Talk:Wiki-PR Wikipedia editing scandal/Archive 1

Hold the Speedy
By speedy deleting this is looks to me awfully like wikipedia is trying to hide something. AfD would be more appropriate to get a wider opinion. SFC9394 (talk) 18:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * +1 insightful. 124.149.84.225 (talk) 01:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * +1 Electron9 (talk) 06:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Potential sources from Talk:Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia

 * Largest sockpuppet bust in Wikipedia history traces back to paid editing for hire firm 'Wiki-PR' --Ocaasit &#124; c 15:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Original Daily Dot article:
 * Sue Gardener's WMF statement: [http://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/10/21/sue-gardner-response-paid-advocacy-editing/}
 * The Verge coverage:
 * Wikipedia Signpost: and
 * Vice coverage: and
 * Time:
 * WSJ:
 * BBC:
 * Infoworld:
 * Ars:
 * Wikipedia
 * WikiExperts ban and ban appeal ,

As a note
I'm certainly going to avoid editing the article, and am not going to express a real opinion as to whether or not it should exist, but Priceline wasn't the only organization that replied to Martin's emails confirming they had used Wiki-PR's services. Colorado Technical University was also named in the VICE article. I would encourage people to not lash out against the articles of Wiki-PR's clients (many of them are named at the SPI/LTA and elsewhere,) as I truly believe many of their clients were unaware they were violating our norms. Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Otoh, wikipedia can't be blamed for their poor judgment on their part. Electron9 (talk) 07:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Perfectly true, and I think we should bring up the articles Wiki-PR wrote to our standards, or delete them when necessary. I would just prefer to avoid seeing the revenge-style editing that occasionally happens when a company transgresses our norms.  I've talked to a lot of Wiki-PR's clients, and most of them, while ignorant, were well-intentioned. (I haven't started personally repairing articles yet, because I'm waiting to see what happens with WMF, arbcom, functionaries, etc.  Plus, repairing all the articles on my list of what they've edited would take quite a while anyway, heh.) In a nutshell, I think we should treat them like we would treat our other articles; bringing them up to our content standards and deleting non-notable ones. Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It's up to the involved parties to prove their intentions and the associated redactions may in fact them self be of interest. Which companies that made use of these services is something that should be clarified. Electron9 (talk) 09:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

This talkpage
We need to discuss the article here, not the business ethics, real or imagined, nor Wikipolitics. Please let us constrain ourselves to creation of a good, decent, unbiased article. Fiddle  Faddle  10:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If this is related to my comments above, I'd like to point out that I did point out a factual error in the article that still hasn't been corrected :p. In a high profile case where revenge editing is likely to occur, I also see nothing wrong with requesting people refrain from doing so on the talk page of an article involved. The article for some reason also uses internsushi as a source, which both fails WP:RS, and is incorrect. (I'm refraining from editing this article directly for fairly obvious reasons.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:09, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It was not related to anyone's comments here in any direct manner. I would have been explicit had it been. I simply see the potential for a huge mess if we do not, ourselves, uphold the standards of this place, both in articles and in their respective talk pages. It is clear that there is an issue with Wikipedia and this organisation and similar organisations. Equally it is clear that this issue should be dealt with quietly and factually in the article if relevant and on the talk page if necessary. Acting in any different manner would be inappropriate.
 * The issue itself is being discussed elsewhere, which is, in my view, as it should be. A conclusion will be reached there. Interestingly, using Wikipedia as a citation for itself in discussing that issue within this article would be using an unreliable source. We have, therefore, a set of interesting article writing dilemmas to face. That was the basis of my message. Fiddle   Faddle  23:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Where is this "is being discussed elsewhere" ? Electron9 (talk) 09:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a banner at the head of the pages on WP which has details of a major discussion of Wikipedia and paid editing. I have dismissed it for myself, so can no longer see the location, though I did contribute to it. I commend the discussion to you. Perhaps someone would be kind enough to add the link to it here? Fiddle   Faddle  09:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Cleanup
I cleaned up this article. Any productive comments about my content changes? (No griping about banners, please start a separate section for that jazz.) Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. ) while signing a reply, thx 12:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Banners
I have no intention of griping about banners. I have simply reinstated the merge banner designed to reach consensus at the target article talk page, which you have removed unilaterally. Thwarting the consensus building process by summary removal during building of consensus is wholly inappropriate. Fiddle  Faddle  13:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Notability
As a company, Wiki-PR doesn't seem to be notable on its own and doesn't pass WP:CORP. This article seems to be more about the kerfuffle around the Morning277 sockpuppet investigation than the company itself. I don't dispute that the incident received significant coverage in reliable sources, so I propose we move this article to a title that focuses on the editing controversy itself, as it would better reflect the content here. I'm thinking something along the lines of Wiki-PR editing scandal or Wiki-PR sockpuppet controversy. Gobōnobō + c 00:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree.-- Vigyani talkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 05:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * WIth the caveat that Wikipedia reporting upon Wikipedia feels rather like condoning incest, I half agree, but suggest we consider widening it to include all paid editing. Fiddle   Faddle  08:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * We do have an article for conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia. Gobōnobō  + c 11:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I was unaware of that, and have started a discussion on the talk page there about the concept of a merge of this article into it. The merge banner on the article(s) leads to that discussion directly. To me it appears to be an ideal home, and also a great place for the discussion. Fiddle   Faddle  11:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Now that readers find out about this army of socketpuppys that perhaps is directed by a small company. They will most likely want to find out what this formally small company with huge consequences is. So make a article on paid bad editing, but link here. Notability is not always straightforward. And removing this article is of course a self serving interest for this company.. Electron9 (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * While I understand the points you are making, WIkipedia is not a news medium, but is a rather staid and sedate encyclopaedia. Wiki-PR is a PR company. If it is inherently notable it should have an article, but that article must not be a WP:COATRACK, which this one is at present. Fiddle   Faddle  23:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I have moved this article to Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia given the concerns about the notability of the company. This way our subject is a direct match to the news coverage, so there shouldn't be a problem from a WP:GNG perspective. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. ) while signing a reply, thx 13:45, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

sources & factual accuracy
Please guys, pay close attention to both the quality of sources you use and what the sources actually say. Wiki-PR doesn't have 45 employees, doesn't have two offices, and the 'Wikimedia Foudation' didn't block anyone's user account. The community of the English Wikipedia did. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you cite what the sources are saying on the employees and the offices then? All I could find and cite was from their website, which should be alright as I have been somewhat using the JESS3 article for assistance in improving this page as a "PR" article instead of the current one.  --Super Goku V (talk) 00:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * They previously had an office in SF, they now do in Austin. You will find some old social media postings etc that reference their SF office, but it no longer exists (and isn't mentioned in the source cited.) Per WP:SPS, self published sources are only acceptable without caveat for claims that are not unduly self-serving, are not exceptional claims, and where we have no reason to doubt their veracity.  Claiming they have 45 employees including Wikipedia administrators is an exceptional claim that we have plenty of reason to doubt the veracity of, hence wiki-pr.com is not a RS for the statement that they have 45 employees. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You are correct that the info isn't listed in the source since I used the wrong one. (Figures.)  The line I am referring to on that page is, "Adam manages sales and business development from Wiki-PR's office in San Francisco, California."  You did mention that they did close their SF office, so I will try to dig that up.  For the second part, why can we say that they have 25 employees, but not 45 specifically?  (Some of those employees likely don't have any Wikipedia experience, but do have something that benefits their organization.)  --Super Goku V (talk) 00:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd be equally skeptical about citing without caveat a claim that they had 25 employees. When a source makes claims that are both exceptional and self-serving, all information from that source should be treated skeptically - and their website certainly makes claims that are exceptional and self-serving. Per WP:SPS, they really shouldn't be used as a source for anything but the most basic info about themselves (like Jordan French as CEO) without it being explicitly disclaimed as 'Wiki-PR tates that they have 45 employees,' etc. I don't know if anything about their move is currently in an RS, but would expect at least one RS to mention that they no longer have a physical office in SF in the near future, and will drop by with it when it appears. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * According to this LinkedIn profile, they appear to hold the office in the San Francisco Bay Area. While it cannot be cited, it might help to limit the range of the search if correct as this had to be edited sometime around April of this year.  (It is the most I have right now.)  --Super Goku V (talk) 02:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * As a general note, this article is an annoyance for several commercial entities so any editing or suggestion to do so should be viewed with this in mind. Electron9 (talk) 00:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

What became the Morning277 sock-puppet investigation began in August 2012, not in 2008. Here is the first revision.

There's now a Wall Street Journal article about the company. &mdash; rybec   11:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and changed the year to 2012. &mdash; rybec   02:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

NPR interview with Sue Gardner
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=241145305

archive #1 archive #2 &mdash; rybec   05:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. ) while signing a reply, thx 14:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Move to Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia
I think the move is probably a good thing (0.8 probability) though am not entirely convinced. As the article stands at present it is most assuredly about Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia instead of being about Wiki-PR itself. Fiddle  Faddle  13:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Woohoo. Progress. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. ) while signing a reply, thx 13:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I oppose this move. It's non-standard and rather obtuse. We have lots and lots of articles about businesses that are notable only for one thing, yet the title of the article is the name of the business. (And has anyone actually confirmed that there isn't a single reliable source that isn't about editing Wikipedia?) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It does seem akin to moving Acme Widgets to Acme Widgets' manufacturing of widgets. &mdash;  rybec   20:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * May I suggest that instead of playing the move and counter move game [I know we will not be doing that], we now hold a discussion here for the correct name of the article, since we have one definite oppose opinion. I remain on the fence, but 80% in favour  Fiddle   Faddle  21:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes please. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The article was for the company called Wiki-PR, not just the controversy that they caused on Wikipedia. If a reader heard about Wiki-PR, and likely since this has been in at least a BBC article, they would have a difficult time finding information about the company itself.  Not to mention the fact that this was done without any discussion and that the current revision would be the same as a section on the Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia article.  --Super Goku V (talk) 23:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is a slightly atypical move... but the problem you point out is easily fixable with a redirect from Wiki-PR to this article. There's no reason why this title should make it harder for readers to find info than the original title would.  Please note, I'm not taking a position on the move, just pointing out that the problem you forsee is easily avoidable. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It isn't a redirect problem, but a content problem. If a user wanted to find information on the company, outside of the controversy, they would be unable to since there is no background section on the article since the edits by Biosthmors.  They will find this page easily, but they will find nothing of what they would want to find, unless it was directly connected to the controversy.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Super Goku V (talk • contribs) 16:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't follow. I don't remember removing any content (that wasn't already marked as dubious), I just thought the article was better off without unnecessary sections. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. ) while signing a reply, thx 18:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You are not just suppose to remove information marked dubious, especially when we were engaging in a discussion on the talk page about it. To note, you did remove content that wasn't marked dubious, specifically the whole first paragraph of the Background section and the tags you removed from the top of the article.  In addition, it wasn't as if the section was unnecessary, only when you decided on your own to move the article without a discussion.  To clarify my stance, your edits are welcome, but I am displeased by how you conducted them.  Wikipedia is about having a consensus on decision, not major decisions by one user.  --Super Goku V (talk) 03:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's the diff. WP:Bold exists. What content was removed you think should stay? Wasn't the information I removed self-serving and self-published? It was, according to my memory. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. ) while signing a reply, thx 09:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Mostly, my problem is that I felt that this was pushing into WP:OWN. I just would like a discussion on if your edits should be in place or not, not a drawn out conversation over what I am opposed to.  As I said above, we were discussing the content on another talk section and was working to make sure everything was alright with it.  Especially since it can be assumed that they are the Primary source for their own material.  (See: The Human Stain and Philip Roth for more.)  --Super Goku V (talk) 17:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand this concern. Does someone else understand it? Maybe they can explain it to me in another way. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. ) while signing a reply, thx 15:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Simply put, the move was forced. The controversy was made as the only focus about the article, even though there can be articles about organizations that are notable for only a single major event.  There wasn't even a shred of discussion before it happened.  Some users are opposed to the original move, myself included.  In order to be moved back, we need to have a discussion on it.  I am attempting to participate in the discussion, but seem to be getting pushed into other discussions.  The article started as a company article.  It had information that was balanced between the controversy and the company itself.  Now, the whole article barely states anything about the company, except what the controversy is about.  There isn't even any real mention of why they did this, to profit from the edits.  Any readers would need to find other sources to understand how and why Wiki-PR attempts to operate.  People understand that there is a controversy, but they might not know anything else about them.  --Super Goku V (talk) 02:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Possible names

 * Wiki-PR (original)
 * Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia (current)
 * Wiki-PR Wikipedia editing
 * Inappropriate editing of Wikipedia by Wiki-PR
 * Wiki-PR editing scandal
 * Wiki-PR editing controversy

Discussion
Is there consensus that Wiki-PR is a notable company? If so, then we can move it back to that name. I personally favor "Inappropriate editing of Wikipedia by Wiki-PR" if we're going to have a long descriptive summary name of the recent media coverage. I dislike the word controversy, as I think it is a lazy-man's (and possibly non-neutral) word. The word controversy implies that someone is saying Wiki-PR's edits that are the subject of the article were appropriate. Are there any reliable sources that state as much? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. ) while signing a reply, thx 09:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Wiki-PR has been featured in several reliable sources and is therefore a notable company per WP:CORP. The title of this article should therefore be... Wiki-PR. Consistent with WP:NCCORP, as well as every other business's article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, but it concerns me that this article is stand-alone. I am concerned this can be construed as an "attack article." This whole episode is damaging enough without an article like this. I think it should be part of Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia. Coretheapple (talk) 18:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * What do you mean, an attack article? We reflect what reliable sources say. Anything that reflects what reliable sources say, is neutral, and follows the notability guideline can't be an attack article by definition. It's something else: an encylopedia article. The company was roundly criticized in the press for inappropriate editing, according to Wikipedia's standards. I don't even see a tiny shred for a legitimate concern for this being an attack article. And it wasn't just COI editing. It was also sockpuppetry. There isn't enough overlap for a merge. I'm OK with a move back to Wiki-PR if the consensus is that the company is notable. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. ) while signing a reply, thx 15:23, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I do not perceive Wiki-PR to be notable, not even notable for the event. The event, however, is notable, something which seems to be a paradox. I am in favour of an article title which reflects the event unless and until the corporation is, itself, notable. Fiddle   Faddle  15:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Coretheapple and Fiddle Faddle, we really ought to make decisions on this article based on WP policy/guidelines to avoid being accused of pro-WP (or anti-WP) bias. Could you please cite specific policies or guidelines that support your position? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:GNG is the sole guideline that concerns me. Fiddle   Faddle  08:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:ATTACK. People who are outraged about what happened here should work as I have to ban paid editing, not to using Wikipedia article space in this fashion. Coretheapple (talk) 14:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ? No outrage here, and no evidence provided. Is this a simple I don't like it comment? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. ) while signing a reply, thx 15:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm equally confused. What do these policies have to do with the title of the article? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Because the corporation is not notable it may not have an article about itself with its name as the title. If it did then it would be deleted as a non notable corporation (or renamed as this one has been done). If there is a notable incident that features the corporation, even if it is not a notable corporation, the article may include the name of the corporation in its title. This is in line, for example, with people whose murder is notable but they are not themselves notable. In all cases there are exceptions. Wiki-PR is not one of them in my view. Fiddle   Faddle  10:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That issue is already essentially settled; most editors both here and at Talk:Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia agree that Wiki-PR satisfies the GNG/CORP standard, and you haven't produced any evidence to the contrary. One critical flaw in your murder victims analogy is that only a tiny, tiny number of notable people are known just for being murdered; most people are known for something else. Whereas most notable companies are known for the business they practice. No difference here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It is impossible to produce evidence that something is not notable. Think about it! Fiddle   Faddle  22:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not impossible. If "X" is under discussion and no significant coverage of "X" is found on Google News, LexisNexis, Google Scholar, or MIT's library for instance, that would be pretty good evidence that "X" was unlikely to be notable. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * To be fair, that is simply a void. I see what you are saying, but an absence of proof positive is not the same as proof negative. Fiddle   Faddle  09:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Please use an RM before deciding on a move. Otherwise, sometimes people get cranky. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It also appears some people get cranky if you actually follow WP:Be bold and edit a page. Scary, no? I wonder, sometimes, why people who overreact in that fashion participate on this website. Here's to your future, Wikipedia! Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. ) while signing a reply, thx 13:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Call for additional input
I think we're close to consensus to move this article back to "Wiki-PR", but we're not quite there. Anyone else willing to give their two cents? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that is an interesting stratagem. You have asserted that the discussion is running in favour of the outcome you appear to desire, and then asked for support. On that basis it should most definitely go to Requested Moves and be closed by an uninvolved editor, ideally an administrator. Please do not indulge in debating stratagems. Please remember that sheer weight of numbers is irrelevant to a policy and consensus based close. Fiddle   Faddle  09:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I wasn't engaging in any "stratagem." Please assume good faith. To demonstrate my good faith, I officially and formally retract my assessment re consensus. Satisfied? Now, is anyone out there willing to weigh in on this unresolved issue? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * My faith in you has now been restored :) Thank you. The assumption of good faith is not a mantra that we follow regardless. One may challenge another editor's actions at any tome provided it s done in a civil manner. Fiddle   Faddle  19:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm going to be bold and note I've stopped taking this issue seriously, because it's dropped on my personal priority list. I think the article is fine, and our attention would be better focused elsewhere. I say this because I'm thinking about the readers. Would any random reader of this article be pissed off or dissatisfied with the current structure/content? I'll boldly note that I think not. Moving on. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. ) while signing a reply, thx 09:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * If we don't reach consensus then we should revert back to "Wiki-PR" per WP:NOCONSENSUS. However I wouldn't call the discussion dead quite yet; let's give it a couple more days. If you don't want to participate any further then you're certainly not obligated to do so. (Btw I'm with you re WP:BOLD.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Please use a requested move to gather more input before trying to move the page again one way or the other. Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:RM isn't required, and we're already having a discussion so I think it would be redundant. (For controversial moves: "It is not always necessary to formally request a move in these circumstances: one option is to start an informal discussion at the article's talk page instead.") Plus, there's a huge backlog there. Going to RM would simply delay the proper reversion of a move for which there's (currently) no consensus. Unless we see significant movement in the next 48 hours I'm going to invoke WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY and decline your request. If you have a problem with this you can request a review at WP:MR. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh dear. No, that would be invalid. Consensus is absolutely required, and we must be bound by it whether we agree with it or not. Why are you so determined to insist that it is moved to the original and imperfect title? Why does it matter so much to you? Build and obey consensus. Phrases like "Unless [this happens] I will [perform that action]" are not the way Wikipedia works best. Fiddle   Faddle  00:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I would like to point out that it isn't "imperfect" to use the name of the company for an article, which was the original intent of the article, before the series of edits a week ago without consensus. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * RM isn't required for uncontroversial moves, but this isn't an uncontroversial move, and it's highly recommended for controversial moves where talk page discussions haven't reached consensus. The point of RM isn't just to start a discussion, it's to bring in outside eyes who are often more familiar with naming policies than random passers-by are.  RM or at least an RFC should be used in pretty much any case where there's a controversial move with no established consensus among talk page participants, which is the case here. I edit conflicted with you, but the passage you quote from RM simply suggests that it's not necessary if consensus has been established on the talk page, and that isn't the case here.  And to be clear: I object to the proposed move back. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * RM clearly contradicts you, but no matter -- if you want to continue the discussion there, fine. Please notify me and the other participants if you do. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I would rather not formulate the RM/RfC text myself because I can perceived as having a significant COI w/r/t to this article, but I object to any further move that doesn't go through an RM or an RFC. I would appreciate it if you or another more neutral party would formulate the RM or RfC text and post it as one. If no one else does, I will myself, but that's not a great idea. Controversial moves benefit from discussion that involve parties that don't have pre-existing involvement with an article. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * No move should now happen without a Requested Move. Fiddle   Faddle  00:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I really think the title needs to be moved back to simply Wiki-PR. That is the name of this company and any other title has some already built-in bias. If there is insufficient content to justify a full fledged article on this company, I would argue it needs to be merged into Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia, where there is already an empty section merely pointing to this article. Turning this into a redirect, some minor rewording to get it to flow with the rest of that other article, and simply moving everything except the external reference over might be more than sufficient. Does this topic deserve more than the current three paragraphs? If other references could be garnered and if this company is notable enough to deserve an article, it simply should be about this company and not just the editing controversy.... which again already has an article. --Robert Horning (talk) 18:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Colorado Technical University
I'm in communication with the founders of Wiki-PR via email, and they dispute the fact that Colorado Technical University was one of their clients. Looking at the Vice article more closely, this claim doesn't actually seem to be supported by the article, either. The article states that Emad Rahim was a client, not that CTU was. Given this, I'm going ahead and taking out mention of CTU. If someone else thinks it worthy, they can reinsert appropriate wording saying that a dean at CTU was a client. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:15, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it is not wise to make edits on behalf of banned users. --TeaDrinker (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see very much wrong with making an edit to correct an actual misreading of a source, even if it was a misreading pointed out to me by banned users. Edits upholding WP:V are allowed by the banning policy even if pointed out by a banned user. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:19, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * For a ban to be meaningful, we can't keep considering their advice and making the edits we like. Few users get to the point of a community ban without having made at least some reasonable edits.  However the view of the community is that it is no longer worth our time and effort to determine which of their edits are reasonable and which are problematic.  I am sure you had the best of intentions, but many editors before you have decided to become the conduit by which a banned user can again edit on the project.  That sort of thing is unacceptable.  They are not welcome to edit the encyclopedia, including through other users.  --TeaDrinker (talk) 23:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:Banning, which is policy, has a section that explicitly states that the sort of edit I made is 100% acceptable. It may be worth keeping in mind that I'm the person who proposed their ban in the first place, spent a hell of a lot of time on the SPI and in private channels, and am unlikely to start making a flood of edits biased in their favor.  This also wasn't an edit they requested, just one I made after they pointed out an inaccuracy in a conversation about a tangentially related subject. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Even were this not covered in the banning policy, I support accuracy (supported by verification) above all other aspects of rules and regulations here. If the edit has improved the article's accuracy I don't care if Willy on Wheels pointed it out. One very important thing is that the source of the discussion has been disclosed. I can;t see how anything could be more transparent than that. There are no hidden machinations here. Further, of WP:RS proves the edit to have been factually incorrect that will be put right at a later date. I suspect Kevin Gorman will be in the rush to do so. Fiddle   Faddle  00:58, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I came across as unduly harsh, and accept that the edit you made is fine. But caution is warranted.  --TeaDrinker (talk) 01:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed." &mdash; rybec   10:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

POV of this article
See also: Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

My gosh, I have never seen a more slanted and one sided article in the entire time I have been participating on Wikipedia. For those who have been involved in this article and letting it get into this state, shame on you. It has been entirely written as a slam piece by those who want to let the world know that this company is a troll.

There is nothing at all neutral about this article. Frankly, I think it should simply be deleted, but I can't find any formal grounds for deletion other than the neutrality of the article is so horrible that it would be better to simply nuke the article and start over again from scratch.

Yes, this company may be slimy and be a part of the whole controversy regarding paid editing that is taking Wikipedia as a whole by storm, but even for something like this some actual neutral editing about a firm like this should happen. Note, I am not suggesting I support this firm and its efforts either, but writing with a neutral point of view is expected for all main space articles. If those involved in writing this want to turn this into an essay and move this over to the Wikipedia namespace, it might even be fitting. As it stands right now, it does not deserve to be recognized as anything but lousy writing that needs serious clean-up before it can be recognized as WP:Brilliant Prose that all articles should at least strive toward even if they don't quite achieve that level of quality. As it stands right now, this article is definitely going in a negative direction towards that goal. --Robert Horning (talk) 16:23, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * How does this article deviate from the reliable sources? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. ) while signing a reply, thx 16:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Most of which also have a strong POV. Writing for a neutral POV isn't strictly writing to the sources involved.  There doesn't even seem to be an attempt to write with a neutral tone in the grammar at all.  I know this is not easy to do either, but it should at least be attempted.  --Robert Horning (talk) 18:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Reflecting the sources is the definition of NPOV. Please see here, which describes the most common misunderstanding about NPOV. In my opinion, the tag should be removed per the bolded sentence here. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. ) while signing a reply, thx 12:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Both of you make valid points. A source that is, itself, POV, can be referenced with "Smith states that.... [citation]" if necessary, though. Fiddle   Faddle  12:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I contest that unless you can offer a valid definition for the term POV, which I don't believe exists on this website. If it is not defined on this website—and if you can't adequately provide one—then I will simply repeat my argument. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. ) while signing a reply, thx 13:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * And isn't attribution is only beneficial in cases where the facts are disputed by reliable sources? Do we have reliable sources contradicting themselves? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. ) while signing a reply, thx 15:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I've taken the time to read this article with care now rather than just answering this question theoretically. I'm sure I'm not the only bloke with an opinion on the article(!), but I can't see that it is slanted in any direction as a matter of bias, It is factual and records the material facts with care. It is carefully about the corporation's editing of Wikipedia, not about the corporation itself, and it states the facts that came to light as the controversy developed.

I suppose it could comment upon the edits made, but that would only be valid if those edits were discussed in WP:RS and that material were viewed as suitable for inclusion. What one can say is that Wiki-PR made edits which were paid for by clients and thus a conflict of interest. This is sourced information. One must assume that the edits that have not been reverted as poor quality are either of good quality or are yet to be discovered and assessed. Since the firm was paid to edit it is likely that their edits had decent editing quality, whetever else one might choose to say about them, but postulating this in the article would be WP:OR

I am by no means comparing Wiki_PR to the perpetrators of a criminal act in my next thought. If we have an article on a murderer that article puts forward the facts, generally all of which are unpleasant, and quotes cited sources. As a technical writing exercise, how is an article on a transgression ever going to show much other than the gory details?

My view, after much thought, is that the article is only slanted because there is no way of avoiding the slant, and that it is as neutral in its reporting the facts as any other article. Fiddle  Faddle  16:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I will admit that it is very difficult for somebody intimately involved with Wikipedia to avoid having a very strong bias against this company. That said, I have most definitely seem much more neutral articles written and I certainly don't think that the fact this company is slimy and causing what some perceive to be a problem on Wikipedia is justification to write what amounts to be a hit piece on this company.


 * It may very well be impossible for active editors on Wikipedia to write a neutral article on this company (which IMHO really ought to be the title too.... I guess I need to get into that discussion above as well). That is perhaps the first clue that this is likely already violating the NPOV pillar of Wikipedia.  Nothing here talks about what its clients may think, what motivations might be involved, and there are other sources which could be used for writing this article as well.  If necessary, I will write a forked version of the article as a draft to show what I believe might be a more neutral article.  I don't intend to simply sit still on this one and for damn sure this isn't a "drive-by tagging" of this article.


 * I would like to see some more eyeballs on this article too, so far as it sort of is one of the companies stirring the pot here on Wikipedia anyway, so the firm which is the target of so much animosity likely should have a quality article depicting what is the source of that angst. There are plenty of sources (certainly more than are listed right now) and we as Wikipedia editors certainly can do much, much better than what I see on this page.  I am asking to have more than a freaking 24 hours to make all of the editorial changes as I am suggesting it will be a major overhaul of the article.  --Robert Horning (talk) 17:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * In the world of WIkipedia there is no rush. Take the time you require to marshall your thoughts and, most importantly, to determine sources that would be required in the rewrite you feel is appropriate. Then please discuss what you propose to do. There is nothing worse that what could turn into an edit war. So let us look at your case and achieve consensus.
 * The article could not, certainly initially, be about the company because there seemed to be nothing available about the company per se, just about its actions. If that has changed then it has changed.
 * As someone who edits Wikipedia a lot and has been around a while I can say that I am unconcerned about paid editing. I am, however, concerned about paid and biased editing. Perhaps that makes me a smidgen less partial than some other editors. Fiddle   Faddle  17:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * For the purpose of this article, I don't think it even matters about what personal opinions are regarding paid editing. That shouldn't even come into this.  On the other hand, I do think that there are plenty of sources about this company that a legitimate article about the company (which is sort of what the lead sentence implies this article is about) that a full fledged article, at least a reasonable stub with a half dozen reliable sources, could be written about the company covering the basic 5 w's about the company and explain what it is that they do.  That in addition the controversial aspects of what this company is doing could be explained is certainly something that should be in the article.


 * I guess I'm sort of steamed right now that I'm even getting into a bloody edit war over putting a simple NPOV tag on what appears to be a stub of an article too, and that by itself smacks of article ownership. I feel rushed to explain myself and strongly object to that disclaimer not being placed in the prominent place that it deserves, because I do assert that a strong POV bias currently exists and this dispute has not been resolved on this talk page.... and I sure am trying to use the talk page here instead of just doing a drive-by tagging without engagement.  I find it insulting nearly to the point of a personal attack that it has been judged by such a standard.  --Robert Horning (talk) 17:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem with this article, as I've said previously, is that it exists at all. Nobody is more against paid editing than I am. But articles like this bring Wikipedia into disrepute, as this is designed purely for the purpose of disparaging this company. It is an "attack article" and has no business being here. Coretheapple (talk) 22:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I disagree. How is the subject not notable? How is the article not neutral? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. ) while signing a reply, thx 09:12, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Note that there is a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard which has a bearing on this article and may duplicate the discussion here. It is shown at the head of this section, but participants in the discussion may miss it since it is relatively recently added. Hence this side note. Fiddle   Faddle  10:06, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The issue of notability isn't what is in question here. The issue is an attack article with a clear bias against this company, regardless of the fact that the only sources which seem to be available are all slamming this company too. As mentioned in the NPOV notice board and in the article moving section above, this article also is simply named for a specific activity of this company. I would argue that is the first thing that needs to be fixed in terms of seeking a more neutral tone to this article, as it really ought to be a more dispassionate look at the company itself. Clearly it has stirred up a world of hate within the Wikipedia community along with many people coming to Wikipedia's defense and sympathetic to Wikipedia's editors that have to deal with the results of this company.

We really need to nail down here on this talk page what this article is really all about, at least in terms of starting to unravel this whole thing about POV. If it is just about how Wiki-PR has been engaged in editing Wikipedia, the lead sentence really needs to nail that point down and de-emphasize the company. That also gets into the coatrack issues as I fail to see why this particular company needs to have a separate article as if it is the only company or organization doing this kind of biased editing on Wikipedia. Mind you, I didn't even put that coatrack editor's note on this article (although I did restore it from being removed earlier). By making this company an example, it places undue emphasis on this one company and its practice that could more neutrally used in a larger context of paid editing on Wikipedia in general. It is this out of context emphasis that I am also complaining. So what is the point of even writing this article in the first place and what is it really about? --Robert Horning (talk) 18:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * On your last point, and this is not a flippant suggestion, why not make a neutral (or a delete) nomination at AfD for the article. This will determine with precision whether it is kept or deleted by creating a firm consensus. I'm undecided about which way my own opinion falls here. I don't feel strongly enough either way to make that nomination, though. Fiddle   Faddle  18:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I am choosing not to make an AfD about this article for two reasons: one, it is incredibly disruptive and distracting to resolving the issues I've brought up and two, I find that this article meets every standard in WP:DP for being kept.  Running this article through the AfD sausage mill will accomplish nothing other than distracting more people and wasting the time of a bunch of admins and a wikiproject that is already overtaxed.  If somebody else tries to do that, I will vote a strong keep vote and argue a speedy close as well.  My complaint is about the tone of the article, not that it should exist.  None the less, a consensus needs to form about what this article really is about for us to proceed.  --Robert Horning (talk) 01:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

If an article accurately represents the information contained in reliable sources, it is not an attack article by our standards. Wiki-PR meets the WP:GNG by a few thousand miles, so I think it pretty easily warrants a standalone article from the general COI article. I would suggest an RfC to determine scope or an RM to determine proper naming or something, since they'll be more productive paths than people simply repeatedly stating that there are problems. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You still haven't answered my previous question: What exactly is this article about?  Is it about strictly the editorial behavior of Wiki-PR, or is it about the company in general?  The article, as currently written, is in a quasi-state of trying to do both at the same time and IMHO failing miserably at doing either one as well.  This has nothing to do with notability (which I will concede that notability concerns are met), but rather just the focus of the article in the first place.  I'm trying to nail down the scope of the article first, without which any RfC to determine any other issue is sort of pointless.  --Robert Horning (talk) 01:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Bluntly, that was completely intentional. I'm not the person to decide the scope of this article.  I was responsible for the second major English language news story about Wiki-PR, have been quoted widely about them in the media across a dozen languages, and initiated their community ban.  That's why I suggested an RfC to determine scope. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought the point of talk pages was to decide issues like this when it is about an individual article? I would like to come to some consensus on the issue, but apparently you and I are the only ones actually talking about the scope of this article.  That you may also have some COI on this topic (having self-proclaimed that you have been responsible for the news stories about this company) may cause some problems with that too, so I don't object to outside input if anybody is really interested.  I assume that most of those who are interested in this article and topic already have it on their watch list, and the point of an RfC would be mainly to widen the scope of discussion to let other experienced editors on Wikipedia know about this article, to get more eyeballs on the issues being raised.  --Robert Horning (talk) 17:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That is the purpose of a talk page, but when insufficient voices are being heard (as in this instance,) then an RfC on the talk page is the perfect mechanism to draw in other experienced editors to the discussion so that more voices can be heard and consensus formed as to an appropriate scope. I'd strongly suggest that an RfC to draw more eyes is the best path forward.  I don't think that I can reasonably contribute to a page where probably 30% of the potential sources for the page are literally quoting me, and to avoid the appearance of malfeasance, have mostly been trying to only comment on procedural stuff. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with this point: "If an article accurately represents the information contained in reliable sources, it is not an attack article by our standards." With that said, I think it would be wonderful to incorporate Wiki-PR's views on this issue.  If someone can find that material and refer to it, that would be a highly constructive contribution.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 00:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The Wall Street Journal piece I mentioned above has a five-paragraph e-mail from the CEO. &mdash;  rybec   02:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it seems like a no-brainer to include some comments from Wiki-PR in this article. Feel free to improve further.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 15:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

WMF blog post of interest
Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Interesting, yes, but it is news and a primary source. Fiddle   Faddle  21:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, but cautious use of primary sources is okay. This probably beats out the internal Wikipedia ban citations currently in the article.  Although I hate to be crystalbally, also likely indicates that Wiki-PR is likely to continue to receive substantial coverage in RS'es (I've already been contacted by several journalists re: this blog post,) and is thus relevant to the notability discussions in the requested move. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that this is important for internal Wikipedia usage but has to be used cautiously, if at all, in an article on this company. Coretheapple (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You make a persuasive point. What it shows, I think, is that a tiny corporation has got under a self declared small charitable foundation's skin. User_talk:Jimbo_Wales has an interesting request, too, by  Fiddle   Faddle  21:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

French in the WSJ, money buying speech, money buying lines on a Wikipedia article
I saw an interview published in a press release with French previously, but then I thought "self-published" and "unduly self-serving". So can people pay "reputable" journalistic outfits to reprint unduly self-serving material? In other words, does money buy speech, and can money buy lines on a Wikipedia article? It seems that that was part of their business model. At what point does Wikipedia draw the line between press releases and journalistic coverage? If it came out that there was money exchanged to get the opinion published in the WSJ (or coverage beforehand that ultimately led to the WSJ piece), could we remove it? I'm ignorant as to how American journalism works these days, but I know they are cash-strapped. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. ) while signing a reply, thx 16:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I think we're starting to move away from the topic of this talk page, and more into a sourcing discussion. Wikipedia in general does not consider regurgitated press releases, in whatever organ, to be more than Primary Sourced material. However, venerable, WP:RS sources tend not to carry pure press releases, writing their own article based upon the material. Sources like Reuters, while having the look and feel of press releases, tend to write their own stuff, but then syndicate it widely. Broadly, with such sources, the source of the story, such as Reuters, is the quotable material, amd the remainder start to be WP:BOMBARD material. Fiddle   Faddle  16:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The October 2013 Wall Street Journal article is NOT a press release! It is a rather scathing critique of Jordan French, and includes his response to the WSJ. I do not know to what Biosthmors referred specifically though, by, "'French in the WSJ... I saw an interview published in a press release with French previously...'" Note that press releases ARE published by both the Wall Street Journal and Reuters. When WSJ or Reuters do so, they note very distinctly that it is not news content. Usually a different typeface is used. Also, more important, there is a large disclaimer at the beginning and end of the article that states very explicitly that the content is a press release. There is nothing duplicitous about this, it isn't "buying news coverage". A legitimate purpose of news organizations is to disseminate information. Differentiation between advertisements i.e. paid endorsements and journalism is crucial. Recently, the line is becoming blurred due to native advertising. Traditional advertising companies are uneasy about it, as it is misleading to the public. But now that we have the Internet, it is apparently okay. I digress. Please, Biosthmors do not take this as hostility on my part. You stated that you were not familiar with U.S. laws about self publication, and made a legitimate inquiry, to which I am trying to respond.  Wikipedia most certainly DOES draw the line between press releases and journalistic coverage. In fact, weeding through such is what I spend most of my time doing here. Honest, good faith motivated editors occasionally use press releases or primary sources. However, a good indicator of something amiss is an article that has almost nothing else besides press releases or paid promotional content as sources! Sometimes it is merely due to laziness, or inexperience on the editor's part, so one must not jump to conclusions either. --FeralOink (talk) 12:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for adding additional clarity to my short explanation. I was careful to use the words "tend to" in order to allow for someone with more information. Fiddle   Faddle  17:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Biosthmors, what interview have you seen? I'll I've seen are brief statements. Coretheapple (talk) 15:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

edit request on 2013-11-23
old text: On October 25, 2013, it was accused of violating Wikipedia policies, including those on sockpuppetry and conflict-of-interest editing, leading to hundreds of blocked accounts.

new text: On October 25, 2013, it was banned from Wikipedia for engaging in "consensus damaging practices".

reason: The present text says the acccusations were made on October 25, 2013, but that's just the date the ban was enacted. Accusations had been made at least as early as September 2012. 

disclosure: I have participated in the Morning277 SPI and was interviewed for the Daily Dot story. &mdash; rybec   18:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Are my changes OK? I just wanted to hedge the language a little. Coretheapple (talk) 14:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

edit request on 2013-12-03
old text: Wikimedia's law firm sent Wiki-PR a cease-and-desist letter.

new text: Wikimedia's law firm e-mailed a cease-and-desist letter to Wiki-PR.

reason: The document says "Via Email" and doesn't have the recipient's postal mail address.

disclosure: participant in Morning277 SPI, interviewed for Daily Dot story &mdash; rybec   07:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, done, but I don't see why you had to request this edit, and didn't just go ahead and make the change. It's a minor fix, and it doesn't involve you personally. Coretheapple (talk) 22:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I asked mainly because I wanted to use a primary source, and because the source is biased. Sorry if I was over-cautious &mdash; rybec   23:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec) No problem. I was just about to say that I took out some text unintentionally. Glad you fixed. Coretheapple (talk) 23:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Real people vs sockpuppets?
That doesn't even make sense. "Sockpuppet" accounts are obviously run by real people, not bots. Is there any additional context from the source to clarify this for the reader, or was the person who was quoted deliberately ignorant of the actual definition of "sockpuppet"? Laval (talk) 03:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * He was intentionally obfuscating the matter, I assume. Herostratus (talk) 04:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)