Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Submission + - Major Wikipedia donors caught editing their own articles 7

An anonymous reader writes: As reported before on Slashdot, one of the most terrible sins on Wikipedia is to edit articles for pay, or otherwise violate the "neutral point of view" policy, per their co-founder Jimmy Wales. And yet, the Wikipedia-criticism website Wikipediocracy has recently performed a study showing that a large percentage of the Wikimedia Foundation's largest cash donors have violated that policy. Repeatedly, and wantonly. In short, they wrote articles about themselves or their companies, then gave the WMF big donations — and were not confronted about violating the NPOV policy. It reeks of outright favoritism. The first installment of an upcoming multi-part series discusses the co-creator of Cards Against Humanity, and his blatant editing of the Wikipedia article about his card game, followed by a $70,000 donation to the WMF. An honest donation, or hush money?
This discussion was created for logged-in users only, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Major Wikipedia donors caught editing their own articles

Comments Filter:
  • And they say there is a LOT of outrageous behaviour in this area of Wikipedia editing. The card game is only "the tip of a large iceberg", whatever that means.
    • Apparently this is just one in a series of blog posts that will tear open the veil over this serious problem.
  • Most anyone interested enough to navigate the hostile waters of Wikipedia has an interest in a subject, either through employment, advocacy, or just plain liking or disliking the topic of an article. The ‘Bright Line’ rule is doomed, as paid editing and advocacy is already rampant in Wikipedia. It’s time to manage this, not demonize it. I’m looking forward to subsequent chapters in this COI saga.
    • It's worth noting that the Wikipedia article was created four days before the launch of the game's hardcopy version. Basically, it would have supported the launch. In the 2013 Christmas season, the article got over 120,000 views (around 4,000 views a day throughout December 2013). Smart marketing.
  • Full disclosure: I authored the article that this Slashdot points to.

    Since the Wikimedia Foundation takes such a firm position against financial conflict of interest editing, it stands to reason that if the WMF stands by its principles, it would return the $70,000 donation back to Cards Against Humanity. Does anyone think that the charity set up by Jimmy Wales would ever do that?

  • Self promotion, political manipulation, corporate puffery, and revenge. All masquerading as some objective truth. Wikipedia is to knowledge, what arsenic is to nutrition.

Each honest calling, each walk of life, has its own elite, its own aristocracy based on excellence of performance. -- James Bryant Conant