Skip to main content
The Signpost
← Back to Contents
View Latest Issue


In the media

Contribute  —  
Share this
By Andreas Kolbe, Montanabw, Pete Forsyth

A reputation management and search engine optimisation firm has announced a professional service for creating, altering, monitoring, updating, and translating Wikipedia pages and has launched a corresponding Internet portal. In its communications, the firm assures potential clients that ownership of a Wikipedia article is a prominent asset, enhancing their online reputation.

The press release contains a contact name, a city, a phone number, and an email address identifying an employer (whose web page also includes a photograph of the contact, along with details of other staff members). All of this is "personal information" as defined in WP:Outing. AK / PF

The Signpost aspires to provide readers with sufficient information to evaluate the news we report and the opinions our op-ed writers express. However, English Wikipedia policy prevents us from doing so in some routine cases. We withheld significant information in this story to comply with our interpretation of Wikipedia’s policies.

Photographer sues Getty for appropriation of donated images

Photographer Carol Highsmith (pictured, self-portrait) donated thousands of her photographs to the Library of Congress, only to see a commercial vendor claim copyright.

Beginning in 1988, photographer Carol M. Highsmith donated thousands of images to the Library of Congress for free use by the general public, only to see Getty Images, a stock photo company, appropriate them, in some cases without attribution, add their own watermark, and then accuse Highsmith of copyright infringement. Hyperallergic reports that Highsmith sued Getty and another stock photo business, Alamy, for copyright infringement, asking for $1 billion in damages, including compensation for over 18,755 images Getty appropriated as well as punitive damages because the company had been previously liable for the same violation against another photographer within the past three years. She learned that both agencies had been charging fees to customers for use of her images and sending threat letters to others who had used her free images. The complaint states, “The defendants have apparently misappropriated Ms. Highsmith’s generous gift to the American people ... not only unlawfully charging licensing fees ... but are falsely and fraudulently holding themselves out as the exclusive copyright owner.” Inspired by the example of Dorothea Lange, Highsmith wanted to document all 50 states, and these images now form the Carol M. Highsmith Collection at the LOC. (July 27) MTbw

Wikipedia as a crystal ball

(Tim Kaine) Perhaps WP:NOTCRYSTAL should be WP:ISCRYSTAL when an unexpected upsurge in article edits occurs prior to a vice-presidential candidate announcement.

The Atlantic studied trends in the number of edits to Wikipedia articles about potential vice-presidential picks, noting a 2008 Washington Post story on an upsurge in Wikipedia article edits prior to the VP selection of Sarah Palin. This year, The Atlantic noted increased editing activity each time various hopefuls such as Tom Vilsack and Elizabeth Warren were paraded into public view. Based on this metric, a dramatic upsurge in editing of Tim Kaine's article prior to Hillary Clinton's July 22 announcement shows that Wikipedia accurately foreshadowed the selection of the Democratic VP nominee. The story was also covered by New York Magazine and Bloomberg Politics. (July 22) MTbw

Librarians to counter systemic bias

Pacific Standard reports on a $250,000 Knight Foundation grant for a project called "Amplify libraries and communities through Wikipedia". The article draws particular attention to the dearth of women and people of colour in Wikipedia's volunteer base ...

As James Hare, president of Wikimedia DC, told the New York Times in 2015:

“The stereotype of a Wikipedia editor is a 30-year-old white man, and so most of the articles written are about stuff that interests 30-year-old white men. So a lot of black history is left out.”

... as well as the hostile reception new editors may receive. In the words of Merrilee Proffitt, one of the project leads, Wikipedia ...

can be a challenging environment. The thing that someone said to me that resonates is, “Wikipedians are very nice in person, but can be mean online.” You don’t get subtleties in online communication. These are all volunteers, they’re doing it on their spare time, they’re not getting paid, they’re very protective of that. They’re a little suspicious of new editors and what might be motivating them.”

Librarians in the United States have a gender bias that is almost the exact mirror opposite of Wikipedia's—83% are women—and hence it is hoped that getting librarians involved will provide a little balance:

It’s a lot to expect all librarians to get on board with this project. But if they did, you’d be talking about essentially closing Wikipedia’s gender gap in one fell swoop.

Librarians' racial bias, on the other hand, is much the same as in Wikipedia, so addressing racial bias “may be a bit trickier”:

“It’s safe to say that librarians are also disproportionately white, but the communities we serve are incredibly diverse,” Proffitt says. “What librarians can do by becoming Wikipedians is bring this out to their people. Public libraries are in every corner, and serve such a variety of audiences.”

(July 27) AK

← Previous "In the media"
Next "In the media" →

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

I'm not convinced number of citations is a good marker of amount of research. A few scholarly overview texts might be appropriate for a large overview article like Bible - which splits off into thousands of sub-articles. Meanwhile, a more recent topic like Pokémon Go might have to have its research assembled from a large number of quite short citations - newspapers and such, and is more likely to have been edited cumulatively as more evidence came in, encouraging people to always be looking for newer, more recent citations. That doesn't mean that the Pokémon Go article is better; in a way, the large amount of citations can indicate a very messy article creation process. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To me it's just a clear indication of WP:RECENTISM. ~★ nmaia d 01:07, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Adam. The Gizmodo article is unfairly implying that our entire coverage of Bible studies consists of the 25 sources of Bible#References and further reading, rather than the tens of thousands of sources tucked away at Book of Joshua#Bibliography, Authorship of the Pauline epistles#References, Codex Zographensis#References, etc., etc. This seems to reflect a serious misunderstanding of WP layout on the Gizmodo author's part. FourViolas (talk) 06:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the Highsmith lawsuit: As a professional photographer, I am appalled that stock agencies would so blatantly steal work in this manner. I'm more surprised at Alamy than at Getty; I have images on the former, and had considered them to be a respectable company. I'm seriously considering pulling my images off of their service now. Funcrunch (talk) 00:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • While it's a bit hard to tell, it looks like the top story is about the same folks I reported at WP:AN, the banned editors of Wiki-PR, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive282#Wiki-PR_.3D.3E_statuslabs_.3D.3EGetYourWiki.com and also Wikipedia_talk:Harassment#Better_example. It is really quite scary when the Signpost does not feel able to report on a banned editor/company rebranding itself, in an attempt to better break our rules on Paid editing and NPOV.
  • I just want everybody to know that Wiki-PR sent the press release to me (and likely 100,000s of other people) thru my Google News setting. It took me all of 15 seconds to check that these were the Wiki-PR folks under a new name. Is this the type of personal information that the folks who wrote WP:Outing wanted to protect? I don't think so. And if nobody can report this type of info to WP:AN, then we really can't ban editors like them and then every Wikipedia article can be written by the highest bidder.
  • This whole nonsense about threatening to block editors for "harassing paid editors" could be avoided by just recognizing that paid editors who voluntarily advertise their service on the open internet are not in anyway being outed when the ads are reported. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please, the Signpost isn't scared. They're being petty and perpetuating an argument that was already settled to be pointy. If they can't report without letting their grudges spill over into unrelated articles, then they shouldn't be writing.--v/r - TP 04:27, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have no idea how you get "settled" out of this RfC here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Paid editors have the obligation to disclose themselves as such, and if not we have all the right to reveal their wrongdoing. This post prompted me to do a quick search for reputation management companies offering Wikipedia editing, and I found two, one called LibraryCom in India and another one called GetYourWiki in an undisclosed location. Do we have any directory where we can list such companies so as to better protect against them? --Hispalois (talk) 09:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Unfortunately this is not true User:Hispalois. We had an editor indefinitely banned not that long ago for stating / proving an obviously paid editor was obviously paid in an effort to help them adapt to the rules of WP. A likely not so random IP reported them to ANI and a functionary a few minutes latter indeffed them. Even after promising that they would never link to an outside account ever again arbcom has maintained their indefinite block. So is there concern among the community that attempts to deal with COI, definitely. This has sent a chill through those working to address undisclosed paid editing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The extraordinary prescience of Wikipedia editors for "names which will be in the news tomorrow" is explicable only once we accept that it is not only commercial paid editors which exist.

"Silly season" articles exist for many nations each year, and I rather think a researcher who notes the wondrous "accidental timing" of such articles will also note that each such article may well have a "dominant editor" who, in my exceedingly unenlightened opinion, may not appear by pure coincidence.

I suggest that such articles be closely examined, and that we establish some means of weighing likelihood of "partisan creation" rather than accept that some Wikipedians are simply extremely lucky. And I do consider the effect to be quite as pernicious as the effect of "paid editors" on commercial articles. Collect (talk) 15:08, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Highsmith case dismissed

Just a little housekeeping, I notice that the dismissal of Carol Highsmith's lawsuit was never mentioned here. See: https://www.diyphotography.net/us-district-court-dismisses-carol-highsmiths-1-billion-copyright-claim-getty/ diyphotography.net] -Pete Forsyth (talk) 21:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost is written by editors like you — join in!