Wikipedia Used For Apparent Viral Marketing Ploy 201
jangobongo writes "An article over at BoingBoing discusses what appears to be a viral marketing ploy appearing in a Wikipedia entry. Quote: "Someone has apparently abused collaborative reference site Wikipedia in a viral marketing campaign for a BBC online alternate reality game." "
Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
It's well written, doesnt appear to violate NPOV, contains appropriate factual information that would be useful to somone researching the thing years from now.
Who can better contribute entries than the creators of things, as long as they are carefully watched over by the editors? After all these are the people who have the largest chunk of the story first hand.
Wikipedia will survive this (Score:5, Insightful)
A bit of sensationalist nonsense is all.
NO, it is NOT a viral Campaign (Score:5, Insightful)
on the linked boingboing-article:
Duh (Score:5, Insightful)
It'll be clear in about a week, which is how long wikipedia's processes (and there are plenty of applicable processes) tend to take.
Nothing to see here...
And in other news (Score:5, Insightful)
Wikipedia is working as intended (Score:5, Insightful)
Wikipedia is Working as Intended(tm) - someone posts a bullshit viral marketing article, and it gets edited to be a proper article about the game.
Anyone can put bullshit to Wikipedia. Anyone can edit said bullshit. Anyone repeatedly abusing their ability to post or edit will see their ability to do so removed - by their peers. Ultimate peer review system. End result is usually positive - like in this case.
It's pointless to get worked over a 'bogus' Wikipedia entry. Wait 48 hours and look at it again, and most likely the wheels have turned and it's either nuked or edited.
Yeh but it was the BBC corrupting it (Score:5, Insightful)
It was also a BBC man (from their own network IP range) that put up the fake Boy*Up (?) article too. Although he says he acted alone and not on behalf of the BBC, what are the chances of a BBC man putting up an article connected to a fake BBC website coincidentally? Pretty slim.
Sure it and a few others were spotted pretty quickly, but the big story isn't the vandalism, its that the BBC did it.
Their Name will be Bukkake (Score:2, Insightful)
And now that I think of it, perhaps the Star Wars money-machine has paid fanboys (or fed them info) so that they could go out and write up that stuff. I know I spent hours poring over it.
Regardless, by the time this is over, I think the BBC's name will be "bukkake". Not "mud" -- "Bukkake". For more info on the term, I refer you to the Wikipedia [wikipedia.org].
Move the /. think to wikipedia (Score:2, Insightful)
"Crappy marketing. Get rid. --4bnormaldotcom 10:01, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Viral marketing, delete --MisterBijou 14:05, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Shame on the BBC. --Uttaddmb 15:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)"
Note the group think. jsut like slashdot: there is only one thruth, and spam is not one of them. But note that this article can be merged into a fine description of the game. Deletion should not be part of this. (redirect: fine: delete why?
The way of the world (Score:3, Insightful)
Every time a new technology or a new way of doing something appears, someone else figures out a way to possibly abuse it and make a buck with it. That's how the world operates.
Re:Yeh but it was the BBC corrupting it (Score:5, Insightful)
Teaching them a lesson (Score:4, Insightful)
Since I can only imagine how many more people have seen the wikipedia page and heard about the game, after people started making a big deal about it and writing articles about it. I can only imagine what all viral advertizing firms are thinking. Damn, well I guess we can't use wikipedia to try to gain recognition for our product, because if someone notices, our pages will get slashdotted then no one will be able to view them, because too many people will be viewing our product... Oh, wait...
Despite that, I am still not sure what the big deal was in the first place. It was just good fun, and didn't really harm anyone. What is wrong with a wikipedia page about a fake artist, as far as some people are concerned (see earlier slashdot article about mmorpg) there actually is/will be no difference between reality and what is found on the internet, so in those terms the BBC is actually ahead of the game.
It was caught in 7 hours (Score:5, Insightful)
14:26, 12 August 2005 [wikipedia.org]
21:25, 12 August 2005 [wikipedia.org] - "The factual accuracy of this article is disputed."
Isn't this EXACTLY how Wikipedia was designed to operate?
Re:The way of the world (Score:5, Insightful)
>appears, someone else figures out a way to possibly abuse it and
>make a buck with it. That's how the world operates.
Usually, I'd agree with you.
But this seems to be the exception, in two ways.
The first (and less interesting) is that it wasn't actually an organized marketing ploy at all, assuming the two posters are to be believed. (It would certainly seems rather un-BBC-like if it were, and news if only for that reason.)
But, what's really interesting is that it failed. Unlike virtually every other medium out there where marketing agreements and dinner party handshaks force thinly disguised adverts on the audience, here's a case where an information delivery system proved so robust that within days it annihilated even a barely visible and seemingly harmless attempt at marketing.
In a world where television journalists hawk movies and products, newspapers add bylines to industry press-releases and ink them without so much as a word change, and public radio hosts are forced to recite advertising copy, it's incredible to find a forum which not only avoids active advertising deals but ruthlessly attacks at the first sign of marketing infiltration.
Score one for wikipedia.
Re:Wow, posting it on the front page of /. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:wikipedia problem (Score:4, Insightful)
In addition I take cause with your phrase of "an open project like theirs". As an open project it is ours. If you find a page that you feel has a problem, edit it. If you find a page that doesn't cover both sides of an issue add your side to it.
Bias (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Yeh but it was the BBC corrupting it (Score:5, Insightful)
A BBC employee did it. That's not the same thing as "The BBC" doing it
When you are an employee, during work hours, you are a representative of your employer. Your public actions will have some impact on the public image of your employer. It is the burden of the employer to hire employees whose actions will not damage the public image of the employer.
Self Promotion (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, it is true that a creator or someone involed can often be a good source of information. I write for a few entries in such a position. However, I've also authored what I thought werea few good factual entries, but rightly (it took a bit of pride swallowing to admit) removed (as original Works, not self promotion).
If you are self promoting, the entry will be wiped out. For instance, you cannot make a personal entry. Just because you as Joe_Blow include factual information, doesn't mean you are a "significant person" to be put in an encyclopedia.
Second, you may have a great theory for how the universe started or a unifying theory of all things. Unfortunately, if you are not published elsewhere first, and get some level of recognition, do not post it to Wikipedia. Instead, post it to Wikibooks or elsewhere. If you get some recognition, gain some sources that site you, then you can move it over to Wikipedia (provided you either A) present it entirely as NPOV or B) Segregate your opinion into one section, and provide another section and openly encourage others to present arguements against).
The original (and this current) seems like advertisement... still. This is info you find on the game's site, not Wikipedia. Is Wikipedia going to do an entry on games barely over a week after release now? Unless it has even some minor social impact, it should be deleted... and that's where my vote is going. Scrap it, and tell the BBC to go pay for its advertising on Google like everyone else. It got free press from
I've voting deletion.
Re:Yeh but it was the BBC corrupting it (Score:5, Insightful)
That's all well and good, and I agree with you about it, but it does not mean that a BBC employee's actions are automatically the BBC's actions as well.
If it turns out that this employee was doing this for fun rather than for work, the BBC's screw-up wasn't abusing Wikipedia, the BBC's screw-up was not keeping a tight enough leash on this person. Is different, it is.
Re:Move the /. think to wikipedia (Score:4, Insightful)
Obviously, not all opinions are equal - everyone's entitled to their own one, but "I think all black people should be rounded up and deported" should obviously be given less credence than "I think 1 + 1 = 2".
Therefore certian opinions are more "correct" than others - they more accurately reflect objective reality, or have a more rational/logical base.
If lots of intelligent people agree on a particular conclusion, it could just be because that conclusion's the right one. Or at least, the best one suggested yet.
In this example, Wikipedia is supposed to be an impartial, factual resource, or at least as close to that ideal as possible. Marketing (and especially covert marketing) has exactly the opposite agenda, by definition - it's inherently biased, since it's sole purpose is to convince you that something's great or true, regardless of its actual quality or veracity.
An objective, factual article on the reality game is still advertising it - it's still spreading awareness and propagating the meme. Given this, if/when a company is proven to have pissed in the communal well for private gain, I'd consider it appropriate to remove all content directly related to said spam, since even a factual article left behind still represents some benefit to the company.
The lesson here is simple: Submit good, factual content and it'll stay, bringing some small benefit both to Wikipedia (additional content) and your company (subtle, low-key advertising). Attempt to subvert Wikipedia by spamming or posting biased articles, and have the entire meme you're trying to push excised from the site. This way Wikipedia wins ("no content" is better than "deliberately misleading content"), and your company loses (no advertising whatsoever, even low-key factual articles).
Ok, in this case the deletion request was posted before the re-write, and the submitter turned out (apparently) to be a private individual rather than an "official" BBC employee, but I think the principle is sound - when spammed, delete the spam page complately, and subsequently accept re-writes if they're deemed impartial enough, taking into account any connection between the spammer and the new submitter.
Sorry - I know that doesn't fit in with the standard trendy "site X is t3h suXX0rZ! T3hy i5 t3h gr0uP7h1nK!!!111!!!1one!!11!1" whinge, but I'd like to think that's because it's maybe slightly closer to objective reality...
I say good. (Score:4, Insightful)
I hate ads as much as the next guy, but you're not going to stop this practice by broadcasting it on
Re:Teaching them a lesson (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah - the first few times it happens it'll be News, because it's an overt attack on what aims to be an impartial information resource. After a couple of attempts it'll hopefully cease being news, and each new spam article will just be quietly disposed-of, with no free publicity for the company concerned.
As an aside, this is a general problem of mass-media - you can get famous, easily, for doing something antisocial, so for those who seek fame (advertisers), doing something antisocial is the quickest way to achieve their objectives.
For example, witness the "road rage" craze a few years ago in the UK (possibly elsewhere, too). One guy cut someone up in his car. The other guy chased him down in the car, pulled over to the side of the road and beat him to death with a tyre-iron (or similar). He then jumped in his car and drove off, leaving the dead guy's girlfriend sat traumatised in the car.
The media immediately dubbed this "road rage", and within weeks incidents of roadside beatings were cropping up all over the place. The punch-line of the whole thing is this: when it came to trial, no-one could prove that there was another person involved, and eventually (IIRC) the girlfriend was actually convicted of the murder, having made the entire incident up to cover her murder of her boyfriend.
Nevertheless, "road rage" incidents continued to be reported for years afterwards, eventually dying out to the present once-in-a-blue-moon frequency we have now.
People believe what they're told, and follow the herd. Deny antisocial types like Wiki-spammers the oxygen of publicity, and you remove the single reason for them to do it.
"Despite that, I am still not sure what the big deal was in the first place. It was just good fun, and didn't really harm anyone. What is wrong with a wikipedia page about a fake artist"
Well, the fact that Wikipedia's supposed to be an informative resource, and such things are deliberately misleading. Seriously, there's a place for deadpan humour and there's a place for fact recording. If you really can't see what's wrong with deliberately passing off fantasy as reality then you should seek psychiatric help immediately, or wait until you naturally age past five.
Mixing reality with fantasy is great, as long as you know it's happening (eg, the Illuminatus Trilogy, one of my favourite books). Confusing fantasy with reality when you believe the material to be strictly accurate is extremely dangerous - at best you get a history you can't trust an inch, and at the worst you get religion.
"as far as some people are concerned... there actually is/will be no difference between reality and what is found on the internet, so in those terms the BBC is actually ahead of the game."
Very amusing. So do you seriously not understand the importance of having at least one single accurate record of factual history, or are you just frantically trolling?