5 ms·

And also to scrub existing articles of certain details. A former coworker once told me about a stint he did working for a company that sold wikipedia edits. Th

And also to scrub existing articles of certain details. A former coworker once told me about a stint he did working for a company that sold wikipedia edits. The founder was Brazilian and apparently their company was super popular with Central and South American politicians trying to scrub their pages of various financial scandals and other things unbecoming of a politician. I was shocked when he first told me about it, but it's pretty easy to see in 2019 that managing one's image online can be incredibly lucrative.

commoner 8y ago
Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not immune to PR firms. In 2013, more than 250 accounts were blocked or banned for being associated with a firm called Wiki-PR. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki-PR_editing_of_Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki-PR_editing_of_Wikipedia In a community, one of the best ways to counter bad actors is to recruit more good actors. If you suspect that a Wikipedia article was deleted inappropriately, you can submit it for "deletion review": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
strken 8y ago
I recently went to link a friend to the Landmark Forum Wikipedia page, and found that instead of a "Criticism" section it had a "Criticism and public option" section, which contained no allegations of cult-like behaviour until the last two paragraphs, but did contain a surprising number of denials. The talk and history page showed that any piece of actual criticism levelled at the totally-not-a-cult was removed more or less instantly by a handful of Landmark Forum members on the grounds of bias. I have no idea where I would even start if I wanted to fix that article. It's pretty ridiculous.
- commoner 8y ago
  Landmark Worldwide has been a highly controversial subject on Wikipedia. There are 32 pages of discussions on the article's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Landmark_Worldwide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Landmark_Worldwide To contribute to articles on controversial topics (such as politics and religion), Wikipedia recommends the following: 1) Edit the article with the changes you want to make. 2) If another editor disagrees with you, they will revert your edit. 3) After your edit is reverted, go to the talk page of the article and discuss the contents of your edit. The key step is #3. Reverted edits are to be discussed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discus... If you're unable to come to an agreement with other editors, you can use some form of dispute resolution. The most popular method is the "request for comment", in which all Wikipedia editors are invited to participate in a debate, and the results determine the state of the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment Your point of view won't always be the one that wins the debate, but Wikipedia editors are generally reasonable, and your arguments will be fairly heard.
  - zozbot123 8y ago
    > To contribute to articles on controversial topics (such as politics and religion), Wikipedia recommends the following: > 1) Edit the article with the changes you want to make. > 2) If another editor disagrees with you, they will revert your edit. > 3) After your edit is reverted, go to the talk page of the article and discuss the contents of your edit. This is actually a bad idea. It's fine for garden-variety editing that you don't expect to raise controversy, but if you want to affect something controversial and not look like you're acting in bad faith, you absolutely need to go to the talk page first and propose your edit there. If no one replies after a few days, then you have cover to just make the change 'per the talk page' (and sometimes you do get reverted here - but now you can complain that they didn't act fairly by commenting on your proposal!), but most likely they will, and you'll get to hash out the wording on talk.
    - commoner 8y ago
helmword 8y ago
I did a consulting gig about 15 years ago, when the company (my client) went bankrupt. It had been recently acquired, and the new owners gutted the company, embezzling at least several million dollars. The structure was quite intricate, including at least six different companies with revenues in at least the tens of millions. I think the bankruptcy left about $30 million in debts (they owed me about $15,000). There are a few articles about it in Swedish, linked below. Company I worked for was Azzets, or Depicta, under Delling Group. A few years after, when I google their names (Geir Lolleng and Aksel Bratvedt), nothing about this turned up on Google. Instead, there were links to all kinds of tumblr, blogspot, weebly, twitter, youtube etc links. (And the notice Some results may have been removed under data protection law in Europe.) I found Geir Lolleng's LinkedIn, and his next job after that was starting a new company: Helmword is a specialist firm that protects and supports companies’ and executives’ reputation online. Together with the client we can achieve long term results. We work with clients in Asia, Europe, Africa and South-America. https://www.resume.se/nyheter/artiklar/2011/03/23/sa-styckades-guldkalven/ https://www.resume.se/nyheter/artiklar/2011/03/23/sa-styckad... https://www.affarsvarlden.se/bors-ekonominyheter/konkurser-nara-knacka-delling-6697761 https://www.affarsvarlden.se/bors-ekonominyheter/konkurser-n... https://www.norrteljetidning.se/artikel/norrtalje-kommun/nye-agaren-hade-tio-konkurser-bakom-sig https://www.norrteljetidning.se/artikel/norrtalje-kommun/nye... https://www.affarsvarlden.se/bors-ekonominyheter/konkursryttare-i-ny-krasch-6697772 https://www.affarsvarlden.se/bors-ekonominyheter/konkursrytt... https://www.affarsvarlden.se/bors-ekonominyheter/omstridd-revisor-tar-nya-uppdrag-6698385 https://www.affarsvarlden.se/bors-ekonominyheter/omstridd-re...

commoner 8y ago

Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not immune to PR firms. In 2013, more than 250 accounts were blocked or banned for being associated with a firm called Wiki-PR. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki-PR_editing_of_Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki-PR_editing_of_Wikipedia In a community, one of the best ways to counter bad actors is to recruit more good actors. If you suspect that a Wikipedia article was deleted inappropriately, you can submit it for "deletion review": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

strken 8y ago

I recently went to link a friend to the Landmark Forum Wikipedia page, and found that instead of a "Criticism" section it had a "Criticism and public option" section, which contained no allegations of cult-like behaviour until the last two paragraphs, but did contain a surprising number of denials. The talk and history page showed that any piece of actual criticism levelled at the totally-not-a-cult was removed more or less instantly by a handful of Landmark Forum members on the grounds of bias. I have no idea where I would even start if I wanted to fix that article. It's pretty ridiculous.

commoner 8y ago
Landmark Worldwide has been a highly controversial subject on Wikipedia. There are 32 pages of discussions on the article's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Landmark_Worldwide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Landmark_Worldwide To contribute to articles on controversial topics (such as politics and religion), Wikipedia recommends the following: 1) Edit the article with the changes you want to make. 2) If another editor disagrees with you, they will revert your edit. 3) After your edit is reverted, go to the talk page of the article and discuss the contents of your edit. The key step is #3. Reverted edits are to be discussed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discus... If you're unable to come to an agreement with other editors, you can use some form of dispute resolution. The most popular method is the "request for comment", in which all Wikipedia editors are invited to participate in a debate, and the results determine the state of the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment Your point of view won't always be the one that wins the debate, but Wikipedia editors are generally reasonable, and your arguments will be fairly heard.
- zozbot123 8y ago
  > To contribute to articles on controversial topics (such as politics and religion), Wikipedia recommends the following: > 1) Edit the article with the changes you want to make. > 2) If another editor disagrees with you, they will revert your edit. > 3) After your edit is reverted, go to the talk page of the article and discuss the contents of your edit. This is actually a bad idea. It's fine for garden-variety editing that you don't expect to raise controversy, but if you want to affect something controversial and not look like you're acting in bad faith, you absolutely need to go to the talk page first and propose your edit there. If no one replies after a few days, then you have cover to just make the change 'per the talk page' (and sometimes you do get reverted here - but now you can complain that they didn't act fairly by commenting on your proposal!), but most likely they will, and you'll get to hash out the wording on talk.
  - commoner 8y ago

helmword 8y ago

I did a consulting gig about 15 years ago, when the company (my client) went bankrupt. It had been recently acquired, and the new owners gutted the company, embezzling at least several million dollars. The structure was quite intricate, including at least six different companies with revenues in at least the tens of millions. I think the bankruptcy left about $30 million in debts (they owed me about $15,000). There are a few articles about it in Swedish, linked below. Company I worked for was Azzets, or Depicta, under Delling Group. A few years after, when I google their names (Geir Lolleng and Aksel Bratvedt), nothing about this turned up on Google. Instead, there were links to all kinds of tumblr, blogspot, weebly, twitter, youtube etc links. (And the notice Some results may have been removed under data protection law in Europe.) I found Geir Lolleng's LinkedIn, and his next job after that was starting a new company: Helmword is a specialist firm that protects and supports companies’ and executives’ reputation online. Together with the client we can achieve long term results. We work with clients in Asia, Europe, Africa and South-America. https://www.resume.se/nyheter/artiklar/2011/03/23/sa-styckades-guldkalven/ https://www.resume.se/nyheter/artiklar/2011/03/23/sa-styckad... https://www.affarsvarlden.se/bors-ekonominyheter/konkurser-nara-knacka-delling-6697761 https://www.affarsvarlden.se/bors-ekonominyheter/konkurser-n... https://www.norrteljetidning.se/artikel/norrtalje-kommun/nye-agaren-hade-tio-konkurser-bakom-sig https://www.norrteljetidning.se/artikel/norrtalje-kommun/nye... https://www.affarsvarlden.se/bors-ekonominyheter/konkursryttare-i-ny-krasch-6697772 https://www.affarsvarlden.se/bors-ekonominyheter/konkursrytt... https://www.affarsvarlden.se/bors-ekonominyheter/omstridd-revisor-tar-nya-uppdrag-6698385 https://www.affarsvarlden.se/bors-ekonominyheter/omstridd-re...