Wiki-PR Wikipedia editing scandal
{{Short description|Consulting firm that commercially edited Wikipedia}}
{{pp-semi-indef|small=yes}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=December 2019}}
{{Infobox company
| name = Wiki-PR
| logo = Wiki-PR-logo.jpg
| type = Consulting firm
| traded_as =
| industry = Public relations, Consulting
| predecessor =
| founder = {{unbulleted list| Jordan French{{cite web| url= https://BBC.co.UK/news/technology-24613608| title= Wikipedia probe into paid-for 'sockpuppet' entries| work= BBC News| date= October 21, 2013| access-date= 2013-10-22| archive-date= November 5, 2021| archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20211105175659/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24613608| url-status= live}}{{cite web | url=https://www.wiki-pr.com/leadership/ | title=Leadership | work=Wiki-PR website | access-date=2014-01-26 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131021005057/https://www.wiki-pr.com/leadership/ | archive-date=2013-10-21}}| Darius Fisher}}
| location_city = Austin, Texas
| locations =
| area_served =
| key_people = {{unbulleted list| Jordan French (CEO)| Darius Fisher (COO)}}
| products =
| revenue =
| operating_income =
| net_income =
| assets =
| equity =
| num_employees =
| subsid =
| location_country = United States
| homepage = {{url|https://wiki-pr.com/}}
}}
Wiki-PR was a consulting firm that marketed the ability to edit Wikipedia by "directly edit[ing] your page using our network of established Wikipedia editors and admins".{{cite web|first1=Martin|last1=Robbins|access-date=2019-12-15|title=Is the PR Industry Buying Influence Over Wikipedia?|url=https://www.vice.com/en/article/is-the-pr-industry-buying-influence-over-wikipedia/|date=October 18, 2013|website=Vice|archive-date=December 18, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191218222119/https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/kwpqmn/is-the-pr-industry-buying-influence-over-wikipedia|url-status=live}}
It received media attention in 2013 after a sockpuppet investigation resulted in more than 250 Wikipedia user accounts being blocked or banned.{{cite web|url=https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/10/wikipedia-editors-locked-in-battle-with-pr-firm-delete-250-accounts/|title=Wikipedia editors, locked in battle with PR firm, delete 250 accounts|work=Ars Technica|last1=Mullin|first1=Joe|date=October 22, 2013|access-date=June 15, 2017|archive-date=June 9, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170609082149/https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/10/wikipedia-editors-locked-in-battle-with-pr-firm-delete-250-accounts/|url-status=live}} The Wikimedia Foundation changed its terms of use in the wake of the investigation, requiring anyone paid to edit Wikipedia to openly disclose their affiliations. Despite the ban, Status Labs, a firm started in 2012 by Wiki-PR founders Fisher and French, continued to edit clients' Wikipedia articles according to former employees.{{cite web|first1=Rachael|last1=Levy|access-date=2019-12-15|title=How the 1% Scrubs Its Image Online|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-the-1-scrubs-its-image-online-11576233000|website=The Wall Street Journal|date=December 13, 2019|archive-date=December 15, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191215014323/https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-the-1-scrubs-its-image-online-11576233000|url-status=live}} Wiki-PR has been inactive since 2013.{{refn|Neither the Wiki-PR website nor its social media pages have been updated since 2013, and there are no signs of the organisation having been active since.}}
Company
Wiki-PR was created in 2010 by Darius Fisher, its chief operating officer as of 2014, and Jordan French, its chief executive officer as of 2014. Confirmed clients include Priceline and Emad Rahim, and suspected clients include Viacom, among many others.{{cite web|title=Is Wikipedia for Sale? |url=https://www.vice.com/en/article/is-wikipedia-for-sale/|last=Robbins|first=Martin|date=October 20, 2013|access-date=2013-10-20|work=motherboard.vice.com|quote=We'll both directly edit your page using our network of established Wikipedia editors and admins|url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131026151816/https://motherboard.vice.com/blog/is-wikipedia-for-sale|archive-date=2013-10-26}} The firm claimed to have Wikipedia administrator access enabling it to manage the Wikipedia presence of more than {{nowrap|12,000 clients.}}{{cite web|title=Wiki-PR |url=https://www.wiki-pr.com/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131020050256/https://www.wiki-pr.com/ |archive-date=2013-10-20 |website=Wiki-PR|access-date=2013-11-14}} archived November 14, 2013 Wiki-PR has been reported to use "aggressive email marketing" to acquire new customers.
Investigation and company reaction
An investigation of sockpuppet accounts on Wikipedia that began in 2012 implicated hundreds of accounts. Wiki-PR's involvement was confirmed after four customers of Wiki-PR spoke anonymously to The Daily Dot journalist Simon Owens, and two others, Priceline.com and Emad Rahim, spoke to Vice journalist Martin Robbins.{{cite news |last=Owens |first=Simon |title=The battle to destroy Wikipedia's biggest sockpuppet army |url=https://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/wikipedia-sockpuppet-investigation-largest-network-history-wiki-pr/ |access-date=2013-10-20 |newspaper=The Daily Dot |date=October 8, 2013 |archive-date=May 25, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160525133631/http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/wikipedia-sockpuppet-investigation-largest-network-history-wiki-pr/ |url-status=live }}{{cite news|last=Robbins|first=Martin|title=Is the PR Industry Buying Influence Over Wikipedia?|url=https://www.vice.com/en/article/is-the-pr-industry-buying-influence-over-wikipedia/|access-date=October 19, 2013|magazine=Vice|date=October 19, 2013|archive-date=March 1, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140301023358/http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/is-the-pr-industry-buying-influence-over-wikipedia|url-status=live}} In addition to violating rules against sockpuppeting, Wiki-PR violated Wikipedia rules by citing articles that were planted on business content farms and various other websites that accept contributions from any Internet user as sources for Wikipedia entries, creating a false impression of credibility. The same websites were used repeatedly, and their presence in various Wikipedia articles aided investigators in identifying articles the company had worked on.
The investigation led to the Wikipedia community blocking hundreds of paid Wikipedia editing accounts believed to be connected to Wiki-PR that had edited contrary to Wikipedia's rules.{{cite magazine |url=https://newsfeed.time.com/2013/10/21/wikipedia-bans-250-users-for-posting-paid-promotional-entries/ |title=Wikipedia Bans 250 Users for Posting Paid, Promotional Entries |last=Stampler |first=Laura |magazine=Time |date=October 21, 2013 |access-date=November 11, 2013 |archive-date=November 8, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131108121120/http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/10/21/wikipedia-bans-250-users-for-posting-paid-promotional-entries/ |url-status=live }}
In 2014 The New York Times described Wiki-PR's methods:{{cite news |last=Newman |first=Judith |title=Wikipedia-Mania: Wikipedia, What Does Judith Newman Have to Do to Get a Page? |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/09/fashion/Wikipedia-Judith-Newman.html?_r=0 |access-date=November 1, 2014 |work=The New York Times |date=January 8, 2014 |archive-date=January 23, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140123054326/http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/09/fashion/Wikipedia-Judith-Newman.html?_r=0 |url-status=live }}
{{quote|[Wiki-PR] uses a lot of people, with different identities, to edit pages for paying customers and to manage those pages. The paid sock puppets are ready to pounce on edits that don't adhere to the client's vision.}}
In The Wall Street Journal, French was quoted as saying that Wiki-PR is a research and writing firm, counseling clients on "how to adhere to Wikipedia's rules". French said that its paid work is part of the "fabric" of Wikipedia, complementing the work of unpaid volunteers. French acknowledged that Wiki-PR had sometimes made "bad calls" on the notability of articles. He also said that "We do pay hundreds of other editors for their work—they're real people and not sockpuppets."{{cite web |last=Fowler |first=Geoffrey |title=Wikipedia Probes Suspicious Promotional Articles |url=https://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2013/10/21/wikipedia-probes-suspicious-promotional-articles/ |work=The Wall Street Journal |access-date=November 17, 2013 |date=October 21, 2013 |archive-date=November 24, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131124062440/http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2013/10/21/wikipedia-probes-suspicious-promotional-articles/ |url-status=live }} Instead, as was reported by the International Business Times, Wiki-PR had been involved in "meatpuppetry"—a practice in which editors illegitimately encourage other individuals to edit in support of their position—in addition to planting articles online to try to garner better potential notability for its clients.{{cite news |url=https://www.ibtimes.com/wikipedia-paid-edits-companies-pay-top-dollar-firms-willing-fix-their-entries-1449172 |title=Wikipedia and Paid Edits: Companies Pay Top Dollar to Firms Willing to 'Fix' Their Entries |first=Thomas |last=Halleck |date=November 8, 2013 |access-date=February 17, 2022 |archive-date=January 31, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160131123131/https://www.ibtimes.com/wikipedia-paid-edits-companies-pay-top-dollar-firms-willing-fix-their-entries-1449172 |url-status=live }}
Wikipedia and Wikimedia's reaction
{{As of|2013|10|25|df=us}}, Wiki-PR, including all of its employees, contractors, and owners, were banned from editing Wikipedia. Sue Gardner, executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation, stated that the Foundation was "exploring our options".{{cite news|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/wikipedia-we-have-blocked-250-sock-puppets-for-biased-editing-of-our-pages-8895112.html|title=Wikipedia: We have blocked 250 'sock puppets' for biased editing of our pages|last=Burrell|first=Ian|work=The Independent|date=October 21, 2013|access-date=2013-11-19|archive-date=September 21, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170921023825/http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/wikipedia-we-have-blocked-250-sock-puppets-for-biased-editing-of-our-pages-8895112.html|url-status=live}} On November 19, 2013, Wikimedia's law firm, Cooley LLP, emailed a cease-and-desist letter to Wiki-PR.{{cite news|url=https://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2013/11/19/wikimedia-steps-up-sockpuppet-fight/|title=Wikimedia Steps Up "Sockpuppet" Fight|last=Fowler|first=Geoffrey|work=The Wall Street Journal|date=November 19, 2013|access-date=2013-11-19|archive-date=November 7, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171107033428/https://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2013/11/19/wikimedia-steps-up-sockpuppet-fight/|url-status=live}}{{cite web | url=https://www.ibtimes.com/wikipedia-sends-paid-editors-cease-desist-sockpuppet-account-morning277-not-wiki-pr-1482738 | title=Wikipedia Sends Paid Editors Cease-And-Desist: Sockpuppet Account Morning277, Not Wiki-PR | work=International Business Times | date=November 22, 2013 | access-date=2014-01-27 | last=Halleck | first=Thomas | archive-date=April 22, 2021 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210422222634/https://www.ibtimes.com/wikipedia-sends-paid-editors-cease-desist-sockpuppet-account-morning277-not-wiki-pr-1482738 | url-status=live }} French told The Guardian that Wiki-PR "is working with the Wikimedia Foundation and its counsel to sort this out", and hoped to have further information in a week's time.{{cite news|last=Arthur|first=Charles|title=Wikipedia sends cease-and-desist letter to PR firm offering paid edits to site|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/nov/21/wikipedia-cease-and-desist-pr-firm-offering-paid-edits|access-date=2013-11-22|newspaper=The Guardian|date=November 21, 2013|archive-date=September 10, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160910184634/https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/nov/21/wikipedia-cease-and-desist-pr-firm-offering-paid-edits|url-status=live}} The Wikimedia Foundation acknowledged communicating with Wiki-PR, but the Foundation rejected any implication that they were negotiating with Wiki-PR, saying that if Wiki-PR wanted to continue editing, Wiki-PR must turn to Wikipedia's community.{{cite news|last=Burrell|first=Ian|title=Wikipedia names Texas PR firm over false manipulation of site entries|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/online/wikipedia-names-texas-pr-firm-over-false-manipulation-of-site-entries-8952624.html|access-date=2014-02-08|newspaper=The Independent|date=November 20, 2013|archive-date=November 7, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171107011133/https://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/online/wikipedia-names-texas-pr-firm-over-false-manipulation-of-site-entries-8952624.html|url-status=live}}
In June 2014, the Wikimedia Foundation updated its terms of use, forbidding undisclosed paid editing and requiring any paid editors to disclose their affiliation. The blog post announcing the change stated that "Undisclosed paid advocacy editing is a black hat practice that can threaten the trust of Wikimedia's volunteers and readers. We have serious concerns about the way that such editing affects the neutrality and reliability of Wikipedia."{{cite news|last=Elder|first=Jeff|title=Wikipedia Strengthens Rules Against Undisclosed Editing|url=https://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/06/16/wikipedia-strengthens-rules-against-undisclosed-editing/|access-date=2015-12-04|newspaper=The Wall Street Journal|date=June 16, 2014|archive-date=June 18, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140618200711/http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/06/16/wikipedia-strengthens-rules-against-undisclosed-editing/|url-status=live}}{{cite news|last=Brigham|first=Geoff|title=Making a change to our Terms of Use: Requirements for disclosure|url=https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/06/16/change-terms-of-use-requirements-for-disclosure/|access-date=2015-09-14|publisher=Wikimedia Foundation|date=June 14, 2014|archive-date=September 10, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150910025355/http://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/06/16/change-terms-of-use-requirements-for-disclosure/|url-status=live}} Later in 2014, a number of large PR firms pledged to follow Wikipedia's new and existing guidelines.{{cite news|title=Group Of Major PR Firms Pledge To Play Nice On Wikipedia|url=https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140611/12092827548/group-major-pr-firms-pledge-to-play-nice-wikipedia.shtml|last1=Geigner|first1=Timothy|access-date=2014-08-16|newspaper=Tech Dirt|date=June 14, 2013|archive-date=August 19, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140819085508/https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140611/12092827548/group-major-pr-firms-pledge-to-play-nice-wikipedia.shtml|url-status=live}}
References
{{Reflist|30em}}
External links
- {{Official website|https://www.wiki-pr.com/}}
- "Extensive network of clandestine paid advocacy exposed", The Signpost, October 9, 2013.
- [https://www.vice.com/en/article/is-the-pr-industry-buying-influence-over-wikipedia/ Is the PR industry Buying Influence Over Wikipedia?] October 19, 2013 Vice.com
- [https://www.vice.com/en/article/is-wikipedia-for-sale/ Is Wikipedia for Sale?] October 19, 2013 Vice.com Motherboard
- [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/6/6b/2013-11-19_C%26D_letter_to_WikiPR_from_Cooley.pdf Cease and desist letter from Cooley], representing Wikimedia
{{COI on Wikipedia}}
Category:2010 establishments in Texas
Category:Companies based in Austin, Texas
Category:Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia
Category:Public relations companies of the United States
Category:Research and analysis firms of the United States
Category:Wikipedia controversies