Wikipedia bans hundreds more paid editor accounts and deletes affected articles

by
in internet on (#K48C)
story imageThis morning, Wikipedia parent organization Wikimedia announced they have banned 381 user accounts that were engaging in “undisclosed paid advocacy.” In other words, they were posting promotional articles to the user-editable online encyclopedia, without revealing that they were paid to do so. The articles being posted were related to businesses, business people or artists, and they often included biased or skewed information alongside unattributed material and potential copyright violations. As a result of the investigation, editors on the site have also deleted 210 articles that were created by these accounts.

Back in October 2013 Wikipedia first sent a cease-and-desist letter to the firm Wiki-PR, which promoted its ability to help article subjects claim their “top spot in Google search results.” Wikipedia said then that it banned 300 accounts associated with the firm (which argued it only had 45 people working for them.) That makes today’s 381 accounts ban actually larger than the Wiki-PR scandal.

Re: Ban: good. Name-and-shame: better. (Score: 1)

by wootery@pipedot.org on 2015-09-06 19:42 (#KMDP)

I think their problem was the high barrier of entry. You can't 'get hooked' by starting out with a small change.

I wonder how Wikipedia could be re-structured. Maybe a far larger tier of lieutenants (half-mods, as it were) with the power to stamp out edit-wars and such, but without all mod powers.
Post Comment
Subject
Comment
Captcha
What is ninety thousand four hundred and eighty four as a number?