RSS
Twitter
Phorm Edits Negative History Right Out Of Wikipedia
from the and-gets-called-on-it dept
Phorm, the controversial "former" adware company that is aggressively defending its new ads-based-on-your-clickstream program, despite some serious questions about its legality apparently became a little "overzealous" in its defense, editing its own Wikipedia page to erase many of the negative stories about the company. Of course, doing that backfired pretty quickly, as the company got called out on it (and the edits got reverted). While first suggesting that it was merely trying to correct "inaccuracies" (such as questions over its legality?), the company admitted it was a bit too aggressive, and was unfamiliar with the rule that you're not supposed to edit your own Wikipedia entry.
Reader Comments
(Flattened / Threaded)
who what what
I'm always amazed when I see stories like this. Which member of an organization decides that it is his job to go around editting stories about said organization? Is that a task reserved for executives? Techies? Do they have designated wikipedia managers?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Well...
If it's good enough for Jimmy Wales, I guess it's good enough for Phorm.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
"I'm always amazed when I see stories like this. Which member of an organization decides that it is his job to go around editting stories about said organization? Is that a task reserved for executives? Techies? Do they have designated wikipedia managers?"
It's the job of the guys in PR.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Spy vs Spy
Apparently this spying has been going on for some time, and not just in the UK. How soon before there is a bill in congress to give these people retroactive immunity similar to the telephone companies ?
It would be fun to pit one against the other. I'm sure that there is some clever gambit to start the ball rolling.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
not a rule, really, just bad form
i looked into this a few months ago. as far as i know, it's not actually a rule (within the Wikipedia community) that you can't edit your own wikipedia entry, but it's strongly discouraged.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: not a rule, really, just bad form
i looked into this a few months ago. as far as i know, it's not actually a rule (within the Wikipedia community) that you can't edit your own wikipedia entry, but it's strongly discouraged.
You apparently didn't look very very hard then. Heres the Wikipedia Conflict of Interest policy against it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: not a rule, really, just bad form
You apparently didn't look very very hard then. Heres the Wikipedia Conflict of Interest policy against it.
Actually, that policy doesn't completely ban the practice. It does say though that such edits should be avoided or done with great caution. It then describes what is required of such edits. Phorm blatantly ignored those requirements.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Too easy
One of the drawbacks of electronic records such as wikipedia: they can be changed all too easily. Perhaps history will be completely altered in 100 years. That is if the electronic records survive that long.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment