Wikipedia Editors Paid to Protect Political, Tech, and Media Figures240
Wikipedia Editors Paid to Protect Political, Tech, and Media Figures240
A
report in Huffington Post recently
revealed the case of Wikipedia editor Ed Sussman, who was paid by media clients
such as NBC and Axios to help diminish critical material.
Paid editors operating in a similar manner to Sussman have worked on behalf of
CNN contributor Hilary Rosen and the CEOs of Reddit and Intel, among other
clients.
Other conduct by Sussman not covered by the Huffington Post
shows him authoring fluff pieces for NBC executives and getting his proposed
changes approved by another paid Wikipedia editor.
The report
by Ashley Feinberg detailed former journalist Ed Sussman’s work as a paid
Wikipedia fixer for clients such as Axios, NBC, and Facebook. Sussman did this
work through the firm WhiteHatWiki, which he argues follows Wikipedia policies. Sussman
disclosed his paid editing on Wikipedia and ostensibly worked within the rules
by having other editors approve proposed changes.
However, Feinberg’s article noted several of Sussman’s requests
involved removing or watering down potentially damaging material about clients,
even when citing sources considered reliable on the site. Such removals would
appear to violate Wikipedia’s neutrality policy, which states:
All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a
neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately,
and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views
that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.
In one
example Feinberg cited, Sussman requested changes to the page of Axios
journalist Jonathan Swan regarding a false report he made last September claiming
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein was resigning. A line noting the
incident in Swan’s article was replaced with a paragraph hyping that Swan was
“the first to report” Rosenstein’s offer to resign, despite the offer being
refused. Sussman backed this spin with a New York Times article treating
the incident as a failure of the Axios reporting model, a fact not mentioned in
Sussman’s proposed edit.
Many of
Sussman’s approved changes to the pages of his clients engaged in this subtle
spin and cherry-picking. Changes to the NBC News page defended the network’s
refusal to air Ronan Farrow’s story, subsequently published by The
New Yorker, on the sexual assault allegations against Hollywood
producer Harvey Weinstein, despite the very sources cited being more critical and Farrow’s own criticism
of the network’s refusal to air the story. Feinberg identifies similar spin in
Sussman’s portrayal of NBC’s handling of sexual assault allegations against the
network’s own Matt Lauer.
Not all of
Sussman’s work for NBC was noted in Huffington Post’s report. Feinberg mentions
Sussman worked on NBC News chairman Andrew Lack’s page, but he also created the initial draft of the page, which another editor approved in its entirety. Sussman’s article
notes Lack became NBC chairman amidst controversy over anchor Brian Williams,
who was caught lying about his experiences during the 2003 Iraq War. His
article did not mention the close relationship Lack had with Williams as noted
in one of the article’s cited sources.
Lack reportedly even advised Williams during the
controversy and lobbied on his behalf with executives.
President
of MSNBC Phil Griffin also benefited from Sussman’s intervention as a short article on Griffin prominently noting his description of the cable news network as the
“place to go for progressives” was expanded in line with a proposal by Sussman. In the new version, the
only mention of the channel’s political persuasion involved Griffin disputing
claims of a partisan bias at the outlet.
Feinberg’s
reports about Sussman’s bludgeoning style, such as proposing extensive changes difficult to review and
peppering various editors with requests to act on his
proposals, is not abnormal for paid editors. Another paid editing firm that has
exhibited similar practices is Beutler Ink, run by long-time editor and Wikipedia blogger William
Beutler. Beutler has been engaged in paid editing for over a decade, having previously worked for New Media Strategies on
behalf of clients such as Disney and Koch Industries. His more recent paid
editing has been at his eponymous firm and includes work for several figures in
government and media.
In 2016,
he had the page on CNN contributor Hilary Rosen changed to remove mention of aggressive tactics
she pursued against file-sharing while head of the RIAA, despite repeatedly
citing a Wired article detailing them. His only reference
to criticism Rosen faced during her tenure was mentioning she received death
threats and had to hire security. A section on her LGBT advocacy was also added, which ended up being the second-longest on her
page. Controversies involving her role as a PR consultant at
Democrat-affiliated SKDKnickerbocker, who paid Beutler, were greatly trimmed
and watered down.
SKDKnickerbocker
also hired Beutler to help with the article on then-ambassador to Hungary under
Obama, Colleen Bell. His proposed changes were largely implemented and toned down criticism of
her appointment while touting her work as ambassador with a particular emphasis
on her criticism of Hungarian President Orban’s policies on refugees. Bell’s
appointment had been criticized due to her role as a bundler for Obama and
another ambassador who faced this criticism, Robert Mandell, also hired
Beutler. He proceeded to have information about the amount Mandell raised
for Obama replaced with the smaller amounts Mandell personally
donated.
Another
client of Beutler’s was Brian Krzanich, the CEO of Intel, whose page Beutler got changed to burnish his progressive
credentials. His article previously focused mostly on controversy over a
fundraiser for Trump held at his home. Krzanich was not the only CEO client of
the firm. One employee of Beutler’s firm got the page on Reddit CEO Steve Huffman changed to hype his role in redesigning the site
after stating he joined at a “particularly difficult time” for the site. The
changes also downplayed Huffman contradicting Reddit’s long-time free speech
stance despite citing a source that noted numerous high-level company
figures, including former CEO Yishan Wong, previously acknowledged this stance.
One
pattern of Sussman’s Wikipedia behavior that Feinberg mentioned and Beutler
also demonstrated was a tendency towards canvassing editors or groups to get them to act favorably on his requests then
repeatedly going back to them for more support. Like several requests from Sussman, Beutler’s requests for
assistance tended to be geared towards eliciting sympathy for his efforts and
bias editors in favor of his position. Using notifications that would bias
discussion in their favor would, as Feinberg suggests, go against Wikipedia guidelines.
Their
commonalities also extended to the occasionally questionable choice in
assistance. One of Sussman’s requested changes on Swan’s page was implemented by someone who was also a paid editor and that Sussman specifically requested. He sought the same editor’s help with the NBC
article. Beutler in his efforts sought help on the Rosen and Mandell articles from editors who had worked for
the United States government, which they both disclosed as potential conflicts of interest.
Wikipedia’s
policies do not ban paid editors from approving the proposals of other paid
editors provided they are not working for the same client. In a case last year, Wikipedia’s Arbitration
Committee, akin to a Supreme Court, sanctioned two long-time editors after one
had his paid edits approved by the other despite both working for the same paid
editing firm. Neither were banned for these practices, not even from further
paid editing.
Many
Wikipedia editors are resistant to paid editing, but the practice is generally
tolerated so long as editors disclose their affiliation and get their edits
approved by other editors as Sussman and Beutler have done. As such response
from Wikipedia to Feinberg’s piece has been dismissive, suggesting the activities complied
with the rules. Concerns are focused more on paid editors who do not disclose
their affiliation, which violates the site’s Terms of Use and has sometimes allegedly involved elements of
extortion and fraud.
Just as
with Wikipedia’s supposed reliability against fake news, rules permitting disclosed paid editing presume
the unpaid amateurs on the site will be able to effectively analyze and
evaluate the edits of well-compensated professionals. However, even undisclosed
paid editors frequently slip past Wikipedia’s ad hoc methods of detection. The
site’s effectiveness at constraining bias introduced by paid editors is thus
not much greater than its ability to constrain its rampant political bias.
(Disclosure: the author of this
piece was paid in the past for edits on Wikipedia as part of several editing
contests)
Comments
Post a Comment