Wiki-paid-y a?

It was a meeting to explore an academic partnership. While the Wikipedia editor made his pitch, the vice-chancellor submitted a pen drive with his bio and a request. Could the expert write a nice article about him on Wikipedia, asked the academician? At the first hint of dealmaking, the editor said that he wrote only about people and subjects that he was interested in. The vice-chancellor was crestfallen, and the partnership had an early death.
“My friends were offered hefty salaries to join a political party’s campaign recently. They didn’t take it up,” says the Bangalore–based editor. Another Wikipedia writer says he has been saying ‘no’ every other day to at least two corporates wanting a jazzed up page and offering to pay for it.

For every such marketing opportunity that is turned away, there are several paid writing options that are lapped up by freelance writers and social media marketing agencies. What their clients — who comprise mainly seasoned businessmen, celebrities, garage entrepreneurs and a few politicians — are looking for is a seemingly unbiased article in Wikipedia, the world’s largest online encyclopaedia run by volunteers.

In early December, EA Barbour, who is researching paid editing on Wikipedia, alleged that a Wiki editor manipulated data posted on the Wiki page of a Delhi -based business school to keep out negative information about the institute from the years 2010 to 2012. The blog post, titled ‘Indian Fakers Teach Wiki PR’, alleges that the editor used his knowledge of Wikipedia’s policy to remove unfavourable reports about the business school.

Even before the post came out, the issue was heatedly debated by Wiki editors, who are users that post regularly on the site and determine its content through popular opinion. As a result, information edited out of the ‘Controversies’ section on the B-school’s Wiki page was more or less reinstated.

Most social media agencies admit they work on Wiki requests as part of their Online Reputation Management packages which cost anywhere from Rs 50,000 to Rs 3-5 lakh a month. A few outsource Wiki work to experts but most rely on in-house teams. “When we ask Wiki editors for help, some refuse as their entries aren’t driven by clients, but by their own interests. Some take up the assignment,” says Sorav Jain, CEO of Chennai-based online marketing company EchoVme, whose clients include IT companies and spiritual organizations. However, he denies ever paying an editor. Punit Pahuja, CEO of digital media marketing firm Webenza, says several clients approach the agency for help in increasing their social media presence. “A small percentage of them do insist on Wiki articles,” he says, adding that it’s still a nascent practice in India.

Wiki editors this paper spoke to claim they are directly approached by clients willing to pay for their Wiki entries to be managed. Some say they get feelers from acquaintances or requests via Twitter. A Tamil Nadu-based entrepreneur, who had just discovered this ‘amazing’ product that prevents hair fall, wanted to know how to use Wiki to market it even before setting up operations in India. “When we told him that the brand had to prove its worth before being written about, the businessman got upset, saying Wiki is a platform to showcase regular people like him,” says an editor.

Internationally too, Wikipedia has been roiled with controversy. On January 9, Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit which runs Wikipedia, fired its employee and long-time Wikipedian Sarah Stierch for apparently doing paid editing. This controversy comes in the wake of the volunteer editors uncovering a major ring of “sock puppets,” or bogus user accounts that were allegedly used to edit articles on behalf of paying clients. The accounts were shut down, and the Texas-based PR firm which was reportedly behind the manipulation warned in November 2013.

Digital marketing agencies agree that it is tough to get biased or insufficiently researched articles or updates past the sharp gaze of admins (Wikipedia’s core group of editors ). “I have got requests to update pages for people after they have won awards. But if the information hasn’t been published in credible news organisations, the edit won’t get approved (by Wiki editors),” says Adhvith Dhuddu, CEO and founder of Bangalorebased soccial media agency AliveNow whose clients include actors, politicians and sportspeople. “The few times we posted or updated an existing post on the insistence of clients, the work was taken down by senior editors in a few hours,” claims Dhuddu, adding that even the language used on the site is being monitored by editors who stress on a style that is impersonal rather than promotional.

The community’s rigour is why digital agencies and Wiki editors both believe blatant violations are unlikely to become commonplace on Wikipedia. About the IIPM controversy, Wikimedia Foundation’s spokesperson Jay Walsh says, “It’s the role of the volunteer editing community to manage the article and make any changes. It’s also a Wikipedia article, which means it’s going to be a work in progress.”

THE SOCK PUPPET PROBLEM

Sock puppets, or fake identities, are sometimes used to praise, defend or support a person or organisation or to circumvent a suspension or ban from a website. Unlike a pseudonym, a sock puppet poses as an independent third-party unaffiliated with the puppeteer who has created him/her to garner support for his cause. While investigating the Wiki-PR case, Wikimedia Foundation came down hard on their practice of creating sock puppets.

Check here : https://bit.ly/2PgF8Ft