RSS
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 (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
who what what
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Well...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
It's the job of the guys in PR.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Spy vs Spy
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 | link to this | view in thread ]
not a rule, really, just bad form
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
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.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Too easy
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: not a rule, really, just bad form
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 | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment