User:Doc James/Paid editing

Key statements around undisclosed paid promotional editing:

• " We also think that some degree of transparency in investigations helps the communities do a better job combating undisclosed paid editing. Posting and discussing information such as links to an editor’s job posting, company profile, or other information connecting that editor to editing an article subject for pay can be an effective way to identify and stop undisclosed paid editing. These kinds of transparent investigations may also help prevent abuse and ensure that people who aren’t actually connected to editing for pay can have an opportunity to explain their situation if circumstances cause a mistake to happen. It’s also important to remember that WP:OUTING can’t be used as a way to avoid the disclosure requirements in the Terms of Use: if someone is editing for a company and fails to disclose it, an admin properly posting that person’s company where it is relevant to an investigation is helping bring the account into compliance with those requirements."

• " These requirements shouldn't keep teachers, professors, or people working at galleries, libraries, archives, and museums ("GLAM") institutions from making contributions in good faith! If you fall into one of those categories, you are only required to comply with the disclosure provision when you are compensated by your employer or by a client specifically for edits and uploads to a Wikimedia project."

List of accounts / companies

• A list of the accounts of companies

Cases

Statement by the WMF “The Wikimedia Foundation was very disappointed to hear of the allegations of fraud committed by IIPM and Wifione. If true, it was a tremendous violation of the trust and good faith of our editors and readers. We will continue to work to support our editors and administrators in serving as a vigilant defense against such incidents and in hopes that they can prevent future incidents like this from occurring.” [1]

Coordinate

• Jake
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Integrity

Companies

• User:Lismmq from Boehringer Ingelheim working on nintedanib
• User:Nadakumar from IMS Health
• Havas Lynx Medical for Alexion Pharmaceuticals working on paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria

IMS Health

User:Protein3EFN

Merck

User:Florian Schaub At Merck KGaA

Notable cases

Vertebroplasty by Medtronic

• Percutaneous_vertebroplasty edited by the marketing department of Medtronic owner of Kyphon. 1 Billion USD market

Accounts likely associated with Medtronic

• User:Euroarti
• User:Ehrahn

Gout by Savient pharmaceuticals

• Refractory chronic gout created by an employee of Savient pharmaceuticals manufacturer of pegloticase with efforts to add content more widely.

Stretta

User:Mnoar

User:MederiTherapeuticsInc

Hearing aid

• User:Coppelia12
• USer:Jesmona
• User:Edith.mitschnigg
• User:Josabeth
• User:Hear Online
• User:CNBRR?
• User:ResearchOnCommand

Sock farm

[2]

Questionable editing by CorprateM

I have had issues with USer:CorporateM's editing over the last couple of weeks. This includes WP:Canvassing and attempts to brush over the best available evidence and replace it with expert opinion.

WRT canvassing

• Aug 8 5:33 CorporateM asks a single editor for "help" on a RfC I replied that while it is okay to notify an entire project, notifying a single editor is not kosher
• Aug 14 22:40 they did the same thing. They requested a single editor help them out and provided that editor with their prefered version of the article.

Their prefered version places the lower quality evidence first and leaves out / poorly presents the most recent systematic review. As canvassing was not effective they appear to next try to denigrate the best available evidence by covering it in tags.

• 04:12 Aug 15 CorporateM tags the most recent systematic review we were aware of and tagging the conclusions of the best available research as undue.
• On Aug 15 16:39 I removed these tags as they appear to be an attempt to denigrate the best available literature. While there are newer reviews, commented on, these are not systematic reviews.
• I questioned these tags on the talk page Aug 15, 16:42 [3] to which Corprate replied at 17:55 stating these tags were "annotation"
• Aug 15, 17:56 they tagged the review again
• Aug 15, 18:20 I removed these tags again and commented further on talk [4] All they needed to do was provide a newer systematic review.
• Instead on Aug 15, 18:26 they re added the tags and stopped responded on talk.

I left them a edit warring notice after which they started a 3RR which got the article protected.