Obvious paid editors are obvious

Discussion of financial interests of Wikimedia and companies who contribute, or simply spend money on a Wikipedia presence.
User avatar
Randy from Boise
Been Around Forever
Posts: 12083
kołdry
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Nom de plume: T. Chandler
Location: Boise, Idaho

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by Randy from Boise » Fri Nov 30, 2018 9:36 pm

This thread lost its leading participant and we need another person to reinvigorate it.

I wonder who might be able to do that?

RfB

User avatar
Poetlister
Genius
Posts: 25599
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
Nom de plume: Poetlister
Location: London, living in a similar way
Contact:

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by Poetlister » Fri Nov 30, 2018 10:18 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:This thread lost its leading participant and we need another person to reinvigorate it.

I wonder who might be able to do that?

RfB
Randy is the obvious person.
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche

User avatar
Dysklyver
Cornishman
Posts: 2337
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2017 2:02 pm
Actual Name: Arthur Kerensa
Nom de plume: Dysk
Location: England
Contact:

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by Dysklyver » Fri Nov 30, 2018 10:19 pm

Poetlister wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:This thread lost its leading participant and we need another person to reinvigorate it.

I wonder who might be able to do that?

RfB
Randy is the obvious person.
Yes he would be great.
Globally banned after 7 years.

Katie
Gregarious
Posts: 674
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2018 6:47 pm

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by Katie » Sun Mar 03, 2019 11:29 pm

Craig Taro Gold (T-H-L), or someone very close to him who's also a member of the same religion he practices, seems to have been editing his own Wikipedia article, along with those of friends like Wendell Brown (T-H-L). The accounts in question, an example being Rukomii (T-C-L), focus on promoting him, his friends, and the company he or his friends lead.

User avatar
Poetlister
Genius
Posts: 25599
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
Nom de plume: Poetlister
Location: London, living in a similar way
Contact:

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by Poetlister » Mon Mar 04, 2019 8:49 pm

Katie wrote:Craig Taro Gold (T-H-L), or someone very close to him who's also a member of the same religion he practices, seems to have been editing his own Wikipedia article, along with those of friends like Wendell Brown (T-H-L). The accounts in question, an example being Rukomii (T-C-L), focus on promoting him, his friends, and the company he or his friends lead.
Do you have any evidence to suggest that Rukomii is a paid editor? If it is indeed Craig Taro Gold, he's presumably not being paid to edit his own article.
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche

Katie
Gregarious
Posts: 674
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2018 6:47 pm

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by Katie » Tue Mar 05, 2019 11:35 pm

I'm afraid I don't, no. My apologies, I wasn't sure where to find the general-purpose COI thread. I should have asked, but I thought it would be easier to put it in this thread.

User avatar
Ming
the Merciless
Posts: 2966
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 1:35 pm

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by Ming » Fri Mar 08, 2019 6:01 pm

thekohser wrote:A couple of days ago, a construction company, PCL Construction (T-H-L), was working on a bridge on the Atlantic seaboard of North Carolina where it accidentally severed the main power line connecting Hatteras and Ocracoke Islands to the grid. About 10,000 tourists have been told to evacuate, and until the disruption is fixed (could be days or possibly weeks) surely thousands more weekly-rental tourists will be affected, as they won't be allowed onto the island. In short -- for anyone who vacations in the Outer Banks, it is a shit-show.

So, how about that Wikipedia article about PCL Construction? About 120 page views per day, about to skyrocket today, for sure. Who wrote the article? A combination of single-purpose and COI accounts, of course: [....]

Pclnahqcomms (T-C-L) (active as recently as 12 months ago)

[....]
Finally blocked last month. Perhaps someone may eventually update this with some of the more egregious incidents.

User avatar
Anuran
Contributor
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2019 10:23 pm
Location: The Cave

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by Anuran » Sun Mar 10, 2019 12:24 am

BrillLyle wrote:
Renée Bagslint wrote:As has been said before, Wikipedia has a content policy disguised as a conduct policy. Businesses will certainly see an advantage in having an entry in Wikipedia that presents them favourably, and some of them will work, or pay for work, to make that happen. This is clearly a problem for an encyclopaedia that claims and proclaims neutrality, but which anyone can edit. The sort of people who invest their time and energy on Wikipedia often seem to be the sort of people who dislike business and so are motivated to stop business articles being skewed by two factors, one high-minded and conscious (the good of the neutral encyclopaedia), one not so high-minded and often less conscious (sticking it to the man). That entitles them, in their view, to behave badly to other contributors who take a different line, even though it might be one that independent civilised human beings might reagrd as reasonably neutral. People who disagree must be labelled as an outgroup, against whom no form of abuse is too great: terms such as sock-pupper and paid editor are brought into play, and have exactly the same function as the word witch did in Salem, or communist in the HUAAC. Because the vocal minority and the silent majority agree with the anti-business line, it prevails, because that's how Wikipedia works.
I agree with much of this.

I was a word processor at an investment bank for over 14 years. We did these company profile pages that had basic publicly accessible data when I worked on M&A jobs. It's basic, industry-established information.

When I've tried to add a lot of this information to business pages, I get accused of either paid editing (I'm not) or being promotional. Because often there's no understanding of this type information, it is perceived incorrectly. Just plain wrongly.

It's great anyone can edit Wikipedia. But it's also a problem when someone who doesn't understand an industry makes unilateral decisions.

There's a reason for crap business entries, ones that specifically lack basic factual information. It's too much of a battle to get this basic info up there.

I'm so tired of this. Really. I would have loved to improve business-based content on Wikipedia. It's really unfortunate.

Apologies, I'm just whinging and moaning, repeating myself here. I feel very strongly about this.

- Erika
User:BrillLyle
Well said.

This is why I'm proposing:

Wikipages: a proposed solution to the paid editing crisis
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=10202

Now you can tag this reply for speedy deletion (G11) as {{Db-g11}}, {{Db-promo}}, {{Db-spam}}
:banana:

User avatar
Poetlister
Genius
Posts: 25599
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
Nom de plume: Poetlister
Location: London, living in a similar way
Contact:

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by Poetlister » Sun Mar 10, 2019 7:41 am

Anuran wrote:Now you can tag this reply for speedy deletion (G11) as {{Db-g11}}, {{Db-promo}}, {{Db-spam}}
:banana:
We don't work like that on here. :D
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche

User avatar
tarantino
Habitué
Posts: 4697
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:19 pm

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by tarantino » Fri Mar 15, 2019 10:05 pm

thekohser wrote:
tarantino wrote:One of the more interesting paid editors I've come across is Ed Sussman, who's BC1278 (T-C-L) and Edsussman (T-C-L). He has a law degree from Duke, was a journalist, ran fastcompany.com and inc.com, and is now a PR rep for Facebook and others. The first article he created was Social_journalism (T-H-L), where he's prominently featured. He's quite the self-promoter.
Interesting comment from BC1278 (T-C-L) recently...
Hi Trevor,

I noticed you recently did an update on [[Lyft]]. I have a number of other edits I'd like to suggest for the article, but I need them to be independently reviewed and approved because I have a Wikipedia Conflict of Interest under [[WP:COI]] as a paid business consultant to Lyft. I always follow WIkipedia policy and disclose my conflict.
Per usual, his attempt to fully disclose and get help via the Talk pages of articles is going nowhere.
There's an article on Sussman yesterday in the HuffPost.

Facebook, Axios And NBC Paid This Guy To Whitewash Wikipedia Pages
How To Win Arguments And Exhaust People

Sussman’s main strategy for convincing editors to make the changes his clients want is to cite as many tangentially related rules as possible (he is, after all, a lawyer). When that doesn’t work, though, his refusal to ever back down usually will.

He often replies to nearly every single bit of pushback with walls of text arguing his case. Trying to get through even a fraction of it is exhausting, and because Wikipedia editors are unpaid, there’s little motivation to continue dealing with Sussman’s arguments. So he usually gets his way.

Katie
Gregarious
Posts: 674
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2018 6:47 pm

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by Katie » Mon Mar 18, 2019 10:34 pm

This is quite a while ago, but when I was looking at the history of the Quiz channel (T-H-L) article, I noticed that Telemedia741 (T-C-L), Telemedia22 (T-C-L) and Telemedia1 (T-C-L) all made edits promoting shows produced by Telemedia InteracTV, subject of a 2006 New York Times article about their empire built on TV phone-in quiz shows (along with psychic shows and jewellery shows, although that's not mentioned in the New York Times article): linkhttps://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/20/busi ... urotv.html[/link]. That section of the article has moved to List of quiz channels (T-H-L), where there have been very few edits and nothing violating COI as far as I know.

Katie
Gregarious
Posts: 674
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2018 6:47 pm

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by Katie » Mon Apr 29, 2019 4:52 pm

Ghulam Zeeshan (T-C-L) is a "Communication Strateigist at Sahara India Pariwar (T-H-L)" along with being an "Assistant Director" there, and he's happily edited the article about the company, its founder, a certain Subrata Roy (T-H-L) and a rambling, confusing article about "investor fraud" at Sahara India Pariwar: Sahara India Pariwar investor fraud case (T-H-L). There's no disclosure I've been able to find.

JFlux99 (T-C-L) is an obvious sockpuppet of DKG156 (T-C-L), who spent his time promoting Amity University, Noida (T-H-L). Interestingly, it was targeted by Wifione (T-C-L) in the past due to it being competitors with the Indian Institute of Planning and Management (T-H-L).

Beeblebrox
Habitué
Posts: 3787
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 9:30 pm
Wikipedia User: Just Step Sideways
Location: The end of the road, Alaska

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by Beeblebrox » Mon Apr 29, 2019 10:55 pm

Katie wrote:Ghulam Zeeshan (T-C-L) is a "Communication Strateigist at Sahara India Pariwar (T-H-L)" along with being an "Assistant Director" there, and he's happily edited the article about the company, its founder, a certain Subrata Roy (T-H-L) and a rambling, confusing article about "investor fraud" at Sahara India Pariwar: Sahara India Pariwar investor fraud case (T-H-L). There's no disclosure I've been able to find.
That dos seem pretty obvious but I note he's not edited in about 6 months.
information is not knowledge, knowledge is not wisdom

Katie
Gregarious
Posts: 674
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2018 6:47 pm

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by Katie » Thu Aug 08, 2019 3:29 pm

Jaseromer (T-C-L), Smny2018 (T-C-L) and Nerdysturdy (T-C-L) are all promoting the Saudi Vision 2030 (T-H-L) in articles they've created about Saudi Arabia. I suspect that Smny2018 and Nerdysturdy are ran by the same person as their userpages look pretty similar (both say they're "a normal person" and mention knowledge). Smny2018 created an obviously promotional article about Saudi Seasons (T-H-L). World2017 (T-C-L) also promoted the Saudi Vision 2030 in their edits to the article about it. Jaseromer added an obviously promotional bit to the article about Mohammad bin Salman (T-H-L) in this edit: linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =880011784[/link] - it was thankfully reverted. All of these editors are focused on making Saudi Arabia look better, more progressive, and more attractive to tourists.

User avatar
Poetlister
Genius
Posts: 25599
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
Nom de plume: Poetlister
Location: London, living in a similar way
Contact:

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by Poetlister » Fri Aug 09, 2019 8:46 am

Beeblebrox wrote:That dos seem pretty obvious but I note he's not edited in about 6 months.
When has "not edited lately" ever been a reason not to block someone?
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche

GlwnDwr
Critic
Posts: 140
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2016 4:39 pm

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by GlwnDwr » Mon Oct 07, 2019 10:38 pm

Dhar Mann (T-H-L), written and subsequently whitewashed by a group of single purpose paid editors. Bachir Boumaaza (T-H-L) AKA Athene, a serial scammer and cult leader is presented as a "philanthropist".

User avatar
Osborne
Habitué
Posts: 1259
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2019 8:29 pm

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by Osborne » Fri Nov 01, 2019 5:03 pm

https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/comm ... e_to_vote/
Image
Need a Wikipedia editor with credible, reputable account to vote in a discussion about a nomination for deletion. ...
Please apply with a statement that describes your experience in Wikipedia editing, and tactics that you implement.
To the point...

Beeblebrox
Habitué
Posts: 3787
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 9:30 pm
Wikipedia User: Just Step Sideways
Location: The end of the road, Alaska

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by Beeblebrox » Fri Nov 01, 2019 8:53 pm

too bad they didn't string him along until they found out what AFD they wanted influenced...
information is not knowledge, knowledge is not wisdom

User avatar
Osborne
Habitué
Posts: 1259
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2019 8:29 pm

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by Osborne » Fri Nov 01, 2019 8:59 pm

Beeblebrox wrote:too bad they didn't string him along until they found out what AFD they wanted influenced...
What if it turns out that someone from the inner circle accepted the deal? :blink:

Beeblebrox
Habitué
Posts: 3787
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 9:30 pm
Wikipedia User: Just Step Sideways
Location: The end of the road, Alaska

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by Beeblebrox » Fri Nov 01, 2019 9:05 pm

Osborne wrote:
Beeblebrox wrote:too bad they didn't string him along until they found out what AFD they wanted influenced...
What if it turns out that someone from the inner circle accepted the deal? :blink:
This is kind of like people who ask "what if the Bill Clinton had sex with minors at Epstein's sex island?"

In either case the answer is "burn them down". Loyalty isn't a virtue when basic trust is betrayed.
information is not knowledge, knowledge is not wisdom

User avatar
thekohser
Majordomo
Posts: 13406
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by thekohser » Wed Apr 21, 2021 4:11 am

I will eat my hat if Evilleavenger (T-C-L) is not being paid in some way by Emergent BioSolutions (T-H-L). I think I'd also be willing to bet that this User is not actually a "middle school English teacher".
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."

User avatar
AndyTheGrump
Habitué
Posts: 3147
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 11:44 pm
Wikipedia User: AndyTheGrump (editor/heckler)

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by AndyTheGrump » Wed Apr 21, 2021 5:53 am

thekohser wrote:
Wed Apr 21, 2021 4:11 am
I will eat my hat if Evilleavenger (T-C-L) is not being paid in some way by Emergent BioSolutions (T-H-L). I think I'd also be willing to bet that this User is not actually a "middle school English teacher".
He seems to be addicted to writing about their products, anyway. :evilgrin:

User avatar
Poetlister
Genius
Posts: 25599
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
Nom de plume: Poetlister
Location: London, living in a similar way
Contact:

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by Poetlister » Wed Apr 21, 2021 9:24 am

thekohser wrote:
Wed Apr 21, 2021 4:11 am
I will eat my hat if Evilleavenger (T-C-L) is not being paid in some way by Emergent BioSolutions (T-H-L). I think I'd also be willing to bet that this User is not actually a "middle school English teacher".
If he really is a teacher, I hope that he won't succeed in encouraging his pupils to edit. The last thing Wikipedia needs is a load of 6th to 8th grade children editing.
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche

Beeblebrox
Habitué
Posts: 3787
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 9:30 pm
Wikipedia User: Just Step Sideways
Location: The end of the road, Alaska

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by Beeblebrox » Thu Apr 22, 2021 9:22 pm

Things being what they are, I can't see anything being "done"about this unless they return to actively editing that topic, but yeah, it doesn't really add up for a schoolteacher to be fixated on making a biotech company look good.
information is not knowledge, knowledge is not wisdom

User avatar
thekohser
Majordomo
Posts: 13406
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by thekohser » Thu Aug 12, 2021 1:04 am

I wonder, is DronePals.com on the Wikipedia roster of "reliable sources"?

I'll bet this guy would know.
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."

User avatar
Poetlister
Genius
Posts: 25599
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
Nom de plume: Poetlister
Location: London, living in a similar way
Contact:

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by Poetlister » Thu Aug 12, 2021 1:15 pm

thekohser wrote:
Thu Aug 12, 2021 1:04 am
I wonder, is DronePals.com on the Wikipedia roster of "reliable sources"?

I'll bet this guy would know.
He's not doing a very good job. He made a few edits on 17/18 March, mostly to create a draft article, and hasn't done anything since. What's he waiting for?
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche

User avatar
thekohser
Majordomo
Posts: 13406
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by thekohser » Tue Nov 09, 2021 3:25 am

Just going to leave this one here: 72.42.140.240 (T-C-L)

Do you think there's some chance that could be an editor paid by Press Ganey Associates?
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."

User avatar
thekohser
Majordomo
Posts: 13406
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by thekohser » Wed Apr 06, 2022 8:29 pm

I'm willing to bet every editor who added more than 400 bytes of information to Louisa Warwick (T-H-L) is an obvious paid editor.
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."

User avatar
Giraffe Stapler
Habitué
Posts: 3080
Joined: Thu May 02, 2019 5:13 pm

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by Giraffe Stapler » Wed Apr 06, 2022 11:15 pm

thekohser wrote:
Wed Apr 06, 2022 8:29 pm
I'm willing to bet every editor who added more than 400 bytes of information to Louisa Warwick (T-H-L) is an obvious paid editor.
Someone should tag the image used in that article as a copyright violation (taken straight from her Instagram account) and see who shows up to add a new picture...

User avatar
Ming
the Merciless
Posts: 2966
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 1:35 pm

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by Ming » Thu Apr 07, 2022 12:36 am

Probably the same person, judging from their talk page.... (:wave: Mangoe)

User avatar
Giraffe Stapler
Habitué
Posts: 3080
Joined: Thu May 02, 2019 5:13 pm

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by Giraffe Stapler » Thu Apr 07, 2022 2:28 am

Ming wrote:
Thu Apr 07, 2022 12:36 am
Probably the same person, judging from their talk page.... (:wave: Mangoe)
Oh, thanks for the tip. I missed that Sumsphere (T-C-L) (the editor who uploaded the copyright violating picture to Commons in 2016) was responsible for creating Louisa Warwick (model) (T-H-L) in 2015. It was nominated for deletion and deleted not long afterwards. Then they created Louisa Warwick, it got also got deleted, so they just waited a year and did it again. They were active as recently as February, so I guess this is more than just a hobby.

User avatar
Midsize Jake
Site Admin
Posts: 9872
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:10 pm
Wikipedia Review Member: Somey

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by Midsize Jake » Thu May 04, 2023 6:12 am

I don't know how big a scandal this will become, so maybe it'll soon deserve its own thread, but there are stories coming out about User:JHofferman (T-C-L), who's been on Wikipedia since May 2020, but only began disclosing his paid editing in July of last year. Apparently he's been working for US Presidential vanity candidate ("candidavanitate"?) Vivek Ramaswamy (T-H-L) — and they're saying he removed a reference to Ramaswamy's post-graduate fellowship and how it was funded by the The Paul & Daisy Soros "Fellowships for New Americans" Foundation, because Paul Soros is George Soros's brother and Republicans have been conditioned to freak out whenever they see the name "Soros." I haven't located the specific diff where he did that, but there's no question that he added a large amount of text to that article, mostly to expand Mr. Ramaswamy's in-article resumé and explain his horrendous policy proposals in excruciating detail.

These stories will probably amount to nothing since Ramaswamy is obviously just an egotist with too much money, and not an electoral threat to any actual politician(s), but either way it's pretty rare for paid editors/editing to get any media attention at all, good or bad.

User avatar
Giraffe Stapler
Habitué
Posts: 3080
Joined: Thu May 02, 2019 5:13 pm

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by Giraffe Stapler » Thu May 04, 2023 3:42 pm

Here Jhofferman does a little light reputation management by removing reported inaction about sexual harassment allegations. It got reverted, so he just did it again. Huh.

User avatar
greyed.out.fields
Gregarious
Posts: 873
Joined: Thu May 31, 2012 10:59 am
Wikipedia User: I AM your guilty pleasure
Actual Name: Written addiction
Location: Back alley hang-up

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by greyed.out.fields » Sat May 13, 2023 11:19 am

a cien años de soledad no tenían una segunda oportunidad en la tierra

User avatar
Ming
the Merciless
Posts: 2966
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 1:35 pm

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by Ming » Wed Jun 07, 2023 8:13 pm

Cadman316 (T-C-L) is an employee or ad person for the Aldon Company, judging from the fact their four edits were all to add images of their devices all captioned a being Aldon products.

User avatar
adamovicm
Critic
Posts: 136
Joined: Wed May 17, 2023 7:22 pm
Wikipedia User: Mladen.adamovic

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by adamovicm » Thu Jun 08, 2023 6:03 am

greyed.out.fields wrote:
Sat May 13, 2023 11:19 am
Imcdc (T-C-L)
Edits/create other investment / funds-related articles, even Chinese state-owned, so I wouldn't say it is obviously a paid editor. It could be someone from the industry adding/updating articles about companies and funds.

User avatar
No Ledge
Habitué
Posts: 1973
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2017 4:13 pm
Wikipedia User: wbm1058

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by No Ledge » Thu Aug 03, 2023 2:21 pm

I'm not sure whether IPv6 editor 2601:246:CA80:7D50:6DE7:650F:98D0:737F is paid or not, but they are obviously a sophisticated editor who understands something about how Wikipedia works and seems to have some sort of editing agenda.

These IPv6 guys never stick around for long. This one just dropped by to make four edits yesterday, and has probably moved on to editing under another IP, making long-term behavior difficult if not impossible to track.

But all four of their edits were to company articles, leading me to think that they were paid to edit by these companies.
  • RJR Nabisco
  • Metro by T-Mobile
  • Beech-Nut
  • Rowntree Mackintosh Confectionery
Seems a smart strategy for paid editors to operate in a stealthy manner like this in order to avoid scrutiny.

Though I've noticed this sort of activity for some time now, what prompted me to mention it here was their edit summary for their first edit (on RJR Nabisco):
2601:246:CA80:7D50:6DE7:650F:98D0:737F wrote:Reverted edits by Special:Contributions/Wbm1058 (talk) to last version by Special:Contributions/InternetArchiveBot
They used some sort of Android app:
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile app edit Android app edit
It is true that I made the previous edit. I removed the article's hatnote because it was an "unnecessary hatnote to a related topic which is linked from the article's lead section". However the IP did not revert me – they did not restore that hatnote – so they left a disingenuous edit summary, apparently to obfuscate the changes they actually did make.

Their changes seem benign enough. But I'm not happy to see someone leaving edit summaries that imply they're reverting something bad that I did.
No coffee? OK, then maybe just a little appreciation for my work out here?

User avatar
redbaron
Critic
Posts: 212
Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2021 11:41 pm

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by redbaron » Thu Aug 03, 2023 2:46 pm

No Ledge wrote:
Thu Aug 03, 2023 2:21 pm
These IPv6 guys never stick around for long. This one just dropped by to make four edits yesterday, and has probably moved on to editing under another IP, making long-term behavior difficult if not impossible to track.
Try searching for the /64 range. There are no new edits after the ones you posted, but there are several earlier edits along the same lines.

User avatar
tarantino
Habitué
Posts: 4697
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:19 pm

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by tarantino » Thu Aug 03, 2023 4:34 pm

They made 37 edits to Rowntree's (T-H-L), all of which have been reverted and the article is now protected.

User avatar
utbc
Critic
Posts: 189
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2022 1:28 am

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by utbc » Thu Aug 10, 2023 1:39 pm

I am wondering if this thread does any good, and if posting accusations against named editors is against wikipedia policy. In any case, what do you think about Junaid Memon (T-H-L) and ARDEA Foundation (T-H-L)?
Memon excelled academically and gained district-level recognition for participation in school activities, including plays, dance, and singing, earning medals for academic achievements.
Memon's innovative spirit drove him to establish "Green TV," an unprecedented venture known as the world's sole private "agriculture and rural knowledge bank." It is aimed to disseminate vital agricultural information, particularly benefiting rural communities.
In 2013, Memon's commitment to societal advancement led to the foundation of "ARDEA Foundation," a nonprofit organization. Working in collaboration with "Green TV India," the foundation focused on fostering sustainable agricultural practices across India, contributing to rural development.
Conceived by Junaid Memon, visionary filmmaker and ARDEA Foundation leader, the movement's third iteration begins in 2023.

User avatar
Boing! said Zebedee
Gregarious
Posts: 641
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2014 7:47 pm
Wikipedia User: Boing! said Zebedee
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by Boing! said Zebedee » Thu Aug 10, 2023 2:37 pm

utbc wrote:
Thu Aug 10, 2023 1:39 pm
I am wondering if this thread does any good, and if posting accusations against named editors is against wikipedia policy...
And the relevance of Wikipedia policy over here is... ? :B'

User avatar
utbc
Critic
Posts: 189
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2022 1:28 am

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by utbc » Thu Aug 10, 2023 3:04 pm

And the relevance of Wikipedia policy over here is... ? :B'
If I were to post here, I would be doing so to seek help against paid editors. If in doing so, I violate or appear to have violated offline harassment or offline coordination policies, it would backfire on me, doing the opposite of what I intend. Wouldn't it?

User avatar
Boing! said Zebedee
Gregarious
Posts: 641
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2014 7:47 pm
Wikipedia User: Boing! said Zebedee
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by Boing! said Zebedee » Thu Aug 10, 2023 3:41 pm

utbc wrote:
Thu Aug 10, 2023 3:04 pm
If I were to post here, I would be doing so to seek help against paid editors. If in doing so, I violate or appear to have violated offline harassment or offline coordination policies, it would backfire on me, doing the opposite of what I intend. Wouldn't it?
How does anyone know who you are?

User avatar
utbc
Critic
Posts: 189
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2022 1:28 am

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by utbc » Thu Aug 10, 2023 3:53 pm

How does anyone know who you are?
People here take pride in digging that out. And I didn't bother hiding myself well. The site owners know, and I've seen in other threads, mods sharing user info not privy to everyone else. In any case, if I started listing out paid editors, over time pattern will emerge of me interacting with at least some of them on wiki.
But, I am thinking we are getting distracted. I wanted that part of my OP either answered straight or ignored.

User avatar
AndyTheGrump
Habitué
Posts: 3147
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 11:44 pm
Wikipedia User: AndyTheGrump (editor/heckler)

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by AndyTheGrump » Thu Aug 10, 2023 6:19 pm

utbc wrote:
Thu Aug 10, 2023 1:39 pm
...what do you think about Junaid Memon (T-H-L) and ARDEA Foundation (T-H-L)?
What do I think? Clearly there are what Wikipedia calls MOS:ENGVAR (T-H-L) problems here. At least I assume so. given the way biographies of Indian citizens use the word 'entrepreneur'. I suspect it means 'person who owns a suit' or something, in that variety of English. Certainly when such articles use the word, they rarely provide much in the way of evidence for the subject actually doing anything of consequence as an 'entrepreneur'.

As for the ARDEA Foundation article, pure puffery for a 'worthy cause'. Might even be a legitimate one, but Wikipedia shouldn't be acting as a webhost.

Paid editing? Self promotion? Doesn't really matter either way. Wikipedia is chock-full of promotional flim-flam for individuals and institutions from India. Some no doubt actually merit coverage in an online encyclopaedia, but many don't, and given the state of the sources most likely to be cited - the Indian media - it is nigh-on impossible to distinguish between the two. Even the most 'reliable' media outlets seem content to include abject puffery in amongst their legitimate coverage, and the sheer volume of less-credible sources has to be seen to be believed.

Not just a problem for Indian topics, obviously, but the sheer volume of Indian-topic promotional material would make trying to deal with it systematically a lost cause. Given the endless spats with the Modi government, the volume of paid/promotional editing, the lack of trustworthy sources, and the propensity for issuing legal threats when those doing the promotion don't get things their way (to be fair, the last is probably a cultural relic of the Raj), it might not be too outlandish to suggest that Wikipedia might do better to stop trying to cover such subjects entirely: do what the GDR did with west Berlin, and just leave a blank space on the map. :evilgrin:

User avatar
FelinaLavandula
Regular
Posts: 398
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2021 5:22 pm
Nom de plume: Arugula
Location: Canada

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by FelinaLavandula » Thu Aug 10, 2023 6:36 pm

AndyTheGrump wrote:
Thu Aug 10, 2023 6:19 pm
What do I think? Clearly there are what Wikipedia calls MOS:ENGVAR (T-H-L) problems here. At least I assume so. given the way biographies of Indian citizens use the word 'entrepreneur'. I suspect it means 'person who owns a suit' or something, in that variety of English. Certainly when such articles use the word, they rarely provide much in the way of evidence for the subject actually doing anything of consequence as an 'entrepreneur'.
Well, let’s be fair and realize that this happens everywhere in the world. I think India does have a higher prevalence of paid editing, but maybe it just gets noticed more due to the language or low quality of the articles. I read business newspapers of repute on occasion and they also rarely justify calling someone an entrepreneur, it seems to usually be based on that that person’s self-identification.

User avatar
Ron Lybonly
Regular
Posts: 402
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2023 12:29 am

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by Ron Lybonly » Thu Aug 10, 2023 9:55 pm

AndyTheGrump wrote:
Thu Aug 10, 2023 6:19 pm
utbc wrote:
Thu Aug 10, 2023 1:39 pm
...what do you think about Junaid Memon (T-H-L) and ARDEA Foundation (T-H-L)?
What do I think? Clearly there are what Wikipedia calls MOS:ENGVAR (T-H-L) problems here. At least I assume so. given the way biographies of Indian citizens use the word 'entrepreneur'. I suspect it means 'person who owns a suit' or something, in that variety of English. Certainly when such articles use the word, they rarely provide much in the way of evidence for the subject actually doing anything of consequence as an 'entrepreneur'.

As for the ARDEA Foundation article, pure puffery for a 'worthy cause'. Might even be a legitimate one, but Wikipedia shouldn't be acting as a webhost.

Paid editing? Self promotion? Doesn't really matter either way. Wikipedia is chock-full of promotional flim-flam for individuals and institutions from India. Some no doubt actually merit coverage in an online encyclopaedia, but many don't, and given the state of the sources most likely to be cited - the Indian media - it is nigh-on impossible to distinguish between the two. Even the most 'reliable' media outlets seem content to include abject puffery in amongst their legitimate coverage, and the sheer volume of less-credible sources has to be seen to be believed.

Not just a problem for Indian topics, obviously, but the sheer volume of Indian-topic promotional material would make trying to deal with it systematically a lost cause. Given the endless spats with the Modi government, the volume of paid/promotional editing, the lack of trustworthy sources, and the propensity for issuing legal threats when those doing the promotion don't get things their way (to be fair, the last is probably a cultural relic of the Raj), it might not be too outlandish to suggest that Wikipedia might do better to stop trying to cover such subjects entirely: do what the GDR did with west Berlin, and just leave a blank space on the map. :evilgrin:
Wikipedia’s South Asian articles and their editors are a community unto themselves with a different Wikipedia culture. They can play serious hardball and from what I see do a lot of off-wiki coordination. I’ve saw canvassing for an English Wikipedia AfD occurring on a Wikipedia for a South Asian language that the other group didn’t use. There’s a new thread on WP:ANI - User:Maha Sainik - that’s an example of a different style of pissing contest:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped ... aha_Sainik

Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Sri Lankan editors are a rapidly growing share of Wikipedia’s editors. Probably more than some traditional anglophone countries like Canada or Ireland. I expect their share to continue growing. Something like 1.5 billion people live there. It’s their Wikipedia, too.

The majority of the South Asian editors on the English Wikipedia don’t edit the small Wikipedias for their first language.

I think this trend is off-the-radar for many longtime editors.

User avatar
Midsize Jake
Site Admin
Posts: 9872
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:10 pm
Wikipedia Review Member: Somey

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by Midsize Jake » Thu Aug 10, 2023 10:04 pm

utbc wrote:
Thu Aug 10, 2023 3:53 pm
How does anyone know who you are?
People here take pride in digging that out. And I didn't bother hiding myself well. The site owners know, and I've seen in other threads, mods sharing user info not privy to everyone else.
At the risk of derailing the thread, I'm afraid you're being rather unfair here — we actually have no idea who you are, or at least I don't, and if any of us ever did then I'm sure we've long since forgotten all about it. What's more, I'm a little disappointed about your seeming implication that you don't personally represent the University of Texas at British Columbia.

It's true that I'll occasionally post something saying where a particular member isn't from, along the lines of "he's not posting from anywhere in North America," so as to reduce idle speculation about that member being someone he or she clearly isn't. But it almost never goes beyond that, except maybe in extreme cases (*cough* *wheeze* Icewhiz *cough*).

User avatar
Zoloft
Trustee
Posts: 13984
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:54 pm
Wikipedia User: Stanistani
Wikipedia Review Member: Zoloft
Actual Name: William Burns
Nom de plume: William Burns
Location: San Diego
Contact:

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by Zoloft » Thu Aug 10, 2023 10:53 pm

Midsize Jake wrote:
Thu Aug 10, 2023 10:04 pm
utbc wrote:
Thu Aug 10, 2023 3:53 pm
How does anyone know who you are?
People here take pride in digging that out. And I didn't bother hiding myself well. The site owners know, and I've seen in other threads, mods sharing user info not privy to everyone else.
At the risk of derailing the thread, I'm afraid you're being rather unfair here — we actually have no idea who you are, or at least I don't, and if any of us ever did then I'm sure we've long since forgotten all about it. What's more, I'm a little disappointed about your seeming implication that you don't personally represent the University of Texas at British Columbia.

It's true that I'll occasionally post something saying where a particular member isn't from, along the lines of "he's not posting from anywhere in North America," so as to reduce idle speculation about that member being someone he or she clearly isn't. But it almost never goes beyond that, except maybe in extreme cases (*cough* *wheeze* Icewhiz *cough*).
Now, we do not disclose any identifying info about a member (IP address, email, etc.). But Icewhiz made a mini-me sock to agree with him here on the forum, so I disclosed that, because he's an ass.

My avatar is sometimes indicative of my mood:
  • Actual mug ◄
  • Uncle Cornpone
  • Zoloft bouncy pill-thing


User avatar
thekohser
Majordomo
Posts: 13406
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by thekohser » Fri Aug 11, 2023 7:42 pm

Swedes can be paid editors, too -- since 2006!

Syntesi (T-C-L) authored the Wikipedia article about the Krönleins (T-H-L) brewery.

From that single-purpose editor, we got this great commercial language into Wikipedia:
The Krönleins have a long and strong brewing tradition of six generations of brewers. This tradition gives Krönleins a unique position in the Swedish brewing industry today. Not only do the Krönleins savour that tradition but also think ahead and use new technology to communicate with the market.
But not to worry, over the past 17+ years, neutral Wikipedians have cleaned up that promotional garbage, so that it now reads:
The Krönleins have a long and strong brewing tradition of six generations of brewers. This tradition gives Krönleins a unique position in the Swedish brewing industry today. Not only do the Krönleins savor that tradition but also think ahead and use new technology to communicate with the market.
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."

Post Reply