Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-02-13/Disinformation report

← Back to Disinformation report

Discuss this story

@Smallbones: Well, it's safe to say that James definitely did not mince for words while trying to unmask this guy... : D

But seriously, this is a real problem. Likely even worse than we thought. --Oltrepier (talk) 10:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I tried Googling (in an incognito window) "Can you pay to get a Wikipedia article about you?" to see what the top search results are:

1. Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. OK, that's at least from us. But trying to place myself in the shoes of someone being enticed by a scammer, I've probably already made up my mind, so it's not a very enticing result. And if I do click on it, there's nothing on that page about the scam except a link to the scam warning at the very bottom of the see also section, which I have a very low chance of reaching.
2. You don’t need to pay for a Wikipedia article, a WMF blog post. Excellent. (Being from 2018, though, it links to Wikipedia:Simple conflict of interest edit request, which is not a user-friendly page compared to the edit request wizard introduced in 2020.)
3. How Much Does a Wikipedia Page Cost and Why?, a LinkedIn blog post, with the first sentence A Wikipedia page costs £2040, linking to wikinative.com. Curiously, it also links to the WMF blog post — one way to see that is that the "people will believe what they want to believe rather than what has the best evidence" factor is strong enough that the scammer feels confident it won't deter clients.

Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Scam warning appears nowhere in the results. As sleazy of a realm as SEO is, if we want people at risk of the scam to find the warning, then we should probably better optimize our warning so that it has a fighting chance of showing up for the searches they're likely to make. Sdkb ^talk 03:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

• No doubt their product jams up the Afc process, but I can't imagine much gets through, and the pretty low prices may actually spoil the market for better quality COI paid editing, which might even be a good thing. Was it India? Johnbod (talk) 05:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  Appeared to be India yes. Or at least that was were they wanted the money send. They claimed they went to Harvard like many of these scammers. It was amazing just how lazy they are. My linkedin page clearly says a few times that i edit Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:12, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

• I still believe that a well-thought public outreach by WMF is overdue and would work wonders. Imagine if they used their ill-gotten gains to put a full page ad in big city newspapers telling the public not to pay for articles. Imagine if they told the public via corporate media that Wikipedia as an information service cracks down on abuses. They won't because the WMF needs new furniture. They get paid, the scammers get paid, and everyone but the little people are happy. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

  Although you might be right about the office furniture, I suspect a more important reason this will never happen is that the Foundation is unsure which media would reach the largest number of potential victims. (No, advertising in the NY Times would not reach all them, let alone most of the US. But the publicity around such a campaign might.) -- llywrch (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion on a content dispute

I have a feeling the article on Borscht also has this "free thinkers when they meet paid thinkers" problem. There is this user, TaivoLinguist, who keeps reverting edits regarding borscht's origins* "per WP:CONSENSUS", but cannot actually show where the consensus have been reached - pointing to "archives [1], [2], [3]" and saying "it is there". ADDITIONAL INFO: Borscht, as it turns out, have been long before beets were added, but those kind of borscht are now "namesakes". Ugh. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 06:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)