Conflicts of Interest and the Guerrilla Skeptics on Wikipedia
Guerrilla Skeptics on Wikipedia (GSoW) was founded in 2010 by Susan Gerbic, (who was also a founder of the Monterey County Skeptics), based in part on the work of Tim Farley. The Guerrilla Skeptics have a mission to “improve science & skeptical content on Wikipedia in all languages possible”. The team consists of around 120 members, and over the 11 years that they have been operating they claim to have created over 2000 articles on Wikipedia, which they recently announced had collectively garnered over 100 million page views.
Along with their work on Wikipedia, GSoW, with their umbrella organisation the About Time Project, actively work to combat pseudoscience.
Criticism
Over the 11 years of Wikipedia’s operation they have encountered some strident critics, most of whom came from the worlds of psychics, alternative medicine and pseudoscience, and most of whom made unfounded accusations or failed to understand how Wikipedia works.
In 2014, Rebecca O’Neill of Skeptic Ireland published “Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia project — A discussion” (sadly no longer available on the original site, but available through the Internet Archive), in which she presents a very strong argument raising concerns about how GSoW operated. Responding to GSoW member Leon Korteweg’s response to her concerns, O’Neill followed this with a second article published as a guest post in Skepchick, “A Critique of Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia (GSoW)–Part 2”.
O’Neill generally supported the GSoW’s mission, but was concerned with the secrecy of the group’s work; they do not identify themselves as members on Wikipedia, and they use a “secret” discussion forum hidden from other Wikipedia contributors. O’Neill emphasized that this practice is not typical on Wikipedia, which places great value on transparency and openness.
It has been a problem in the past when groups coordinate their Wikipedia activities through “secret” mailing lists and forums. Among the major concerns is that of “meatpuppetry” (an unfortunate term used in Wikipedia), where multiple people coordinate their actions in order to win disputes by strength of numbers. The most significant of these cases might be the “Eastern European Mailing List case”, which led to a number of contributors being banned. In the case of GSoW, their secrecy means that there is no means by which contributors on Wikipedia can know if this is going on or not, but GSoW have been clear that they do not work together on Wikipedia, only coordinating their actions in regard to writing the articles away from the project.
In any case, O’Neill argued that secret groups are problematic for Wikipedia for another reason:
This could spawn problems around conflict of interest (COI), especially if the initial conversations about the creation, editing or deletion of articles are not done out in the open. One of the main reasons for all of discussions on Wikipedia being conducted in public is so a consensus with the larger Wikipedia public can be met. The group is in effect creating their own consensus independent of Wikipedia, which could lead to legitimate concerns surrounding any agenda or bias within the content once it goes live on Wikipedia. (Rebecca O’Neill, “Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia project — A discussion”)
An observation by Korteweg reinforced this concern as he explained why GSoW needed secrecy:
Susan has stated many times that she would feel bad about publicly arguing in all honesty ‘Person X or Y is not notable enough (yet) for his or her own Wikipedia page’, especially when it’s a close skeptical friend (which can be unintentionally taken as a lack of affection or even an insult), or when it’s one of the people we regard as our opponents, who can then claim ‘censorship!’ and ‘conspiracy!’ when they read it on our forum. (Leon Korteweg, “Why we have a private forum. A response to Rebecca O’Neill”)
If you are concerned about hurting a friend’s feelings when writing about them on Wikipedia, then you shouldn’t be writing about them:
It come down to the point that if you are concerned about hurting someone’s feelings you should not be editing their page as that concern will inevitably impact on what you may end up writing. The fact that the membership do not view this as a COI problem is an issue in of itself. (Rebecca O’Neill, “Guest Post: A Critique of Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia (GSoW)–Part 2”)
Conflicts of Interest
Wikipedia is also very clear about what to do when faced with a potential conflict of interest. The Conflict of Interest Guideline states that contributors with a conflict of interest should follow three rules:
- Disclose the conflict of interest
- Avoid directly changing the article concerned, and raise issues on the talk page instead
- Use the Articles for Creation process instead of creating the article within Wikipedia’s main area
For most contributors these rules are not a major burden. As an example, a contributor who wishes to write about the CEO of an organization in which they work may either disclose that relationship (at least to the extent of saying “I have an conflict of interest”), or they may contribute to one of over a million other articles. Sometimes, however, the choice is more difficult, such as when an individual is paid to contribute on behalf of a company, or if a conflict of interest falls into the individual’s personal interests.
GSoW has a bigger problem than most Wikipedia contributors, as the topics on which they have a conflict of interest often align with those they wish to cover. GSoW writes about prominent Skeptics, Skeptical organizations and publications, and Skeptical opponents. However, some members of GSoW are now prominent Skeptics; members write for and run Skeptical organisations and publications; prominent Skeptics are key supporters and friends of GSoW; and GSoW itself endeavours to oppose and target psychics and other individuals and organisations.
GSoW and COI
In light of this, GSoW should stay away from articles involving conflict of interest or follow the COI guidelines when contributing to those articles. Unfortunately, they have been contributing directly to articles where they have a conflict of interest, and they have failed to follow the conflict of interest guidelines.
There is a clear COI with the article about Susan Gerbic, the group’s founder. Gerbic’s biography was scrutinized recently after it was posted to Wikipedia’s Biographies of Living People Noticeboard. At the time, Vaticidalprophet described the problems with the article as:
In particular, there are massive violations of BLPSPS throughout the article, with extensive Wordpress, Patheos, and “podcasts that don’t appear to have some form of editorial control or reliability” cites. The tone is also seriously questionable, with extensive detail (often followed by lines of WP:CITEOVERKILL) about every minor event the subject has participated in and yet talk page posts bringing up less flattering facts that get brushed off with “if you want that in the article, put it in yourself”. (This is particularly concerning in the context that the subject’s claim to notability is creating a Wikipedia initiative to rewrite the tone of articles.) Those cites that aren’t active BLPSPS violations are also strongly biased towards primary sourcing, in many cases posts written by or Youtube videos uploaded by the subject, or towards sources that appear to be of marginal reliability or stemming from advocacy sites. (Vaticidalprophet, “Biographies of Living People Noticeboard: Susan Gerbic”)
There is not any reason to assume that these problems were the result of deliberate action — it is, however, reasonable to assume that these problems emerged from a conflict of interest. This was raised by Vaticidalprophet who identified major contributors to the article as potential members of GSoW. Gerbic replied but did not say whether or not GSoW members had contributed to the article, only that:
Let me be crystal clear, if Susan Gerbic really cared about the Susan Gerbic Wikipedia page it would have been rewritten years ago … correctly and my team would have descended on anyone making changes like rabid space monkeys. (Susan Gerbic, “Biographies of Living People Noticeboard: Susan Gerbic”)
It may be the case that Gerbic did not care about the article, but it is clear that GSoW members were major contributors to it, in spite of the conflict of interest, and without following Wikipedia’s guidelines. What Gerbic also didn’t say was that her team had cared about the article enough to translate it into multiple languages, including Polish, Spanish, Afrikaans and French.
At worst this has produced a “puff piece” rather than a significant problem. A bigger potential problem emerges when GSoW members contribute to articles about those opposed by the group. For example, GSoW and the About Time Project have run “stings” on Matt Fraser, Chip Coffey and Thomas John Flanagen. All of those sting operations are covered in Wikipedia, and all appear to have been added by GSoW members, to the extent that in the Thomas John article over half the prose relates to the two stings.
The problem here is that Wikipedia has been very clear in regard to writing about people whom you oppose. In the Arbitration Committee case, “BLP issues on British politics articles”, the committee stated that:
Editors with a conflict of interest are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly. While most conflicts of interest relate to the potential for unduly positive editing, the conflict of interest guideline also applies to conflicts that could cause unduly negative editing. Editors should avoid editing in areas where they have a negative conflict of interest, as it undermines public confidence in the project. (Arbitration Committee, “Conflicts of interest”)
And:
An editor who is involved in an off-wiki controversy or dispute with another individual should generally refrain from editing articles related to that individual due to a potential conflict of interest. (Arbitration Committee, “Off-wiki controversies and biographical material”)
As a result of the Arbitration Committee case one contributor was banned from writing on a range of topics because they had been actively in conflict with the subjects of those articles. There should be no doubt that GSoW have a similar conflict of interest in regard to their activism and their active opposition to people that they have been writing about, and if their conflict of interest leads them to unfairly represent the subjects they write about, there is a chance of real harm being done.
It is difficult to know the effect of conflict of interests on the makeup of the final article. Certainly concerns have been raised regarding the quality of sourcing and the tone, but when Wikipedia works at its best other contributors will notice the issues and address them. In the case of the article about Susan Gerbic, after it was raised on the Biographies of Living People Noticeboard other contributors to Wikipedia extensively rewrote the article, taking it from the original to something much more consistent with Wikipedia’s standards (and, it should be noted, this was with the support of Gerbic).
But what can happen when a conflict of interest occurs in an article that is not of sufficiently high visibility to attract other contributors?
Brian Dunning is a controversial figure who has provided support for GSoW and has been a friend of Gerbic for many years. On the English language Wikipedia, the Brian Dunning article is the product of many different contributors, and as such bias from any given contributor has tended to be cancelled out. However, recently GSoW translated the article into Afrikaans, where contributors are far fewer in number, and the result has one significant difference from the original English article.
The Afrikaans article starts with a description of Dunning’s work on Skeptoid, mentions his two films, and then raises some of his other activities. Specifically:
Dunning is in 1996 mede-stigter van Buylink, ‘n “besigheid tot besigheid”-diensverskaffer en dien tot 2002 by die maatskappy. (Afrikaans Wikipedia, “Brian Dunning”)
Translated into English, this is a mention of his time with Buylink:
Dunning co-founded Buylink, a “business to business” service provider, in 1996 and served with the company until 2002. (Afrikaans Wikipedia, “Brian Dunning”, Google Translate)
However, the English version goes further:
Dunning co-founded Buylink, a business-to-business service provider, in 1996, and served at the company until 2002. He later became eBay’s second biggest affiliate marketer; he has since been convicted of wire fraud through a cookie stuffing scheme. In August 2014, he was sentenced to 15 months in prison, followed by three years of supervised release for the company obtaining between $200,000 and $400,000 through wire fraud. (English Wikipedia, “Brian Dunning (author)”)
While the article is essentially an exact translation of the original, it does not mention Dunning’s conviction and imprisonment for wire fraud at any point in the article.
This could not have been accidental — GSoW left out a significant portion of Dunning’s biography, perhaps because they were uncomfortable with including negative material about a friend and supporter. This is why a conflict of interest can be such a problem on Wikipedia. But this also raises a bigger concern: Dunning is a significant figure within the Skeptical community, and it would be easy for anyone looking at these two articles to identify the problem. If GSoW are willing to write this way about a prominent figure, how can anyone know whether or not they have created similarly biased articles for less well-known figures who they oppose or support?
The Way Forward
On Wikipedia GSoW has been effective in creating worthwhile new content and combating those who would push psuedoscience and conspiracy theories. Off Wikipedia they have run effective stings showing how psychics defraud their victims, and have brought wider community attention to the techniques psychics employ. But using Wikipedia for advocacy is always a difficult path, as it is very easy to prioritise the advocacy over Wikipedia’s purpose. Fail to correctly walk that path, and while the good work will still stand, the problems created risk undermining that effort.
The problems created by combining Skeptical activism and advocacy with Wikipedia are extensive. As one Wikipedia contributor wrote:
The overarching issue here from my understanding basically relates to a large chunk of skeptic stuff on Wikipedia, not just Gerbic’s article, unfortunately. Gerbic runs an off-wiki Wikipedia editing group. It’s a massive potential COI and votestacking issue, and one that has led to a lot of primary or questionable sources being used in these articles (which is why I tagged Gerbic’s article, but it’s undoubtably a systemic issue.) Leaving aside the clear primary source (blogs, podcasts, etc) that are used in Gerbic and other articles, I raised an issue at RSN about how a lot of the “journals” these people run don’t seem to meet reliable source criteria either. The end result is that these people’s articles — and perhaps, more crucially, their stated opponents — are sourced to very borderline sources. At the very least, it’s an undue weight issue giving these organizations more heft than their appearances in reliable sources would demonstrate. (Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs, “Biographies of Living People Noticeboard: Susan Gerbic”)
Therein lies the essence of the problem. In spite of this being raised in the past, GSoW members continue to write about each other, their friends, the groups they work with, their activities and the people they actively oppose, without following the rules that Wikipedia created to manage these situations. When writing with a COI — even when you have the best of intentions — there is an ongoing risk that your judgement will be compromised. It may not always be as outright as with Brian Dunning, but it can lead to the problems outlined by independent Wikipedia contributors, and if no one is made aware that the COI exists, no one can help address it.
GSoW need to make a choice. They can continue to ignore Wikipedia’s conflict of interest guidelines if they choose, but I doubt that is the standard that would best represent the Skeptical community. If they do not wish to ignore the rules, they will need to decide if they are willing to stay completely away from articles where they have a COI, or if they are willing to sacrifice some of their secrecy in order to contribute to those articles in the reduced manner outlined by the guidelines.
References
Gerbic, Susan (January 30, 2021). “Guerrilla Skepticism: A Window into GSoW”, Skeptical Inquirer. Retrieved October 22, 2021
Guerrilla Skeptics on Wikipedia (October 18, 2021) “Guerrilla Skeptics celebrate 100 million views”, Facebook. Retrieved October 22, 2021
Korteweg, Leon. (June 24, 2014) “Why we have a private forum: A response to Rebecca O’Neill”, Guerrilla Skepticisim on Wikipedia. Retrieved October 22, 2021
O’Neill, Rebecca. (June 23, 2014) “Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia project — A discussion”, Skeptical Ireland. Archived from the original on March 8, 2011. Retrieved October 22, 2021
O’Neill, Rebecca. (August 7, 2014) “Guest Post: A Critique of Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia (GSoW)–Part 2”, Skepchick. Retrieved October 22, 2021
Wikipedia contributors. (October 8, 2018) “Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP issues on British politics articles”, Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved October 22, 2021
Wikipedia contributors. (August 31, 2021) “Brian Dunning”, Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved October 22, 2021
Wikipedia contributors. (September 11, 2021) “Brian Dunning (author)”, Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved October 22, 2021
Wikipedia contributors. (September 13, 2021) “Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive326: Susan Gerbic”, Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved October 22, 2021
Wikipedia contributors. (October 19, 2021) “Wikipedia:Conflict of interest”, Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved October 22, 2021
