Running up that COI hill

Welcome back, readers. It's been a busy week here at Wikify! One of our roving reporters had a column in The Diplomat discussing a potential Wikipedia ban in India. And our inbox has been blowing up with messages about the recent ultramarathoner controversy (discussed in detail below, naturally). But through it all we've remained focused on our one true, divine task: delivering you a fresh installment of your favorite newsletter!?

In addition to a comprehensive Camille Herron recap, this week's issue features an edit request explainer (what are they? how do they work) and a step-by-step guide for tracking down editors to help with said requests.?

On your marks, get set…

Going the distance, edit warring for speed

An evergreen watercooler topic in the Wikify virtual office is "Who got caught editing their Wikipedia article this week." You'd think that, with the US elections coming up, the suspect might be a politician or political party, but no—our lucky winner this go-round was an ultrarunner.?

An eagle-eyed reporter at Canadian Running Magazine noticed that several Wikipedia accounts had been making curious edits to runner Camille Herron's Wikipedia article and the articles for some of her competitors. After some digging, the reporter found that the user name of one of the Wikipedia accounts was the same handle as an old personal email address used by Herron at Oregon State University: "Temporun73". Given that the edits involved adding positive details to Herron's article while removing similar content from competitors' pages, the reporter surmised that the accounts must be Herron and / or her husband (who is also her coach).?

Interestingly, while one of the Wikipedia accounts had been blocked by Wikipedia editors, that block was not specifically for conflict of interest editing. Rather, the first block for the (alleged) Herron-run account Temporun73 was for edit warring, as the account repeatedly made inappropriate edits despite warnings from other editors.?

The account wasn't permanently blocked, though. The original block was just for one week and simply prevented the account from editing the Camille Herron page. This type of block is intended to give the user time to see the error of their ways and change their approach—much as an ultrarunner might adjust their pace after veering off course or experiencing a cramp.

What happened instead, though, was that Herron or her husband created another account—Rundbowie—and began editing from that one instead.

Despite an editor alerting Wikipedia administrators to the pattern of Temporun73 & Runbowie edits, nothing happened until the Canadian Running Magazine piece came out this week. As of September 23, the Rundbowie account was blocked indefinitely for "sock puppetry":

Likewise, the initial Temporun73 account was permanently blocked for COI reasons on September 23.

So why did it take an exposé in a niche publication for Wikipedia to finally take action??

It partly comes down to the very manual process for spotting this type of editing. Wikipedia editors have to look at the type of edits being made, consider whether the account is making good faith edits, provide warnings, and check back into the account's history.?

Editors are often good at identifying conflict of interest editors this way, as it would be unusual for an unaffiliated user to suddenly start adding promotional content to a company or low-profile politician's page. But it's harder to say if an account focused on a niche topic like ultrarunning has a conflict of interest—or if they're just really interested in the topic. It helps, of course, when the editors monitoring the article have subject-matter expertise, and thus recognize a "red flag' moment like when an account suddenly removes particular statements about running world records—even if the explanation given might seem reasonable to a non-expert.?

As well, Wikipedia has strong rules against "outing" or linking real-life identities with anonymous Wikipedia accounts, which prevents editors from making statements about whether a Wikipedia account may be a certain person. In short, a journalist can make an inference that would get a Wikipedia editor banned.??

Wikify glossary: Edit request

One of the most common questions we get is how we can help clients improve their brand's article without rewriting it ourselves. Do we hack Wikipedia's servers? Do we exercise our telepathic powers on the site's editors? Of course not. We're not nearly that deceitful (or talented). We use an obscure yet ordinary tool called edit requests to help clients update, strengthen, and reshape their articles.

Edit requests are basically a way of raising your hand and announcing: I've got some changes I'd like to make to the article, but I can't or shouldn't make them myself. If everything goes perfectly, a responsible editor comes along, reviews those suggested changes, and implements them. They put their name on what you're proposing because they believe it meaningfully improves the article and serves Wikipedia's mission of providing solid, relevant information to the public about any given topic.

Edit requests are posted on article Talk pages and are designated by big yellow banners that look like this:

The banner draws the attention of editors browsing the Talk page. Edit requests also live in their own subpages of Wikipedia, which are regularly monitored by editors, most of whom have quite a lot of experience with the site.

The majority of edit requests we have clients make are conflict-of-interest (COI) requests on normal Wikipedia articles. There's also an edit request process for articles that are protected by the site's administrators. Typically these are about controversial topics (for example, Abortion in the United States) and/or events that are currently unfolding (Russian invasion of Ukraine).?

Admins place protections on these articles for obvious reasons. You don't want unhinged or uninformed folks messing with them. Edit requests on these article Talk pages tend to generate more discussion and debate than COI ones because the topics are usually quite popular, but the principle is the same: somebody wants to make a change, and they need others to weigh the merits of those changes before the article can be updated.

How to find helpful Wikipedia editors for COI requests

If you're a long-standing subscriber to Wikify, you should know not to edit any article you're directly involved with. And, if you're a newcomer, now you know. If you work for a company or individual and want to update their article, you must run potential content updates through Conflict of Interest (COI) requests on said article's Talk page (as described above). While this part is simple enough, you might feel frustrated if you place a COI edit request—but then editors fail to provide feedback for weeks or even months.

One option, in this scenario, is to reach out directly to editors for assistance—especially to editors who have previously edited the article you're interested in.?

All you have to do to find these editors is go to the article on which you've posted a COI edit request and click View History at the top right. Now, you'll be looking at every edit made to the page in descending order of recency. It's good to begin with the most recent edits, as those editors are likely still active on Wikipedia.

If you see an editor whose contributions look substantial, follow the step-by-step guide below to evaluate if they're a good candidate to reach out to.

1. Go to the User's Page

• Click on their username's blue hyperlink and you'll be directed to their user page.
• Some Wikipedia users are very open with their goals for the site, and many will list if they are or aren't interested in evaluating COI requests. Look throughout their user page to see if they've declared that anywhere.

2. Review recent edit activity?

• On the user page, look for the "User contributions" link. It is typically located in the Tools menu on the right-hand side of the screen.
• Here, you’ll see:

• The edit summaries provided for each edit can give you a sense of what the user has been working on. Some users may also leave a brief reason for their edits in the summary field.

3. Check Talk Page Discussions

• To see the user’s interactions with others, you can visit their user talk page. On their main user page, click the "User talk" link (usually near the top or in the left sidebar).

If it seems like the account is active and engaged, it's probably worth dropping them a Talk page message about your request and asking if they have time to review it. Remember that editors are volunteers and tend to focus on articles that interest them. They're under no obligation to assist you. But if they've edited your brand's article in the past, they might be interested in helping to improve it again now.?

Ready to learn more about Wikipedia? Check out our book!

Thanks for reading Wikify! Don't forget to tell a friend