BEUTLER ENTERPRISES, INC v. RUFF et al

[tarantino]

We totally missed this at the time. Paid editor William Beutler (T-C-L), DBA Beutler INK, and known on wikipedia as WWB (T-C-L) and WWB_Too (T-C-L), sued his former employees Rhiannon Ruff, Jennifer M. Karn , Sheri Cook-Sandve, and Andrew Burnett in 2022. He accused them of attempting a hostile takeover, and when that failed, he said they started a competing business, Lumino Digital, and poached his customers. The lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice in 2023.

Rhiannon Ruff is 16912_Rhiannon (T-C-L) and Grisette (T-C-L). She has a new ebook out, Wikipedia & Crisis Communications. She's also on substack and linkedin.

Dear Wikify: Can I email Wikipedia to fix my article?

PDF of the original law suit.

[TheSpacebook]

Such an odd business practice to edit all on the same account. Are people not incredibly embarrassed by the fact the edit history for the article about them is full of paid editor accounts?
One slow-news day away from some journalist picking up on this fact.

[TheSpacebook]

Citrix Workspace App (T-H-L) is such a deplorable article. The only reliable source is TechCrunch, but they may have also paid for that too!
Surprised there isn’t more of a push to AfD this type of advertisement crap out of the encyclopedia.
I didn’t even realise paid editing was allowed until now. I thought they could only be paid to take stuff to the backend noticeboards, not actually edit the articles.

Oh wait, they haven’t actually edited the article. Lol. Nvm…

[TheSpacebook]

This is the most embarrassing piece of text I have ever read on Wikipedia. Paying someone to beg to be added to the List of people from Nebraska (T-H-L), something that would get done naturally by another editor, no?

[TheSpacebook]

BEL, doing business as Beutler Ink, was a pioneer in maximizing a brand's digital presence using open source communications platforms, a highly specialized form of public relations.

Why is the entire document written in prose? “Open source communication platforms”? Embellishments like this always end up being so embarrassing when they eventually find out it’s just Wikipedia. Any company that lists one of its services as "reputation management" should be exiled entirely. There’s no way this can ever be neutral.

[Yngvadottir]

BEL, doing business as Beutler Ink, was a pioneer in maximizing a brand's digital presence using open source communications platforms, a highly specialized form of public relations.

Why is the entire document written in prose?

The substance aside ... would you expect it to be written in iambic hexameters or fornyrðislag? I think you mean "bizspeak", in which case, kinda duh?!

[Midsize Jake]

Are people not incredibly embarrassed by the fact the edit history for the article about them is full of paid editor accounts?

No. The only people who look at edit histories are Wikipedians, and there aren't enough of them to compel anyone to make even the teensy-tiniest little alteration in their marketing strategy. Everyone else either doesn't care, or would simply assume that paid editing is just part of WP's standard operating procedure.

One slow-news day away from some journalist picking up on this fact.

See, now this is why I believe you when you tell us you're new to all this.

[Kraken]

A journalist would be far more interested in why there is always much sound and fury within Wikipedia circles about the Foundation profiting off the backs of the saintly volunteers, but little fuss about the existence of outfits like Lumino doing it. One is a necessary evil now forking is impossible. The other is entirely unnecessary and indeed wholly damaging to the mission. So it's curious to say the least.

[TheSpacebook]

One slow-news day away from some journalist picking up on this fact.

See, now this is why I believe you when you tell us you're new to all this.

Are you sure about that? Or perhaps I understand what would get clicks, or well versed in understanding the media tactics that are used to covertly attack people. The headline "People who have paid to get their Wikipedia article edited” would certainly get clicks. With the article breaking down what was suggested to be added, and what negative information was not in the edit request.

The dominance that Wikipedia has in both the tech space and the Information Age sets itself up to only enter mainstream media to be criticised. This is evident. Wikipedia Editor Says They Were Paid To Change Vivek Ramaswamy’s Page, for example. Or the recent anti-Israel bias report. If you go onto any article Talk page and see the "This article has been mentioned by a news organization" banner, it mostly links to the media criticising the article, or the editorial practices of Wikipedia.

[TheSpacebook]

BEL, doing business as Beutler Ink, was a pioneer in maximizing a brand's digital presence using open source communications platforms, a highly specialized form of public relations.

Why is the entire document written in prose?

The substance aside ... would you expect it to be written in iambic hexameters or fornyrðislag? I think you mean "bizspeak", in which case, kinda duh?!

Bizspeak and overly technical language aren’t appropriate for a legal document, because the people reading it may not be well-versed in it. It could come across as deceptive, and the people judging the case may feel deceived when they find out bizspeak was embedded. All the legal jargon is okay, as they would know what it all means. “Our services include monitoring the online presence of our clients, including suggesting amendments to Wikipedia articles which relate to them” would suffice.

I liken this to when social media companies are taken to congress and all the legal people, with no technical expertise, have no idea what’s going on.

Does TikTok have access to the home wifi network?

[rnu]

[...]
The headline "People who have paid to get their Wikipedia article edited” would certainly get clicks. With the article breaking down what was suggested to be added, and what negative information was not in the edit request.
[...]

I think it probably would have to be "Celebrities"/"Politicians"/"Sports stars" or something like that to really get clicks. And of course "You won't believe number 8".

[TheSpacebook]

I think it probably would have to be "Celebrities"/"Politicians"/"Sports stars" or something like that to really get clicks. And of course "You won't believe number 8".

Labour MP Kate Osamor ‘BLACKLISTED by Wikipedia for repeatedly editing her own page’ reads:

The politician, who quit yesterday after a string of embarrassing scandals including an accusation against her of misleading the public by keeping her drug dealer son in a £50,000 job with the party, has been banned by the online encyclopaedia, according to reports. Ms Osamor kept editing her own profile to try and remove references she plagiarised former US president Barack Obama’s acceptance speech when she was caught red handed copying it word-for-word when she was re-elected

Wikipedia even made sure to include her on WP:WWA (T-H-L)! I've checked and there's absolutely no way to confirm it's her, and not just someone using her name in their username to try and embarrass her. Possibly even the newspaper did it themselves? However, the final edit summary would never have been taken well by the self-assertive editors that blocked the account

I vehemently oppose the line that I plagiarised a speech. I paid homage to Barak Obama. I did not at any time in my speech say that I was the originator. If I see it added again I will have no choice but to sue the editor and the platform that allowed it to be posted