Wikipedia bans 381 user accounts involved in blackmailing

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...mall-businesses-and-celebrities-10481993.html

Hundreds of small British businesses and minor celebrities have been targeted by a sophisticated blackmail scam orchestrated by “rogue editors” at Wikipedia, The Independent can reveal.

The victims, who range from a wedding photographer in Dorset to a high-end jewellery shop in Shoreditch, east London, faced demands for hundreds of pounds to “protect” or update Wikipedia pages about their businesses. A former Britain’s Got Talent contestant was among dozens of individuals targeted.

Wikipedia has taken action against what it described as the “co-ordinated group” of fraudsters by blocking 381 accounts. An investigation had found that the accounts were controlled by Wikipedia users offering to change articles about companies and private individuals in exchange for payment.

 

[Jewelsmakerguy]

Well, at least I can't say people bribe Wikipedia in order to write articles now.

Still, this feels a little extreme, don't you think?

 

[AnOminous]

Well, at least I can't say people bribe Wikipedia in order to write articles now.

Still, this feels a little extreme, don't you think?

The Foundation probably is in a shit-ton of trouble itself for vicarious liability if they didn't do everything reasonable to prevent stuff like this. I wouldn't be surprised to see them facing some action, or at least the threat of it.

 

[Jewelsmakerguy]

The Foundation probably is in a shit-ton of trouble itself for vicarious liability if they didn't do everything reasonable to prevent stuff like this. I wouldn't be surprised to see them facing some action, or at least the threat of it.

Me neither, to be frank. It just proves how flawed the current system is. And the Blackmailers may end up coming after them once they get a hold of what's actually happening.

Let's face it, Wikipedia wasn't always the best site to keep people from gumming up their works, but they'd better do something about it soon. Or else this may end up blowing up all over their (metaphorical) faces.

 

[AnOminous]

Let's face it, Wikipedia wasn't always the best site to keep people from gumming up their works, but they'd better do something about it soon. Or else this may end up blowing up all over their (metaphorical) faces.

Maybe if they'd spent half the time they have spent lately sperging about pronouns and "deadnames" actually policing the roving extortion mobs, this wouldn't have gone on for months.

 

[NegaCWC]

Maybe if they'd spent half the time they have spent lately sperging about pronouns and "deadnames" actually policing the roving extortion mobs, this wouldn't have gone on for months.

Maybe they should just forgoe this whole open encyclopedia thing and close shop, I think it was a bad idea to begin with.

 

[QI 541]

Friendly reminder that Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

 

[c-no]

Friendly reminder that Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

Especially since anyone can edit it as well.

 

[TowinKarz]

Friendly reminder that Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

[citation needed]

 

[Wilkins]

"The scam worked by targeting firms struggling to get pages about their businesses on Wikipedia."

Wikipedia is at fault for not enforcing their own notability guidelines and giving a scam artist enough maneuverability to exploit it.

 

[Jaimas]

We've reached a dark place when fucking ED is considered by many to be more credible than Wikipedia.