The Signpost

Disinformation report

Imploded submersible outfit foiled trying to sing own praises on Wikipedia

Related articles
Does Wikipedia pay?

How paid editors squeeze you dry
31 January 2024

"Wikipedia and the assault on history"
4 December 2023

The "largest con in corporate history"?
20 February 2023

Truth or consequences? A tough month for truth
31 August 2022

The oligarchs' socks
27 March 2022

Fuzzy-headed government editing
30 January 2022

Denial: climate change, mass killings and pornography
29 November 2021

Paid promotional paragraphs in German parliamentary pages
26 September 2021

Enough time left to vote! IP ban
29 August 2021

Paid editing by a former head of state's business enterprise
25 April 2021


More articles

A "billionaire battle" on Wikipedia: Sex, lies, and video
28 February 2021

Concealment, data journalism, a non-pig farmer, and some Bluetick Hounds
28 December 2020

How billionaires rewrite Wikipedia
29 November 2020

Ban on IPs on ptwiki, paid editing for Tatarstan, IP masking
1 November 2020

Paid editing with political connections
27 September 2020

WIPO, Seigenthaler incident 15 years later
27 September 2020

Wikipedia for promotional purposes?
30 August 2020

Dog days gone bad
2 August 2020

Fox News, a flight of RfAs, and banning policy
2 August 2020

Some strange people edit Wikipedia for money
2 August 2020

Trying to find COI or paid editors? Just read the news
28 June 2020

Automatic detection of covert paid editing; Wiki Workshop 2020
31 May 2020

2019 Picture of the Year, 200 French paid editing accounts blocked, 10 years of Guild Copyediting
31 May 2020

English Wikipedia community's conclusions on talk pages
30 April 2019

Women's history month
31 March 2019

Court-ordered article redaction, paid editing, and rock stars
1 December 2018

Kalanick's nipples; Episode #138 of Drama on the Hill
23 June 2017

Massive paid editing network unearthed on the English Wikipedia
2 September 2015

Orangemoody sockpuppet case sparks widespread coverage
2 September 2015

Paid editing; traffic drop; Nicki Minaj
12 August 2015

Community voices on paid editing
12 August 2015

On paid editing and advocacy: when the Bright Line fails to shine, and what we can do about it
15 July 2015

Turkish Wikipedia censorship; "Can Wikipedia survive?"; PR editing
24 June 2015

A quick way of becoming an admin
17 June 2015

Meet a paid editor
4 March 2015

Is Wikipedia for sale?
4 February 2015

Shifting values in the paid content debate; cross-language bot detection
30 July 2014

With paid advocacy in its sights, the Wikimedia Foundation amends their terms of use
18 June 2014

Does Wikipedia Pay? The Moderator: William Beutler
11 June 2014

PR agencies commit to ethical interactions with Wikipedia
11 June 2014

Should Wikimedia modify its terms of use to require disclosure?
26 February 2014

Foundation takes aim at undisclosed paid editing; Greek Wikipedia editor faces down legal challenge
19 February 2014

Special report: Contesting contests
29 January 2014

WMF employee forced out over "paid advocacy editing"
8 January 2014

Foundation to Wiki-PR: cease and desist; Arbitration Committee elections starting
20 November 2013

More discussion of paid advocacy, upcoming arbitrator elections, research hackathon, and more
23 October 2013

Vice on Wiki-PR's paid advocacy; Featured list elections begin
16 October 2013

Ada Lovelace Day, paid advocacy on Wikipedia, sidebar update, and more
16 October 2013

Wiki-PR's extensive network of clandestine paid advocacy exposed
9 October 2013

Q&A on Public Relations and Wikipedia
25 September 2013

PR firm accused of editing Wikipedia for government clients; can Wikipedia predict the stock market?
13 May 2013

Court ruling complicates the paid-editing debate
12 November 2012

Does Wikipedia Pay? The Founder: Jimmy Wales
1 October 2012

Does Wikipedia pay? The skeptic: Orange Mike
23 July 2012

Does Wikipedia Pay? The Communicator: Phil Gomes
7 May 2012

Does Wikipedia Pay? The Consultant: Pete Forsyth
30 April 2012

Showdown as featured article writer openly solicits commercial opportunities
30 April 2012

Does Wikipedia Pay? The Facilitator: Silver seren
16 April 2012

Wikimedia announcements, Wikipedia advertising, and more!
26 April 2010

License update, Google Translate, GLAM conference, Paid editing
15 June 2009

Report of diploma mill offering pay for edits
12 March 2007

AstroTurf PR firm discovered astroturfing
5 February 2007

Account used to create paid corporate entries shut down
9 October 2006

Editing for hire leads to intervention
14 August 2006

Proposal to pay editors for contributions
24 April 2006

German Wikipedia introduces incentive scheme
18 July 2005

OceanGate's Titan submersible was "an accident waiting to happen".[1] On June 18, Titan imploded. Its wreckage – and the remains of its five occupants — sank to the bottom of the sea. OceanGate's management heard an assessment that Titan was not fit for use in January 2018 from David Lockridge, their employee who had the ultimate responsibility for ensuring the safety of all crew and clients. Lockridge was soon fired, and Oceangate began a series of advertisements on Wikipedia a month later.

This Signpost investigation shows that suspected OceanGate employees inserted text directly from OceanGate's website more than eight times. When this text was deleted by a Wikipedia administrator, OceanGate added more advertising material. This new text was deleted by a well-known Wikipedian because it was promotional and apparently added by an undeclared paid editor (UPE). A third attempt to add a large amount of promotional material, which increased the article size by more than ten times, was reverted by another administrator.

Of course, Wikipedia's revision histories do not allow us to be completely certain of an editor's true identity. For example, Joe's enemy Sue can just make an account called "Joe12345", make a scene, and blame it on Joe (in an appropriately-named "Joe job"). Nonetheless, the duration of the advertising campaign, and the amount of text added to the article, makes a Joe job seem quite unlikely.

This article builds on a revelation by Annie Rauwerda in her Depths of Wikipedia Tik Tok account. She shows the edit history of the OceanGate article had a series of edits by DanaOceanGate that were RevDeleted because of copyright violations.

Round one

The February UPE 2018 advertising wave, by an account named DanaOceanGate, increased the page length to 15,629 bytes. Most of this material was reverted by Diannaa, an unpaid volunteer administrator who specializes in patrolling and deleting copyright violations. She reduced the page length by 86% (to 2,237 bytes), removing the edits from public view (revision deletion) because of eight separate copyright policy violations.[2]

In an interview with The Signpost, Diannaa notes that many paid editors simply do not know Wikipedia rules. They often refer to Wikipedia articles as "profiles", surmising that they can copy the company's media kit onto Wikipedia without a copyright release and dictate the article content. She was steered to the article by Wikipedia's automated copyright violation detection system. Almost all of the article was directly copied from OceanGate's website. "When I see something like that happening, I will typically check the entire article and keep cleaning it until I am satisfied that it's reasonably clean." It took her twenty minutes to clean up the article. "At that time my typical workload was around 60 reports per day." She usually doesn't have the time to file sockpuppet investigation reports, or to ask suspected paid editors to comply with the required disclosures. In this case, she did post template warnings at User talk:DanaOceanGate (for conflict of interest editing and WP:copyright). Five months later, she did follow up on that page with a short note. But DanaOceanGate did not respond.

Diannaa left two short sections in the article, one on the Titan submersible which imploded two weeks ago. That section had no references and presented very positive information on the Titan and its carbon fiber hull. "I don't know anything about carbon fiber or submersibles so there's no reason for me ... to suspect that there might be something amiss."

Round two

Five months later, the next wave of additions by DanaOceanGate increased the page length to 4,833 bytes. Kleuske quickly reverted with the edit comment "(WP:PAID WP:PROMO)", a reduction of page length by 54%. She also posted a warning at User talk:DanaOceanGate about advertising, promotions, and ’’neutral point of view’’ violations. DanaOceanGate did not respond. Kleuske told The Signpost that she doesn’t remember much about the five-year-old edits, but that "the username 'DanaOceanGate' may have something to do with the WP:PAID bit," and that she often reacts strongly to copyright violations.

Round three

Eleven months after that, Guideforcebd made their only two Wikipedia edits, increasing the page length to a whopping 29,969 bytes. None of that material was detected as a copyright violation, but appeared to violate our rules on advertising and neutral point of view.

Three months later, in September 2019, Smartse, an admin, reverted the new additions, reducing the page length by 92%. He told The Signpost that he arrived on the page by chance while checking the contributions of a disruptive editor. "It was apparent from even a very quick glance at the article that it had been rewritten entirely by someone working for the company, with much of the text being poorly sourced and promotional. Looking at the history obviously confirmed that, so I reverted. It's pretty unremarkable as COI editing goes to be honest."

The last round

By February 2023, with the last edit before Titan was reported missing, the article length had increased to 4,280 bytes, but the text was very similar to the versions last edited by Diannaa, Kleuske, and Smartse. The main difference was that four references were added, bringing the total to five. One of the references is now a broken link; two were to marginally reliable sources; and the one that linked to NBC news didn't go far beyond OceanGate's PR presentations; for example, there was little about safety.

It might have been difficult to find new information, at that time, about the safety concerns with the submersible, but there was some available back then, before the implosion. In OceanGate's own blog in 2019 they reported that the Titan was not "classified" for deep sea diving. While such a classification is not required in unregulated international waters, it is standard industry practice to have submersibles classified.

More direct information on safety problems was available from a CBS broadcast on November 27, 2022. Starting at 3:20 of the video CBS reporter David Pogue stated "I couldn't help noticing how many pieces of this submarine seemed improvised." Pogue then challenged OceanGate CEO Stockton Rush that "it seems like this submersible has certain elements of MacGyvery jerry-riggedness." Rush's response was less than satisfactory.

A technical knock-out or a split decision?

So how well did Wikipedia cover OceanGate before the implosion? Diannaa, Kleuske, and Smartse should be thanked for doing a great job on a difficult, time-consuming task. If the purpose of the article was to present information released by OceanGate about its subs, while eliminating obvious PR and UPE efforts, they did a nearly complete job. They eliminated the most obvious PR efforts three times, reducing the article size by 86%, 54%, and then 92% in the process.

But there was no time for the offending editors to be blocked. A warning template for readers never made its way to the article page. Paid-contributor warning templates were not placed for other editors on the talk page. If the purpose of the article was to present a neutral point of view from multiple independent reliable sources, the result could have been better, but there were not enough editors working on the article with enough time to complete the task. Finding multiple independent reliable sources can be difficult, and volunteers rarely have as much time or motivation to research obscure companies as their own employees do – after all, we do it for free. Volunteer motivation may be further decreased due to the time required to patrol multiple violations made by paid editors on the same article, and due to the time required to go through the article deletion process.

We could always use a hand.

References

  1. ^ According to David Lochridge, whose contract stated that he was ultimately responsible for "ensuring the safety of all crew and clients" until he was fired in 2018, quoted in Taub, Ben (1 July 2023). "The Titan Submersible Was 'an Accident Waiting to Happen'". The New Yorker. Retrieved 2 July 2023. (paywall)
  2. ^ The copyright violations are archived off-wiki as follows: archived June 25, 2018; archived February 25, 2018; archived June 25, 2018; archived June 13, 2018; archived June 3, 2018; archived June 1, 2018; archived May 31, 2018; archived June 19, 2018.
+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

Nearly no other wiki task gives me more joy that cutting out marketing and PR nonsense, even when it isn't brazenly copied straight from the source. Thankfully, I think many Wikipedians feel the same way. ASUKITE 11:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I admit I didn't follow the news closely when they first came out, but to me, this is just an example of how dangerous disinformation can be at its worst... --Oltrepier (talk) 13:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The phrase "suspected OceanGate employees inserted text directly from OceanGate's website more than eight times" makes no sense. Why would any Wikipedia editor be concerned about what company employees are adding to the company website? Is it possible that the Signpost editor reviewing this piece should have changed that to "OceanGate's Wikipedia article" instead?~TPW 13:58, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "inserted text directly from OceanGate's website" reads "they inserted it into WP" to me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:33, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or starting with the previous sentence "Oceangate began a series of advertisements on Wikipedia a month later....suspected OceanGate employees inserted text directly from OceanGate's website more than eight times." Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:58, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This pretty much sums it up: "..there were not enough editors working on the article with enough time to complete the task.." We can only do what we can do. A lot of stuff flies under the radar and, like Diaana's following up on a problematic editor, articles full of paid promotional content are often found only by chance. One that I found TITANIIC (since AfD'd) had apparently been written by a paid project staff member. It went undetected for at least two years. Blue Riband► 00:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kleuske

Kleuske is female so don’t refer to her as “he”. 2A02:A46A:2C29:1:E0BF:6986:A20:50B5 (talk) 07:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

















Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-07-03/Disinformation_report