User:Ocaasi/COIediting

Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia refers to the editing of Wikipedia articles by people whose close personal or professional relationships can reasonably be assumed to interfere with their ability to act as disinterested editors. Conflict-of-interest (COI) editing is defined and governed on Wikipedia by a guideline, Conflict of interest, known as the COI guideline. A number of controversies involving notable individuals and organizations have arisen over the years as a result of COI editing on Wikipedia.

The most controversial form of COI editing on Wikipedia is known loosely as "paid advocacy." This refers to editing by corporate or legal representatives, or their hired contractors, to create or shape an article about a client, often with a view to removing or downplaying criticism or introducing or maximizing positive material. This kind of editing may violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, which requires that articles reflect the full body of independent, reliably published, source material that exists on any given subject. The COI guideline "very strongly discourages" paid advocacy. Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales has argued that editors with a financial conflict of interest should never directly edit articles, but instead propose edits on article talk pages.

Controversies that have come to public attention include United States Congressional staff editing articles about members of Congress in 2006, Microsoft offering a software engineer money to edit articles on two competing code standards in 2007, the British public-relations (PR) firm Bell Pottinger editing articles about its clients in 2011, and the British Bureau of Investigative Journalism discovering in 2012 that British MPs or their staff had removed criticism from articles about the MPs. The media has also written about COI editing by the Central Intelligence Agency, The Vatican, Sony, Diebold, Portland Communications, and many others.

Several companies exist that charge for Wikipedia editing, and some PR firms offer to monitor and edit articles. As negative press has grown over COI editing, some PR professionals have sought to improve the relationship between their industry and Wikipedia, and/or to influence its procedures to be more accommodating of PR editing. Several set up a Facebook group, Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement (CREWE) in January 2012, and the Public Relations Society of America and the Chartered Institute of Public Relations have been involved in efforts to improve guidance for PR practitioners. On Wikipedia, two opposing groups were set up in 2012: WikiProject Cooperation works with PR professionals who want to engage with Wikipedia about their clients or organizations, while WikiProject Ingegrity opposes efforts by paid advocates to improperly influence Wikipedia.

Wikipedia policy
Wikipedia is known for being "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit". However the encyclopedia has a strict neutrality policy; in 2007, the policy stated that debates are "described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in."

Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline states (as of 2013) that a conflict of interest (COI) is an "incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopaedia, and the aims of an individual editor," and that "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest."

Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales has stridently opposed Wikipedia editors being paid for their work and in particular paid editors directly editing articles. In 2009 he stated that "It is not ok [sic] with me that anyone ever set up a service selling their services as a Wikipedia editor, administrator, bureaucrat, etc...I will personally block any cases that I am shown. There are of course some possibly interesting alternatives, not particularly relevant here, but the idea that we should ever accept paid advocates directly editing Wikipedia is not ever going to be ok. Consider this to be policy as of right now."

Some forms of paid editing on Wikipedia are not considered to give rise to conflicts of interest. One is the "reward board" on Wikipedia, which lets editors trade tasks with each other, sometimes for monetary compensation. At one point, Wikipedia's parent organization, the Wikimedia Foundation, paid illustrators to create images for articles. More recently, formal partnerships arose between galleries, libraries, archives and museums and individual Wikipedia editors, some of whom are paid for their work.

Jimmy Wales
In December 2005, it was noticed that Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales had edited his own Wikipedia entry. According to public logs, he had edited his biography 18 times, on seven of which he altered information about whether Larry Sanger was a co-founder of the online encyclopedia. It was also revealed that Wales had edited the Wikipedia article of his former company, Bomis. "Bomis Babes", a section of the Bomis website, had been characterized in the article as "soft-core pornography", but Wales revised this to "adult content section" and deleted mentions of pornography. He said he was fixing an error, and didn't agree with calling Bomis Babes soft porn.

In response to the revelations, Wales conceded that he had made the changes, but maintained that they were technical corrections. Sanger said he was "amused" by the findings: "Having seen edits like this, it does seem that Jimmy is attempting to rewrite history. But this is a futile process because in our brave new world of transparent activity and maximum communication, the truth will out." Wales commented that, "The point wasn't to write Larry Sanger out of the story. I think Larry doesn't get enough credit."

On the topic of editing articles about oneself, Wales said, "People shouldn't do it, including me...I wish I hadn't done it. It's in poor taste.... People have a lot of information about themselves but staying objective is difficult. That's the trade-off in editing entries about yourself.... If you see a blatant error or misconception about yourself, you really want to set it straight."

United States Congressional staffers
In 2006, it was discovered that more than 1,000 changes had been made to Wikipedia articles originating from the U.S. government IP addresses. Changes were revealed to have been made to articles about Representative Marty Meehan, Senator Tom Coburn, Senator Norm Coleman, Representative Gil Gutknecht, Senator Joe Biden, Senator Conrad Burns, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Senator Tom Harkin, Representative David Davis, Tennessee state representative Matthew Hill and Representative Mike Pence. The edits removed accurate but critical information and embellished positive descriptions.

In response to the controversy, certain affected IP addresses were temporarily blocked, so that government staffers from those offices could no longer edit Wikipedia. The block was later lifted following a discussion by the Wikipedia community.

MyWikiBiz
In August 2006 Gregory Kohs, a market researcher from Pennsylvania, founded MyWikiBiz, a company offering to write inexpensive Wikipedia entries for businesses. Kohs intended to keep articles he wrote objective and well referenced, and to only focus on large companies. In January 2007, Kohs said that in his view Wikipedia's coverage of major corporations was deficient, stating that "It is strange that a minor Pokemon character will get a 1,200-word article, but a Fortune 500 company will get ... maybe 100 words". Kohs had also noted the cost of absent articles in a press release he issued from MyWikiBiz: "On an average day, over 6 million different Americans are accessing Wikipedia. I can't fathom how a company's marketing or communications manager can shut off the lights for the night, knowing that his or her organization is missing out on that market of 6 million people - each of them hungry for information."

A few days after the press release, Kohs' Wikipedia account was blocked. Kohs later recalled a phone call with Jimmy Wales who told him MyWikiBiz was "antithetical" to the mission of the encyclopedia. Kohs argued that he was editing transparently. He disagreed with his treatment, and pointed out that Wikipedia has a "Reward Board" (which he had learned of prior to starting his company), a page where people can offer money, gifts, or exchanges to other editors willing to improve articles. The Chronicle of Higher Education noted that the reward board typically involves trades between editors and offers for pay "seem pretty altruistic". Wales did offer Kohs a compromise: MyWikiBiz.com could create article entries for payment and then release them for Wikipedia editors to copy into the encyclopedia. That approach was pursued for a few months, but after a change in Wikipedia policy was understood by Kohs to mean that he could now post the drafts to his personal Wikipedia userpage (which Wales had previously told him was not allowed), Wales wrote to Kohs, "Absolutely unacceptable, sorry." Later, Kohs was indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. Wales acknowledged that many did in secret what MyWikiBiz was being transparent about but thought accepting the practice was the wrong decision; "It's one thing to acknowledge there's always going to be a little of this, but another to say, 'Bring it on'." Wales also said that paid editing was "tricky" even for the Reward Board.

Kohs said it surprised him that PR agencies were discouraged from editing articles: "There are around 130 'Fortune 1,000' companies absent from Wikipedia’s pages...How could they not benefit from a little PR help?"

Helium.com vice president Andrew Ressler stated that potential Wikipedia editors with "valuable insights and knowledge" are excluded by Wikipedia's position on conflict of interests, leaving behind a small group of entrenched Wikipedians" and questioned the difference between tangible and intangible rewards.

The Pittsburg Post-Gazette commented: "'It's certainly understandable that Wikipedians would want to limit the rubbish they have to sweep away, given that they spend a fair amount of time fighting PR's more nefarious cousin: use of the site to denigrate rivals....But most contributors surely have some personal motivation to dive into a subject, whether it's adoration of 'Star Trek' or a soft spot for geraniums. What's to say contributors who get paid have a harder time sticking to the golden path of neutrality? And doesn't Wikipedia have a built-in defense mechanism -- the swarms of volunteer editors and moderators who can quickly obliterate public-relations fluff, vanity pages and other junk?'"

2007
In September, changes were made about Prince Johan Friso and his wife Princess Mabel of the Netherlands, which could be traced back to their palace.

Microsoft
In January, Australian software engineer Rick Jelliffe revealed that Microsoft had offered to pay him to edit Wikipedia articles on two competing code standards, OpenDocumentFormat and Microsoft Office Open XML. Jelliffe, who described himself as a technical expert and not an advocate for Microsoft, said he accepted the offer because he wanted the information on technical standards to be accurate. Microsoft subsequently confirmed that it had offered to pay Jelliffe to edit the articles, stating that they were seeking "more balance" in the entries, that articles contained inaccuracies, that prior efforts to get attention from Wikipedia volunteers had failed, and that Microsoft had agreed that the company would not review Jelliffe's suggested changes. Microsoft also said they had not previously hired anyone to edit Wikipedia.

Heated debate resulted after the revelation over whether such practices called Wikipedia's credibility into question. In response to the incident, Jimmy Wales said paying for edits to Wikipedia was against the encyclopedia's spirit. Wales said the better, more transparent choice would have been for Microsoft to produce a white paper on the subject, post it online, and link to it from Wikipedia. He also stated "Although agencies and employees should not edit our pages, they do – but perhaps less than you would expect."

Volunteer Wikipedia spokesperson David Gerard said, "[Wikipedia] tends not to look favorably in terms of conflict of interest, and paying someone is a conflict." Gerard added that public relations representatives commonly get blocked from editing by Wikipedia administrators.

In the same month that had seen conflict of interest issues raised by both Microsoft and MyWikiBiz, Wales stated that editors should not be paid to edit, and PR agencies would be banned if they persisted.

WikiScanner
In 2007 Virgil Griffith, a Caltech computation and neural-systems graduate student, created a searchable database that linked changes made by anonymous Wikipedia editors to companies and organizations from which the changes were made. The database cross-referenced logs of Wikipedia edits with publicly available records pertaining to the internet IP addresses edits were made from.

Griffith was motivated by the edits from the United States Congress, and wanted to see if others were similarly promoting themselves. He was particularly interested in finding scandals, especially at large and controversial corporations. He said he wanted to, "create minor public relations disasters for companies and organizations I dislike (and) to see what 'interesting organizations' (which I am neutral towards) are up to." He also wanted to give Wikipedia readers a tool to check edits for accuracy and allow the automation and indexing of edits.

Most of the edits Wikiscanner found were minor or harmless, but the site was mined to detect the most controversial and embarrassing instance of conflict of interest edits. These instances received media coverage worldwide. Included among the accused were the Vatican, the CIA, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the US Democratic Party's Congressional Campaign Committee,  the US Republican Party,  Britain's Labour Party, Britain's Conservative Party, the Canadian government, Industry Canada, the Department of Prime Minister, Cabinet, and Defence in Australia,    the United Nations, the US Senate, the US Department of Homeland Security, the US Environmental Protection Agency, Montana Senator Conrad Burns, Ohio Governor Bob Taft, the Israeli government, Exxon Mobil, Walmart,  AstraZeneca, Diebold,   Dow Chemical, Disney, Dell, Anheuser-Busch, Nestlé, Pepsi, Boeing, Sony Computer Entertainment, EA, SCO Group, MySpace, Pfizer, Raytheon, DuPont, Anglican and Catholic churches, the Church of Scientology,  the World Harvest Church, Amnesty International, the Discovery Channel, Fox News, CBS, The Washington Post, the National Rifle Association, News International, Al Jazeera, Bob Jones University, and Ohio State University.

Although the edits correlated with known IP addresses, there was no proof that the changes actually came from a member of the organization or employee of the company, only that someone had access to their network.

Wikipedia spokespersons received WikiScanner positively, noting that it helped prevent conflicts of interest from influencing articles as well as increasing transparency and mitigating attempts to remove or distort relevant facts.

In 2008 Griffith released an updated version of WikiScanner called WikiWatcher, which also exploited a common mistake made by users with registered accounts who accidentally forget to log in, revealing their IP address and subsequently their affiliations. As of March 2012 WikiScanner's website was online, but not functioning.

Israel
In 2008 Pro-Israel activist group CAMERA launched a campaign to alter Wikipedia articles in order to support the Israeli side of the conflict in contravention of Wikipedia NPOV policy. The campaign suggested that pro-Israeli editors should hide their true motive from the scrutiny of other Wikipedia editors by pretending to be interested in other topics until they can be elected as administrators. Once administrators they were to misuse their administrative powers to suppress pro-Palestinian editors and support pro-Israel editors. Some members of this conspiracy were banned by Wikipedia administrators.

In 2010 two pro-settler Israeli groups (Yesha Council and Israel Sheli), launched courses to instruct pro-Israel editors on how to use Wikipedia to promote Israel's point of view on Wikipedia. A prize is to be given to the editor who inserts the most pro-Israel changes into the encyclopedia.

Scientology
Another incident culminated in the banning of an entire organization, the Church of Scientology. In 2008, a long-running dispute between Church members and Wikipedia editors reached Wikipedia's highest court, ArbCom, which unanimously voted to block all edits from the IP addresses associated with the Church of Scientology, due to complaints they were trying to influence articles in their favor; a host of Scientology critics were banned as well, for the opposite offence.

Political figures
During the 2008 US presidential race, changes made by both Barack Obama and John McCain's campaigns made the news and there were suspicious updates to Sarah Palin's Wikipedia biography after the announcement of her Vice-President running position.

"TitianGate", as it was dubbed, was a 2009 incident in which UK leader Gordon Brown compared himself to the Italian Renaissance artist Titian who was known for his late-in-life achievements and longevity. Brown said that Titian lived until 90, which was also stated in Titian's Wikipedia article. Conservative leader David Cameron said Titian did not in fact live that long, and pointed out the event as an example Brown's tendency for inaccuracy. Shortly after Cameron's comments, Titian's article on Wikipedia was edited to reduce his age; a search of the IP address that made the edit tracked back to the Conservative Party central office.

Others
In April 2008 Phorm deleted facts from a Wikipedia article about the controversy over its advertising deals.

Bell Pottinger
In late 2011, a controversy arose around allegations that Bell Pottinger, one of the largest UK-based lobbying and public relations companies, had manipulated articles on behalf of its clients. Wikipedia editors discovered up to 19 accounts, 10 of which had over 100 edits each, which traced back to Bell Pottinger’s offices. Bell Pottinger was accused of using sock or meatpuppets to edit pages to falsely create the appearance of support for changes in articles. One of the most noted accounts was registered under the name “” (an internal Wikipedia investigation resulted in several such cases). Bell Pottinger admitted that its employees used several accounts to edit Wikipedia articles, but said that the company did not do anything illegal. In response, Wikipedia administrators blocked ten accounts. Analysis of the edits demonstrated that the changes both added positive information and removed negative content, including the removal of information regarding the drug conviction of a businessman and Bell Pottinger client and changing information about the arrest of a man convicted for commercial bribery.

Bell Pottinger's accounts were discovered by blogger and SEO consultant Tim Ireland, The Independent, and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (BIJ). Undercover BIJ reporters made enquiries while posing as members of the Uzbek government; Bell Pottinger told them that the company offered "sorting" of negative information and criticism on Wikipedia articles as well as other "dark arts."

Reactions
Jimmy Wales reacted strongly against the news, calling Bell Pottinger's actions "ethical blindness" that had "embarrassed their clients". Wales said, "I've never seen a case like this. In general when I speak to PR firms they have ethical guidelines that would prevent this kind of conduct." and "That their strongest true response is they didn't break the law tells a lot about their view of the world, I'm afraid...The company committed the cardinal sin of a PR and lobbying company of having their own bad behaviour bring bad headlines to their clients..." The Bell Pottinger Wikipedia article noted this controversy and Wales' comments.

In response to the revelations, James Thomlinson, head of digital at Bell Pottinger said, "We have never added something that is a lie or hasn't been published elsewhere and we have never tried to 'astroturf', ie create fake positive reviews to sell a product. If we have been asked to include things about clients that are untrue we have always said no and pointed to Wikipedia's strict guidelines.... We have also ensured that for every change that we have made we have sought the approval of the wider Wikipedia community first." Lord Bell launched an internal review into the incidents, but he disagreed with Wales' assessment that it reflected badly on the company. Bell said, "I can't see any bad headlines for our clients...You won't find anybody, including journalists, who doesn't do exactly the same thing." He also emphasized that if requests were made by clients to post false statements on Wikipedia, they were refused.

The incident raised discussions and debate about the PR industry's role editing Wikipedia. UK MP Jon Cryer, said: “If [Bell Pottinger] is going in and editing Wikipedia that would be questionable, the whole idea is that the website is completely open encyclopedia, and it is open to anybody, it has a democratic function...If people who are being paid to represent others are going in and editing, it sounds to me to be at the very least open to question. I would be interested to know how they justify that sort of activity, nobody reading it would be aware of what has happened, people read Wikipedia expecting total objectivity.” Alex Woolfall, prior head of issues and crisis management at Bell Pottinger said the "underhand tactics" would be lessened if Wikipedia's process for resolving controversies on the site was faster. Head of digital at Bell Pottinger, Alan Parker, said: 'Wikipedia has a responsibility to have more editors in place to review changes and investigate whether they are legitimate.'

PR Week thought the issue was more complex than "a nonprofit site - whose mission is 'to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content' - versus devious spin doctors motivated by filthy lucre." The publication noted that Wikipedia's prominence in Google search results and massive scope makes it "more influential than any newspaper and takes up an increasing amount of effort for anyone managing a reputation". He emphasized that "Wikipedia can damage reputations quickly and globally" but "the right of reply and the editing process are often arcane. There is no list of the site's authorised editors and, unlike most media, it is almost impossible to regulate or sue for defamation." He also noted that Bell Pottinger had defended themselves by citing incidents where its clients were victims of defamation on Wikipedia that were unresolved for years.

Meeting with Jimmy Wales
In response to the incident, Jimmy Wales made an offer to visit Bell Pottinger to discuss these issues, which was accepted. Wales admitted that there were weaknesses in the site's processes, stating that "Our policy around paid advocates is a bit mushy and we need to tighten it up. It's a bit of a grey area at the moment." Among the major issues discussed was speed. Lord Bell said, "You can destroy someone's reputation in one minute and it will take years to rebuild." Wales said that anything that was defamatory would be resolved quickly, but noted that in other instances, editors could be faster. Another major issue was transparency; Wales said that all PR professionals clearly state who they are and who their clients are. PR Week noted that similar transparency is not required by editors. Lord Bell said "It's important for Wikipedia to recognise we are a valuable source for accurate information" and that "apparently if you are not-for-profit what you say is true but that if you are a paid-for advocate you are lying." Bell argued that "We don’t become criminals because we are paid. We find that offensive... We’ve done absolutely nothing wrong. We did not make any change that was wrong." Wales was displeased by Bell's stance. He said, "We’re at an impasse. I’m uncomfortable when you say you have not done anything wrong." He said that being under pressure from clients is not an excuse and "being desperate doesn’t make it right". Bell did apologise to Wales for anonymously editing without declaring a conflict of interest.

The head of digital at Bell Pottinger admitted to making mistakes, blaming the incident on Wikipedia's “confusing” editing system and “the pressure put on us by clients to remove potentially defamatory or libellous statements very quickly, because Wikipedia is so authoritative.” Wales admitted that Wikipedia's rules involved "hundreds of pages of policy", but urged Bell Pottinger to seek community input rather than making changes themselves. A large portion of the discussion focused on how to do that within Wikipedia's policies, with a variety of solutions suggested. Lord Bell concluded by saying that he hoped for a positive outcome from the dialogue.

Portland Communications
In January 2012, British MP Tom Watson discovered that Portland Communications had been removing the nickname of one of its clients' products ("Wife Beater", referring to Anheuser-Busch InBev's Stella Artois beer) from Wikipedia. Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) CEO Jane Wilson noted, "Stella Artois is on the 'wife-beater' page because it is a nick-name in common currency for that brand of strong continental lager. The brand managers who want to change this have a wider reputational issue to address, editing the term from a Wikipedia page will not get rid of this association." Other edits from Portland's offices included changes to articles about another Portland client, the Kazakhstan's BTA Bank, and its former head Mukhtar Ablyazov. Portland did not deny making the changes, arguing they had been done transparently and in accordance with Wikipedia's policies. Portland Communications welcomed CIPR's subsequent announcement of a collaboration with Wikipedia and invited Jimmy Wales to speak to their company, as he did at Bell Pottinger. Tom Watson was optimistic about the collaboration: "PR professionals need clear guidelines in this new world of online-information-sharing. That's why I am delighted that interested parties are coming together to establish a clear code of conduct."

Others
In June 2011 PR Week reported on a 'fixer', a known but unnamed London-based figure in the PR industry who offered services to 'cleanse' articles. Wikipedia entries this person was accused of changing included "Carphone Warehouse co-founder David Ross, Von Essen Group chairman Andrew Davis, British property developer David Rowland and billionaire Saudi tycoon Maan Al-Sanea" as well as Edward Stanley, 19th Earl of Derby. According to PR Week's investigation, 42 edits were made from the same IP address, most of them removing negative or controversial information, or adding positive information.

Also in 2011 there were conflicted edits to US Congressional representative David Rivera's Wikipedia article.

Newt Gingrich
Around the beginning of 2012, Joe DeSantis, the campaign communications director for American politician and presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, argued for and made changes to Gingrich's Wikipedia article. Some of the changes which DeSantis requested were minor, but his initial efforts tried to remove negative details which he thought unduly biased the articles, including details about Gingrich's extramarital affairs, information about his financial expenditure, ethics charges against him, and his political positions on controversial issues. The incident was notable for DeSantis' switch from editing articles about the politician and his wife directly, to following Wikipedia' conflict of interest policy by using the linked discussion pages for each articles to suggest edits rather than make them himself. He said, "I stopped making direct edits in May 2011 because I was alerted to the COI rules...Earlier I thought that simply disclosing my affiliation was enough but it wasn't. So I started posting requests on the Talk page. This has been far more successful and the other editors on Wikipedia have largely received this very positively." He told the political journalism organization Politico that his approach of working with the Wikipedia community by discussing edits on talk pages to be more successful than making the changes himself. Wikipedia editor Tvoz was quoted as critical of the practice; she wrote: "... I have to say this micro-managing by a Gingrich campaign director is a matter of concern to me even though you now are identifying yourself. Pointing out factual errors is one thing, but your input should not go beyond that, even [on a Talk page]."

United Kingdom Parliament
In March 2012, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism uncovered that UK MPs or their staff had made almost 10,000 edits to the encyclopedia, and that almost one in six MPs had had their Wikipedia article edited from within Parliament. Many of the changes dealt with removing unflattering details from during the 2009 expenses scandal, as well as other controversial issues. Former MP Joan Ryan admitted to changing her entry "whenever there’s misleading or untruthful information [that has] been placed on it." Clare Short said her staff were "angry and protective" over mistakes and criticisms in her Wikipedia article and acknowledged they might have made changes to it. Labour MP Fabian Hamilton also reported having one of his assistants edit a page to make it more accurate in his view. MP Philip Davies denied making changes about removing controversial comments related to Muslims from 2006 and 2007.

Others
Edits involving Daimler AG were reported in March.

In August Communications Director for Idaho’s Department of Education Melissa McGrath, edited the article on her boss Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Luna. In September it was revealed that Tory Party charmain Grant Shapps had changed the information about his academic record as well as donor information. Also in September, writer Phillip Roth wrote a piece in the New Yorker chronicling his difficulty changing information about one of his novels.

Also in September, controversy surrounded Wikimedia UK trustee Roger Bamkin, who along with OCLC Wikipedian in Residence Maximillian Klein, had been organizing an effort to create articles about Gibraltar in partnership with the Gibraltar Tourism Board. Articles written under this program were featured on the Wikipedia mainpage an unusually high 17 times in the course of a few weeks. This issue brought attention to organizational conflicts of interest regarding Wikimedia Movement partners, leading to an investigation of WMUK. Bamkin stepped down as trustee following the media response. Jimmy Wales commented, "“It is wildly inappropriate for a board member of a chapter, or anyone else in an official role of any kind in a charity associated with Wikipedia, to take payment from customers in exchange for securing favorable placement on the front page of Wikimedia or anywhere else.”

In October, the Occupy Melbourne article was edited from City of Melbourne ip address to altering language about recent protests, on the heels of the election of lord mayor Robert Doyle. In November Finsbury, the firm led by Roland Rudd was found to have anonymously edited the article about Alisher Usmanov, removing information about various controverseis.

2013
In February, prison company GEO Group received media coverage when a Wikipedia user under the name Abraham Cohen edited the entry on the company regarding naming rights to Florida Atlantic University (FAU) Stadium; GEO Group's Manager of Corporate Relations at the time was named Abraham Cohen, also an FAU alumnus. The majority of these edits had been made under a Wikipedia account named "Abraham Cohen".

BP
In March 2013 it was reported in the media that BP had encouraged substantial changes to its Wikipedia entry through a member of its press office. According to the reports, Wikipedia editor "Arturo at BP" submitted drafts for rewriting parts of the company's article that were then reviewed and added by other editors, including sections dealing with its environmental record. Estimates of the size of the contributions were as high as 44% of the article. Arturo at BP had stated on his user page "In the interest of full transparency, I chose 'Arturo at BP' as my username so that my affiliation with BP is abundantly clear to all parties I may interact with on Wikipedia," and noted that he has not directly edited the page, but has only suggested text to other editors on the article's "talk page." Nonetheless, the development caused concern among some users as the content was being produced by an employee, while "readers would be none the wiser." Jimmy Wales was quoted in Salon.com, saying “I think that accusing [BP employee] Arturo of ‘skirting’ Wikipedia’s rules in this case is fairly ludicrous – unless ‘skirting’ means ‘going above and beyond what is required in order to be very clearly in compliance with best practice.’ So, I would consider that a blatant factual misrepresentation.” The Wikipedia community intensely debated the ethics of the incident and how to handle it and other similar cases.

Public relations industry and Wikipedia community response
In late 2011 and 2012 the public relations industry—motivated by a desire to clean up their image and change what they viewed as being shut-out from making legitimate edits—began taking organized steps to improve their relationship with the Wikipedia Community.

Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement (CREWE)
Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement (CREWE) is a Facebook group created by members of the public relations industry that formed in January 2012 with the aim of improving the relationship between their industry and Wikipedia. They have lobbied for greater involvement by PR professionals on the site, with the stated goal of maintaining accurate articles about corporations. Some Wikipedia editors including Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales, have also joined the group to discuss these issues.

In a January 4, 2012 open letter to Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, Phil Gomes of Edelman, Gomes argued that Wikipedia's prominence as a top search result adds a level of responsibility to be accurate. Gomes also criticized alleged inaccurate or outdated articles and the lack of timely response to issues raised in existing channels. He further argued that allowing PR representatives to fix minor errors, such as spelling, grammar and facts, leaves too much ambiguity about what are acceptable changes to make. He made the comparison between PR editors and activists, challenging that activists seem to enjoy "much more latitude". Finally, Gomes argued that in certain situations direct editing of articles was called for.

According to Gerard F. Corbett, CEO of PRSA, CREWE is based on four principles: 1) Corporate communicators want to do the right thing; 2) Communicators engaged in ethical practice have a lot to contribute; 3) Current Wikipedia policy does not fully understand Nos. 1 and 2, owing to the activities of some bad actors and a general misunderstanding of public relations in general; and 4) Accurate Wikipedia entries are in the public interest.

Among the organization's goals are to get Jimmy Wales to change his opposition to paid editors directly editing articles.

After the group started, conversation on Twitter and elsewhere ensued between group members and Wales. Wales maintained PR representatives should cooperate with the community and abide by its policies, but still not edit articles directly.

Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR)
The Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) is a public relations industry group centered in the UK, similar in scope to the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) in the United States. CIPR publishes Social Media Guidance, but it was not until the Bell Pottinger and Portland Communications incidents that they began to collaborate directly with the regional Wikimedia UK chapter (WMUK) to provide guidance for CIPR members on how best to interact with the Wikipedia community and its policies. Both groups have increased their focus on Wikipedia editing since 2011.

CIPR plans to offer education for PR professionals to better follow Wikipedia’s guidelines. Roger Bamkin, chair of Wikimedia UK said, “Recent incidents highlighted by Tom Watson MP and in the national press show that in some parts of the PR profession, a lack of understanding on how to engage with the Wikipedia community persists. We will work with the CIPR to ensure that their members, and through them the wider PR Profession, have access to the clearest possible guidance on the best way to work with Wikipedia. We believe that attempts to mask the true identity of anyone seeking to edit the site are unethical as well as counterproductive.”

CIPR said more work was needed to clarify best practices for changing Wikipedia articles. CIPR Policy and communications officer, Andrew Ross, emphasized the two way relationship of the project: 'We want Wikipedia to understand the role of communications and why communications professionals want to access the site and use it in a transparent way,' he said.

Jane Wilson, CIPR CEO reasoned for a conservative, collaborative approach:"What is needed is a widespread understanding and acceptance of the most appropriate way for public relations professionals to go about [addressing articles]. For the time being, we may have to start with an acceptance that Wikipedians have a problem with our profession and this reputation has unfortunately been earned. We can't change this overnight but by working in partnership with Wikimedia UK and Wikipedians, through outreach, diplomacy and dialogue, we can make a difference."

CIPR's guidelines recommends that PR professionals editing Wikipedia be transparent about who they are and their motivations and to be open and honest at all times. A CIPR press release said, "There is a need to develop understanding of the mutual advantages of open, transparent engagement with the public through Wikipedia." In June of 2012, CIPR emphasized that the most significant finding of their guidelines was that PR professionals "should not directly edit Wikipedia pages relating to their organisation or brand."

The Public Relations Society of America (PRSA)
PRSA head Gerald Corbett argued for greater permissions and access to Wikipedia: "'We believe there is a case to be made for PR professionals to responsibly edit client Wikipedia entries in an ethical and transparent manner... An accurate Wikipedia entry serves the public interest far better than inaccurate entries that are allowed to languish with errors because Wikipedia editors refuse to allow 'paid advocates' to make necessary, accurate changes. A disclosure of one’s professional affiliation with a business should not automatically exempt him or her from being allowed to responsibly edit Wikipedia entries.... To be sure, there are some who wish to abuse the system... But on the whole, we believe that PR professionals, particularly those whose work adheres to the PRSA Code of Ethics, are responsible and respectful of the online communities in which they engage and seek to influence...Our position on this matter is simple: it's wrong for the PR profession to think it can run roughshod over the established Wikipedia community. PR professionals must engage with it in a reasonable manner that respects the community’s rules and protocols, while also ensuring they are acting in their clients' best interests. But the engagement should be a two-way street in which Wikipedia is willing to see and accommodate both sides of the issue. At the moment, we do not believe that to be the case."

International Association of Business Communicators (IABC)
IABC devoted their September 2012 CW Bulletin to the topic of paid editing including various viewpoints on the debate and ethics surrounding the issue. PR pro Neville Hobson noted, "It’s an uncomfortable relationship, where each side has been suspicious of the motives and behaviors of the other." He acknowledge that abuses of the editing process "are bad not only because they contravene the norms of the Wikipedia community, but also because they contravene the norms of PR best practice." PR pro Mark Estes stated that "Companies and organizations that are good, accurate sources of information can depend on their stories being told", but he noted the inherent tensions in the profession: "As an advocate, a public relations professional is accountable to his or her client or organization. As a voice of social conscience, however, a public relations professional is accountable to the public at large. Thus, the innate conflict between the two identities. The theory of responsible advocacy attempts to reconcile that conflict and provide guidance to achieve common ground." PR pro David King recommended "collaborating with nothing to hide", emphasizing transparency and the importance of not editing articles directly. He explained: "When legal and marketing departments establish their corporate Wikipedia strategy or policy, they often feel they are faced with only two choices: Ignore one of the world’s most influential websites with a hands-off policy or engage in the risky, controversial and ethically ambiguous practice of direct editing. In some circumstances these are both good strategies, but most companies can find more effective middle ground by engaging in PR or content marketing with Wikipedia’s citizen journalists—a safe and ethical way to make improvements that is valuable both for the organization and Wikipedia." Austin Buckley suggested finding third-party sources to offer corrections for factual disputes, while noting, "Neutrality issues are a grayer area, but in theory, Wikipedia articles should take an impartial tone toward their subjects." PR pro Phil Gomes characterized the method of using talk page to resolve disputes as complex and lengthy. He conceded the difference between fixing errors and biasing articles: "I’m not talking about opening Wikipedia to whitewashing. The reasonable person wouldn’t want Union Carbide playing around in the entry on Bhopal, for example, nor would you want the nuclear energy lobby making clandestine changes to the article on Three Mile Island. It’s imperative, however, that the public relations industry demonstrate by cooperation and good behavior that it can work with the Wikipedia community instead of taking the quick, easy-fix route."

WikiProject Cooperation and WikiProject Integrity
In 2012 an on-Wikipedia effort called WikiProject Cooperation was started to address issues relating to paid editing and conflict of interest. The group is made up of both paid editors and regular Wikipedia editors, and it is designed to help deal with the complexity and controversy surrounding conflict of interest editing. The group "facilitates collaboration with editors paid to edit Wikipedia...[providing] education and outreach to Public Relations and Marketing professionals, freelance editors, and employees working on assignments from their employers" with the goal of "support[ing] ethical, transparent paid editors that opt-in to collaborative efforts to meet Wikipedia's encyclopedic goals, serve the public's interest and avoid even the perception of impropriety." The main avenue for accomplishing its goals is a Paid Editor Help page where paid editors and representatives can requests changes to an article and have it reviewed by an experienced editor. Rather than take a strong stance for or against paid editing, WikiProject Cooperation takes a "conciliatory approach", encouraging paid editors to be "polite, civil and humble". It echoes COI policy in strongly discouraging paid editors from making direct edits to articles.

A contrasting effort, noted by the blog The Wikipedian, is WikiProject Integrity (formerly Wikiproject Paid Advocacy Watch). The goal of this Wikiproject is to: "discuss, raise awareness of, and hopefully address issues regarding paid editing on Wikipedia, in which people are compensated to create and edit Wikipedia articles."

Internal links

 * A 2006 article in Wikipedia's community newspaper about paid editing
 * A 2009 article in Wikipedia's community newspaper about paid editing
 * A 2009 community discussion about paid editing
 * A 2012 Wikipedia newspaper series about paid editing, Does Wikipedia Pay?
 * A 2012 community discussion on COI