German Wikipedia

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Fri Nov 09, 2012 2:36 am

As the German Signpost ("Kurier") reports, a German court has found that companies' editing Wikipedia with a conflict of interest is an illegal form of advertising.

According to German law, advertising must always be recognisable as such to the consumer. Actions performed in the pursuit of one's business that serve advertising purposes, but disguise their character, are therefore illegal.

The case was taken to court when a competitor pointed out that a company had made edits relating to their products. Although they had declared their conflict of interest on the talk page, their editing the article was still considered illegal advertising, as the average reader would not check the talk page.

According to the Kurier discussion page, the German law the decision is based on is only the national implementation of a European law, which would also apply in the UK.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Fri Nov 09, 2012 2:54 am

The European Directive in question is apparently the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (T-H-L), which is indeed implemented EU-wide.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Fri Nov 09, 2012 4:18 am

Don't suppose you know a solicitor who'd be willing to sue WMUK under this law?.......

dogbiscuit · Unread post by **dogbiscuit** » Fri Nov 09, 2012 8:20 am

I'd suggest that a strict interpretation of this would even make talk page editing unlawful if the end result was that they succeeded in getting content into the article (or even the talk page) that could be viewed as promotional that was not clearly identified as being driven by the company.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Fri Nov 09, 2012 9:05 am

dogbiscuit wrote:I'd suggest that a strict interpretation of this would even make talk page editing unlawful if the end result was that they succeeded in getting content into the article (or even the talk page) that could be viewed as promotional that was not clearly identified as being driven by the company.

They're in quite a flap over this in the German Wikipedia. It might be grist to Jimbo's mill of the "bright line".

The UK does have a parallel regulation to the German one, based on the same EU Directive: The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. These list the following in Schedule 1, under "Commercial practices which are in all circumstances considered unfair":

11. Using editorial content in the media to promote a product where a trader has paid for the promotion without making that clear in the content or by images or sounds clearly identifiable by the consumer (advertorial).

22. Falsely claiming or creating the impression that the trader is not acting for purposes relating to his trade, business, craft or profession, or falsely representing oneself as a consumer.

In the German court case, a manufacturer of incense who had mentioned their own products in a Wikipedia article was taken to court by a competitor, and found guilty of unfair advertising. This was so despite the fact that their editor had declared their conflict of interest on the article's talk page. The court ruled that as the average reader would not consult the talk page, and Wikipedia promoted the idea that it was written from a neutral point of view, giving an impartial and unbiased account, the unfair trading regulation was breached. Basically, just by having a staff member edit the article to include a mention of their own product, and a claim that a competitor product was not (or not legally) available in Germany, they had violated the EU Directive.

Given this judgment, the Kurier article concludes that any company that edits a Wikipedia article related to itself ipso facto falls foul of the European unfair trading regulations, and exposes itself to the risk of competitors' lawsuits and liability for damage claims.

dogbiscuit · Unread post by **dogbiscuit** » Fri Nov 09, 2012 9:25 am

Yes, that German discussion seems to be going in two directions:

1) Are there features and rules you can put in to Wikipedia to allow the consumer to identify conflicted edits (e.g. Advertorial tag)

2) Who gives a shit, it is not Wikipedia's problem.

To be honest, I'd side with (2) - it isn't Wikipedia's problem, but it could conceivably be an editor's problem. If an editor puts an advertorial in place on behalf of a company, acting as a proxy, have they entangled themselves into a legal liability? When you look at GibraltarpediA where there are demonstrable links between the organisations using Wikipedia for promotion and the editors like Prioryman, then I'd say that the judge would laugh them out of court if they claimed there was sufficient indirection.

Where GibraltarpediA becomes a problem for the WMF is that the issue has been widely raised, WMUK is embroiled in it, and the promotion has continued in plain sight. If someone decided to go legal, those people might at least be exposed to a significant legal bill in avoiding getting a judgement against them.

What becomes a bigger mess is that Wikipedia has been polluted with unlawful content. If a COI editor is identified, do Wikipedians have a duty to expunge their edits, as now we can see that they are viewed by the law as not "Neutral Point of View". Does it mean that anything Greg might have done for a European company through his socks is unlawful?

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Fri Nov 09, 2012 1:17 pm

dogbiscuit wrote:Does it mean that anything Greg might have done for a European company through his socks is unlawful?

In Europe, quite probably. Thing is, if my socks are very difficult to tie back to the buyer, it's sort of like going 10 mph over the speed limit on a lonely country highway at 2:00 AM on a Tuesday. Nobody's going to prosecute you for it, because nobody's going to detect it.

Sadly, only two things will come of this in Europe. Paid and COI editing will either cease or will just abandon any process of disclosure. Probably more often the latter.

Gigs · Unread post by **Gigs** » Fri Nov 09, 2012 9:51 pm

The FTC has similar regulations in the US.http://ftc.gov/os/2009/10/091005endorse ... notice.pdf

I've asked the head WMF counsel to comment on whether our COI guideline of "encouraged disclosure" goes far enough to protect Wikipedia from potential liability. I think it's a pretty strong argument for required disclosure of commercial COI at a minimum.

In the German case there was even talk page disclosure that the court ruled wasn't prominent enough. I don't think we want to go that far, but right now our COI guideline doesn't require anything at all.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Fri Nov 09, 2012 10:34 pm

Gigs wrote:The FTC has similar regulations in the US.http://ftc.gov/os/2009/10/091005endorse ... notice.pdf

I've asked the head WMF counsel to comment on whether our COI guideline of "encouraged disclosure" goes far enough to protect Wikipedia from potential liability. I think it's a pretty strong argument for required disclosure of commercial COI at a minimum.

In the German case there was even talk page disclosure that the court ruled wasn't prominent enough. I don't think we want to go that far, but right now our COI guideline doesn't require anything at all.

Remember, the WMF is never at risk of liability, because of Section 230 safe harbour provisions (see Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (T-H-L). They are like an e-mail service provider – no responsibility for what people write in their e-mails.

The only person ever in the line of fire for potential liability in Wikipedia is the individual contributor, as in the German case.

Geoff is a good chap (much better than Godwin) but he will never be overly interested in this sort of issue, because he is paid to be the Foundation's lawyer, not the community's or individual editor's.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Sat Nov 10, 2012 3:08 pm

Gigs wrote:The FTC has similar regulations in the US. http://ftc.gov/os/2009/10/091005endorse ... notice.pdf

Back in December 2011, I had a conversation with Betsy Lordan at the FTC.

She referred me to the same document published by the FTC, 16 CFR Part 255, "Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising".

Within that document, it reads:

For purposes of this part, an endorsement means any advertising message (including verbal statements, demonstrations, or depictions of the name, signature, likeness or other identifying personal characteristics of an individual or the name or seal of an organization) that consumers are likely to believe reflects the opinions, beliefs, findings, or experiences of a party other than the sponsoring advertiser, even if the views expressed by that party are identical to those of the sponsoring advertiser. The party whose opinions, beliefs, findings, or experience the message appears to reflect will be called the endorser and may be an individual, group, or institution.

If Wikipedia does not allow "advertising messages", and the paid editor refuses to generate "advertising messages" on behalf of the client, then it seems abundantly clear to me that any hand-waving about breaking FTC rules by editing Wikipedia pseudonymously on behalf of a paying client carries little to no weight in the real world. Not yet, anyway.

Lordan went on to explain:

As for your question about Wikipedia -- whether anonymous editors at Wikipedia are at risk of FTC sanction if they modify articles about companies that either employ them or have a financial relationship with them: The FTC does not comment on the business practices of any particular business. However, generally speaking, according to the FTC’s revised Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising, if a person is compensated to provide an endorsement for a product in advertising, and if that financial relationship is not apparent from the context, it should be disclosed.

In fact, in all of the materials Lordan sent me, the closest example I could find as it might relate to Wikipedia was this:

An online message board designated for discussions of new music download technology is frequented by MP3 player enthusiasts. They exchange information about new products, utilities, and the functionality of numerous playback devices. Unbeknownst to the message board community, an employee of a leading playback device manufacturer has been posting messages on the discussion board promoting the manufacturer’s product. Knowledge of this poster’s employment likely would affect the weight or credibility of her endorsement. Therefore, the poster should clearly and conspicuously disclose her relationship to the manufacturer to members and readers of the message board.

Again, I do not see how a typical paid editor of Wikipedia is ever "promoting" a product. They are documenting what reliable, independent sources say about a product.

If anyone wants more information about the FTC's viewpoints, see the following:

News release

Legal Document (The Guides)

Business Education Materials

The Reverb case was announced afterward, in August 2010

Another case against Legacy Learning Systems followed, in March 2011

Until the FTC makes an explicit statement pertaining to Wikipedia, I am wholly convinced that normal paid Wikipedia editing is almost never in any violation of any FTC guidelines.

Gigs · Unread post by **Gigs** » Mon Nov 12, 2012 10:11 pm

thekohser wrote:If Wikipedia does not allow "advertising messages"

That's a big "if". We don't really have any policy clearly against it. Combine that with the recent "marketing partnerships" with Gibraltar and Monmouth, and you have an altogether muddy situation.

As for your question about Wikipedia -- whether anonymous editors at Wikipedia are at risk of FTC sanction if they modify articles about companies that either employ them or have a financial relationship with them: The FTC does not comment on the business practices of any particular business. However, generally speaking, according to the FTC’s revised Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising, if a person is compensated to provide an endorsement for a product in advertising, and if that financial relationship is not apparent from the context, it should be disclosed.

An endorsement using "Wikipedia's voice" could make Wikipedia the endorser. The CDA safe harbor might apply, but there's no precedent for this kind of thing.

Again, I do not see how a typical paid editor of Wikipedia is ever "promoting" a product. They are documenting what reliable, independent sources say about a product.

The typical paid editor? The typical kind are the ones that don't disclose their COI, and work to corrupt our articles in any way possible.

Legal Document (The Guides)

The Guides are all that matter. The blog posts are just media summaries. I agree that FTC action is unlikely, primarily because the FTC is completely toothless. One look at cable TV commercials will tell you that.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Mon Nov 12, 2012 10:55 pm

Gigs wrote:The typical paid editor? The typical kind are the ones that don't disclose their COI, and work to corrupt our articles in any way possible.

And if they get fixed, it's usually only by accident, or because someone raised a stink in the press or with the WMF.

I've seen THOUSANDS of articles like this. Most of them have never been detected. I won't list any, because we are saving them for the book.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 4:35 pm

There's now been an article in Heise (in German).

http://www.heise.de/resale/artikel/Schl ... 61741.html

Mancunium · Unread post by **Mancunium** » Wed Oct 16, 2013 1:32 pm

A fairly-long article on the proposed deletion of the "Humanism" article in the German Wikipedia, published by a humanist online journal.

Wikipedia: „Humanismus“ vor dem Aus?
Er gehört mit zu den ersten Einträgen in der freien Enzyklopädie und könnte doch demnächst Geschichte sein: Für den über elf Jahre alten Eintrag zum „Humanismus“ ist vor kurzem ein Löschantrag gestellt worden. Der Artikel diene nur der Theoriefindung, so die Kritik. Und das würde den Grundprinzipien des populären Netz-Lexikons widersprechen.
Diesseits.de, 16 October 2013 link

Wikipedia: will "humanism" disappear?
It's one of the first entries in the free encyclopedia and it could soon be history: the eleven-year-old WP article on "humanism" has recently been the object of a deletion request. The article contains only original research, say the critics. And that would contradict the basic principles of the popular web encyclopaedia.

Google-translation from German to English link

translation:

Since the delete request was made this past weekend, the article has certainly been changed significantly: it is significantly shorter, and with a modified structure which attempts to respond to widespread criticism. A look at the edit history shows that individual users are currently in a so-called edit war in which they alternately undo the edits of the others. Where the conflict will lead is completely open.

In recent years, content with a reference to humanistic ideas often has a difficult time in the Wikipedian community, as has become increasingly clear. An event that has received wide media coverage, World Humanism Day, was deleted a few days after the event in Hamburg. There are articles on World Humanist Day in the English, Dutch and Norwegian Wikipedias, but the German Wikipedia is strongly opposed to having an article on this long-established international holiday. Even the article on Germany's Humanist Academy disappeared, after several years of existence, in October 2012, although it is the publisher of numerous books on contemporary humanism and hosts regular scientific meetings.

en-wikipedia: Humanism (T-H-L)

de-wikipedia: Humanismus link

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Wed Oct 16, 2013 1:56 pm

Anybody getting the impression that, lately, the "news" is scraping all corners of Wikipedia and finding these little tales that ultimately aren't really "newsworthy"?

Mancunium · Unread post by **Mancunium** » Wed Oct 16, 2013 2:14 pm

thekohser wrote:Anybody getting the impression that, lately, the "news" is scraping all corners of Wikipedia and finding these little tales that ultimately aren't really "newsworthy"?

The German humanism "news" was published by an online journal of German humanism, which is obviously connected to some of the editors of the German WP article.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Wed Oct 16, 2013 11:37 pm

thekohser wrote:Anybody getting the impression that, lately, the "news" is scraping all corners of Wikipedia and finding these little tales that ultimately aren't really "newsworthy"?

Let him scrape. Despite being not very discerning, he is far better than the automated news scraper WR used, which generated tens of thousands of posts that no one ever read.

Cedric · Unread post by **Cedric** » Thu Oct 17, 2013 1:29 am

EricBarbour wrote:
thekohser wrote:Anybody getting the impression that, lately, the "news" is scraping all corners of Wikipedia and finding these little tales that ultimately aren't really "newsworthy"?
Let him scrape. Despite being not very discerning, he is far better than the automated news scraper WR used, which generated tens of thousands of posts that no one ever read.

Quite. I remember merging hundreds of threads as one of the WR mods to try to keep the new posts page more manageable. It was an enormous pain in the ass.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Thu Oct 17, 2013 1:54 am

EricBarbour wrote:
thekohser wrote:Anybody getting the impression that, lately, the "news" is scraping all corners of Wikipedia and finding these little tales that ultimately aren't really "newsworthy"?
Let him scrape. Despite being not very discerning, he is far better than the automated news scraper WR used, which generated tens of thousands of posts that no one ever read.

I wasn't making a comment at all about the scraper (Mancunium). I was commenting about the news-writing profession.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Thu Oct 17, 2013 2:08 am

thekohser wrote:I wasn't making a comment at all about the scraper (Mancunium). I was commenting about the news-writing profession.

Ah, sorry. You might be right, although the media have always done that to some extent. Remember, virtually no one gave a shit about Wikipedia until the Seigenthaler mess happened in September 2005. He was bleeding, so he led. And that was a perfect case of any-publicity-is-good-publicity, weird as it might seem.

Perhaps we ought to rate each story as being pro-WP in tone, neutral, or negative in tone. (Not that it really seems to matter.)

Mancunium · Unread post by **Mancunium** » Thu Oct 17, 2013 2:32 am

thekohser wrote:
EricBarbour wrote:
thekohser wrote:Anybody getting the impression that, lately, the "news" is scraping all corners of Wikipedia and finding these little tales that ultimately aren't really "newsworthy"?
Let him scrape. Despite being not very discerning, he is far better than the automated news scraper WR used, which generated tens of thousands of posts that no one ever read.
I wasn't making a comment at all about the scraper (Mancunium). I was commenting about the news-writing profession.

I do refrain from posting all the professional sports prank-vandalism, and near-duplicate stories.

Today Slate.fr has an outraged article on how French Wikipedia is claiming that a National Front candidate was elected mayor of a city, when he had only been elected a member of a rural council; and a story from a leftist Israeli magazine claiming that the right-wing NGO Monitor "is distributing Hasbara lies about the UN Human Rights Commission, using a Trojan horse inside Wikipedia". I passed on both.

I put the bizarre and humorous stories into the Kafkaesque thread. Today I added an interview with Korn that's part of Loudwire's series 'Wikipedia: Fact or Fiction?'. If there's a category of news I'm aware of, like 'Doctor Wikipedia' and 'WikiWomen', I put new articles in the relevant thread.

Maybe it would be helpful to organize the news & media forum into broad categories.

greyed.out.fields · Unread post by **greyed.out.fields** » Thu Oct 17, 2013 9:14 am

thekohser wrote:
EricBarbour wrote:
thekohser wrote:Anybody getting the impression that, lately, the "news" is scraping all corners of Wikipedia and finding these little tales that ultimately aren't really "newsworthy"?
Let him scrape. Despite being not very discerning, he is far better than the automated news scraper WR used, which generated tens of thousands of posts that no one ever read.
I wasn't making a comment at all about the scraper (Mancunium). I was commenting about the news-writing profession.

Agree. Wikipedia is old news. No self-respecting print (or online) news source would run stories about it these days.

Versus · Unread post by **Versus** » Thu Oct 17, 2013 11:21 am

greyed.out.fields wrote:
thekohser wrote:
EricBarbour wrote:
thekohser wrote:Anybody getting the impression that, lately, the "news" is scraping all corners of Wikipedia and finding these little tales that ultimately aren't really "newsworthy"?
Let him scrape. Despite being not very discerning, he is far better than the automated news scraper WR used, which generated tens of thousands of posts that no one ever read.
I wasn't making a comment at all about the scraper (Mancunium). I was commenting about the news-writing profession.
Agree. Wikipedia is old news. No self-respecting print (or online) news source would run stories about it these days.

And totally useless to wrap your fish & chips in.

Mancunium · Unread post by **Mancunium** » Thu Oct 17, 2013 4:34 pm

Versus wrote:
greyed.out.fields wrote:
thekohser wrote:
EricBarbour wrote:
thekohser wrote:Anybody getting the impression that, lately, the "news" is scraping all corners of Wikipedia and finding these little tales that ultimately aren't really "newsworthy"?
Let him scrape. Despite being not very discerning, he is far better than the automated news scraper WR used, which generated tens of thousands of posts that no one ever read.
I wasn't making a comment at all about the scraper (Mancunium). I was commenting about the news-writing profession.
Agree. Wikipedia is old news. No self-respecting print (or online) news source would run stories about it these days.
And totally useless to wrap your fish & chips in.

A problem is that many journalists are lazybones who find their story ideas online, and do their research in Wikipedia. The following stories were presented today, for the first time, by Google News. But are any of them actually news?

1) Wikipedia Calls Election
WP declares the winner of the 5 November 2013 election for Mayor of New Haven, Connecticut: link

2) El conflicto de UPM es artículo destacado dentro de Wikipedia
Spanish WP edit wars between Argentine and Uruguayan nationalists: link

3) Les biens communs, pour modérer l’élan destructeur du capitalisme
Essay on open source, describing how WP is driving traditional sources of information out of business: link

4) ВТБ Банк представляет официальный канал на YouTube и страницу в Wikipedia
A Ukrainian private bank announces its "official" page in Ukrainian WP: link

5) The end of university campus life
Essay stating that physical universities are being superseded by WP, and that students should teach each other: link

6) Libraries and education go hand in hand
A librarian's diatribe against the pit of ignorance that is WP link

7) The facts about the Internet
A warning against trusting WP and other online sources: link

mac · Unread post by **mac** » Thu Oct 17, 2013 5:47 pm

greyed.out.fields wrote:
thekohser wrote:
EricBarbour wrote:
thekohser wrote:Anybody getting the impression that, lately, the "news" is scraping all corners of Wikipedia and finding these little tales that ultimately aren't really "newsworthy"?
Let him scrape. Despite being not very discerning, he is far better than the automated news scraper WR used, which generated tens of thousands of posts that no one ever read.
I wasn't making a comment at all about the scraper (Mancunium). I was commenting about the news-writing profession.
Agree. Wikipedia is old news. No self-respecting print (or online) news source would run stories about it these days.

I disagree that no self-respecting news source would run stories about Wikipedia these days, although I suspect certain Wikipedians would prefer that the press overlook their site:
List of Wikipedia controversies (T-H-L)

Mancunium · Unread post by **Mancunium** » Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:26 am

OK. This is not news:

Henrik Lundqvist owns the Washington Capitals ... per Wikipedia
CBS News, 17 October 2013 link

This pro sports gag is so tired it is only carried by 144 news sources.

And this dumb story is still all over the "news":

Justin Verlander owns the A's, literally, per their Wikipedia page link

What about this, which contains no news, but uses "Wikipedia" as a synonym for ignorant bloviation:

You cannot be serious, Congressman Wikipedia
Daily Times, 17 October 2013 link

So often, when we hear the outrageous pronouncements of our congressman, summoned from free-fire, no-fact reaches of Internet conspiracy, McEnroe's signature expression springs to mind. So it was Tuesday as western Iowa's most visible ambassador to the outside world appeared on CNN, dismissing widely held concerns about a federal government default. "I'm not worried about this thing they term 'default' because we are going to service our debt, we are going to pay the interest first and we'll roll the principal over," King said in the morning interview. The default, according to King, is a media concoction, a fantasy of the political left.

You can stick with Congressman Wikipedia on that one. Or scout out some reliable sources.

There is a thing now, called a "Wikipedia moment": when a public figure you might have expected to know better (Mitt Romney, Lord Justice Leveson) reveals that he gets his information from Wikipedia.

Also not news:

The Notorious B.I.G. deemed too criminal and fat to have his own street corner
AV Club, 17 October 2013 link

A petition was floated earlier this year to name a street corner after the late rapper The Notorious B.I.G., finally realizing a journey that began back when it was all a dream, when Biggie used to have pictures of Heavy D and steamboat innovator Robert Fulton up on his wall. Alas, Biggie may never join the latter’s illustrious company by having “Christopher Wallace Way” adorn the intersection of Fulton and St. James Place near his childhood home, as DNA Info (via Gawker) reports that Brooklyn Community Board 2 have shot down that motion, on the grounds that he was a criminal, misogynistic, and even way too fat to receive the relatively minor honor. That was the case presented by board member Lucy Koteen, anyway—a spiritual descendant of the people who lived above the buildings that Biggie was hustling in front of, when he was just trying to become as famous as Theodor Herzl. Instead, Koteen metaphorically called the cops on him by going to his Wikipedia page:

CB2 member Lucy Koteen said she "looked up the rapper's history" and read what she had learned to the full board Tuesday night.
"He started selling drugs at 12, he was a school dropout at 17, he was arrested for drugs and weapons charge, he was arrested for parole violations, he was arrested in North Carolina for crack cocaine, in 1996 he was again arrested for assault, he had a violent death and physically the man is not exactly a role model for youth," she said. "I don't see how this guy was a role model and frankly it offends me."

How about:

Funny woman Kathleen Madigan to perform in Morristown
Daily Record, 17 October 2013 link

KAZ!: Should I believe everything I read about you on Wikipedia?

MADIGAN: Well, if you don’t, just go in and edit it. Everyone else is. I think I’m married to Carrot Top, which would make for cute kids.

Or this:

Finding an element of trust
Financial Times, 17 October 2013 link

When was the last time you used Wikipedia? If you trusted the information, did you read who wrote the article and try to find her or his conflict of interest statement? No, you did not. In fact, there are no such statements on Wikipedia and you cannot see whether the article was written by an industry representative, a scientist or a high school student. We trust it because it is open to all, and we believe that the collective brain is able to sort out the misinformation (which also exists on Wikipedia).

I guess the common theme of all these stories is: "people who read think Wikipedia is crap".

Maybe there should be a "WP = BS" thread.

Mancunium · Unread post by **Mancunium** » Tue Nov 05, 2013 6:19 pm

A lengthy essay on German Wikipedia bias, administrative abuses, edit wars and power users.

(I'm fluent in English and French; I can read German, Russian, Spanish and Italian text about my areas of specialisation, but my command of the vernacular of those languages is too weak for me to attempt proper translations. Maybe Andreas would like to clean up the Google Translate version of this article, if it seems worthwhile.)

Wikipedia: „Wir“ machen Meinung
Wikipedia ist eine Instanz. In vielen Themen ist die Online-Enzyklopädie zur ersten Adresse im Internet geworden. Doch hinter dem objektiven Anschein stecken handfeste Gruppen-Interessen. Ideologische Vorurteile verderben Andersdenkenden die Lust am Mitmachen. Ein erfahrener Wikipedianer beschreibt, wie eine gute Idee missbraucht und zur Meinungs-Mach-Maschine wurde.
Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten, 3 November 2013 link

Google-translated from German: link

Wikipedia: "We" by opinion
Wikipedia is an instance. In many subjects, the online encyclopedia, has become the first address on the Internet. But behind the objective semblance stuck stalwart group interests. Ideological prejudices spoil dissenters the desire to participate. An experienced Wikipedians describes how a good idea and has been abused to opinion Mach machine.

[...]

The term "Schwindelpedia" making the rounds

In the network, more and more names like "Schwindelpedia" or "Wikilügia" spread. No question, if you want to know something about a simple topic such as the common hare, Lake Constance and the London Symphony Orchestra one is still pretty good hands at Wikipedia.

The situation is different from when controversial issues.

People are defamed and criticism showered with others "beautifully written". Criticism is little not to take up. The same applies to many ideological, political, scientific, ideological, religious, and a variety of other areas.

Here objectivity, freedom, independence and differentiated approach has remained almost entirely on the track. Opinions are deliberately suppressed, falsified, altered, and to write the world as they like.

[...]

SB_Johnny · Unread post by **SB_Johnny** » Wed Nov 06, 2013 2:34 am

Wow, I thought Google translate was supposed to be better with German. I'm in the same boat as you though... my translation would probably be marginally better, but I'd probably miss something.

It does make me curious though if skepticism about WP is a bit more evolved on the German interwebs in comparison to the English interwebs.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Wed Nov 06, 2013 11:22 am

SB_Johnny wrote:It does make me curious though if skepticism about WP is a bit more evolved on the German interwebs in comparison to the English interwebs.

That is definitely my impression. It sounds like a national stereotype, but a lot of Germans are obsessed with correctness, tidiness and punctuality, and that is very manifest in Wikipedia and elsewhere.

Ming · Unread post by **Ming** » Wed Nov 06, 2013 5:31 pm

Ming also must wonder how much the Germans have to put up with people who can't really speak the language dumping not all that coherent tracts about Indian or east Asian affairs into their articles.

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Thu Nov 07, 2013 12:50 pm

Ming wrote:Ming also must wonder how much the Germans have to put up with people who can't really speak the language dumping not all that coherent tracts about Indian or east Asian affairs into their articles.

There's a fair amount of that I think, but it's more about the Balkans, Turkey and the Caucasus.

Mancunium · Unread post by **Mancunium** » Wed Nov 13, 2013 9:53 pm

Jedes Jahr im Herbst: Wikimedia wirbt um Spenden
Heute, 11 November 2013 link

Summary:

German Wikimedia (WMDE) begins its begging campaign this week.

Last year the WMDE spent about a million euros on technical development and €600,000 on wages.

The CEO of WMDE, Pavel Richter, is paid €90,100 per year. In addition, he may receive a performance bonus of up to €23,850; last year his bonus was €5,700.

Pavel justifies his salary by saying: "There are high demands on the Wikimedia Board. I have a big responsibility, and am personally liable for the acts of the association. ... I lead an organization with more than 50 employees, and manage several million euros per year: the equivalent of a medium-sized business."

This year the campaign will not stop until at least eight million euros in donations are received.

Pavel Richter: link

One euro (1€) = GB£0.84 / US$1.35

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Wed Nov 13, 2013 9:56 pm

They also spent €20,000 on buying themselves cameras and tickets to pop concerts.

Mancunium · Unread post by **Mancunium** » Wed Nov 13, 2013 10:04 pm

lilburne wrote:They also spent €20,000 on buying themselves cameras and tickets to pop concerts.

The tone of this article seems quite snarky to me. This is the illustration:

Mancunium · Unread post by **Mancunium** » Fri Nov 15, 2013 5:34 pm

More Teutonic snark:

Spendenkampagne für Wikipedia gestartet
Heise, 14 November 2013 link

summary:

German Wikipedia has begging banners up again. It wants eight million euros, and is claiming that the money is needed to pay the 250 employees of the WMF, and to cover of the cost of the Foundation's 800 servers.

A version of this misleading begging banner was tested on English Wikipedia in October 2013, and raised $2.7 million during that month.

Last year the WMF's international begging raised $25 million, and the WMDE's separate campaign raised $5.2 million. For the first time, the total revenue of the US-based WMF exceeded $50 million.

The WMF is struggling with declining numbers of editors, and hopes to recruit new unpaid workers in the world's poorest countries. Wikipedia Zero partnerships with mobile service providers target those countries, but has not been a success. The Foundation had anticipated that WP Zero would bring 200 million page views per month to Wikipedia, but in the most recent reporting period WP Zero resulted in only 12 million page views.

See the German begging banner here: link

Mancunium · Unread post by **Mancunium** » Thu Dec 19, 2013 2:41 pm

Wertheimerin kämpft vergeblich gegen Wikipedia
Main-Netz, 19 December 2013 link

summary:

Author Marion Diehm continues to struggle in vain with Wikipedia. She never agreed to the publication in Wikipedia of her text about painter Johann Wilhelm Völker, which has been online for more than a year. All attempts to have her text and pictures deleted have failed.

Johann Wilhelm Völker: link

Einzelnachweise
1. a b c d e Diehm, 2011.

Diskussion:Wilhelm Völker: link

Artikel im Main-Echo

Wertheimerin kämpft vergeblich gegen Wikipedia, Main-Echo, 17.12.2013. --Holder (Diskussion) 17:51, 18. Dez. 2013 (CET)

Danke für den Hinweis. Man fragt sich ja schon, ob manche Leute die urheberrechtliche Lage nicht begreifen können oder nicht begreifen wollen. Neben Historikern sind das durchaus auch Journalisten. -- Rosenzweig δ 18:16, 18. Dez. 2013 (CET)

Viel zu ausschweifende Übernahme von Texten, der Abschnitt über die Herkünft sollte viel kompakter aufgebaut sein. --TotalUseless (Diskussion) 23:25, 18. Dez. 2013 (CET)

Category:Wilhelm_Völker: link

Mancunium · Unread post by **Mancunium** » Sun Feb 09, 2014 8:37 pm

„Wikipedia macht süchtig“
Tagesspiegel, 8 February 2014 link

Google-translation from German link

(edited for brevity)

"Wikipedia is addictive"
Peter Cüppers is 86 and avid Wikipedia author. Already 19,000 times he has improved posts. A conversation about Grandma-suitable articles, alls and chemistry.

Mr. Cüppers, you are 86 years old and eager Wikipedia author. As many as 19 000 times you have improved posts?

Yes, Wikipedia is one das. On average there were eight changes per day. These also include, however, the contributions on talk pages that make for me for about half of my entries. I am almost every day at Wikipedia. [...]

And so almost every day?

Yes, for me it has had the effect, as with many others also: Wikipedia addictive. You have to slow down, after my first 20 amendments I have only once taken a break themselves.

Internet forums may indeed be very rough in tone ...

This is not unusual, sometimes can be a hassle escalate anything. Occasionally one is attacked for something you wrote. These are some very durable banter, sometimes ugly. But if it gets too bad, it is in the Wikipedia dispute resolution mechanisms, which are then takes, there is also a court of arbitration. There, such conflicts are then finally cleaned up. [...]

You want to make article "grandma-friendly". What does that mean?

The word "granny-friendly" is the Wikipedia jargon and does not mean the real grandma but the reader "Without slightest idea." Especially for mathematicians and physicists, I realize that this post their articles in technical jargon, which no one understands. So, to make it a "granny-ready 'version is called to preparing the article so that anyone can read it, who is not an expert in the field. [...]

Not it annoying sometimes when someone always dazwischenpfuscht?

Sometimes. Then you have to tell the person that what he writes there is nonsense, this is also where disputes can develop. For example, if someone does not see that as a witness of the Nazi period some know better. I would not remain at Wikipedia if every time I write something, another would improve it. I can say that well over 90 percent of my posts have stock. [...]

Mr. Cüppers, thank you for your call ...

No, we're not done yet, because I still need to get rid of something: I would ask each senior and want him to get time to try on Wikipedia. The generation of seniors is in demand with their knowledge. It is a fulfilling job at the age that I can recommend to anyone.

Benutzer:Dr.cueppers
German Wikipedia link

Translation
[...] born and raised in Dresden [...] (by marriage) family relationship special interest in Karl Gjellerup.
Occupant in the Soviet special camps Bautzen, Jamlitz, Buchenwald (1945-48) as a teenager. [...]

Dr Peter Cüppers

Poetlister · Unread post by **Poetlister** » Mon Feb 10, 2014 7:35 pm

You want to make article "grandma-friendly". What does that mean?

The word "granny-friendly" is the Wikipedia jargon and does not mean the real grandma but the reader "Without slightest idea." Especially for mathematicians and physicists, I realize that this post their articles in technical jargon, which no one understands. So, to make it a "granny-ready 'version is called to preparing the article so that anyone can read it, who is not an expert in the field. [...]

That sounds like a breathtaking piece of ageism and sexism. I can think of quite a few grandmothers who are or were distinguished mathematicians and physicists.

Mancunium · Unread post by **Mancunium** » Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:03 pm

Poetlister wrote:
You want to make article "grandma-friendly". What does that mean?

The word "granny-friendly" is the Wikipedia jargon and does not mean the real grandma but the reader "Without slightest idea." Especially for mathematicians and physicists, I realize that this post their articles in technical jargon, which no one understands. So, to make it a "granny-ready 'version is called to preparing the article so that anyone can read it, who is not an expert in the field. [...]
That sounds like a breathtaking piece of ageism and sexism. I can think of quite a few grandmothers who are or were distinguished mathematicians and physicists.

Give the poor doctor a break. He was interned in the NKVD_special_camps_in_Germany_1945–49 (T-H-L) from the age of 18 to 21, and could provide valuable information about this highly-contentious episode in German history.

eppur si muove · Unread post by **eppur si muove** » Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:35 pm

Mancunium wrote:
Poetlister wrote:
You want to make article "grandma-friendly". What does that mean?

The word "granny-friendly" is the Wikipedia jargon and does not mean the real grandma but the reader "Without slightest idea." Especially for mathematicians and physicists, I realize that this post their articles in technical jargon, which no one understands. So, to make it a "granny-ready 'version is called to preparing the article so that anyone can read it, who is not an expert in the field. [...]
That sounds like a breathtaking piece of ageism and sexism. I can think of quite a few grandmothers who are or were distinguished mathematicians and physicists.
Give the poor doctor a break. He was interned in the NKVD_special_camps_in_Germany_1945–49 (T-H-L) from the age of 18 to 21, and could provide valuable information about this highly-contentious episode in German history.

Maybe as accused of being a Werwolf. The Soviets interned a lot of German youths on that basis.

Mancunium · Unread post by **Mancunium** » Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:55 pm

In 1945 he would have been a member of the Wehrmacht (T-H-L), like his contemporary Pope_Benedict_XVI (T-H-L).

eppur si muove · Unread post by **eppur si muove** » Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:57 pm

Mancunium wrote:In 1945 he would have been a member of the Wehrmacht (T-H-L), like his contemporary Pope_Benedict_XVI (T-H-L).

The Soviets interned the wrong one.

eppur si muove · Unread post by **eppur si muove** » Mon Feb 10, 2014 10:21 pm

eppur si muove wrote:
Mancunium wrote:In 1945 he would have been a member of the Wehrmacht (T-H-L), like his contemporary Pope_Benedict_XVI (T-H-L).
The Soviets interned the wrong one.

Also I can't see a date of birth either in the article or on his user page. If he was 86 when the article was published, he was born between February 1927 and February 1928 and therefore could have been 17 at the end of the war and when he was initially interned. The Germans were using boy soldiers extensively by that point.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Fri Feb 14, 2014 7:23 pm

Poetlister wrote:
You want to make article "grandma-friendly". What does that mean?

The word "granny-friendly" is the Wikipedia jargon and does not mean the real grandma but the reader "Without slightest idea." Especially for mathematicians and physicists, I realize that this post their articles in technical jargon, which no one understands. So, to make it a "granny-ready 'version is called to preparing the article so that anyone can read it, who is not an expert in the field. [...]
That sounds like a breathtaking piece of ageism and sexism.

It's quite endemic in the German Wikipedia, and a commonly used shorthand in conversations there. In fact, WP:Oma ("WP:Granny") in the German Wikipedia redirects to "WP:Allgemeinverständlichkeit", a page about writing in an accessible style.

Mancunium · Unread post by **Mancunium** » Thu Mar 06, 2014 12:33 am

Wikipedia vergißt nichts
Wikipedia-Einträge werden von IP-Adressen des Bundestages aus retuschiert. Alle Änderungen sind nachvollziehbar
Von Marvin Oppong
Junge Welt, 6 March 2014 link

Google-translation from German link

Wikipedia forgets nothing
Wikipedia entries are retouched IP addresses of the Bundestag from. All changes are traceable
By Marvin Oppong

[...] even the Federal Court, quoting from it. Companies, associations, but also the policy, therefore, attempt to stand as much as possible in the relevant entries. And - bad enough! - Journalists rely on their research too easy on Wikipedia. Wikipedia entries can be changed by anyone - and which institutions made from changes could be detected using the Tools »WikiScanner" - at least until a few years ago.

So, for example, came out that has an IP address that leads to the RWE Group, was inserted into the Wikipedia article on the nuclear power plant Biblis the statement: "Biblis is a milestone in terms of security." It was also known that IP addresses belonging Daimler, passages from the Wikipedia article on the group are deleted, related to the employment of Nazi forced labor by Daimler and the lobbying activities of the Group. Daimler later declared not to have caused the extinctions.

SPD, CDU and FPD barely stand after: Per »WikiScanner" has been known that articles from the IT networks of the parties had been edited out on a larger scale - they were so retouched, more or less. So a whole section on failures and criticism has been newly inserted in about a Wikipedia entry about the SPD politician and later Federal President Johannes Rau. agf has brought in the federal government know which IP addresses are used by Parliament. Using the Wiki feature "User contributions" was reviewed, what changes were made from these ten addresses in Wikipedia. In each case, the last 500 changes were evaluated.

On the talk page for the article on the CDU politician Wolfgang Bosbach thus was born on 17 July 2012 to "incorrect information" about Bosbach of a parliamentary IP from Scrappy. The public then discussed the controversial Eilverabschiedung a new Registration Act and its consequences for the Adreßdatenhandel. Bosbach was a member of the Advisory Board of the "walter services Holding", which offers, for example, solutions to "Versandkeistungen" and "collection". From a parliamentary IP from the unknown author inserted a "Wolfgang Bosbach was an advisor of walter services GmbH, currently this is no longer, however. The last meeting in which he has participated, took place on 26 July 2010 instead. After that he took part in any further meetings. " Bosbach told his office manager over agf. "In the summer of 2012 called a citizen of the constituency of Mr. Bosbach and made our office on an inaccuracy in a Wikipedia article carefully," The IP address that the change was made from which, whether assign "any of the computers in the offices of Mr. Bosbach".

Also at the wiki entry on the now retired FDP deputies Bijan Djir-Sarai, the 2012 doctorate was revoked, in 2011 someone is made to create. In the entry about him, there is the section on "suspicion of plagiarism." It is the speech of a report on http://www.faz.net who claimed with reference to the Internet platform "Vroniplag" Djir-Sarai had copied in his dissertation in part. About a parliamentary IP someone added in the paragraph following statement a: "No matter how a result of any examination by the University of Cologne looks like the stigma of plagiarism suspicion liable thanks to Wikipedia Djir-Sarai on now. For the first stone throwers quickly joined by another, without one thinks about that person. "That was indeed from another Wikipedia user undone, but the one who wanted to introduce the change, they then took two more times before .

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Thu Mar 06, 2014 12:34 am

Still haven't heard from Marvin directly.

Mancunium · Unread post by **Mancunium** » Thu Mar 06, 2014 1:35 am

EricBarbour wrote:Still haven't heard from Marvin directly.

That's a pity. Here is his website, complete with phone number and email address: link
and his Twitter account: link

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Fri Mar 14, 2014 2:09 pm

EricBarbour wrote:Still haven't heard from Marvin directly.

I e-mailed him the German parliament IPs in January 2013. So it took him just over a year to actually look at them.

I spoke to him on the phone once or twice; I suspect he mistrusted me because I had made edits to the talk page of the German Scientology article.

Mancunium · Unread post by **Mancunium** » Tue Mar 25, 2014 1:36 am

Zu viel Manipulation
Die inhaltliche Einflussnahme von Lobbyisten auf Wikipedia ist unüberschaubar. Die Seite muss sich reformieren, sonst verliert sie ihren Ruf als Quelle.
Taz, 25 March 2014 link

Google-translation from German: link

Too much manipulation
The substantive influence of lobbyists on Wikipedia is unmanageable. The page needs to reform, otherwise it loses its reputation as the source.

[...] the German edition of Wikipedia has 1.7 million articles, with 4.6 million pages. But little is known about the origin and structure of the encyclopedia as well as the interests involved. This knowledge deficit compensated now compact and understandable-sponsored by the Otto Brenner Foundation study "Covert PR in Wikipedia. The world knowledge targeted by the company " by Marvin Oppong. Although Wikipedia has over basic principles, guidelines and a set of rules, but with the enforcement of this noun, it does not look good. Handy guidelines ("Be brave! Ignore Rules!") Are vague, relevance criteria formulated only fragmentary and irrelevant to the practice because a binding interpretation is also missing as an independent body to enforce them.

The culprit is the non-transparent, hierarchical structure of Wikipedia. The hierarchy stands out from the crowd not registered user of registered users, confirmed and user-voting member to the classifiers (14,231), administrators (260), bureaucrats (5), Oversightern and check users (5). Are entitled to vote only users that are active during two months and have delivered at least 200 edits. In elections, involving only a few hundred votes, votes will not be counted, but appreciated. The names of such "elected" 260 administrators are not publicly known. Only those of the bureaucrats, and check Oversightern users know about that. Wikipedia is not a democracy with equal rights users, but an "oligarchy of very interested", which have much time, says Oppong.

The financial ratios are unclear

Regulated just as archaic are the financial circumstances of the nonprofit association Wikipedia Germany eV, the profit Wikimedia conveyor-GmbH and the American Wikipedia Foundation (sponsored by Google). The insight into the arcane financial conditions is almost impossible. More serious than these structural deficits, however, the substantive impact of acquisitions associations, organizations and companies - in spite of the commitment to neutral information. Thousands of PR agencies and press departments manipulate many items in protection of anonymous access. This influence is by its nature difficult to detect, but Oppong shows examples in detail how "PR and manipulation in Wikipedia ubiquitous" are. [...] Untrusted some oligarchs, the PR consultancy and lobbying are in addition to their activities of control and quality assurance in Wikipedia. One example of this is Achim Raschka, who was from 2004 to 2011 the Board of Wikipedia Germany eV, public funding for the project "renewable materials" organized and best links to private sector companies maintained that benefit from this project.

Disclose real names

Wikipedia is on the way, their reputation to gamble as an information source, if the company does not follow reform proposals outlined Oppong concluded. According to him, would first have the media literacy of users increased and the Wikipedia software made more transparent. If Wikipedia wants to meet the declared grandly claim that everyone could join in and the large number of employees guarantee quick fixes, the number of employees really have to be multiplied. Finally anonymous active associations, companies and other interested business should be forced to disclose their real names. If Wikipedia wants to be a democratic medium, the selection process must be made more transparent and votes are really counted.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Tue Mar 25, 2014 9:18 am

From Oppong's Twitter feed:

#Wikipedia ner schreibt ich soll aufpassen, "nicht mit dem Kinn am Borstein hängen" zu bleiben http://bit.ly/LbEDZU http://bit.ly/1m3Ynwm

StA Bonn hat Ermittlungsverfahren jetzt eingestellt. Zur Aufklärung "wären Ermittlungen im Ausland erforderlich". @padeluun #wikipedia

Nur die @Wikimedia Foundation Inc. in #SanFrancisco habe "Zugriff auf Bestandsdaten". Kosten für Rechtshilfe seien "unverhältnismäßig hoch".

The story is that a German Wikipedian named "Giftzwerg 88" ("poison dwarf 88") had described Marvin Oppong as "an intellectual low-flier who should take care his chin doesn't hit the curb."

It seems Oppong reported this to the German prosecutor's office in Bonn, as a reference to curb stomping (Google it ... or rather don't). The prosecutor's office has closed the case, as it would require an international investigation (only WMF has the data) and costs would be prohibitive.