Conflict-of-interest Editing On Wikipedia
Get Conflict-of-interest Editing On Wikipedia essential facts below. View Videos or join the Conflict-of-interest Editing On Wikipedia discussion. Add Conflict-of-interest Editing On Wikipedia to your topic list for future reference or share this resource on social media.
Conflict-of-interest Editing On Wikipedia

Conflict-of-interest (COI) editing on Wikipedia occurs when editors use resource to advance the interests of their external roles or relationships. The type of COI editing of most concern on resource is paid editing for public relations (PR) purposes.[1] Several Wikipedia policies and guidelines exist to combat conflict of interest editing, including Resource: Conflict of interest and Resource: Paid-contribution disclosure.

Controversies reported by the media include United States congressional staff editing articles about members of Congress in 2006; Microsoft offering a software engineer money to edit articles on competing code standards in 2007; the PR firm Bell Pottinger editing articles about its clients in 2011; and the discovery in 2012 that British MPs or their staff had removed criticism from articles about those MPs. The media has also written about COI editing by BP, the Central Intelligence Agency, Diebold, Portland Communications, Sony, the Vatican, and several others.

In 2012, resource launched one of its largest sockpuppet investigations, when editors reported suspicious activity suggesting 250 accounts had been used to engage in paid editing. resource traced the edits to a firm known as Wiki-PR and the accounts were banned. 2015's Operation Orangemoody uncovered another paid-editing scam, in which over 380 accounts were used to extort money from businesses to create and ostensibly protect promotional articles about them.

Wikipedia on conflict-of-interest editing

Wikipedia is edited by volunteer contributors. The conflict-of-interest Wikipedia guideline is a "generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow". This guideline strongly discourages COI editing and advises those with a financial conflict of interest, including paid editors, to refrain from direct article editing. The paid-contribution-disclosure policy, which has legal ramifications, requires that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any contribution for which they are paid, including talk-page contributions.

On October 21, 2013, Sue Gardner, then-executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation, condemned paid editing for promotional purposes.[1] The law firm Cooley LLP, in a cease and desist letter to Wiki-PR, wrote that "this practice violates the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use, including but not limited to Section 4, which prohibits users from 'engaging in false statements, impersonation, or fraud', and '...misrepresenting your affiliation with any individual or entity, or using the username of another user with the intent to deceive'".[2] In 2014 the Wikimedia Foundation updated their terms of use to require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which [they] receive, or expect to receive, compensation".[3]

Laws against covert advertising

United States Federal Trade Commission

The Federal Trade Commission has published a guide to its regulations to implement federal law concerning the use of endorsements and testimonials in advertising at Endorsement Guidelines and Dot Com Disclosures.[4][5]

European fair trading law

In May 2012, the Munich Oberlandesgericht court confirmed a ruling against a company which edited resource articles with the aim of influencing customers. It viewed the edits as undeclared commercial practice according to The Act against unfair Competition Section 4, 3[6] as it constituted covert advertising, and as such were a violation of European fair trading law (see the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive). The ruling stated that readers cannot be expected to seek out user and talk pages to find editors' disclosures about their corporate affiliation. The case arose out of a claim against a company by a competitor over edits made to the article Weihrauchpräparat on the German Wikipedia.[7][8]

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) in the UK reached a similar decision in June 2012 in relation to material about Nike on Twitter. The ASA found that the content of certain tweets from two footballers had been "agreed with the help of a member of the Nike marketing team." The tweets were not clearly identified as Nike marketing communications, and were therefore in breach of the ASA's code.[9]



Jimmy Wales

In December 2005, it was noticed that resource co-founder Jimmy Wales had edited his own resource entry. According to public logs, he has edited his biography 19 times,[10] as of 9 September 2013, seven times altering information about whether Larry Sanger was a co-founder of Wikipedia. It was also revealed that Wales had edited the resource 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 did not agree with calling Bomis Babes soft porn. Wales conceded that he had made the changes, but maintained that they were technical corrections.[11]

United States Congressional staffers

In 2006, it was discovered that more than 1,000 changes had been made to resource articles originating from United States government IP addresses. Changes had been made to articles about Representative Marty Meehan,[12] Senator Tom Coburn, Senator Norm Coleman,[13] Representative Gil Gutknecht,[14] Senator Joe Biden,[14] Senator Conrad Burns,[15] Senator Dianne Feinstein,[16] Senator Tom Harkin,[16] Representative David Davis,[17] Tennessee state representative Matthew Hill[17][18] and then-Representative Mike Pence.[19] The edits removed accurate but critical information and embellished positive descriptions.[16] In response to the controversy, certain affected IP addresses were temporarily blocked.[20]

Later, in 2011, conflicted edits were also made to US Congressional representative David Rivera's article.[21]


In August 2006, Gregory Kohs, a market researcher from Pennsylvania, founded MyWikiBiz, a company offering to write inexpensive resource entries for businesses.[22] 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 Pokémon character will get a 1,200-word article, but a Fortune 500 company will get ... maybe 100 words". A few days after issuing a press release about his business, Kohs' resource account was blocked. Kohs later recalled a phone call with Jimmy Wales who told him MyWikiBiz was "antithetical" to the mission of the encyclopedia.[23] 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?"[24]


In January 2007, Australian software engineer Rick Jelliffe revealed that Microsoft had offered to pay him to edit resource articles on two competing code standards, OpenDocumentFormat and Microsoft Office Open XML.[25] Jelliffe, who described himself as a technical expert and not an advocate for Microsoft,[26][27] said he accepted the offer because he wanted the information on technical standards to be accurate.[26] Microsoft subsequently confirmed that it had offered to pay Jelliffe to edit the articles, stating that they were seeking "more balance" in the entries,[25] that articles contained inaccuracies,[28] that prior efforts to get attention from resource 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.[26]

Heated debate resulted after the revelation over whether such practices called Wikipedia's credibility into question.[25] In response to the incident, Jimmy Wales said paying for edits to resource was against the encyclopedia's spirit.[26][29] 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.[29] He also stated "Although agencies and employees should not edit our pages, they do - but perhaps less than you would expect."[24]

Volunteer resource spokesperson David Gerard said, "[Wikipedia] tends not to look favorably in terms of conflict of interest, and paying someone is a conflict."[25] Gerard added that public relations representatives commonly get blocked from editing by resource administrators.[25]

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.[24]


In 2007, Virgil Griffith created a searchable database that linked changes made by anonymous resource editors to companies and organizations from which the changes were made. The database cross-referenced logs of resource edits with publicly available records pertaining to the internet IP addresses edits were made from.[30]

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."[31] He also wanted to give resource readers a tool to check edits for accuracy[30] and allow the automation and indexing of edits.[32]

Most of the edits WikiScanner found were minor or harmless,[30] but the site was mined[further explanation needed] to detect the most controversial and embarrassing instance of conflict of interest edits.[33] These instances received media coverage worldwide. Included among the accused were the Vatican,[34][35] the CIA,[30][35] the Federal Bureau of Investigation,[31] the US Democratic Party's Congressional Campaign Committee,[35][36] the US Republican Party,[32][36] Britain's Labour Party,[36] Britain's Conservative Party,[32] the Canadian government,[37] Industry Canada,[38] the Department of Prime Minister, Cabinet, and Defence in Australia,[39][40][41][42][43] the United Nations,[44] the US Senate,[45] the US Department of Homeland Security,[46] the US Environmental Protection Agency,[46] Montana Senator Conrad Burns,[30] Ohio Governor Bob Taft,[47] the Israeli government,[48] Exxon Mobil,[49] Walmart,[30][49] AstraZeneca, Diebold,[30][32][36] Dow Chemical,[32] Disney,[37] Dell,[49] Anheuser-Busch,[50] Nestlé,[32] Pepsi, Boeing,[32] Sony Computer Entertainment,[51] EA,[52] SCO Group,[50] MySpace,[32] Pfizer,[46] Raytheon,[46] DuPont,[53] Anglican and Catholic[failed verification] churches,[32] the Church of Scientology,[32][37] the World Harvest Church,[47] Amnesty International,[32] the Discovery Channel,[32] Fox News,[36][54] CBS, The Washington Post, the National Rifle Association,[32] News International,[32] Al Jazeera,[46] Bob Jones University,[46] and Ohio State University.[47]

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.[35]

Wikipedia spokespersons received WikiScanner positively, noting that it helped prevent conflicts of interest from influencing articles[31] as well as increasing transparency[35] and mitigating attempts to remove or distort relevant facts.[32]

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.[55] As of March 2012 WikiScanner's website was online, but not functioning.[56]

Israeli-Palestinian conflict

In 2008, the pro-Israel activist group Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) launched a campaign to alter resource articles to support the Israeli side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The campaign suggested that pro-Israeli editors should pretend to be interested in other topics until elected as administrators. Once administrators they were to misuse their administrative powers to suppress pro-Palestinian editors and support pro-Israel editors.[57] Some participants in the project were banned by resource administrators.[58]

In 2010, two pro-settler Israeli groups, Yesha Council and Israel Sheli, launched courses to instruct pro-Israel editors on how to use resource to promote Israel's point of view. A prize was to be given to the editor who inserted the most pro-Israel changes.[59]

Church of Scientology

In 2008, a long-running dispute between members of the Church of Scientology and resource editors reached Wikipedia's arbitration Committee. The church members were accused of attempting to sway articles in the church's interest, while other editors were accused of the opposite. The arbitration committee unanimously voted to block all edits from the IP addresses associated with the church; several Scientology critics were also banned.[60]

2008 U.S. presidential campaign

During the 2008 U.S. presidential election, changes made by both Barack Obama's and John McCain's campaigns made news.[61] A user who later claimed to work for the McCain campaign made changes to Sarah Palin's article just before the announcement that she would run for vice-president.[62]


Koch brothers use of PR firm

In 2010, Koch Industries began employing New Media Strategies (NMS), an internet PR firm specializing in "word-of-mouth marketing". Shortly afterwards, it was discovered that employees of the company, editing from IPs controlled by NMS, were editing the resource articles for Charles Koch, David Koch, Political activities of the Koch brothers, and The Science of Success (a book written by Charles). Under numerous usernames, NMS employees edited resource articles "to distance the Koch family from the Tea Party movement, to provide baseless comparisons between Koch and conspiracy theories surrounding George Soros, and to generally delete citations to liberal news outlets." These activities were exposed at resource and described in the press.[63] A large group of editors who were editing from NMS IPs became the subject of a sockpuppet investigation, were blocked, and later unblocked.[64]

London-based "PR fixer"

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. resource 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, billionaire Saudi tycoon Maan Al-Sanea, and Edward Stanley, 19th Earl of Derby. According to PR Week, 42 edits were made from the same IP address, most of them removing negative or controversial information, or adding positive information.[65]

Bell Pottinger

In December 2011, blogger Tim Ireland, The Independent, and the British Bureau of Investigative Journalism (BIJ) discovered that Bell Pottinger, one of the UK's largest public relations companies, had manipulated articles on behalf of its clients.[66] Wikipedians discovered up to 19 accounts, 10 of which had over 100 edits each, which traced back to Bell Pottinger's offices; as a result of the investigation 10 of the accounts were blocked.[67] Bell Pottinger was accused of using sock or meatpuppets to edit pages to create the appearance of support for changes in articles.[68] One of the most noted accounts was registered under the name "Biggleswiki"[67] (an internal resource investigation resulted in several such cases). Bell Pottinger admitted that its employees had used several accounts, but said that the company had not done anything illegal. Analysis of the edits demonstrated that the changes had 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.[66]

Undercover BIJ reporters made inquiries while posing as members of the Uzbek government; Bell Pottinger told them that the company offered "sorting" of negative information and criticism on resource articles, as well as other "dark arts".[66]

Jimmy Wales called Bell Pottinger's actions "ethical blindness."[66] Timothy Bell, the chairman, launched an internal review, but disagreed with Wales's view. He said, "You can destroy someone's reputation in one minute and it will take years to rebuild," and continued: "It's important for resource to recognise we are a valuable source for accurate information," and "apparently if you are not-for-profit what you say is true but that if you are a paid-for advocate you are lying."[69] The head of digital at Bell Pottinger blamed 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 resource is so authoritative."[70]

In 2016, Bell Pottinger staff were reported to have edited resource articles relating to South African individuals and companies, while the agency was working for the Gupta family.[71][72] Substantial editing of the resource page about the Guptas was also reported; a Bell Pottinger employee was said to have emailed much of the content to a Gupta account for it to be uploaded.[73][74] In December 2016, South African billionaire Johann Rupert dropped Bell Pottinger as the PR agency of Richemont, accusing Bell Pottinger of running a social media campaign against him, to divert attention away from persistent 'state capture' allegations leveled at the Gupta family.[75][76] In February 2017, Rupert alleged that Bell Pottinger had maliciously altered his resource page.[77]

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 resource page will not get rid of this association."[78] 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.[79] Portland Communications welcomed CIPR's subsequent announcement of a collaboration with resource and invited Jimmy Wales to speak to their company, as he did at Bell Pottinger.[80] 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."[81]

Newt Gingrich

Around the beginning of 2012, Joe DeSantis, the campaign communications director for American presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, argued for and made changes to Gingrich's resource article.[82] Some changes which DeSantis requested were minor, but his initial efforts tried to remove negative details which he thought unduly biased the articles,[83] including details about Gingrich's extramarital affairs, information about his financial expenditure, ethics charges against him, and his political positions on controversial issues.[83][84]

The incident was notable for DeSantis' switch from editing articles about the politician and his wife directly, to following Wikipedia' conflict of interest guideline by using the linked discussion pages for each article 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 resource have largely received this very positively."[84] He told the political journalism organization Politico that his approach of working with the resource community by discussing edits on talk pages to be more successful than making the changes himself. resource 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]."[83]

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 their resource articles edited from within Parliament.[85] Many of the changes dealt with removing unflattering details from during the 2009 expenses scandal, as well as other controversial issues.[86] Former MP Joan Ryan admitted to changing her entry "whenever there's misleading or untruthful information [that has] been placed on it."[86] Clare Short said her staff were "angry and protective" over mistakes and criticisms in her resource article and acknowledged they might have made changes to it.[86] 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.[86]

Labour MP Chuka Umunna was alleged to have created and edited his own resource page. Umunna told the Daily Telegraph that he did not alter his own resource page, but the paper quoted what they called "sources close to Umunna" as having told the newspaper that "it was possible that one of his campaign team in 2007, when he was trying to be selected to be Labour's candidate for Streatham in the 2010 general election, set up the page."[87]


In September 2012, controversy surrounded Wikimedia UK trustee Roger Bamkin, who along with OCLC Wikipedian in Residence Maximillian Klein, had been organizing an effort named Gibraltarpedia to create articles about Gibraltar in partnership with the Gibraltar Tourism Board. Articles written under this program were featured on the resource mainpage an unusually high 17 times in the course of a few weeks.[88][89] This issue brought attention to organizational conflicts of interest regarding Wikimedia Movement partners, leading to an investigation of WMUK.[90] Bamkin stepped down as trustee following the media response.[91] 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."[92][93]

GEO Group

In February 2013, for-profit prison company GEO Group received media coverage when a resource 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, who is an FAU alumnus, former FAU student body president, and former ex-officio member of the FAU board of trustees.[94] Eleven edits constituting the majority of all those changes had been made in a single day under a resource account named "Abraham Cohen", the only day on which that account has ever been used.[95][96]


In March 2013, it was reported that a member of BP's press office had submitted drafts to rewrite the company's article, including sections dealing with its environmental record; the drafts were reviewed and added by other editors.[97][98][99] Estimates of the size of the contributions were as high as 44 percent of the article.[100] The BP press officer, who called himself "Arturo at BP," said he had chosen that name to make his affiliation clear, and noted that he had not directly edited the page. The development caused concern because the content was being produced by an employee, while "readers would be none the wiser."[97] Jimmy Wales was quoted in, 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."[100] The resource community intensely debated the ethics of the incident and how to handle it and other similar cases.[101][102]


This company affirms that "WikiExperts employees do not directly edit Wikipedia. Instead, we act as a consulting company which outsources such editing to most suitable affiliated experts."[103]


In 2012, resource volunteers launched possibly one of the largest sockpuppet investigations in its history after editors on its website reported suspicious activity suggesting a number of accounts were used to subvert Wikipedia's policies. After almost a year of investigation, over 250 sockpuppet accounts were allegedly found, operated by two independent networks of users. resource editors traced the edits and sockpuppetry back to a firm known as Wiki-PR, leading to a cease and desist letter by Sue Gardner issued to the founders of the organization.[104] The accounts were banned. On 25 October 2013, a community ban was further placed on Wiki-PR and any of its contractors.

Peking Duk

At a December 2015 Peking Duk show in Melbourne, a fan named David Spargo accessed the backstage area by editing the band's resource article page and inserting himself as a family member. Upon showing the article and his ID to the security guards, he was granted access to the band with whom he shared a beer. The band reacted positively to this scheme, stating: "He explained to us his amazing tactic to get past security to hang with us and we immediately cracked him a beer. This dude is the definition of a legend." However, Hyde did add: "It goes to show, never trust Wikipedia".[105][106]


In 2015, the resource community blocked 381 accounts, many of them suspected sock puppets of the same people, after a two-month investigation called Operation Orangemoody revealed that the accounts had been used to blackmail firms "struggling to get pages about their businesses on Wikipedia." These businesses had been told by resource users that articles about them had been "rejected due to concerns of excessive promotional content." In a few cases, the users asking for money were the same accounts that had earlier rejected the articles for publication.[107]

The scammers asked for hundreds of pounds to "protect or promote" the firms' interests. resource deleted 210 articles related to UK businesses, most of them of middle size. Individuals were also targeted. The investigation was named OrangeMoody by resource editors after the name of the first identified account. An unnamed resource spokesperson[dubious ] stated that "undisclosed paid advocacy editing may represent a serious conflict of interest and could compromise the quality of content on Wikipedia."[107]

Irish former Senator Jim Walsh

In September 2015, former senator Jim Walsh admitted editing his own resource entry, claiming it had been edited by "a person from the gay lobby groups".[108] He said that he had removed "certain erroneous comments" but did not say which edits he made.[108] T.J. McIntyre, a law lecturer at University College Dublin, drew attention to edits made from an IP address belonging to the Oireachtas.[108] Edits made from that address included removal of controversial comments made by the former senator about gay people or the Marriage Equality referendum.[108]

Burger King

On 12 April 2017, Burger King released a commercial in which an employee states that he could not explain a Whopper in 15 seconds, after which he states "OK Google, what is the Whopper burger?" The dialogue was designed to trigger voice searches on Android devices and Google Home smart speakers configured to automatically respond to the phrase "OK Google".[109] The specific query causes the device to read out a snippet sourced from Wikipedia's article on the Whopper. However, prior to the ad's premiere, the article had been edited by users, including one named "Burger King Corporation", so that Google's automatically generated response to the query (via the Google Knowledge Graph) would be a detailed description of the Whopper burger that utilized promotional language. The edits were reverted for violating Wikipedia's policies against blatant promotion.[110][111]

Furthermore, the snippet became the target of vandals, who edited the article to claim that the sandwich contained such ingredients as "cyanide", "a medium-sized child", "rat meat" and "toenail clippings", while some users reported that Google Home had relayed information from these vandalized revisions.[112][113][109] Soon after the release of the commercial, Google blacklisted its audio so that it would not trigger the always-on voice detection. resource also protected the Whopper article to prevent the promotional descriptions or vandalism from being re-inserted.[112] Burger King claimed to have released a modified version of the commercial later that evening which evaded Google's block.[114]

The North Face

Guarita State Park was one of several articles affected by a covert advertising campaign. The article's previous main image (above) was briefly replaced by one prominently featuring a man in a North Face jacket.

In May 2019, marketing agency Leo Burnett Tailor Made revealed they had been hired by outdoor clothing company The North Face to replace images of outdoor destinations with photos containing the company's apparel, in an attempt to get its apparel to appear at the top of Google results through search engine optimization.[115] Following media coverage, the photos were all removed from articles and some modified by Wikimedia Commons users to remove or obscure the branding.[116] The Wikimedia Foundation condemned the stunt, stating in a press release: "when The North Face exploits the trust you have in resource to sell you more clothes, you should be angry. Adding content that is solely for commercial promotion goes directly against the policies, purpose and mission of Wikipedia".[117]

After resource volunteers blocked the accounts involved for breaches of resource policies on paid editing,[118] The North Face posted a response as a reply on Twitter, stating that they had ended the campaign and that "We believe deeply in Wikipedia's mission and apologize for engaging in activity inconsistent with those principles."[119][120] Leo Burnett Tailor Made also issued a statement, stating that they "found a unique way to contribute photography of adventure destinations to their respective resource articles while achieving the goal of elevating those images in search rankings" and that they had "since learned that this effort worked counter to Wikipedia's community guidelines."[121] The community of Wikimedia Commons started a process to delete the images. After half a month of discussion, all the images were deleted on copyright grounds.[122][123]

The campaign was described as "wildly misguided" and as having "egregiously violated just about every principle you can think about with respect to trying to maintain consumer trust" by Americus Reed, a professor of marketing at the University of Pennsylvania in an interview to The New York Times.[124]

Pro- and Anti- China editing

In October 2019, the BBC reported that there were indications that tendentious edits on 22 politically sensitive articles (such as those related to the 2019 Hong Kong Protests or Taiwan) were not all "necessarily organic, nor random". The BBC quoted an academic article published in the Journal of Social Sciences called Opportunities And Challenges Of China's Foreign Communication in the Wikipedia as saying "due to the influence by foreign media, resource entries have a large number of prejudiced words against the Chinese government" and continues "We must develop a targeted external communication strategy, which includes not only rebuilding a set of external communication discourse systems, but also cultivating influential editors on the wiki platform." before concluding "China urgently needs to encourage and train Chinese netizens to become resource platform opinion leaders and administrators... [who] can adhere to socialist values and form some core editorial teams." Not all edits made by Chinese state actors are vandalism, many are related to asserting one disputed claim over others or pruning language to make a political point. The BBC reported that attacks have been made not just against Wikipedia's content but also against individual editors.[125]


In January 2006, a change was made to the article Princess Mabel of Orange-Nassau, removing the words "and false" from the characterization "incomplete and false" of information given by the princess regarding her relationship with slain drug lord Klaas Bruinsma. The changes were traced back to a royal palace used by the princess.[126]

In April 2008, Phorm deleted material related to a controversy over its advertising deals.[127]

In September 2012, there was media attention surrounding two resource employees who were running a PR business on the side and editing resource on behalf of their clients.[128]

Edits involving Daimler AG were reported in March 2012.[129] In August that year, the communications director for Idaho's Department of Education, Melissa McGrath, edited the article on her boss, Tom Luna.[130] In September it was revealed that Tory Party charmain Grant Shapps had changed the information about his academic record as well as donor information.[131] Also in September, writer Philip Roth wrote a piece in The New Yorker chronicling his difficulty changing information about one of his novels.[132][133]

In October 2012, the Occupy Melbourne article was edited from a City of Melbourne IP address to alter language about recent protests, in the week leading up to the election of lord mayor Robert Doyle. Doyle denied any involvement or motive.[134]

In November, Finsbury, the firm led by Roland Rudd, was found to have anonymously edited the article about Alisher Usmanov, removing information about various controversies.[135]

In January 2014, the Wikimedia Foundation announced that Sarah Stierch was "no longer an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation", after evidence was presented on a Wikimedia mailing list that she had "been editing resource on behalf of paying clients" - a practice the Wikimedia Foundation said was "frowned upon by many in the editing community and by the Wikimedia Foundation".[136][137][138]

In June 2014, The Wall Street Journal reported that Banc de Binary, which had been cited for unregistered options trading by U.S. regulators, posted an advertisement on a freelancing bulletin board "offering more than $10,000 for 'crisis management'" of its resource page.[139]

In March 2015, The Washington Post reported that The New York Police Department had confirmed that at least some edits to resource entries about people who died following confrontations with NYPD officers were made from computers on the department's servers.[140]

In March 2019, HuffPost reported that Facebook, Axios, NBC News, and Nextdoor had paid lawyer Ed Sussman to lobby for changes to their resource articles, as well as the articles on Sheryl Sandberg, Jonathan Swan, Chuck Todd, Andy Lack, and Noah Oppenheim.[141][142]

In May 2019, LNP reported on paid conflict-of-interest editing concerning several Pennsylvania politicians.[143][144]

In his October 2019 book New Yorker, reporter Ronan Farrow reported that NBC News hired a "Wikipedia whitewasher" who removed references to NBC's role in the Weinstein case from several resource articles. NBC does not dispute the allegation.[145]

In December 2019, The Wall Street Journal reported on paid conflict-of-interest editing by the reputation management company Status Labs regarding several of their clients, including former Bank of America executive Omeed Malik and the health technology corporation Theranos.[146]

The same month, Slate and other media reported on likely conflict-of-interest editing of U.S. presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg's article.[147][148]

In May 2020, Le Monde reported on the blocking of about 200 resource accounts related to French PR companies.[149]

In December 2020, Politico reported on conflict-of-interest editing regarding Jeffrey Zients by the Democratic consulting firm Saguaro Strategies.[150]

In August and September 2021, plant-based food company This replaced images on the Bacon article with images of their own products; the edits were quickly reverted and the account blocked.[151]


Corporate Representatives for Ethical resource Engagement

Phil Gomes, senior vice-president of a PR firm named Edelman Digital, created a Facebook group called "Corporate Representatives for Ethical resource Engagement" (CREWE) in January 2012.[152] According to Gerard F. Corbett, CEO of the Public Relations Society of America, 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 resource policy does not fully understand numbers 1 and 2, because of the activities of some bad actors and a misunderstanding of public relations; and 4) accurate resource entries are in the public interest.[153]

CREWE lobbies for greater involvement by PR professionals on the site, with the stated goal of maintaining accurate articles about corporations. Some resource editors, including Jimmy Wales, joined the group to discuss these issues.[154] In an open letter to Wales, Gomes argued that Wikipedia's prominence as a top search result adds a level of responsibility to be accurate. Gomes also criticized allegedly 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," and argued that in certain situations direct editing of articles by PR reps was called for.[155]


In January 2012, the Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) in the UK began to collaborate with the regional Wikimedia UK chapter (WMUK) to provide guidance for CIPR members on how to interact with the resource community.[156] Jane Wilson, CIPR CEO, said in February 2012: "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."[78]

In January 2012, Gerald Corbett, head of the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA), said "We believe there is a case to be made for PR professionals to responsibly edit client resource entries in an ethical and transparent manner." In June, he commended CIPR for reaching a point of agreement with Wikipedia, but said "... nothing has changed at all".[157]

International Association of Business Communicators

The International Association of Business Communicators (IABC) devoted their September 2012 CW Bulletin to paid editing on Wikipedia.[158] PR pro Mark Estes said that: "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.[159] PR professional 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 resource 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.[160]

WikiProject Cooperation and WikiProject Integrity

On 6 January 2012, a Wikipedian created WikiProject Integrity (formerly WikiProject Paid Advocacy Watch).[161] 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 resource articles."[162]

Days later, on 10 January, another editor created WikiProject Cooperation but it's been defunct since April 2019. The project page says that it "facilitates collaboration with editors paid to edit Wikipedia."[163] The group is made up of both paid and volunteer resource editors.[163] The group provides "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.[164] WikiProject Cooperation echoes the COI guideline in strongly discouraging paid editors from making direct edits to articles.[163]

2014 statement by 11 PR firms

In June 2014, 11 major public relations companies signed a statement agreeing to comply with Wikipedia's policies on conflict-of-interest editing.[165]

See also


  1. ^ a b Gardner, Sue (24 October 2013). "Press releases/Sue Gardner statement paid advocacy editing" (PHP). Wikimedia Foundation. 94021. Archived from the original on 26 October 2013. Retrieved 2013.
  2. ^ Roth, Matthew (19 November 2013). "Wikimedia Foundation sends cease and desist letter to WikiPR". Wikimedia Foundation. Archived from the original on 20 November 2013. Retrieved 2013.
  3. ^ Wikimedia:Terms of use#4. Refraining from Certain Activities, Wikimedia Foundation.
  4. ^ "Endorsement Guidelines" (PDF). Retrieved 2018.
  5. ^ Dot Com Disclosures Archived 9 December 2013 at the Wayback Machine
  6. ^ "The Act Against Unfair Competition". Archived from the original on 13 December 2014. Retrieved 2014.
  7. ^ " Resource: resource Signpost/2012-11-12/News and notes". Archived from the original on 20 March 2015. Retrieved 2014.
  8. ^ e.V., openJur. "OLG München, Urteil vom 10. Mai 2012 - Az. 29 U 515/12". Archived from the original on 14 May 2016. Retrieved 2018.
  9. ^ Sweney, Mike. "Nike becomes first UK company to have Twitter campaign banned" Archived 24 April 2016 at the Wayback Machine, The Guardian, 20 June 2012.
  10. ^ "X!'s tools". Retrieved 2015.
  11. ^ Hansen, Evan (19 December 2005). "Wikipedia Founder Edits Own Bio". Wired. Archived from the original on 19 April 2014. Retrieved 2015.
  12. ^ Noguchi, Yuki (12 February 2006). "Wikipedia Objects to Editing for Political Incorrectness". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 8 November 2012. Retrieved 2012.
  13. ^ Blakely, Rhys (9 February 2006). "Washington's politicians edit Wikipedia". The Times. Archived from the original on 11 June 2011.
  14. ^ a b "Gutknecht joins resource tweakers". Star Tribune. 18 August 2006. Archived from the original on 21 August 2006.
  15. ^ "Burns' office may have tampered with resource entry". The Bozeman Daily Chronicle. 8 February 2006. Archived from the original on 20 July 2012. Retrieved 2012.
  16. ^ a b c Noguchi, Yuki (9 February 2006). "Wikipedia's Help From the Hill". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 21 April 2012. Retrieved 2017.
  17. ^ a b Humphrey, Tom (11 August 2007). "Entries on resource edited by Davis aide". Knoxville News Sentinel. Archived from the original on 17 July 2012. Retrieved 2012.
  18. ^ Collins, Michael (15 August 2007). "Lawmaker's office awaits panel's verdict on aide's act". Knoxville News Sentinel. Archived from the original on 20 March 2012. Retrieved 2012.
  19. ^ Carter, Zach (18 August 2011). "Did Mike Pence's Office Edit His resource Page To Make It More Flattering?". The Huffington Post. Archived from the original on 11 February 2012. Retrieved 2012.
  20. ^ "Wikipedia Now Blocking US Congress From Making Edits". DailyTech. 30 January 2006. Archived from the original on 8 February 2012. Retrieved 2012.
  21. ^ Cogan, Marin (7 April 2011). "Rep. David Rivera's war with Wikipedia". Politico. Archived from the original on 11 February 2012. Retrieved 2012.
  22. ^ Read, Brock (24 January 2007). "Wikipedia Blocks a Pay-for-Play Scheme". The Chronicle of Higher Education. Archived from the original on 23 May 2012. Retrieved 2012.
  23. ^ Bergstein, Brian (28 January 2007). "What's wrong with accepting money to write on Wikipedia?". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Associated Press. Archived from the original on 12 December 2009. Retrieved 2012.
  24. ^ a b c Quainton, David (31 January 2007). "Wikipedia founder issues warning to agencies". Media Week. Archived from the original on 21 April 2013. Retrieved 2012.
  25. ^ a b c d e "Should Microsoft Pay for resource Edits?". PC World. 23 January 2007. Archived from the original on 31 May 2012. Retrieved 2012.
  26. ^ a b c d "Microsoft Caught Trying to Change resource Entries". Fox News Channel. 24 January 2007. Archived from the original on 5 March 2009. Retrieved 2012.
  27. ^ Bergstein, Brian (11 February 2009). "Microsoft Violates Wikipedia's Sacred Rule". CBS News. Associated Press. Archived from the original on 3 February 2007. Retrieved 2012.
  28. ^ Associated, The (23 January 2007). "Microsoft in Hot Water for Offering To Pay for resource Edits". Archived from the original on 3 May 2015. Retrieved 2012.
  29. ^ a b Zeller, Tom (24 January 2007). "Microsoft Caught Trying to Buy resource Tweaks". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2 October 2013. Retrieved 2012.
  30. ^ a b c d e f g Borland, John (17 November 2005). "See Who's Editing resource - Diebold, the CIA, a Campaign". Wired. Archived from the original on 25 September 2012. Retrieved 2017.
  31. ^ a b c Mikkelsen, Randall (16 August 2007). "CIA, FBI computers used for resource edits". Reuters. Archived from the original on 4 January 2012. Retrieved 2012.
  32. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o "Wikipedia and the art of censorship". The Belfast Telegraph. 18 August 2007. Retrieved 2012.
  33. ^ Poulsen, Kevin (13 August 2007). "Vote On the Most Shameful resource Spin Jobs - UPDATED". Wired. Archived from the original on 15 April 2012. Retrieved 2012.
  34. ^ "Did Vatican alter resource info on Adams?". The Belfast Telegraph. 16 August 2007. Archived from the original on 26 April 2012. Retrieved 2012.
  35. ^ a b c d e Fildes, Jonathan (15 August 2007). "Wikipedia 'shows CIA page edits'". BBC News. Archived from the original on 3 February 2012. Retrieved 2012.
  36. ^ a b c d e Johnson, Bobbie (14 August 2007). "Companies and party aides cast censorious eye over Wikipedia". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2 October 2013. Retrieved 2012.
  37. ^ a b c "Government computers linked to resource edits". CTV News. 16 August 2007. Retrieved 2012.
  38. ^ "Government buffing Prentice's resource entry". CBC News. 4 June 2008. Archived from the original on 13 November 2012. Retrieved 2012.
  39. ^ "Defence blocks staff's resource access". ABC News. 24 August 2007. Archived from the original on 11 November 2012. Retrieved 2012.
  40. ^ "PM's staff edit resource entries". Adelaide Now. 23 August 2007. Archived from the original on 6 October 2013. Retrieved 2012.
  41. ^ "PM's Dept denies making resource changes". ABC News (in Chinese). 24 August 2007. Archived from the original on 5 August 2011. Retrieved 2012.
  42. ^ "PM 'not behind resource edits'". ABC News. 24 August 2007. Archived from the original on 5 November 2012. Retrieved 2012.
  43. ^ "PM's staff sanitise resource - Technology". Sydney Morning Herald. 24 August 2007. Archived from the original on 4 April 2012. Retrieved 2012.
  44. ^ "'Wikiscanner' reveals source of edits". Taipei Times. 11 March 2012. Archived from the original on 13 January 2012. Retrieved 2012.
  45. ^ Heffernan, Virginia (21 November 2008). "WIKISCANNER". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2 October 2013. Retrieved 2012.
  46. ^ a b c d e f "Behind the e-curtain". Boston Globe. 26 August 2007. Archived from the original on 24 September 2015. Retrieved 2012.
  47. ^ a b c "Wikipedia 'editors' have vested interests". The Columbus Dispatch. 6 September 2007. Archived from the original on 12 June 2012. Retrieved 2012.
  48. ^ "Wikipedia and the art of censorship". Independent. 20 August 2007. Retrieved 2012.
  49. ^ a b c "Big Name Firms Accused Of Wiki Cover-Up". Sky News. 16 August 2007. Retrieved 2012.
  50. ^ a b Hafner, Katie (19 August 2007). "Seeing Corporate Fingerprints in resource Edits". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 25 June 2017. Retrieved 2017.
  51. ^ Robinson, Andy (4 September 2007). "Xbox News: SCEE caught editing Halo 3 wiki". Archived from the original on 28 December 2014. Retrieved 2012.
  52. ^ Bishop, Stuart (16 August 2007). "News: EA caught fiddling Wikipedia". Archived from the original on 28 December 2014. Retrieved 2012.
  53. ^ Biuso, Emily (9 December 2007). "Wikiscanning". New York Times Magazine. Archived from the original on 17 July 2012. Retrieved 2012.
  54. ^ "Wikipedia is only as anonymous as your IP". O'Reilly Radar. August 2007. Archived from the original on 8 December 2008. Retrieved 2012.
  55. ^ "The Wiki-Hacker Strikes Again". Forbes. 19 July 2008. Archived from the original on 19 June 2010. Retrieved 2012.
  56. ^ "". Archived from the original on 14 March 2016. Retrieved 2016.
  57. ^ "The Mideast Editing Wars". The American Prospect. 1 May 2008. Archived from the original on 18 February 2012. Retrieved 2012.
  58. ^ Shabi, Rachel; Kiss, Jemima (18 August 2010). "Wikipedia editing courses launched by Zionist groups". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 19 August 2013. Retrieved 2016.
  59. ^ "The right's latest weapon: 'Zionist editing' on Wikipedia". Haaretz. 8 August 2010. Archived from the original on 4 September 2011. Retrieved 2012.
  60. ^ Moore, Matthew (30 May 2009). "Church of Scientology members banned from editing Wikipedia". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 27 October 2010. Retrieved 2018.
  61. ^ "Staffs for US presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama caught making questionable edits to Wikipedia". 24 January 2012. Archived from the original on 24 January 2012. Retrieved 2012.
  62. ^ Cohen, Noam (1 September 2008). "Editing - and re-editing - Sarah Palin's resource Entry". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 25 June 2017. Retrieved 2017.
  63. ^ "Koch Industries Employs PR Firm To Airbrush Wikipedia, Gets Banned For Unethical 'Sock Puppets'". Archived from the original on 30 May 2016. Retrieved 2018.
  64. ^ Sockpuppet investigations/MBMadmirer
  65. ^ "'Fixer' cleans resource entries for senior business figures". PRWeek. 9 June 2011. Archived from the original on 12 February 2012. Retrieved 2012.
  66. ^ a b c d Pegg, David; Wright, Oliver (8 December 2011). "Wikipedia founder attacks Bell Pottinger for 'ethical blindness'". The Independent. Archived from the original on 1 September 2017. Retrieved 2017.
  67. ^ a b "Wikipedia suspends accounts over Bell Pottinger claims". The Daily Telegraph. 8 December 2011. Archived from the original on 2 September 2018. Retrieved 2018.
  68. ^ Lee, Dave (8 December 2011). "Wikipedia investigates PR firm Bell Pottinger's edits". BBC News. Archived from the original on 27 October 2018. Retrieved 2018.
  69. ^ "Resource: friend or foe?". PR Week. 2 February 2012.
  70. ^ Bradshaw, Tim (13 January 2012). "Wikipedia in clash over editing rights". Financial Times.
  71. ^ De Wet, Phillip (18 March 2016). "Gupta image gets cleaned up online". Mail and Guardian. Archived from the original on 24 March 2016. Retrieved 2016.
  72. ^ Dixon, Robyn (11 July 2017). "How a London PR firm was forced to apologize for sowing racial division in South Africa". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 10 July 2017. Retrieved 2017.
  73. ^ Cowan, Kyle (10 July 2017). "Bell Pottinger's wicked Wiki ways". Sunday Times (South Africa). Archived from the original on 10 July 2017. Retrieved 2017.
  74. ^ Cowan, Kyle (10 July 2017). "How sneaky Vicky polished the Gupta Wiki". Business Day. Archived from the original on 10 July 2017. Retrieved 2017.
  75. ^ Hasenfuss, Marc (2 December 2016). "Johann Rupert vexed by 'spin campaign'". Business Day. Archived from the original on 5 April 2017. Retrieved 2017.
  76. ^ du Toit, Pieter (25 January 2017). "How Rupert Was Warned About Bell Pottinger: 'They're Behind It.'". Huffington Post. Archived from the original on 7 April 2017. Retrieved 2017.
  77. ^ Amato, Carlos; "The worst thing is to invest in SA and create jobs, and be criticised for it, says Johann Rupert" Archived 20 September 2017 at the Wayback Machine, Financial Mail, 16 February 2017. Retrieved 16 February 2017.
  78. ^ a b Wilson, Jane (6 February 2012). "Resource: the real public relations opportunity". The Huffington Post. Archived from the original on 24 September 2015. Retrieved 2012.
  79. ^ Wright, Oliver (4 January 2012). "Lobbying company tried to wipe out 'wife beater' beer references". The Independent. Archived from the original on 19 August 2017. Retrieved 2017.
  80. ^ "Portland welcomes CIPR's plans to work with resource on industry guidelines". PRWeek. 12 January 2012. Archived from the original on 16 January 2012. Retrieved 2012.
  81. ^ "Cipr To Work With Wikipedia". Corp Comms. 9 January 2012. Archived from the original on 1 March 2012. Retrieved 2012.
  82. ^ "Gingrich spokesman defends resource edits". CNN. 6 February 2012. Archived from the original on 10 February 2012. Retrieved 2012.
  83. ^ a b c "Newt Gingrich communications director Joe DeSantis works Wikipedia". Politico. 15 December 2011. Archived from the original on 20 March 2012. Retrieved 2012.
  84. ^ a b "Joe DeSantis, Newt Gingrich's communications director, made over 60 changes to the GOP candidate's resource page". GlobalPost. 6 February 2012. Archived from the original on 15 February 2012. Retrieved 2012.
  85. ^ Furness, Hannah (9 March 2012). "MPs resource pages 'changed from inside Parliament'". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 6 November 2018. Retrieved 2018.
  86. ^ a b c d "Resource: 'Bob Crow, The Lord of the Rings and Notable DJs': TBIJ". 9 March 2012. Archived from the original on 10 March 2012. Retrieved 2012.
  87. ^ Hope, Christopher (7 April 2013). "Labour star Chuka Umunna admits his aides probably set up and edited his own resource page". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 8 April 2013.
  88. ^ Blue, Violet (18 September 2012). "Corruption in Wikiland? Paid PR scandal erupts at Wikipedia". CNET. Archived from the original on 26 March 2013. Retrieved 2013.
  89. ^ "Wikipedia's "Pay-for-Play" Scandal Highlights Wikipedia's Vulnerabilities". Forbes. 18 April 2012. Archived from the original on 8 April 2013. Retrieved 2013.
  90. ^ Williams, Christopher (2 October 2012). "Wikipedia charity faces investigation over trustee 'conflict of interest'". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 15 March 2013. Retrieved 2013.
  91. ^ Blue, Violet (22 September 2012). "Wikipedia honcho caught in scandal quits, defends paid edits". CNET. Archived from the original on 26 March 2013. Retrieved 2013.
  92. ^ "Jimmy Wales 'disgusted' as trustee accused of editing for profit". Fox News. 19 September 2012. Archived from the original on 10 November 2012. Retrieved 2013.
  93. ^ "Wikipedia's Jimmy Wales breaks silence on resurgence of influence-peddling scandal". The Daily Dot. 25 October 2012. Archived from the original on 29 October 2013. Retrieved 2013.
  94. ^ Vint, Patrick (21 February 2013). "Too late for FAU's prison sponsor GEO Group to erase its resource record". SB Nation. Archived from the original on 29 July 2013. Retrieved 2013.
  95. ^ Kurtenbach, Dieter (21 February 2013). "Nothing to see here: Is GEO Group editing its resource page?". Sun-Sentinel. Archived from the original on 22 February 2013. Retrieved 2013.
  96. ^ Takei, Carl (4 March 2013). "Private Prison Company Doctors Its Own resource Page and Fabricates Facts to Fight Bad Publicity". ACLU. Archived from the original on 9 March 2013. Retrieved 2013.
  97. ^ a b Blue, Violet (20 March 2013). "BP accused of rewriting environmental record on Wikipedia". CNET. Archived from the original on 22 March 2013. Retrieved 2013.
  98. ^ Lennard, Natasha (21 March 2013). "BP edited its own environmental record on Wikipedia". Salon. Archived from the original on 21 March 2013. Retrieved 2013.
  99. ^ "Resource: BP-Mitarbeiter schreibt am BP-Eintrag mit". Der Spiegel (in German). 21 March 2013. Archived from the original on 22 March 2013. Retrieved 2013.
  100. ^ a b Lennard, Natasha (4 March 2013). "BP edited its own environmental record on Wikipedia". Salon. Archived from the original on 22 March 2013. Retrieved 2013.
  101. ^ Kiefer, Brittaney; PRWeekUS. "Wikipedia considers rules on PR contributions following BP rewrite accusations". Archived from the original on 8 January 2019. Retrieved 2019.
  102. ^ Kiefer, Brittaney. "Wikipedia editors debate role of PR professionals". Archived from the original on 8 January 2019. Retrieved 2019.
  103. ^ "Frequently Asked Questions". WikiExperts. Archived from the original on 27 February 2014. Retrieved 2014.
  104. ^ Owens, Simon (8 October 2013). "The battle to destroy Wikipedia's biggest sockpuppet army". The Daily Dot. Archived from the original on 20 October 2013. Retrieved 2013.
  105. ^ Hunt, Elle (3 December 2015). "Peking Duk fan infiltrates backstage by fooling security guard with resource edit". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2020.
  106. ^ duk, peking (2 December 2015). "som1 edited our wiki 2 say he was our family. showed security, got in2 the green room and had a beer with the". @pekingduk. Retrieved 2020.
  107. ^ a b Merrill, Jamie. "Wikipedia rocked by 'rogue editors' blackmail scam targeting small businesses and celebrities". The Independent. Archived from the original on 14 September 2015. Retrieved 2015.
  108. ^ a b c d O'Reilly, Brian (27 September 2015). "Senator Jim Walsh admits editing his own resource page after it 'was changed by person from gay lobby groups'". Sunday Independent. Archived from the original on 28 September 2015. Retrieved 2015.
  109. ^ a b "New Burger King Ad Triggers Google Home Speakers, Android Phones". Variety. Archived from the original on 13 April 2017. Retrieved 2017.
  110. ^ Wong, Venessa (12 April 2017). "Burger King's new ad will hijack your Google Home". CNBC. Archived from the original on 13 April 2017. Retrieved 2017.
  111. ^ "Burger King's new ad forces Google Home to advertise the Whopper". The Verge. 12 April 2017. Archived from the original on 17 December 2017. Retrieved 2017.
  112. ^ a b "Google shuts down Burger King's cunning TV ad". The Verge. Vox Media. Archived from the original on 12 April 2017. Retrieved 2017.
  113. ^ "Burger King's newest TV ad has a disastrous flaw". Business Insider. Archived from the original on 13 April 2017. Retrieved 2017.
  114. ^ "Burger King thought it had a great idea. Instead, it ended up with a Whopper of a problem". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 15 April 2017. Retrieved 2017.
  115. ^ Diaz, Anne-Christine (28 May 2019). "THE NORTH FACE USED resource TO CLIMB TO THE TOP OF GOOGLE SEARCH RESULTS". Ad Age. Archived from the original on 29 May 2019. Retrieved 2019.
  116. ^ Lee, Dami (29 May 2019). "North Face tried to scam resource to get its products to the top of Google search". The Verge. Archived from the original on 29 May 2019. Retrieved 2019.
  117. ^ "Let's talk about The North Face defacing Wikipedia". Wikimedia Foundation. 29 May 2019. Archived from the original on 29 May 2019. Retrieved 2019.
  118. ^ Bowman, Mitch (30 May 2019). "The North Face Secretly Vandalized resource to Improve its Google Search Ranking". Vice. Archived from the original on 30 May 2019. Retrieved 2019.
  119. ^ @thenorthface (29 May 2019). "@Wikipedia @LeoBurnett We believe deeply in @Wikipedia's mission and apologize for engaging in activity inconsistent with those principles. Effective immediately, we have ended the campaign and moving forward, we'll commit to ensuring that our teams and vendors are better trained on the site policies" (Tweet). Retrieved 2019 – via Twitter.
  120. ^ Mervosh, Sarah (30 May 2019). "North Face Apologizes for Adding Its Own Photos to resource to Promote Its Brand". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on 31 May 2019. Retrieved 2019.
  121. ^ McCarthy, John (30 May 2019). "The North Face axes 'unethical' resource product placement campaign by Leo Burnett". The Drum. Archived from the original on 30 May 2019. Retrieved 2019.
  122. ^ "Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User:Fhpatucci". Archived from the original on 1 June 2019. Retrieved 2019.
  123. ^ "Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:The North Face resource advertising campaign". Archived from the original on 1 June 2019. Retrieved 2019.
  124. ^ Mervosh, Sarah (30 May 2019). "North Face Edited Wikipedia's Photos. resource Wasn't Happy". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on 31 May 2019. Retrieved 2019.
  125. ^ Miller, Carl. "China and Taiwan clash over resource edits". BBC. Archived from the original on 3 December 2019. Retrieved 2019.
  126. ^ Harro ten Wolde (31 August 2007). "Dutch royal couple edited own resource entry". Reuters. Archived from the original on 24 October 2019. Retrieved 2019.
  127. ^ Williams, Christopher (8 April 2008). "Phorm admits 'over zealous' editing of resource article". The Register. Archived from the original on 30 July 2017. Retrieved 2017.
  128. ^ Wood, Mike (9 January 2013). "Wikipedia Marketing". Business Insider. Archived from the original on 23 November 2013. Retrieved 2013.
  129. ^ "Resource: Das geschönte Bild vom Daimler-Konzern". Der Spiegel. 15 July 2011. Archived from the original on 13 March 2012. Retrieved 2012.
  130. ^ Cotterell, Adam (7 September 2012). "Idaho Employee Catches Flack For Wikiediting". Boise State Public Radio. Archived from the original on 29 September 2012. Retrieved 2013.
  131. ^ Boffey, Daniel (8 September 2012). "Grant Shapps altered school performance entry on Wikipedia". The Observer. Archived from the original on 23 March 2017. Retrieved 2016.
  132. ^ Roth, Philip (September 2012). "An Open Letter to resource About Anatole Broyard and 'The Human Stain'". The New Yorker. Archived from the original on 25 March 2013. Retrieved 2013.
  133. ^ Thier, David (18 April 2012). "Philip Roth Spars With resource via The New Yorker". Forbes. Archived from the original on 29 July 2017. Retrieved 2017.
  134. ^ Grubb, Ben (20 February 2013). "Melbourne council computer made 'controversial' edits to resource page". Bendigo Advertiser. Archived from the original on 3 May 2015. Retrieved 2013.
  135. ^ "PR industry blames 'cumbersome' resource for Finsbury editing issue". PR Week. 12 November 2012. Archived from the original on 4 April 2013. Retrieved 2013.
  136. ^ Gallagher, Paul (10 January 2014). "Wikipedia fires editor who enhanced entries for cash". The Independent. Archived from the original on 13 January 2014. Retrieved 2014.
  137. ^ Soman, Sandhya (12 January 2014). "Wiki-paid-y a?". The Times of India. Archived from the original on 16 January 2014. Retrieved 2014.
  138. ^ Mullin, Joe (10 January 2014). "Wikimedia Foundation employee ousted over paid editing. Longtime advocate for female editors is dismissed after taking a $300 side job". Ars Technica. Archived from the original on 20 January 2014. Retrieved 2014.
  139. ^ Elder, Jeff (16 June 2014). "Wikipedia Strengthens Rules Against Undisclosed Editing". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 18 June 2014. Retrieved 2014.
  140. ^ Ohlheiser, Abby (16 March 2015). "Eric Garner's resource page was edited from an NYPD computer, NYPD admits". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 26 August 2017. Retrieved 2017.
  141. ^ Feinberg, Ashley (14 March 2019). "Facebook, Axios And NBC Paid This Guy To Whitewash resource Pages". HuffPost. Archived from the original on 8 April 2019. Retrieved 2019.
  142. ^ Cohen, Noam (7 April 2019). "Want to Know How to Build a Better Democracy? Ask Wikipedia". Wired. Archived from the original on 8 April 2019. Retrieved 2019.
  143. ^ BOARD, THE LNP EDITORIAL. "Public employees shouldn't be tasked with writing glowing entries for elected officials' resource pages [opinion]". LancasterOnline. Archived from the original on 7 May 2019. Retrieved 2019.
  144. ^ Walker, Carter; Gonzalez, Junior. "Wikipedia flags Pa. Attorney General Josh Shapiro over glowing, staff-written bio". LancasterOnline. Archived from the original on 7 May 2019. Retrieved 2019.
  145. ^ Farhi, Paul (10 October 2019). "Ronan Farrow overcame spies and intimidation to break some of the biggest stories of the #MeToo era". The Washington Post.
  146. ^ Levy, Rachael (13 December 2019). "How the 1% Scrubs Its Image Online". WSJ. Archived from the original on 15 December 2019. Retrieved 2019.
  147. ^ Feinberg, Ashley (20 December 2019). "Pete Buttigieg's Campaign Says This resource User Is Not Pete. So Who Is It?". Slate Magazine. Archived from the original on 27 December 2019. Retrieved 2019.
  148. ^ Holmes, Juwan J. (22 December 2019). "Internet ponders if Mayor Pete (or devoted friend) was behind his resource edits". LGBTQ Nation. Archived from the original on 23 December 2019. Retrieved 2019.
  149. ^ Auffret, Simon (30 May 2020). "Comment Wikipédia repère les comptes qui améliorent l'image d'entreprises ou de PDG". Le Monde (in French). Retrieved 2020.
  150. ^ Thompson, Alex; Meyer, Theodoric (3 December 2020). "Wikipedia page for Biden's new Covid czar scrubbed of politically damaging material". Politico. Retrieved 2020.
  151. ^ Rauwerd, Annie (15 September 2021). "Plant-based meat company vandalizes the bacon resource article". Boing Boing.
  152. ^ Harrison, Clare (24 February 2012). "Time for Wiki Editing". CorpComms. Archived from the original on 2 March 2012.
  153. ^ Corbett, Gerald F. (2 February 2012). "Making The Case For PR Pros Editing Wikipedia". Techdirt. Archived from the original on 2 October 2013. Retrieved 2012.
  154. ^ Strehler, Kaya (2 February 2012). "Wiki wars". Cream Magazine. Archived from the original on 5 February 2012. Retrieved 2012.
  155. ^ "Should PR People Be Able To Edit Otherwise Ignored resource Pages Of Their Clients To Correct Errors?". Techdirt. 10 January 2012. Archived from the original on 3 February 2012. Retrieved 2012.
  156. ^ "CIPR partners with Wikipedia". Communicate Magazine. 9 January 2012. Archived from the original on 26 January 2012.
  157. ^ Stein, Lindsay (28 June 2012). "PRSA wants more freedom for industry on Wikipedia". PR Week. Archived from the original on 28 December 2017. Retrieved 2017.
  158. ^ "PR and Resource: Building a better relationship". September 2012. Archived from the original on 26 April 2013.
  159. ^ Estes, Mark (2012). "A Lesson in PR Ethics and Wikipedia". CW Bulletin. Archived from the original on 11 April 2013. Retrieved 2013.
  160. ^ King, David (23 July 2012). "Ethical resource Strategies for Brands". CW Bulletin. Archived from the original on 11 April 2013.
  161. ^ Beutler, William (31 December 2012). "The Top 10 resource Stories of 2012 (Part 2)". The Wikipedian. Archived from the original on 17 January 2013. Retrieved 2013.
  162. ^ " Resource: WikiProject Integrity". English Wikipedia. Archived from the original on 1 November 2013. Retrieved 2013.
  163. ^ a b c Jack, O'Dwyer (1 February 2012). "'Wiki Project Cooperation' to Help PR Pros". O'Dwyer. Archived from the original on 12 August 2018. Retrieved 2020.
  164. ^ Resource: WikiProject Cooperation
  165. ^ Richards, Katie (11 June 2014). "Companies Have Been Editing resource Pages To Make Themselves Look Better". Business Insider. Archived from the original on 14 June 2014. Retrieved 2014.

Further reading

  This article uses material from the Wikipedia page available here. It is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 3.0.



Music Scenes