Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia

Conflict-of-interest (COI) editing on Wikipedia occurs when editors use Wikipedia to advance the interests of their external roles or relationships. The type of COI editing of most concern on Wikipedia is paid editing for public relations (PR) purposes.[1] Several Wikipedia policies and guidelines exist to combat conflict of interest editing, including Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia launched one of its largest sockpuppet investigations, when editors reported suspicious activity suggesting 250 accounts had been used to engage in paid editing. Wikipedia traced the edits to a firm known as Wiki-PR, and the accounts were banned. In 2015, 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:Conflict of interest, a guideline, "strongly discourages" COI editing, and advises those with a financial conflict of interest, including paid editors, to refrain from direct article editing. Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure, a policy, requires that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any contribution for which they are paid, including talk-page contributions.

In 2013 Sue Gardner, then-executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation, called "paid editing for promotional purposes" a "'black hat' practice."[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]

Companies have argued for greater leeway in conflict-of-interest editing, citing Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, a policy, which states: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."[4]

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.[5][6]

European fair trading law

In May 2012 the Munich Oberlandesgericht court confirmed a ruling against a company which edited Wikipedia 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[7] 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.[8][9]

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.[10]


Jimmy Wales

In 2005 Jimmy Wales removed mentions of "pornography" from the Wikipedia article on his former company Bomis.

In December 2005, it was noticed that Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales had edited his own Wikipedia entry. According to public logs, he has edited his biography 19 times,[11] 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 Wikipedia article of his former company, Bomis. "Bomis Babes", a section of the Bomis website, had been characterized in the article as "soft-core pornography", but Wales revised this to "adult content section" and deleted mentions of pornography. He said he was fixing an error, and did not agree with calling Bomis Babes soft porn. Wales conceded that he had made the changes, but maintained that they were technical corrections.[12]

United States Congressional staffers

In 2006, it was discovered that more than 1,000 changes had been made to Wikipedia articles originating from United States government IP addresses. Changes had been made to articles about Representative Marty Meehan,[13] Senator Tom Coburn, Senator Norm Coleman,[14] Representative Gil Gutknecht,[15] Senator Joe Biden,[15] Senator Conrad Burns,[16] Senator Dianne Feinstein,[17] Senator Tom Harkin,[17] Representative David Davis,[18] Tennessee state representative Matthew Hill[18][19] and Representative Mike Pence.[20] The edits removed accurate but critical information and embellished positive descriptions.[17] In response to the controversy, certain affected IP addresses were temporarily blocked.[21]

Later, in 2011, conflicted edits were also made to US Congressional representative David Rivera's article.[22]


Main article: MyWikiBiz

In August 2006 Gregory Kohs, a market researcher from Pennsylvania, founded MyWikiBiz, a company offering to write inexpensive Wikipedia entries for businesses.[23] In January 2007, Kohs said that in his view Wikipedia's coverage of major corporations was deficient, stating that "It is strange that a minor Pokemon character will get a 1,200-word article, but a Fortune 500 company will get ... maybe 100 words". A few days after issuing a press release about his business, Kohs' Wikipedia account was blocked. Kohs later recalled a phone call with Jimmy Wales who told him MyWikiBiz was "antithetical" to the mission of the encyclopedia.[24] 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?"[25]


In January 2007, Australian software engineer Rick Jelliffe revealed that Microsoft had offered to pay him to edit Wikipedia articles on two competing code standards, OpenDocumentFormat and Microsoft Office Open XML.[26] Jelliffe, who described himself as a technical expert and not an advocate for Microsoft,[27][28] said he accepted the offer because he wanted the information on technical standards to be accurate.[27] Microsoft subsequently confirmed that it had offered to pay Jelliffe to edit the articles, stating that they were seeking "more balance" in the entries,[26] that articles contained inaccuracies,[29] that prior efforts to get attention from Wikipedia volunteers had failed, and that Microsoft had agreed that the company would not review Jelliffe's suggested changes. Microsoft also said they had not previously hired anyone to edit Wikipedia.[27]

Heated debate resulted after the revelation over whether such practices called Wikipedia's credibility into question.[26] In response to the incident, Jimmy Wales said paying for edits to Wikipedia was against the encyclopedia's spirit.[27][30] 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.[30] He also stated "Although agencies and employees should not edit our pages, they do – but perhaps less than you would expect."[25]

Volunteer Wikipedia spokesperson David Gerard said, "[Wikipedia] tends not to look favorably in terms of conflict of interest, and paying someone is a conflict."[26] Gerard added that public relations representatives commonly get blocked from editing by Wikipedia administrators.[26]

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.[25]


Main article: WikiScanner
Then-24-year-old Virgil Griffith invented WikiScanner to "create minor public relations disasters" for companies editing Wikipedia with a conflict of interest.

In 2007 Virgil Griffith, a Caltech computation and neural-systems graduate student, created a searchable database that linked changes made by anonymous Wikipedia editors to companies and organizations from which the changes were made. The database cross-referenced logs of Wikipedia edits with publicly available records pertaining to the internet IP addresses edits were made from.[31]

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."[32] He also wanted to give Wikipedia readers a tool to check edits for accuracy[31] and allow the automation and indexing of edits.[33]

Most of the edits Wikiscanner found were minor or harmless,[31] but the site was mined to detect the most controversial and embarrassing instance of conflict of interest edits.[34] These instances received media coverage worldwide. Included among the accused were the Vatican,[35][36] the CIA,[31][36][37] the Federal Bureau of Investigation,[32] the US Democratic Party's Congressional Campaign Committee,[36][38] the US Republican Party,[33][38] Britain's Labour Party,[38] Britain's Conservative Party,[33] the Canadian government,[39] Industry Canada,[40] the Department of Prime Minister, Cabinet, and Defence in Australia,[41][42][43][44][45] the United Nations,[46] the US Senate,[47] the US Department of Homeland Security,[48] the US Environmental Protection Agency,[48] Montana Senator Conrad Burns,[31] Ohio Governor Bob Taft,[49] the Israeli government,[50] Exxon Mobil,[51] Walmart,[31][51] AstraZeneca, Diebold,[31][33][38] Dow Chemical,[33] Disney,[39] Dell,[51] Anheuser-Busch,[52] Nestlé,[33] Pepsi, Boeing,[33] Sony Computer Entertainment,[53] EA,[54] SCO Group,[52] MySpace,[33] Pfizer,[48] Raytheon,[48] DuPont,[55] Anglican and Catholic churches,[33] the Church of Scientology,[33][39] the World Harvest Church,[49] Amnesty International,[33] the Discovery Channel,[33] Fox News,[38][56] CBS, The Washington Post, the National Rifle Association,[33] News International,[33] Al Jazeera,[48] Bob Jones University,[48] and Ohio State University.[49]

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.[36]

Wikipedia spokespersons received WikiScanner positively, noting that it helped prevent conflicts of interest from influencing articles[32] as well as increasing transparency[36] and mitigating attempts to remove or distort relevant facts.[33]

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.[57] As of March 2012 WikiScanner's website was online, but not functioning.[58]


In 2008 the pro-Israel activist group Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) launched a campaign to alter Wikipedia 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.[59] Some members of this conspiracy were banned by Wikipedia administrators.[60]

In 2010 two pro-settler Israeli groups, Yesha Council and Israel Sheli, launched courses to instruct pro-Israel editors on how to use Wikipedia to promote Israel's point of view. A prize was to be given to the editor who inserted the most pro-Israel changes.[61]

Church of Scientology

In 2008 a long-running dispute between members of the Church of Scientology and Wikipedia editors reached Wikipedia's arbitration committee. The church members were accused of attempting to sway articles in the church's interests, 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 banned too.[62]

2008 U.S. presidential campaign

During the 2008 U.S. presidential election, changes made by both Barack Obama and John McCain's campaigns made the news.[63] 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 the vice-presidency.[64]

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia and described in the press.[65] A large group of editors who were editing from NMS IPs became the subject of a sockpuppet investigation, were blocked, and later unblocked.[66]

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. Wikipedia entries this person was accused of changing included Carphone Warehouse co-founder David Ross, Von Essen Group chairman Andrew Davis, British property developer David Rowland, 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.[67]

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.[68] 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.[69] Bell Pottinger was accused of using sock or meatpuppets to edit pages to create the appearance of support for changes in articles.[70] One of the most noted accounts was registered under the name "Biggleswiki"[69] (an internal Wikipedia 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.[68]

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 Wikipedia articles, as well as other "dark arts".[68]

Jimmy Wales called Bell Pottinger's actions "ethical blindness."[68] 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 Wikipedia 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."[71] 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 Wikipedia is so authoritative."[72]

Portland Communications

In January 2012, British MP Tom Watson discovered that Portland Communications had been removing the nickname of one of its clients' products ("Wife Beater", referring to Anheuser-Busch InBev's Stella Artois beer) from Wikipedia. Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) CEO Jane Wilson noted, "Stella Artois is on the 'wife-beater' page because it is a nick-name in common currency for that brand of strong continental lager. The brand managers who want to change this have a wider reputational issue to address, editing the term from a Wikipedia page will not get rid of this association."[73] 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.[74] Portland Communications welcomed CIPR's subsequent announcement of a collaboration with Wikipedia and invited Jimmy Wales to speak to their company, as he did at Bell Pottinger.[75] 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."[76]

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 Wikipedia article.[77] Some changes which DeSantis requested were minor, but his initial efforts tried to remove negative details which he thought unduly biased the articles,[78] including details about Gingrich's extramarital affairs, information about his financial expenditure, ethics charges against him, and his political positions on controversial issues.[78][79]

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 articles to suggest edits rather than make them himself. He said, "I stopped making direct edits in May 2011 because I was alerted to the COI rules...Earlier I thought that simply disclosing my affiliation was enough but it wasn't. So I started posting requests on the Talk page. This has been far more successful and the other editors on Wikipedia have largely received this very positively."[79] He told the political journalism organization Politico that his approach of working with the Wikipedia community by discussing edits on talk pages to be more successful than making the changes himself. Wikipedia editor Tvoz was quoted as critical of the practice; she wrote: "... I have to say this micro-managing by a Gingrich campaign director is a matter of concern to me even though you now are identifying yourself. Pointing out factual errors is one thing, but your input should not go beyond that, even [on a Talk page]."[78]

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 Wikipedia article edited from within Parliament.[80] Many of the changes dealt with removing unflattering details from during the 2009 expenses scandal, as well as other controversial issues.[81][82] Former MP Joan Ryan admitted to changing her entry "whenever there's misleading or untruthful information [that has] been placed on it."[81] Clare Short said her staff were "angry and protective" over mistakes and criticisms in her Wikipedia article and acknowledged they might have made changes to it.[81] 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.[81]

The Sun newspaper alleged that in 2007 Labour MP Chuka Umunna, under the name Socialdemocrat created and repeatedly edited his own Wikipedia page. The newspaper highlighted edits such as those describing Umunna as the British Barack Obama.[83] Umunna told the Daily Telegraph that he did not alter his own Wikipedia 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."[84]


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 Wikipedia mainpage an unusually high 17 times in the course of a few weeks.[85][86] This issue brought attention to organizational conflicts of interest regarding Wikimedia Movement partners, leading to an investigation of WMUK.[87] Bamkin stepped down as trustee following the media response.[88] 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."[89][90]

GEO Group

In February 2013, for-profit prison company GEO Group received major media coverage when a Wikipedia user under the name Abraham Cohen edited the entry on the company regarding naming rights to Florida Atlantic University (FAU) Stadium. GEO Group's Manager of Corporate Relations at the time was named Abraham Cohen, who is an FAU alumnus, former FAU student body president and former ex-officio member of the FAU board of trustees.[91] Eleven edits constituting the majority of all those changes had been made in a single day under a Wikipedia account named "Abraham Cohen", the only day on which that account has ever been used.[92][93]


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.[94][95][96] Estimates of the size of the contributions were as high as 44 percent of the article.[97] 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."[94] 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."[97] The Wikipedia community intensely debated the ethics of the incident and how to handle it and other similar cases.[98]


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."[4]


In 2012, Wikipedia launched possibly one of the largest sock puppets 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. Wikipedia 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.[99] The accounts were banned. On 25 October 2013, a community ban was further placed on Wiki-PR and any of its contractors.


Main article: Orangemoody

In 2015 Wikipedia blocked 381 accounts, many of them suspected sock puppets of the same people, after a two-month investigation, Operation Orangemoody, revealed they had been used to blackmail firms "struggling to get pages about their businesses on Wikipedia." These businesses had been told by Wikipedia 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.[100]

The scammers asked for hundreds of pounds to "protect or promote" the firms' interests. Wikipedia deleted 210 articles related to UK businesses, most of them of middle size. Individuals were also targeted. The investigation was named OrangeMoody by Wikipedia editors after the name of the first identified account. An unnamed Wikipedia spokesperson stated that "undisclosed paid advocacy editing may represent a serious conflict of interest and could compromise the quality of content on Wikipedia."[100]

Irish former Senator Jim Walsh

In September 2015 former senator Walsh admitted editing his own Wikipedia entry, claiming it had been edited by "a person from the gay lobby groups".[101] He said that he had removed "certain erroneous comments" but did not say which edits he made.[101] T.J. McIntyre, a law lecturer at University College Dublin drew attention to edits made from an IP address belonging to the Oireachtas.[101] Edits made from that address included removal of controversial comments made by the former senator about gay people or the Marriage Equality referendum.[101]


In September 2007 changes were made about Prince Johan Friso and his wife Princess Mabel of the Netherlands, which were traced back to their palace.[102]

In April 2008 Phorm deleted material related to a controversy over its advertising deals.[103]

In September 2012, there was quite a bit of media attention surrounding two Wikipedia employees who were running a PR business on the side and editing Wikipedia on behalf of their clients.[104]

Edits involving Daimler AG were reported in March 2012.[105] In August that year, the communications director for Idaho's Department of Education, Melissa McGrath, edited the article on her boss, Tom Luna.[106] In September it was revealed that Tory Party charmain Grant Shapps had changed the information about his academic record as well as donor information.[107] Also in September, writer Philip Roth wrote a piece in The New Yorker chronicling his difficulty changing information about one of his novels.[108][109]

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.[110]

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.[111]

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 Wikipedia 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".[112][113][114]

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 Wikipedia page.[115]

In March 2015, The Washington Post reported that The New York Police Department had confirmed that at least some edits to Wikipedia entries about people who died following confrontations with NYPD officers were made from computers on the department’s servers.[116]


Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement

Phil Gomes, senior vice-president of Edelman Digital, a PR firm, created a Facebook group, Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement (CREWE), in January 2012.[117] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia entries are in the public interest.[118]

CREWE lobbies for greater involvement by PR professionals on the site, with the stated goal of maintaining accurate articles about corporations. Some Wikipedia editors, including Jimmy Wales, joined the group to discuss these issues.[119] 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 alleged inaccurate or outdated articles and the lack of timely response to issues raised in existing channels. He further argued that allowing PR representatives to fix minor errors, such as spelling, grammar and facts, leaves too much ambiguity about what are acceptable changes to make. He made the comparison between PR editors and activists, challenging that activists seem to enjoy "much more latitude," and argued that in certain situations direct editing of articles by PR reps was called for.[120]


Gerald Corbett, head of the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) argued in June 2012 for greater access to Wikipedia for PR reps.[121] 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 Wikipedia community.[122] Jane Wilson, CIPR CEO, said: "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."[73]

International Association of Business Communicators

The International Association of Business Communicators (IABC) devoted their September 2012 CW Bulletin to paid editing on Wikipedia.[123] 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.[124] 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 Wikipedia strategy or policy, they often feel they are faced with only two choices: Ignore one of the world’s most influential websites with a hands-off policy or engage in the risky, controversial and ethically ambiguous practice of direct editing. In some circumstances these are both good strategies, but most companies can find more effective middle ground by engaging in PR or content marketing with Wikipedia’s citizen journalists—a safe and ethical way to make improvements that is valuable both for the organization and Wikipedia.[125]

WikiProject Cooperation and WikiProject Integrity

On 6 January 2012, a Wikipedian created WikiProject Integrity (formerly WikiProject Paid Advocacy Watch).[126] The goal of this Wikiproject is to "discuss, raise awareness of, and hopefully address issues regarding paid editing on Wikipedia, in which people are compensated to create and edit Wikipedia articles."[127]

Days later, on 10 January, another editor created WikiProject Cooperation; the project page says that it "facilitates collaboration with editors paid to edit Wikipedia."[128] The group is made up of both paid and volunteer Wikipedia editors.[128] 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.[129] WikiProject Cooperation echoes the COI guideline in strongly discouraging paid editors from making direct edits to articles.[128]

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.[130]

See also


  1. 1 2 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 24 October 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 19 November 2013.
  3. Wikimedia:Terms of use#4. Refraining from Certain Activities, Wikimedia Foundation.
  4. 1 2 "Frequently Asked Questions". WikiExperts. Retrieved 23 February 2014.
  5. Endorsement Guidelines
  6. Dot Com Disclosures
  7. "The Act Against Unfair Competition".
  8. "Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-11-12/News and notes".
  10. Sweney, Mike. "Nike becomes first UK company to have Twitter campaign banned", The Guardian, 20 June 2012.
  11. "X!'s tools". Retrieved 27 August 2015.
  12. Hansen, Evan (19 December 2005). "Wikipedia Founder Edits Own Bio". Wired.
  13. Noguchi, Yuki (12 February 2006). "Wikipedia Objects to Editing for Political Incorrectness". Los Angeles Times.
  14. Blakely, Rhys (9 February 2006). "Washington's politicians edit Wikipedia". The Times. Archived from the original on 11 June 2011.
  15. 1 2 "Gutknecht joins Wikipedia tweakers". Star Tribune. 18 August 2006. Archived from the original on 21 August 2006.
  16. "Burns' office may have tampered with Wikipedia entry". The Bozeman Daily Chronicle. 8 February 2006. Retrieved 14 March 2012.
  17. 1 2 3 Noguchi, Yuki (9 February 2006). "Wikipedia's Help From the Hill". The Washington Post.
  18. 1 2 Humphrey, Tom (11 August 2007). "Entries on Wikipedia edited by Davis aide". Knoxville News Sentinel. Retrieved 14 March 2012.
  19. Collins, Michael (15 August 2007). "Lawmaker's office awaits panel's verdict on aide's act". Knoxville News Sentinel. Retrieved 14 March 2012.
  20. Carter, Zach (18 August 2011). "Did Mike Pence's Office Edit His Wikipedia Page To Make It More Flattering?". The Huffington Post.
  21. "Wikipedia Now Blocking US Congress From Making Edits". DailyTech. 30 January 2006. Retrieved 14 March 2012.
  22. Cogan, Marin (7 April 2011). "Rep. David Rivera's war with Wikipedia". Politico.
  23. Read, Brock (24 January 2007). "Wikipedia Blocks a Pay-for-Play Scheme". The Chronicle of Higher Education.
  24. Bergstein, Brian (28 January 2007). "What's wrong with accepting money to write on Wikipedia?". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Associated Press.
  25. 1 2 3 Quainton, David (31 January 2007). "Wikipedia founder issues warning to agencies". Media Week.
  26. 1 2 3 4 5 "Should Microsoft Pay for Wikipedia Edits?". PC World. 23 January 2007. Retrieved 13 February 2012.
  27. 1 2 3 4 "Microsoft Caught Trying to Change Wikipedia Entries". Fox News Channel. 24 January 2007.
  28. Bergstein, Brian (11 February 2009). "Microsoft Violates Wikipedia's Sacred Rule". CBS News. Associated Press.
  29. Associated, The (23 January 2007). "Microsoft in Hot Water for Offering To Pay for Wikipedia Edits".
  30. 1 2 Zeller, Tom (24 January 2007). "Microsoft Caught Trying to Buy Wikipedia Tweaks". The New York Times.
  31. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Borland, John (17 November 2005). "See Who's Editing Wikipedia - Diebold, the CIA, a Campaign". Wired.
  32. 1 2 3 Mikkelsen, Randall (16 August 2007). "CIA, FBI computers used for Wikipedia edits". Reuters. Retrieved 12 February 2012.
  33. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 "Wikipedia and the art of censorship". The Belfast Telegraph. 18 August 2007. Retrieved 14 March 2012.
  34. Poulsen, Kevin (13 August 2007). "Vote On the Most Shameful Wikipedia Spin Jobs - UPDATED". Wired. Retrieved 1 April 2012.
  35. "Did Vatican alter Wikipedia info on Adams?". The Belfast Telegraph. 16 August 2007. Retrieved 13 February 2012.
  36. 1 2 3 4 5 Fildes, Jonathan (15 August 2007). "Wikipedia 'shows CIA page edits'". BBC News. Retrieved 13 February 2012.
  37. "CIA caught rewriting Wikipedia biographies". Daily Mail. 15 August 2007. Retrieved 13 February 2012.
  38. 1 2 3 4 5 Johnson, Bobbie (14 August 2007). "Companies and party aides cast censorious eye over Wikipedia". The Guardian. Retrieved 12 February 2012.
  39. 1 2 3 "Government computers linked to Wikipedia edits". CTV News. 16 August 2007. Retrieved 13 February 2012.
  40. "Government buffing Prentice's Wikipedia entry". CBC News. 4 June 2008. Retrieved 13 February 2012.
  41. "Defence blocks staff's Wikipedia access". ABC News. 24 August 2007. Retrieved 13 February 2012.
  42. "PM's staff edit Wikipedia entries". Adelaide Now. 23 August 2007. Retrieved 13 February 2012.
  43. "PM's Dept denies making Wikipedia changes" (in Chinese). ABC News. 24 August 2007. Retrieved 13 February 2012.
  44. "PM 'not behind Wikipedia edits'". ABC News. 24 August 2007.
  45. "PM's staff sanitise Wikipedia - Technology". Sydney Morning Herald. 24 August 2007.
  46. "'Wikiscanner' reveals source of edits". Taipei Times. 11 March 2012. Retrieved 18 March 2012.
  47. Heffernan, Virginia (21 November 2008). "WIKISCANNER". The New York Times. Retrieved 18 March 2012.
  48. 1 2 3 4 5 6 "Behind the e-curtain". Boston Globe. 26 August 2007. Retrieved 14 March 2012.
  49. 1 2 3 "Wikipedia 'editors' have vested interests". The Columbus Dispatch. 6 September 2007. Retrieved 12 February 2012.
  50. "Wikipedia and the art of censorship". Independent. 20 August 2007. Retrieved 23 March 2012.
  51. 1 2 3 "Big Name Firms Accused Of Wiki Cover-Up". Sky News. 16 August 2007. Retrieved 13 February 2012.
  52. 1 2 Hafner, Katie (19 August 2007). "Seeing Corporate Fingerprints in Wikipedia Edits". The New York Times.
  53. Robinson, Andy (4 September 2007). "Xbox News: SCEE caught editing Halo 3 wiki". Retrieved 13 February 2012.
  54. Bishop, Stuart (16 August 2007). "News: EA caught fiddling Wikipedia". Retrieved 13 February 2012.
  55. Biuso, Emily (9 December 2007). "Wikiscanning". New York Times Magazine. Retrieved 12 February 2012.
  56. "Wikipedia is only as anonymous as your IP". O'Reilly Radar. August 2007. Archived from the original on 8 December 2008. Retrieved 13 February 2012.
  57. "The Wiki-Hacker Strikes Again". Forbes. 19 July 2008. Retrieved 14 March 2012.
  58. "". Retrieved 23 April 2016.
  59. "The Mideast Editing Wars". The American Prospect. 1 May 2008.
  60. Shabi, Rachel; Kiss, Jemima (18 August 2010). "Wikipedia editing courses launched by Zionist groups". The Guardian.
  61. "The right's latest weapon: 'Zionist editing' on Wikipedia". Haaretz. 8 August 2010.
  62. Moore, Matthew (30 May 2009). "Church of Scientology members banned from editing Wikipedia". The Daily Telegraph.
  63. "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 14 March 2012.
  64. Cohen, Noam (1 September 2008). "Editing - and re-editing - Sarah Palin's Wikipedia Entry". The New York Times.
  65. Koch Industries Employs PR Firm To Airbrush Wikipedia, Gets Banned For Unethical ‘Sock Puppets’
  66. Sockpuppet investigations/MBMadmirer
  67. "'Fixer' cleans Wikipedia entries for senior business figures". PRWeek. 9 June 2011.
  68. 1 2 3 4 Pegg, David; Wright, Oliver (8 December 2011). "Wikipedia founder attacks Bell Pottinger for 'ethical blindness'". The Independent.
  69. 1 2 "Wikipedia suspends accounts over Bell Pottinger claims". The Daily Telegraph. 8 December 2011.
  70. Lee, Dave (8 December 2011). "Wikipedia investigates PR firm Bell Pottinger's edits". BBC News.
  71. "Wikipedia: friend or foe?". PR Week. 2 February 2012.
  72. Bradshaw, Tim (13 January 2012). "Wikipedia in clash over editing rights". Financial Times.
  73. 1 2 Wilson, Jane (6 February 2012). "Wikipedia: the real public relations opportunity". The Huffington Post.
  74. Wright, Oliver (4 January 2012). "Lobbying company tried to wipe out 'wife beater' beer references". The Independent.
  75. "Portland welcomes CIPR's plans to work with Wikipedia on industry guidelines". PRWeek. 12 January 2012.
  76. "Cipr To Work With Wikipedia". Corp Comms. 9 January 2012. Retrieved 14 March 2012.
  77. "Gingrich spokesman defends Wikipedia edits". CNN. 6 February 2012.
  78. 1 2 3 "Newt Gingrich communications director Joe DeSantis works Wikipedia". Politico. 15 December 2011. Retrieved 14 March 2012.
  79. 1 2 "Joe DeSantis, Newt Gingrich's communications director, made over 60 changes to the GOP candidate's Wikipedia page". GlobalPost. 6 February 2012.
  80. Furness, Hannah (9 March 2012). "MPs Wikipedia pages 'changed from inside Parliament'". The Daily Telegraph.
  81. 1 2 3 4 "Wikipedia: 'Bob Crow, The Lord of the Rings and Notable DJs': TBIJ". 9 March 2012. Retrieved 14 March 2012.
  82. Wrenn, Eddie (9 March 2012). "MPs and their staff make 10,000 changes to Wikipedia pages in bid to hide embarrassing information". Daily Mail. Retrieved 15 March 2012.
  83. Heighton, Luke (6 April 2013). "Chuka's Wiki'd act". The Sun. Retrieved 7 April 2013.
  84. Hope, Christopher (7 April 2013). "Labour star Chuka Umunna admits his aides probably set up and edited his own Wikipedia page". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 8 April 2013.
  85. Blue, Violet (18 September 2012). "Corruption in Wikiland? Paid PR scandal erupts at Wikipedia". CNET. Retrieved 23 March 2013.
  86. "Wikipedia's "Pay-for-Play" Scandal Highlights Wikipedia's Vulnerabilities". Forbes. 18 April 2012. Retrieved 23 March 2013.
  87. Williams, Christopher (2 October 2012). "Wikipedia charity faces investigation over trustee 'conflict of interest'". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 23 March 2013.
  88. Blue, Violet (22 September 2012). "Wikipedia honcho caught in scandal quits, defends paid edits". CNET. Retrieved 23 March 2013.
  89. "Jimmy Wales 'disgusted' as trustee accused of editing for profit". Fox News. 19 September 2012. Retrieved 23 March 2013.
  90. "Wikipedia's Jimmy Wales breaks silence on resurgence of influence-peddling scandal". The Daily Dot. 25 October 2012. Retrieved 23 March 2013.
  91. Vint, Patrick (21 February 2013). "Too late for FAU's prison sponsor GEO Group to erase its Wikipedia record". SB Nation. Retrieved 30 August 2013.
  92. Kurtenbach, Dieter (21 February 2013). "Nothing to see here: Is GEO Group editing its Wikipedia page?". Sun-Sentinel. Retrieved 23 March 2013.
  93. Takei, Carl (4 March 2013). "Private Prison Company Doctors Its Own Wikipedia Page and Fabricates Facts to Fight Bad Publicity". ACLU. Retrieved 23 March 2013.
  94. 1 2 Blue, Violet (20 March 2013). "BP accused of rewriting environmental record on Wikipedia". CNET. Retrieved 22 March 2013.
  95. Lennard, Natasha (21 March 2013). "BP edited its own environmental record on Wikipedia". Salon. Retrieved 22 March 2013.
  96. "Wikipedia: BP-Mitarbeiter schreibt am BP-Eintrag mit". Der Spiegel (in German). 21 March 2013. Retrieved 22 March 2013.
  97. 1 2 Lennard, Natasha (4 March 2013). "BP edited its own environmental record on Wikipedia". Salon.
  98. Kiefer, Brittaney (30 September 2009). "Wikipedia editors debate role of PR professionals". PRWeek. US.
  99. Owens, Simon (8 October 2013). "The battle to destroy Wikipedia's biggest sockpuppet army". The Daily Dot. Retrieved 20 October 2013.
  100. 1 2 Merrill, Jamie. "Wikipedia rocked by 'rogue editors' blackmail scam targeting small businesses and celebrities". The Independent. Retrieved 2 September 2015.
  101. 1 2 3 4 O'Reilly, Brian (27 September 2015). "Senator Jim Walsh admits editing his own Wikipedia page after it 'was changed by person from gay lobby groups'". Sunday Independent. Retrieved 27 September 2015.
  102. "Royal couple edited own Wikipedia entry". Daily Times. 3 September 2007.
  103. Williams, Christopher (8 April 2008). "Phorm admits 'over zealous' editing of Wikipedia article". The Register.
  104. Wood, Mike (9 January 2013). "Wikipedia Marketing". Business Insider. Retrieved 19 November 2013.
  105. "Wikipedia: Das geschönte Bild vom Daimler-Konzern". Der Spiegel. 15 July 2011.
  106. Cotterell, Adam (7 September 2012). "Idaho Employee Catches Flack For Wikiediting". Boise State Public Radio.
  107. Boffey, Daniel (8 September 2012). "Grant Shapps altered school performance entry on Wikipedia". The Observer.
  108. Roth, Philip (September 2012). "An Open Letter to Wikipedia About Anatole Broyard and 'The Human Stain'". The New Yorker.
  109. Thier, David (18 April 2012). "Philip Roth Spars With Wikipedia via The New Yorker". Forbes.
  110. Grubb, Ben (20 February 2013). "Melbourne council computer made 'controversial' edits to Wikipedia page". Bendigo Advertiser.
  111. "PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia for Finsbury editing issue". PR Week. 12 November 2012.
  112. Gallagher, Paul (10 January 2014). "Wikipedia fires editor who enhanced entries for cash". The Independent. Retrieved 10 January 2014.
  113. Soman, Sandhya (12 January 2014). "Wiki-paid-y a?". The Times of India. Retrieved 20 January 2014.
  114. 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. Retrieved 21 January 2014.
  115. Elder, Jeff (16 June 2014). "Wikipedia Strengthens Rules Against Undisclosed Editing". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 17 June 2014.
  116. Ohlheiser, Abby (16 March 2015). "Eric Garner's Wikipedia page was edited from an NYPD computer, NYPD admits". The Washington Post.
  117. Harrison, Clare (24 February 2012). "Time for Wiki Editing". CorpComms.
  118. Corbett, Gerald F. (2 February 2012). "Making The Case For PR Pros Editing Wikipedia". Techdirt.
  119. Strehler, Kaya (2 February 2012). "Wiki wars". Cream Magazine.
  120. "Should PR People Be Able To Edit Otherwise Ignored Wikipedia Pages Of Their Clients To Correct Errors?". Techdirt. 10 January 2012.
  121. Stein, Lindsay (28 June 2012). "PRSA wants more freedom for industry on Wikipedia". PR Week.
  122. "CIPR partners with Wikipedia". Communicate Magazine. 9 January 2012.
  123. "PR and Wikipedia: Building a better relationship". September 2012.
  124. Estes, Mark (2012). "A Lesson in PR Ethics and Wikipedia". CW Bulletin. Retrieved 23 March 2013.
  125. King, David (23 July 2012). "Ethical Wikipedia Strategies for Brands". CW Bulletin.
  126. Beutler, William (31 December 2012). "The Top 10 Wikipedia Stories of 2012 (Part 2)". The Wikipedian.
  127. "Wikipedia:WikiProject Integrity". English Wikipedia. Retrieved 23 March 2013.
  128. 1 2 3 Jack, O'Dwyer (1 February 2012). "'Wiki Project Cooperation' to Help PR Pros". O'Dwyer.
  129. Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation
  130. Richards, Katie (11 June 2014). "Companies Have Been Editing Wikipedia Pages To Make Themselves Look Better". Business Insider. Retrieved 11 June 2014.

Further reading

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia.
This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 12/4/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.