The Signpost

News and notes

2019 Picture of the Year, 200 French paid editing accounts blocked, 10 years of Guild Copyediting

Contribute  —  
Share this
By Smallbones, Bri, Sdkb, Puddleglum2.0, Lane Rasberry, WereSpielChequers
"Pacu jawi" (bull racing), Picture of the Year 2019, by Rodney Ee

Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year 2019

2nd place, Notre-Dame de Paris fire by User:LEVRIER Guillaume
3rd place, girl in Kurdistan dressed to celebrate Nowruz by Salar Arkan سالار ارکان

Commons announced the results of the 2019 Picture of the Year contest. Congratulations to all winners and thanks to everyone who participated by submitting images to Wikimedia Commons, by evaluating Featured Picture Candidates throughout the year, and by voting in the selection process.

French Wikipedia catches undisclosed paid editing firms by posing as customers

Related articles
Paid Advocacy

How paid editors squeeze you dry
31 January 2024

"Wikipedia and the assault on history"
4 December 2023

The "largest con in corporate history"?
20 February 2023

Truth or consequences? A tough month for truth
31 August 2022

The oligarchs' socks
27 March 2022


More articles

Fuzzy-headed government editing
30 January 2022

Denial: climate change, mass killings and pornography
29 November 2021

Paid promotional paragraphs in German parliamentary pages
26 September 2021

Enough time left to vote! IP ban
29 August 2021

Paid editing by a former head of state's business enterprise
25 April 2021

A "billionaire battle" on Wikipedia: Sex, lies, and video
28 February 2021

Concealment, data journalism, a non-pig farmer, and some Bluetick Hounds
28 December 2020

How billionaires rewrite Wikipedia
29 November 2020

Ban on IPs on ptwiki, paid editing for Tatarstan, IP masking
1 November 2020

Paid editing with political connections
27 September 2020

WIPO, Seigenthaler incident 15 years later
27 September 2020

Wikipedia for promotional purposes?
30 August 2020

Dog days gone bad
2 August 2020

Fox News, a flight of RfAs, and banning policy
2 August 2020

Some strange people edit Wikipedia for money
2 August 2020

Trying to find COI or paid editors? Just read the news
28 June 2020

Automatic detection of covert paid editing; Wiki Workshop 2020
31 May 2020

2019 Picture of the Year, 200 French paid editing accounts blocked, 10 years of Guild Copyediting
31 May 2020

English Wikipedia community's conclusions on talk pages
30 April 2019

Women's history month
31 March 2019

Court-ordered article redaction, paid editing, and rock stars
1 December 2018

Kalanick's nipples; Episode #138 of Drama on the Hill
23 June 2017

Massive paid editing network unearthed on the English Wikipedia
2 September 2015

Orangemoody sockpuppet case sparks widespread coverage
2 September 2015

Paid editing; traffic drop; Nicki Minaj
12 August 2015

Community voices on paid editing
12 August 2015

On paid editing and advocacy: when the Bright Line fails to shine, and what we can do about it
15 July 2015

Turkish Wikipedia censorship; "Can Wikipedia survive?"; PR editing
24 June 2015

A quick way of becoming an admin
17 June 2015

Meet a paid editor
4 March 2015

Is Wikipedia for sale?
4 February 2015

Shifting values in the paid content debate; cross-language bot detection
30 July 2014

With paid advocacy in its sights, the Wikimedia Foundation amends their terms of use
18 June 2014

Does Wikipedia Pay? The Moderator: William Beutler
11 June 2014

PR agencies commit to ethical interactions with Wikipedia
11 June 2014

Should Wikimedia modify its terms of use to require disclosure?
26 February 2014

Foundation takes aim at undisclosed paid editing; Greek Wikipedia editor faces down legal challenge
19 February 2014

Special report: Contesting contests
29 January 2014

WMF employee forced out over "paid advocacy editing"
8 January 2014

Foundation to Wiki-PR: cease and desist; Arbitration Committee elections starting
20 November 2013

More discussion of paid advocacy, upcoming arbitrator elections, research hackathon, and more
23 October 2013

Vice on Wiki-PR's paid advocacy; Featured list elections begin
16 October 2013

Ada Lovelace Day, paid advocacy on Wikipedia, sidebar update, and more
16 October 2013

Wiki-PR's extensive network of clandestine paid advocacy exposed
9 October 2013

Q&A on Public Relations and Wikipedia
25 September 2013

PR firm accused of editing Wikipedia for government clients; can Wikipedia predict the stock market?
13 May 2013

Court ruling complicates the paid-editing debate
12 November 2012

Does Wikipedia Pay? The Founder: Jimmy Wales
1 October 2012

Does Wikipedia pay? The skeptic: Orange Mike
23 July 2012

Does Wikipedia Pay? The Communicator: Phil Gomes
7 May 2012

Does Wikipedia Pay? The Consultant: Pete Forsyth
30 April 2012

Showdown as featured article writer openly solicits commercial opportunities
30 April 2012

Does Wikipedia Pay? The Facilitator: Silver seren
16 April 2012

Wikimedia announcements, Wikipedia advertising, and more!
26 April 2010

License update, Google Translate, GLAM conference, Paid editing
15 June 2009

Report of diploma mill offering pay for edits
12 March 2007

AstroTurf PR firm discovered astroturfing
5 February 2007

Account used to create paid corporate entries shut down
9 October 2006

Editing for hire leads to intervention
14 August 2006

Proposal to pay editors for contributions
24 April 2006

German Wikipedia introduces incentive scheme
18 July 2005

French Wikipedians announced on May 27 that they had shut down more than 200 accounts that had conducted undisclosed paid editing. Eighty of these accounts are believed to belong to several French language PR firms who specialize in Wikipedia editing. Most of these firms have also been blocked on the English-language Wikipedia. The remaining 120 accounts are likely single-purpose accounts working at company PR departments, which only wish to edit the articles about their own firm.

They were caught after two French admins posed as customers and asked for examples of past work. In an interview with The Signpost admin Jules* said "We have uncovered dozens of undeclared paid accounts, abuse of sockpuppets, patent lies, promotional additions (often relatively subtle), ballot box stuffing in Pages to delete, etc." They had collectively made around 19,000 edits.

Jules* did not believe that contacting the firms directly without fully disclosing their intentions was an issue since they did not impersonate anybody and the firms they were investigating purposely broke Wikipedia's rules by sockpuppeting and refusing to declare their paid status on-Wiki.

The French investigation was first reported on the English Wikipedia on the COI noticeboard by Bri based on a tip to The Signpost and was soon acted upon by MER-C, an administrator with a long-term interest in combatting undeclared paid editing. He soon blocked 85 accounts on the English Wikipedia, 41 of which had made an edit here. Many of the edits were to pages for French companies, such as Air Liquide and Ardian.

In 2018 French Wikipedians started a semi-annual event called "Mois anti-pub" (Anti-advertising month) to neutralize promotional pages. The same year they started the Wikiproject Antipub to fight the use of Wikipedia as an advertising tool.

They have since found undeclared paid edits (UPEs) on French Wikipedia (see Par le passé), "but this month was the first time we found paid edits on this scale. It's a bit like our own Wiki-PR scandal" according to Jules*.

In early April this year the two French admins, Jules* and 0x010C, decided to contact "e-reputation agencies" posing as potential customers interested in creating a Wikipedia page for a real company where one of the admins worked. When they asked for a price estimate, they also asked for examples of the paid-editing firm's previous work.

Jules* stated that "Using those examples, I started researching the page histories of the clients reported by the agencies. I spent dozens of hours and found many accounts, used by several agencies, including agencies we had contacted and agencies we had not contacted. Almost all of these accounts had not disclosed their paid editing and many of them also used several sockpuppets."

He said that the paid-editing firms know Wikipedia's rules in detail, as well as ways to avoid following the rules without attracting attention. "For example, one agency said to us it was not possible to remove well-sourced negative content because 'moderators' would just revert the removal. Instead they proposed 'hiding' the negative content inside newly added positive content." Some paid editing companies, though, did try to remove well-sourced content.

Jules* and 0x010C published their work on May 27th at the French sysop noticeboard, with detailed results in the subpage. The subpage shows that the same editors edited English Wikipedia as well, as seen in the "crosswiki" column. The French community is now reviewing the paid content here.

The French newspaper of record Le Monde covered the scandal, and spoke with François Jeanne-Beylot, founder of the PR companies Inmediatic and Troover, who had his accounts blocked following the investigation. He offered (in French) a strained defense of his work, arguing that his firm was only training companies to contribute, and that the contributions were therefore not paid.

"I find it brutal to suspend accounts without trying to understand our approach", he said in French. "It is difficult to convince Wikipedia administrators that companies also have their place".

MER-C, for his part, was not surprised by the announcement. This "may jolt the French, but we've seen a lot worse" at English Wikipedia, he said. He is waiting for more developments from the French Wikipedia, though he hasn't as yet had contact with French admins. He wants to establish "a cross-wiki version of COIN as a paid-editing noticeboard. Cross-wiki UPE is becoming increasingly problematic and the approach taken to counter it is very piecemeal."

Guild of Copy Editors Drive

The May GOCE copy editing drive ended today, marking ten years of GOCE drives. Their backlog reached zero – the previous drive reduced the backlog by 75%, with this one reducing it a further 209 articles to end at 156 articles, all of which were tagged during May. To learn more about the GOCE's work, you can read last month's Wikiproject Report.

While this drive has not been particularly different from most others in terms of copyedited articles, it has seen many new members helping out – this month saw an large influx of new members and new users participating. The result of of this was double-sided – on the one hand, many new editors are learning the ropes of copyediting, which in the long run will lead to better progress and performance, but in the short run leads to more experienced copyeditors checking the newer work instead of copyediting articles themselves. The Guild is conducting their twice yearly coordinator elections this June – all editors in good standing are welcome to participate, voting starts mid-month. Another Guild event beginning mid-June is a week-long copyediting blitz, focused mainly on reducing the increasingly large number of articles on the Requests page. -- P2

Brief notes

RfA candidacies by year, 2007 to present
S
In this issue
+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

Editing back at 2010 levels

Catching undisclosed paid editors

Posing as customers is also occasionally considered here. I suspect we'd want a degree of community backing before we sent any admins down that route, probably with BCCs to a dedicated arb email (who'd also have a link between any pseudonyms and usernames used), to provide at least a minimum oversight in what could be inflammatory in event of certain mistakes (I should note, community agreement would be wise, if not critical, before going down that road in any organised fashion). Nosebagbear (talk)
It was great that Merc suggested the cross-wiki anti PAIDCOI setup - I realise I couldn't really be involved in helping it, but I was thinking the same thing as I read it, so it'd be great to see. A meta paid-editing discussion, to get some more ideas cross-wiki is probably due, given the time since the last one. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm more worried about rogue behaviour than rouge behaviour, and this looks like a classic example of WP:Rouge Admins catching rogues. I suspect one problem will come if we catch otherwise legit members of the community. I remember with WP:NEWT, some members of the community strongly believed that "mystery shopping" is unethical. I'm not sure why, perhaps there are parts of the world where it is deprecated. However I would caution against using your real life employer as the shopper. apparently one of the French admins did that, and hopefully they got their employer's agreement to do so. Most of the places where I have worked in my life would take a very dim view of one of their employees using the company name in that way. That said there is a great role here for chapters, shell companies are cheap. ϢereSpielChequers 11:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We should definitely have a discussion about "posing" here. My first reaction to hearing about this story was "of course they caught real paid editors - this is such an obvious way of doing it - but the (the admins) would have been punished on enWiki for about 5 violations." None of what I say below is criticizm of the French admins - I see no evidence that they violated frWiki rules. The moral case for the use of "posing" by the frWiki admins is clear: there were people systematically violating Wiki rules by lying and other deception to mislead readers, essentially stealing adverts from a non-profit.
If doing this on enWiki the rules likely to be interpreted as being violated might be included under WP:Harassment, "outing" for when they posted the results, "investigating fellow wikipedians " (yes that in there), not assuming good faith, deceiving fellow Wikipedians (battleground behavior). None of these make any sense to me under these conditions, but I'd expect some of this would come up here.
I wouldn't recommend getting these "posing parties" pre-approved by any official groups - they'd likely be afraid of being banned themselves and would never approve. We can compare similar cases in the real world where the technique is used. In law enforcement undercover operation are used, but in most cases I believe they preapproved by courts - something like a warrant to prevent abuses. Under US "Cannons of Journalism" undercover reporting is allowed but only as a last resort - if there is an important story that can't be otherwise covered. Strict editorial supervision is required. There are other cases like the NAACP sending around people posing as renters - a black couple, and a white couple - to see if there is discrimination. There's no law against such "deception" as far as I know. I'll leave it there for now, but would love to hear reactions. Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The rules there are all pretty big ones. I don't think arbs would be concerned about being blocked if en-wiki said "yes, you can do this for a duration of one year, all with prior arbcom authorisation and oversight, with reporting to take y form, with duty to ensure local legal compliance left to the users (as always)". Whether the community were willing to agree to that, I don't know, but I know some people who really, REALLY, would like to see more action taken against paidcois and this is a viable route. I suppose there's the tough bit where you have to let (non-egregious) damage sit on some pages for some considerable amount of time to avoid giving the game away too early. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This might work against some of the small-fry paid editing firms on enWiki, but if we had to run an RfC, everybody would be warned against it. Getting Arbs to secretly say they preapprove this - well I just can't imagine that happening. If any admins want to do it as a story for The Signpost, please submit a proposal - and if I approve it - you'll definitely get strong editorial supervision - but please be aware that there's a chance that everybody involved, including me, would get a lot of grief and might even be banned. I'd need a strong moral case, and a clear understanding of why the admins think it's not against enWiki rules. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Woah, how did I never notice before that it's spelled "rouge"; that's amazing haha!
On a more serious note, everyone in this thread needs to go read Wikipedia:The one question (or WP:IAR, if you prefer) — the rules exist for a variety of reasons, but themselves is not one of them. There are potential downsides, absolutely, but those should be discussed on their own merits. And in light of the urgent problem this innovative tactic could help address, I think there would be significant support for it if done cautiously. Even if the company catches on, it would still have the effect of deterring them from sending examples of past work to clients, and if that in turn deters real customers, that's a plus for us. And if they don't catch on, it could yield not just sockpuppets, but evidence that a civil court might admit if the WMF ever files against them for breaching Wikipedia's Terms of Use. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 18:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]





       

The Signpost · written by many · served by Sinepost V0.9 · 🄯 CC-BY-SA 4.0