Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia
In 2012, Wikipedia launched one of its largest sockpuppet investigations, when editors reported suspicious activity suggesting 250 accounts had been used to engage in paid editing.
2015's Operation Orangemoody uncovered another paid-editing scam, in which 381 accounts were used to extort money from businesses to create and ostensibly protect promotional articles about them.
[9] In August 2006, Gregory Kohs, a market researcher from Pennsylvania, founded MyWikiBiz, a company offering to write inexpensive Wikipedia entries for businesses.
[10] In January 2007, Kohs said that in his view Wikipedia's coverage of major corporations was deficient, stating that "It is strange that a minor Pokémon character will get a 1,200-word article, but a Fortune 500 company will get ... maybe 100 words".
[13] In the same month that had seen conflict of interest issues raised by both Microsoft and MyWikiBiz, Wales stated that editors should not be paid to edit, and PR agencies would be banned if they persisted.
Included among the accused were the Vatican,[20][21] the CIA,[18][21] the Federal Bureau of Investigation,[22] the US Democratic Party's Congressional Campaign Committee,[21][23] the US Republican Party,[24][23] Britain's Labour Party,[23] Britain's Conservative Party,[24] the Canadian government,[25] Industry Canada,[26] the Department of Prime Minister, Cabinet, and Defence in Australia,[27][28][29][30][31] the United Nations,[32] the US Senate,[33] the US Department of Homeland Security,[34] the US Environmental Protection Agency,[34] Montana Senator Conrad Burns,[18] Ohio Governor Bob Taft,[35] the Israeli government,[36] ExxonMobil,[37] Walmart,[18][37] AstraZeneca, Diebold,[18][24][23] Dow Chemical,[24] Disney,[25] Dell,[37] Anheuser-Busch,[38] Nestlé,[24] Pepsi, Boeing,[24] Sony,[39] Electronic Arts,[40] SCO Group,[38] Myspace,[24] Pfizer,[34] Raytheon,[34] DuPont,[41] the Church of Scientology,[24][25] the World Harvest Church,[35] Amnesty International,[24] the Discovery Channel,[24] Fox News,[23][42] CBS, The Washington Post, the National Rifle Association of America,[24] News International,[24] Al Jazeera,[34] Bob Jones University,[34] and Ohio State University.
[21] Wikipedia spokespersons received WikiScanner positively, noting that it helped prevent conflicts of interest from influencing articles[22] as well as increasing transparency[21] and mitigating attempts to remove or distort relevant facts.
[45] In December 2011, blogger Tim Ireland, The Independent, and the British Bureau of Investigative Journalism (BIJ) discovered that Bell Pottinger, one of the UK's largest public relations companies, had manipulated articles on behalf of its clients.
[46] Undercover BIJ reporters made inquiries while posing as members of the Uzbek government; Bell Pottinger told them that the company offered "sorting" of negative information and criticism on Wikipedia articles, as well as other "dark arts".
He said, "You can destroy someone's reputation in one minute and it will take years to rebuild," and continued: "It's important for Wikipedia to recognise we are a valuable source for accurate information," and "apparently if you are not-for-profit what you say is true but that if you are a paid-for advocate you are lying.
"[50] In 2016, Bell Pottinger staff were reported to have edited Wikipedia articles relating to South African individuals and companies, while the agency was working for the Gupta family.
[57] In January 2012, British MP Tom Watson discovered that Portland Communications had been removing the nickname of one of its clients' products ("Wife Beater", referring to Anheuser-Busch InBev's Stella Artois beer) from Wikipedia.
[58] Portland Communications welcomed CIPR's subsequent announcement of a collaboration with Wikipedia and invited Jimmy Wales to speak to their company, as he did at Bell Pottinger.
[64] Jimmy Wales commented, "It is wildly inappropriate for a board member of a chapter, or anyone else in an official role of any kind in a charity associated with Wikipedia, to take payment from customers in exchange for securing favorable placement on the front page of Wikimedia or anywhere else.
"[70] Jimmy Wales was quoted in Salon.com, saying "I think that accusing [BP employee] Arturo of 'skirting' Wikipedia's rules in this case is fairly ludicrous – unless 'skirting' means 'going above and beyond what is required in order to be very clearly in compliance with best practice.'
Wikipedia editors traced the edits and sockpuppetry back to a firm known as Wiki-PR, leading to a cease and desist letter by Sue Gardner issued to the founders of the organization.
At a December 2015 Peking Duk show in Melbourne, a fan named David Spargo accessed the backstage area by editing the band's Wikipedia article page and inserting himself as a family member.
The band reacted positively to this scheme, with member Adam Hyde stating: "He explained to us his amazing tactic to get past security to hang with us and we immediately cracked him a beer.
An unnamed Wikipedian stated that "undisclosed paid advocacy editing may represent a serious conflict of interest and could compromise the quality of content on Wikipedia.
[88] The Wikimedia Foundation condemned the stunt, stating in a press release: "When The North Face exploits the trust you have in Wikipedia to sell you more clothes, you should be angry.
"[93] The campaign was described as "wildly misguided" and as having "egregiously violated just about every principle you can think about with respect to trying to maintain consumer trust" by Americus Reed, a professor of marketing at the University of Pennsylvania in an interview to The New York Times.
[99] In August that year, the communications director for Idaho's Department of Education, Melissa McGrath, edited the article on her boss, Tom Luna.
[102][103] In November 2012, Finsbury, the firm led by Roland Rudd, was found to have anonymously edited the article about Alisher Usmanov, removing information about various controversies.
[105][106][107] In June 2014, The Wall Street Journal reported that Banc de Binary, which had been cited for unregistered options trading by US regulators, posted an advertisement on a freelancing bulletin board "offering more than $10,000 for 'crisis management'" of its Wikipedia page.
[112] In December 2019, The Wall Street Journal reported on paid conflict-of-interest editing by the reputation management company Status Labs regarding several of their clients, including former Bank of America executive Omeed Malik and the health technology corporation Theranos.
[125][126] Phil Gomes, senior vice-president of a PR firm named Edelman Digital, created a Facebook group called "Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement" (CREWE) in January 2012.
[129] In an open letter to Wales, Gomes argued that Wikipedia's prominence as a top search result adds a level of responsibility to be accurate.
He further argued that allowing PR representatives to fix minor errors such as spelling, grammar, and facts leaves too much ambiguity about what are acceptable changes to make.
[131] In January 2012, Gerard Corbett, head of the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA), said "We believe there is a case to be made for PR professionals to responsibly edit client Wikipedia entries in an ethical and transparent manner."
[134] PR professional David King recommended "collaborating with nothing to hide," emphasizing transparency and the importance of not editing articles directly.
