MIT Technology Review publisheda long article on what it called "The decline of Wikipedia". Editor involvement has decreased since 2007; according to the article, this has had an adverse qualitative effect on content, particularly on issues pertinent to non-British and American male geeks.
| “ | Among the significant problems that aren't getting resolved is the site's skewed coverage: its entries on Pokemon and female porn stars are comprehensive, but its pages on female novelists or places in sub-Saharan Africa are sketchy. Authoritative entries remain elusive. Of the 1,000 articles that the project's own volunteers have tagged as forming the core of a good encyclopedia, most don't earn even Wikipedia's own middle-ranking quality scores. | ” |
Noting that Wikipedia "threw out centuries of accepted methods" for compiling an authoritative and comprehensive reference work, the article goes on to detail efforts under Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Sue Gardner to decrease the gender gap and attract new editors, including the ill-fated VisualEditor and its associated calamities, trying to develop an overall more-diverse editor group. "Because Wikipedia has failed to replenish its supply of editors, its skew toward technical, Western, and male-dominated subject matter has persisted," the article says. Jimmy Wales commented, "The biggest issue is editor diversity." If there aren't confident, new editors coming to Wikipedia with a drive to write great articles about Wikipedia's underrepresented content, then the encyclopedia will not improve, and will be in an eternal state of "decline" in quality, while its popularity and use through outlets such asSiri and Google search results increases.
In summarising its view of the state of Wikipedia, the article concluded that Wikipedia –
| “ | may be unable to get much closer to its lofty goal of compiling all human knowledge. Wikipedia's community built a system and resource unique in the history of civilization. It proved a worthy, perhaps fatal, match for conventional ways of building encyclopedias. But that community also constructed barriers that deter the newcomers needed to finish the job. Perhaps it was too much to expect that a crowd of Internet strangers would truly democratize knowledge. Today's Wikipedia, even with its middling quality and poor representation of the world's diversity, could be the best encyclopedia we will get. | ” |
Media interest in the Wiki-PR sockpuppeting storybroken first byThe Daily Dot and then furtherreported on inVice (seeSignpost articleslast week andthe week prior) prompted outgoing Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Sue Gardner to issue apress statement which sparked widespread coverage in the mainstream media, led by theBBC,The Guardian andThe Independent in the UK, and theWall Street Journal,Time,Slate and theWashington Times (quoting coverage inThe Signpost) in the US. Tech sites includingArs Technica,Web Pro News,Venturebeat,Tech2,CNET,Computerworld UK,The Register and many others also reported the story. (A more complete collection of related press articles isbeing compiled on Meta.)
Here is Sue Gardner's statement in full:
| “ | Editors on the English Wikipedia are currently investigating allegations of suspicious edits and sockpuppetry (i.e. using online identities for purposes of deception). At this point,as reported, it looks like a number of user accounts—perhaps as many as several hundred—may have been paid to write articles on Wikipedia promoting organizations or products, and have been violating numerous site policies and guidelines, including prohibitions against sockpuppetry and undisclosed conflicts of interest. As a result, Wikipedians aiming to protect the projects against non-neutral editing have blocked or banned more than 250 user accounts. The Wikimedia Foundation takes this issue seriously and has been following it closely. With a half a billion readers, Wikipedia is an important informational resource for people all over the world. Our readers know Wikipedia's not perfect, but they also know that it has their best interests at heart, and is never trying to sell them a product or propagandize them in any way. Our goal is to provide neutral, reliable information for our readers, and anything that threatens that is a serious problem. We are actively examining this situation and exploring our options. In the wake of the investigation, editors have expressed shock and dismay. We understand their reaction and share their concerns. We are grateful to the editors who've been doing the difficult, painstaking work of trying to figure out what's happening here. Editing-for-pay has been a divisive topic inside Wikipedia for many years, particularly when the edits to articles are promotional in nature. Unlike a university professor editing Wikipedia articles in their area of expertise, paid editing for promotional purposes, or paid advocacy editing as we call it, is extremely problematic. We consider it a "black hat" practice. Paid advocacy editing violates the core principles that have made Wikipedia so valuable for so many people. What is clear to everyone is that all material on Wikipedia needs to adhere to Wikipedia's editorial policies, including those onneutrality andverifiability. It is also clear that companies that engage in unethical practices on Wikipedia risk seriously damaging their own reputations. In general, companies engaging in self-promotional activities on Wikipedia have come under heavy criticism from the press and the general public, with their actions widely viewed as inconsistent with Wikipedia's educational mission. Being deceptive in your editing by using sockpuppets or misrepresenting your affiliation with a company is against Wikipedia policy and is prohibited by ourTerms of Use. We urge companies to conduct themselves ethically, to be transparent about what they're doing on Wikipedia, and to adhere to all site policies and practices. The Wikimedia Foundation is closely monitoring this ongoing investigation and we are currently assessing all the options at our disposal. We will have more to say in the coming weeks. | ” |
Wiki-PR's Jordan French in turn released a statement that was quoted in full by theWall Street Journal and in part by theWashington Times as well as inPR Week. Here is the text as given byWall Street Journal writer Geoffrey A. Fowler:
| “ | Hi Geoff, Thank you. We're as boring as any other research firm. The "PR" in Wiki-PR is a misnomer– we're a research and writing firm. We counsel our clients on how to adhere to Wikipedia's rules. 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. Our people do a lot of work for free on Wikipedia, just because it's interesting and helpful to the Wikipedia community. Rules at Wikipedia exist to thwart promotionalism and advertising and we follow those rules. If we don't, the material promptly gets removed and we see a "promotionalism" or "advertising" flag at the top. The system works efficiently. Most big PR firms have an agenda to get their clients ROI. Most big PR firms are also expensive. They don't know the rules as well because they do PR work, broadly, and try to promote. We don't have those incentives. Most of our arrangements are for Wikipedia consulting at an hourly or flat-fee rate for a period of time. To be fair, regular editors on Wikipedia do a stellar job. It's usually unregistered IPs that go on to Wikipedia to attack companies and people with views and ideologies they want to advance. What we do is get Wikipedia to enforce the rules so our clients are presented accurately. We do paid editing and not paid advocacy. Our primary goal is to improve Wikipedia. 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 say "no" to clients frequently—in a rigid effort to avoid promoting or advertising. We routinely temper client expectations on promotionalism and advertising and spend boundless time explaining Wikipedia's editorial standards to those who might not be familiar with them. We're part of the solution and not the problem. And I'll be the first to admit that we've made bad calls on "notability", which just means whether a subject has enough news coverage to support a Wikipedia page. We're always monitoring Wikipedia's official policies to ensure compliance. Senior Wikipedia administrators closed the sockpuppet investigation after concluding that we were paid editors paying other editors. Volumes of Wikipedia pages we didn't work on were wrongly swept into that investigation. We do pay hundreds of other editors for their work– they're real people and not sockpuppets. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Morning277 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Long-term_abuse/Morning277 There is a rather silent majority on Wikipedia that supports paid editing. What we do isn't magic. Our singular mission is to respect other editors and follow the rules. Some rules overlap and conflict, but that's part of the process with any open-source project like Wikipedia. Designing a market and eco-system can be very difficult, though Wikipedia's leadership has done a pretty good job. Best, Jordan | ” |
Wiki-PR duo bulldoze a piñata store; Wifione arbitration case; French parliamentary plagiarism
1 April 2015
With paid advocacy in its sights, the Wikimedia Foundation amends their terms of use
18 June 2014
WMF bites the bullet on affiliation and FDC funding, elevates Wikimedia user groups
12 February 2014
Wiki-PR defends itself, condemns Wikipedia's actions
29 January 2014
Foundation to Wiki-PR: cease and desist; Arbitration Committee elections starting
20 November 2013
The decline of Wikipedia; Sue Gardner releases statement on Wiki-PR; Australian minister relies on Wikipedia
23 October 2013
Vice on Wiki-PR's paid advocacy; Featured list elections begin
16 October 2013
Wiki-PR's extensive network of clandestine paid advocacy exposed
9 October 2013
Acommunity ban discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard saw overwhelming support for banning Wiki-PR from the English Wikipedia. AdministratorFram closed the discussion on 25 October 2013 and enacted the ban. As of 26 October 2013, Wiki-PR'swebsite looks unchanged.
The Sydney Morning Heraldnotes that Australian Minister for the EnvironmentGreg Hunt, a member of the centre-rightLiberal Party, "uses Wikipedia research to dismiss links between climate change and bushfires". Hunt hadadmitted his use of Wikipedia in a statement made to the BBC.
| “ | Environment Minister Greg Hunt has hosed down suggestions of a link between climate change and increased bushfire intensity, saying he had "looked up what Wikipedia" said and it was clear that bushfires in Australia were frequent events that had occurred during hotter months since before European settlement. | ” |
Hunt's comments came in response to concerns raised by scientists, environmental groups and politicians that extreme weather events—such as thecurrent massive bushfires in New South Wales—were linked to climate change, and in the wake of statements by the head of the UN's climate change negotiations, Christiana Figueres, and former US vice-president and climate change activist Al Gore criticising the Australian government for its decision to scrap a carbon tax.
In afollow-up article,The Sydney Morning Herald noted "Wikipedia's verdict on Greg Hunt: 'terrible at his job'." The fact that Hunt used Wikipedia to dismiss concerns over global warming was promptlyadded to his Wikipedia biography (in an edit that included some expletives), and then deleted again. This was not the only such edit, asThe Sydney Morning Herald noted:
| “ | The entry for a few delicious minutes on Thursday included the following pearl: "Since the 2013 election, Hunt has become the Minister for the Environment. He has already proven to be terrible at his job, to no surprise". We can't be entirely sure whether this is accurate. Just about anyone with an opinion, wicked or otherwise, can edit Wikipedia. | ” |
Hunt's biography was semi-protected as a result. The affair, also covered in the UK byThe Telegraph andThe Guardian, sends a curiously mixed message about both the perceived authority of Wikipedia, and its perceived lack of authority.
The qualitative decline as described by theMIT Technology Review is woefully short of declining qualities. The author should have submitted the article to any or all ofCategory:Women's magazines if they were truly concerned about the identified best way forward.EllenCT (talk)05:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "decline" story is now about four years old? People should look atWikipedia:Modelling Wikipedia's growth#Logistic model for growth in article count of Wikipedia to see how "decline" models have in fact not accurately matched what goes on in enWP. And I believe the graphical evidence is that since 2011 steps taken have had a good effect. I can quite understand why anyone might think, from anecdotal evidence, that the site fails to be "friendly" enough. I know anecdotes myself that are shameful. More work to do, but that is an appropriate reaction to the end of the Gardner epoch: the Visual Editor is still in beta, and some editors still don't get it.Charles Matthews (talk)09:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, traditional encyclopedias likeBritannica orWorld Book don't have that problem because they are considered to cover only significant subjects, & if a subject is not included -- for example, labor union history in Nigeria -- it must, therefore, not be important. In short, this is an argument I don't see Wikipedia winning any time soon. --llywrch (talk)16:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sue Gardner had an interview onNPR's Weekend Edition Sunday. She was talking about a mass ban of sock puppets over promotional editing. The interview will be posted online later on Sunday.LizRead!Talk!13:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd think that ministers would hire experts to learn about technical stuff before making decisions, rather than check Wikipedia articles that show the wide spectrum of views (some of which aren't scientific). --NaBUru38 (talk)01:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see a partnership with Airtel noted. What if the WMF got airline companies to allow Wikipedia as the only website that people could use for free on flights? It would be of course awesome if those people also could learn how to edit while on flights as well.Biosthmors (talk)plsnotify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx09:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki-Pr's statement that
| “ | It's usually unregistered IPs that go on to Wikipedia to attack companies and people with views and ideologies they want to advance. | ” |
iswrong. Full stop. (Period.) I can't remember where I read this, but while 80% of vandals are IPs, 80% of IP edits are constructive. SeeWikipedia:IPs are human too,Wikipedia:Welcome unregistered editing andWikipedia:Not every IP is a vandal. They may be essays but there isno reason to assume IPs are vandals, and the essays back those facts up.
| “ | There is a rather silent majority on Wikipedia that supports paid editing. | ” |
If it's a silent majority, how do Wiki-PR know about it??
I'm sorry if I'm sounding picky; I don't mean anything personally. But if Wiki-PR intend to be open and honest in their editing, why the sockpuppets?RainCity471 (whack!)19:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
