This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24613608
The article has changed 8 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 5 | Version 6 |
|---|---|
| Wikipedia probe into paid-for 'sockpuppet' entries | Wikipedia probe into paid-for 'sockpuppet' entries |
| (about 5 hours later) | |
| Wikipedia editors have expressed "shock and dismay" at the discovery of hundreds of user accounts set up to make paid-for entries. | Wikipedia editors have expressed "shock and dismay" at the discovery of hundreds of user accounts set up to make paid-for entries. |
| Paid-for advocacy and the adoption of fake "sockpuppet" identities for promotional purposes are against the free web encyclopaedia's policies. | Paid-for advocacy and the adoption of fake "sockpuppet" identities for promotional purposes are against the free web encyclopaedia's policies. |
| Sue Gardner, executive editor of the Wikimedia Foundation, said "as many as several hundred" accounts were suspect. | Sue Gardner, executive editor of the Wikimedia Foundation, said "as many as several hundred" accounts were suspect. |
| Editors have blocked or banned more than 250 accounts, she added. | Editors have blocked or banned more than 250 accounts, she added. |
| "Our goal is to provide neutral, reliable information for our readers, and anything that threatens that is a serious problem," said Ms Gardner. | "Our goal is to provide neutral, reliable information for our readers, and anything that threatens that is a serious problem," said Ms Gardner. |
| "We are actively examining this situation and exploring our options." | "We are actively examining this situation and exploring our options." |
| Wikipedia considers paid-for advocacy a "black hat" practice, she said, that "violates the core principles that have made Wikipedia so valuable for so many people." | Wikipedia considers paid-for advocacy a "black hat" practice, she said, that "violates the core principles that have made Wikipedia so valuable for so many people." |
| The Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organisation that operates Wikipedia, a free online encyclopaedia. | The Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organisation that operates Wikipedia, a free online encyclopaedia. |
| According to investigations by the service's editors, most of the disputed entries appear to originate from a US company called Wiki-PR, which claims to "build, manage, and translate Wikipedia pages for over 12,000 people and companies." | According to investigations by the service's editors, most of the disputed entries appear to originate from a US company called Wiki-PR, which claims to "build, manage, and translate Wikipedia pages for over 12,000 people and companies." |
| 'Promotional tone' | |
| The editors say promotional entries - which were posted by an account called "Morning227" as well as by others - have been commissioned by Silicon Valley dot-coms, small financial institutions, authors, medical doctors, a musician and an oil company, amongst others. | The editors say promotional entries - which were posted by an account called "Morning227" as well as by others - have been commissioned by Silicon Valley dot-coms, small financial institutions, authors, medical doctors, a musician and an oil company, amongst others. |
| Citations are taken from a number of blog-like websites that accept "citizen journalist" material, including CrunchBase, DigitalJournal.com and Technorati.com. | |
| Entries "often have a promotional tone and always contain material that is either neutral or that is flattering of their subjects, never material that is critical or negative," Wikipedia said. | Entries "often have a promotional tone and always contain material that is either neutral or that is flattering of their subjects, never material that is critical or negative," Wikipedia said. |
| However, Wiki-PR disputed the idea it had broken Wikipedia's rules by promoting or advertising its clients' agendas, saying it merely wanted to ensure they were "presented accurately" on the site. | However, Wiki-PR disputed the idea it had broken Wikipedia's rules by promoting or advertising its clients' agendas, saying it merely wanted to ensure they were "presented accurately" on the site. |
| "The PR in Wiki-PR is a misnomer - we're a research and writing firm," Jordan French, the firm's chief executive, told the BBC. | "The PR in Wiki-PR is a misnomer - we're a research and writing firm," Jordan French, the firm's chief executive, told the BBC. |
| "We research the subject and write in an accurate and properly referenced way about it, filling a hole at Wikipedia for many subjects - concepts, companies, people, even astronomy - in which other editors lack an interest. | "We research the subject and write in an accurate and properly referenced way about it, filling a hole at Wikipedia for many subjects - concepts, companies, people, even astronomy - in which other editors lack an interest. |
| "We're part of the fabric of Wikipedia - an integral part - and useful where volunteers don't want to or cannot put in the time to understand a subject, find sources, code, upload, and professionally monitor a page. " | "We're part of the fabric of Wikipedia - an integral part - and useful where volunteers don't want to or cannot put in the time to understand a subject, find sources, code, upload, and professionally monitor a page. " |