 and Signpost article October 16
• There were several discussions on Jimbo's talk page:
  • Here, actually just before the Daily Dot article broke, but about Wiki-PR specifically
  • A big one, here. This and the following links came after the Daily Dot article.
  • and here, regarding a side issue of limited scope
  • And here.
  • And here.
  • And here.
  • And here.
  • And here.
  • And here.
• WikiExperts is a different entity from Wiki-PR (although with basically the same business model), but about this time there were separate discussions about WikiExperts:
  • In this Administrator's Noticeboard thread, user AKonanykhin was banned for making edits on behalf of WikiExperts, but also for flat-out refusing to abide by some of our core policies.
  • In this subsequent Administrator's Noticeboard thread, an appeal was made to list the ban on technical grounds, garnering considerable support. As of this October 26 writing, the thread (here) is active.