The Signpost

Disinformation report

Sus socks support suits, seems systemic

Think twice before giving this "man" your money.
Related articles
Does Wikipedia pay?

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

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


More articles

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


Risk class Country Bank Total blocked or
banned
COI, UPE, or
checkuser blocked editors
Other blocked socks Selected socks Selected sock farms
4  US JP Morgan Chase 84 11 20 Anandmoorti
Cyberfan195
Kkm010
LivinRealGüd
JayJasper
MP1440
Rock5410
VentureKit
3  US Bank of America 125 21 28 Anandmoorti
Coffeedrinker115
Cyberfan195
LivinRealGüd
WikiDon
JayJasper
MP1440
VentureKit
Wikiwriter700
Yoodaba
3  US Citigroup 88 12 28 Anandmoorti
Coffeedrinker115
Cyberfan195
Kkm010
Pig de Wig
JayJasper
MP1440
Rock5410
VentureKit
Wikiwriter700
3  UK HSBC 72 12 21 Anandmoorti
Coffeedrinker115
Kkm010
WikiDon
GoldDragon
JayJasper
VentureKit
Yoodaba
2  CHN Bank of China 32 2 11 Kkm010
Russavia
Yoodaba
2  UK Barclays 63 7 9 Coffeedrinker115
Cyberfan195
Kkm010
Rock5410
2  FRA BNP Paribas 38 8 9 Avaya1
Cyberfan195
Kkm010
JayJasper
Yoodaba
2  DEU Deutsche Bank 65 21 17 Cyberfan195
CLCStudent
Kkm010
LivinRealGüd
Excel23
MP1440
VentureKit
Wikiwriter700
Yoodaba
2  US Goldman Sachs 108 28 27 Cyberfan195
CLCStudent
Glaewnis
Kkm010
LivinRealGüd
Russavia
AlexLevyOne
JayJasper
MP1440
VentureKit
Wikiwriter700
Yoodaba
2  CHN Industrial and Commercial Bank of China 27 3 10 Cyberfan195
Kkm010
Russavia
Yoodaba
2  JPN Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group 16 1 2 Cyberfan195
Kkm010
1  CHN Agricultural Bank of China 26 1 11 Cyberfan195
Kkm010
Russavia
1  US BNY Mellon 20 5 3 Cyberfan195
Kkm010
JayJasper
1  CHN China Construction Bank 19 0 6 Cyberfan195
Kkm010
JayJasper
1   CH Credit Suisse 30 6 5 Cyberfan195
Kkm010
LivinRealGüd
MP1440
1  FRA Groupe BPCE 3 0 1 Bitholov
1  FRA Crédit Agricole 13 0 2 Cyberfan195
Kkm010
1  NLD ING 38 4 22 Anandmoorti
Cyberfan195
Kkm010
Rock5410
VentureKit
1  JPN Mizuho Financial Group 17 2 4 Cyberfan195
Kkm010
1  US Morgan Stanley 44 8 12 CLCStudent
Cyberfan195
Kkm010
LivinRealGüd
MP1440
VentureKit
Wikiwriter700
Yoodaba
1  CAN Royal Bank of Canada 28 6 9 Cyberfan195
Eostrix
Torontopedia
GoldDragon
Yoodaba
1  ESP Banco Santander 36 7 10 CLCStudent
Cyberfan195
Kkm010
VentureKit
1  FRA Société Générale 32 6 8 Cyberfan195
Glaewnis
Kkm010
MP1440
1  UK Standard Chartered 31 5 5 Cyberfan195
Kkm010
Rock5410
VentureKit
1  US State Street 20 3 2 Cyberfan195
LivinRealGüd
Pig de Wig
VentureKit
Yoodaba
1  JPN Sumitomo Mitsui 12 3 1 Cyberfan195
1  CAN Toronto-Dominion Bank 32 8 4 Cyberfan195 Excel23
MP1440
1   CH UBS 51 9 10 Cyberfan195
Kkm010
LivinRealGüd
JayJasper
John254
1  ITA UniCredit 14 0 3 Cyberfan195
1  US Wells Fargo 76 11 26 CLCStudent
Cyberfan195
Kkm010
LivinRealGüd
Pig de Wig
Excel23
JayJasper
MP1440
Rock5410
Yoodaba

Conclusions

The table shows a range of sock puppet editing among these articles on systemically important banks. Some banks such as the French banks Groupe BPCE and Crédit Agricole, Italy's UniCredit, and the China Construction Bank show no sock puppeting by the most likely paid editing socks. On the other hand, three banks, America's Goldman Sachs, the Bank of America, and Germany's Deutsche Bank, have had over 20 socks of this type editing their articles. In general, with some exceptions, American banks have had the most edits by the most likely paid editing socks. Chinese and Japanese banks, along with the above French and Italian banks have the fewest socks of this type editing the articles about them. The two Swiss banks in the news, Credit Suisse and UBS, are in the broad middle ground with only six and nine socks of this type editing the articles about them.

The articles on banks in the highest two risk classes tend to have higher indications of socking than other classes and the articles about the lowest risk class have the lowest indications of socking, with the possible exception of Wells Fargo.

The seventh column shows a selected group of editors who have edited the articles and been blocked for socking. Glaewnis – whose block summary reads "UPE – appeal is only to the Arbitration Committee" has edited two of these articles. Kkm010 who edited several articles on the Adani group, edited at least 23 of these articles. Several other now blocked socks edited multiple articles in this list.

Perhaps the most interesting column in the table is the final one showing the sock farms who edited multiple articles. The Yoodaba sock farm edited at least 11 of these articles. They are known for editing business articles, especially finance articles, as well as political articles. The JayJasper and VentureKit sock farms edited almost as many.

We remind our readers that no examination based purely on Wikipedia's edit history can prove or disprove whether an editor has been paid to edit articles. Nevertheless, we can say that we have little or no reason to suspect those twelve banks which have fewer than five editors listed in column 5 of paying for Wikipedia editing. Similarly, we might say that the three banks with more than twenty editors listed in column 5 are the most likely among these thirty banks to have paid for Wikipedia editing.

None of this evidence can be taken as final proof of any rules being broken, but there certainly is some interesting evidence.




S
In this issue
+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

An eye-opening article! Wikipedia is being diddled by big banks -- and likely other big other things. In one sense it's a compliment to the importance of Wikipedia that big banks would go to such trouble to burnish their articles. Smallchief (talk)

Thanks Smallchief. Yes, big corporations in general, and others, have gotten the idea that they can burnish their reputations on Wikipedia - and what's wrong with taking advantage of free advertising? they might say. Well, where to start ...? Actually though, I was a bit surprised that there wasn't more strong evidence here on paid editing and I think I need to do more articles of this type to figure where the biggest part of the paid editing problem lies. Big banks do have a fairly bad reputation in general throughout society, especially during economic downturns. But the companies in this list are highly regulated and know that they will be put under the microscope every so often. Or maybe the method - just looking how often there's been socking in the articles about them in the past that's been caught - isn't all that powerful. Well, the only way to tell what's going on is to continue looking.
One problem at looking at a "whole sector" is that it takes lots of time. In the past I've looked at a couple of individuals, or one company at a time. That gives me time to examine many individual edits, check each sockpuppet investigation, etc. With 30 companies, that's just too time consuming the way I'm working on it now. But I do plan on looking at other sectors (over time). If anybody wants to tell me what type of company, or what type of articles, they think are the most socked, please let me know and I'll take a look. This article could have used some comparison companies. The best comparisons that are already available are 2 articles I've done of 8-9 "companies" each: Russian oligarchs and the Adani Group's owners and subsidiaries. Something broader (more normal?) than that is needed. Please let me know if you have any suggestions, e.g. auto manufacturers, retail stores, food processors. Any help appreciated. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One industry that might prove problematic would be technology. On one hand, there are doubtlessly cases of paid editors burnishing the reputation of given companies. (Twitter would be a prime example.) On the other, there are likewise doubtlessly cases of employees altruistically adding information to their products. I'll admit that around 15 years ago I helped one employer to craft an article on one of their products, but once it was posted I had little to nothing further to do with it. (I had a peek at it a few years back to see how it had changed.) Does that make me a sock puppet for that company? I hope not, especially as I'm as likely to add unfavorable information about that company & its products as favorable. And because I'm far more likely to edit articles on subjects unrelated to what I do for a living than to repeat that exercise. -- llywrch (talk) 20:31, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]





       

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