Mediaboss Marketing

Former FTC Commissioner Joshua Wright had a Title IX complaint against him in his former role as a professor at ASS Law (George Mason Universitys Antonin Scalia School of Law), hes been called out by another law professor for dangling a phony job opening in a bid to romantically proposition the applicant, two senior Biglaw attorneys went public to say that he started sleeping with them when they were 1Ls in his class and continued to carry on these affairs out of concern for their careers, and now hes suing those lawyers for defamation.

In his lawsuit, he admits to sleeping with the 1Ls and alludes to yet another student he was sleeping with at the same time! but somehow thinks the damage to his professional reputation turns on whether or not he actively coerced the women and not on creep professor set out to sleep with a bunch of first-years. Because hes admitting the second part in his own filing and methinks hes underestimating how toxic that sounds to potential clients.

But in keeping with the notion that the whole case revolves less around the facts than how one describes those facts, someone from an IP address near ASS Law is trying to spin the account of this conduct on Wrights Wikipedia page. And whoever it is has never attempted to edit any Wikipedia page other than Wrights and ASS Laws.

And the edits are bold.

You say sexual relationships, I say flirting, lets call the whole thing off. While its accurate to note that Wrights lawyers from Trumpland mainstay Binnall Law Group accuse the senior Biglaw lawyers of having a financial motive, its gratuitously jammed in there.

A few days later, the same user edited a reference to several women accusing Wright of misconduct to noting a single Title IX complaint.

Another couple days pass, and the user makes this change:

Sexual misconduct to hitting on them is a wild downgrade in any circumstance, but its especially wild when the professor admits to having sex with them. At some point hitting on them ceases to be the right descriptor.

Like, you wouldnt have a Wikipedia edit that says, The fusion of female and male gametes usually occurs following the act of sexual intercourse hitting on them.

Maybe on the page for Jesus, but nowhere else.

This particular edit included the justification:

If the post had said sexual abuse then that would be incorrect. Except it didnt. It said sexual misconduct which is both exactly the terminology used in the article interviewing Wrights accusers and what we colloquially would call professors sleeping with students.

As for the term predator, Wrights own complaint put in the day before this edit stated, Once again, Defendant Dorsey intends to portray Mr. Wright as a sexual predator, but in reality, this is about a love-triangle among consenting adults. Not to say the user making these edits is in reality Wright or someone on his defense team, but whoever it is has the same definitional hang-up over whether scheming on multiple students at once amounts to predator behavior.

Did we mention that its possible to isolate the users location from the IP address attached to the edits? No? Well, its possible to isolate the users location from the IP address attached to the edits.

How do people not know this? We only recently caught the Wisconsin Supreme Courts wingnuttiest member which is actually saying a LOT when it comes to that institution editing her own Wikipedia entry to spin her comparing COVID public health measures to Japanese internment in WWII. At least the person editing Wrights page didnt employ an easily decipherable username like the Wisconsin justice did.

Anyway,these Wright edits are coming from Arlington, Virginia. In fact, the Wikipedia editor was less than half a mile from ASS Law.

Curious!

Earlier: State Supreme Court Justice Caught Editing Own Wikipedia Entry Law Schools Restrictions On Professors Contact With Students During Sexual Harassment Probe Apparently Didnt Cover Auctioning Off A Date We Shouldnt Have To Say This, But Job Interviews Are Not Your Personal Dating App Sexual Harassment Allegations Mount Against Former FTC Commissioner & Law Professor Ex-Law Professor Sues Former Students For $108M Over Sexual Harassment Allegations

Joe Patriceis a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free toemail any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him onTwitterif youre interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.

More:
SOMEONE Keeps Editing Joshua Wright's Wikipedia Page To Downplay The Whole 'Sleeping With 1Ls' Thing - Above the Law

Rhiannon Ruff is a co-founder of the digital agency Lumino and the author of the new book, Wikipedia & Crisis Communications.

Whats the most important platform for public relations? Twitter (I mean X)? Cable news? YouTube? The right answer, of course, is Wikipedia. The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit has become the internets most prominent piece of real estate, with its 6 million articles attracting a staggering 260 million monthly viewers. No single source of information is referenced more frequently, and no other web result does more to shape perceptions of the people, organizations and brands we hear about in the news and search for online.

Just consider how Wikipedia dominates Google: Wikipedia content appears as a top organic result in countless searches, especially for queries about people, places or things, because Wikipedia articles provide comprehensive summaries of these topics and are thus highly relevant to user search intent a technical term Google uses to describe the reason someone conducts a specific search. (Just think of how many times in the past week alone youve landed at Wikipedia after Googling a particular topic.)

And heres the thing: users dont even need to click over to the site to see its content, as Google includes descriptions from Wikipedia in the knowledge panels it displays at the top of search results. You can also find Wikipedia popping up in featured snippet responses and People Also Ask results.

Okay, youre saying to yourself, what about voice search?

Well, Alexa, Siri and Google Voice often read directly from Wikipedia articles when answering questions. In fact, a Voicebot report found that when users were asking about brands, these programs relied on Wikipedia for 99% of correct answers. The report doesnt specify this, but these answers are probably the same two-sentence brand descriptions that Google uses in its knowledge panels. This content is pulled from the first two sentences of the respective Wikipedia articles.

What about AI chatbots? Thats the future of our collective knowledge, after all. Users wont even need to search the web, ChatGPT will just have the answer!

Well, heres where it gets really interesting.

A journal article from the ChatGPT engineering team confirmed that the chatbot was trained on Wikipedia, with the encyclopedia likely helping the program learn patterns of language related to particular people, places and things. So when you ask ChatGPT about a brand or prominent individual, theres a good chance that at least some of the information it provides in response will come from Wikipedia. Googles Bard AI, meanwhile, cites the encyclopedia directly in its responses.

In short, no matter where you go to search for information, youre eventually going to get content from Wikipedia. This is especially true when topics like, say, your brand or organization are gaining exposure in the news.

A 2018 study by the Wikimedia Foundation, Wikipedias parent organization, found that media coverage of particular topics was the second-largest driver of traffic to the site. This data probably mirrors your own anecdotal experience: When you want to learn more about something you heard in the news, you skip the press releases, company website and social accounts and head directly to Wikipedia.

OceanGate is a perfect example of this. A Wikipedia article for the deep-sea research and tourism company was created in 2015. The entry would have been a top branded-search result, but the page still received low page views as few people had any reason to search for the company. In fact, in 2023, the article accumulated a whopping zero views. until June 20, when 80 readers suddenly showed up. A few days later that number was up to half a million.

Source: https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/

OceanGate was, of course, in the middle of a tragic news cycle following the loss of the Titan submersible and its five passengers somewhere above the Titanic wreckage. Page viewers likely included not only cable news fans second screening with their phones, but also journalists scrambling to research the company. Wikipedia editors, meanwhile, frantically added details to the article as revelations continued to emerge.

During that period, anyone who wanted to know more about OceanGate was visiting the Wikipedia entry.

So what does this all mean for public relations?

Wikipedias impact on reputation cant be overstated, and brands should have a plan for engaging with the site. Having a well-written and accurate Wikipedia page can enhance an organizations credibility and reputation. Conversely, having a short article filled with outdated information can create perception problems, especially for companies that have rebranded or altered their services or business model.

However, be aware that Wikipedia has strict guidelines about neutrality, verifiability, and conflicts of interest. For example, when you have a conflict of interest with a topic you should never directly edit the article. Instead, you must disclose your connection to the topic and make a request on the topics Talk Page, which volunteer editors with no connection to the topic can review. These uninvolved editors should be the ones to implement suggested edits, never a brand or PR firm attached to the topic.

PR professionals must adhere to these guidelines when contributing to or creating Wikipedia content. Attempts to manipulate or excessively promote an organization can lead to the removal of content and editor animosity towards the brand or organization or even worse, the generation of critical news coverage, as weve seen in the past with politicians and prominent brands who tried to edit their own pages.

See the original post here:
Why Wikipedia is so imperative for public relations - PR Daily

Race winner Max Verstappen speaking with second placed Lewis Hamilton. Spain June 2023. Jenson Button Credit: Alamy

Wikipedia has become the insult word of Formula 1 2023 with Toto Wolff calling Max Verstappens run of 10 wins a Wikipedia stat with the Red Bull driver hitting back by questioning how many titles Lewis Hamilton has won.

After all, he doesnt read Wikipedia.

Claiming a 10th successive grand prix win at the Italian Grand Prix, a new Formula 1 record, Mercedes motorsport boss Wolff downplayed Verstappens achievement.

It is not something that would be important for me, those numbers, are for Wikipedia and nobody reads that anyway, the Austrian told Sky Sports before going on to call the record completely irrelevant.

Hamilton doubled down on that as he told the media including PlanetF1.com: I mean I dont care about statistics in general. Good for him.

Verstappen has managed to get in the last word at least for now when he then questioned Hamiltons tally of World titles.

According to the Express, he told a journalist: With Lewis, I dont know for sure but I mean for someone who has won six World Championships, you must know

It is seven. Its in the history books. You can look it up, the reporter replied.

To which Verstappen asked: Are you sure its seven, not six?

I mean, Im not very sure, you know. I dont read Wikipedia.

F1 2023 title permutations: When can Max Verstappen win the World Championship?

Revealed: The F1 2023 World Championship standings without Red Bull

Meanwhile Helmut Marko, having previously declared Red Bull dont bother themselves with Mercedes as they are not a serious opponent, had another dig at the Brackley squad on ServusTV.

Responding to Wolffs Wikipedia stat taunt, Marko said: Maybe you can say that to Wolff, its the most-read medium ever! Its not that insignificant either.

So were happy and well take these records with us.

In fact, the 80-year-old says continuing that winning streak to 11 and beyond is what is driving Red Bull at the moment.

Story continues

Its part of the motivation, he said. And the more we win, the more important it becomes.

With every record comes even more motivation, even more passion. And thats the strength of this team, that its not about money or anything else.

Read next: Big Singapore upgrade set to fire Red Bulls new plan to life

The article More Wikipedia taunts as Max Verstappen erases a Lewis Hamilton World title appeared first on Planetf1.com.

Read more from the original source:
More Wikipedia taunts as Max Verstappen erases a Lewis Hamilton World title - Yahoo Eurosport UK

Subscribe to our FREENewsletterorTelegramchannel for the latest stories and updates.

A local teacher was recently awarded the Wikimedian of the Year award. Taufik Rosman was presented with the accolade for his contributions to the Malay edition of Wikipedia at the award show this year in Singapore.

The accomplishment makes him the first Malaysian to ever bag the award since it was established in 2011. The Universiti Sains Malaysia graduate was ecstatic to have earned the title, especially since he has been a fan of Wikipedias accessible nature.

Speaking with Free Malaysia Today, Taufik revealed that he was first drawn to the site when he was 13. He had realised that there were not many entries on the Malay edition of Wiktionary the dictionary counterpart to Wikipedia.

This, therefore, inspired him to include Malay words on the site. And eventually, this gave him the idea to also spread the word of Malaysian culture on Wikipedia.

Usually, what I translate is related to culture, both Malaysian and cultures from abroad. Ive translated articles on Japanese and Maori culture among others, in the past, said Taufik.

He was also recognised for his efforts to spread knowledge of Malaysian culture at this years Wikimedian of the Year award.

Credible enough?

Taufik, however, is aware of the publics perception of Wikipedia. Since anyone can edit the information on the page, he realises how the public questions the pages credibility. To which, he replies by noting the various sources that Wikipedia cites for its points on the page.

Most people have been told that Wikipedia is unreliable, and I mean, it is. You cannot cite Wikipedia but all Wikipedia articles have sources and citations which you can find at the bottom of the article, Taufik argued.

The sources, according to him, make the articles reliable. Hence, he calls on other Malaysians to join in on the effort to contribute their thoughts and knowledge about Malaysia to the website.

I guess I can say each one of us knows something about the world. If we all could gather in one place to add this knowledge online, it would make information about our country Malaysia more accessible.

While locals, especially youngsters may not be sure of their knowledge, Taufik still believes sharing is the way to go.

I would love to see the Malaysian public having this culture of free knowledge. Having people share knowledge with one another is quite beneficial because it shows that Malaysians care about providing knowledge for free and making it accessible, he concluded.

More about the Wikimedian of the Year

The Wikimedian of the Year is an award that is dedicated to honour great contributions to the Wikimedia (Wiktionary, WikiCommons, and Wikipedia) movement.

Established in August 2011 by co-founder Jimmy Wales, they select and honour recipients at the annual awards show called Wikimania.

Prior to Taufik, no Malaysian has managed to bring home the accolade. Previous title holders had been from countries such as Ghana, Arab, and the United States.

Thus, Taufiks win marks a monumental moment for both Malaysians and individuals within the Wikimedia community.

Share your thoughts with us via TRPsFacebook,Twitter,Instagram, orThreads.

Continue reading here:
Local Teacher Becomes First Malaysian To Win Wikimedian Award ... - The Rakyat Post

In the future, Sastry added, A.I. systems might interpret whether a query requires a rigorous factual answer or something more creative. In other words, if you wanted an analytical report with citations and detailed attributions, the A.I. would know to deliver that. And if you desired a sonnet about the indictment of Donald Trump, well, it could dash that off instead.

In late June, I began to experiment with a plug-in the Wikimedia Foundation had built for ChatGPT. At the time, this software tool was being tested by several dozen Wikipedia editors and foundation staff members, but it became available in mid-July on the OpenAI website for subscribers who want augmented answers to their ChatGPT queries. The effect is similar to the retrieval process that Jesse Dodge surmises might be required to produce accurate answers. GPT-4s knowledge base is currently limited to data it ingested by the end of its training period, in September 2021. A Wikipedia plug-in helps the bot access information about events up to the present day. At least in theory, the tool lines of code that direct a search for Wikipedia articles that answer a chatbot query gives users an improved, combinatory experience: the fluency and linguistic capabilities of an A.I. chatbot, merged with the factuality and currency of Wikipedia.

One afternoon, Chris Albon, whos in charge of machine learning at the Wikimedia Foundation, took me through a quick training session. Albon asked ChatGPT about the Titan submersible, operated by the company OceanGate, whose whereabouts during an attempt to visit the Titanics wreckage were still unknown. Normally you get some response thats like, My information cutoff is from 2021, Albon told me. But in this case ChatGPT, recognizing that it couldnt answer Albons question What happened with OceanGates submersible? directed the plug-in to search Wikipedia (and only Wikipedia) for text relating to the question. After the plug-in found the relevant Wikipedia articles, it sent them to the bot, which in turn read and summarized them, then spit out its answer. As the responses came back, hindered by only a slight delay, it was clear that using the plug-in always forced ChatGPT to append a note, with links to Wikipedia entries, saying that its information was derived from Wikipedia, which was made by volunteers. And this: As a large language model, I may not have summarized Wikipedia accurately.

But the summary about the submersible struck me as readable, well supported and current a big improvement from a ChatGPT response that either mangled the facts or lacked real-time access to the internet. Albon told me, Its a way for us to sort of experiment with the idea of What does it look like for Wikipedia to exist outside of the realm of the website, so you could actually engage in Wikipedia without actually being on Wikipedia.com. Going forward, he said, his sense was that the plug-in would continue to be available, as it is now, to users who want to activate it but that eventually, theres a certain set of plug-ins that are just always on.

In other words, his hope was that any ChatGPT query might automatically result in the chatbots checking facts with Wikipedia and citing helpful articles. Such a process would probably block many hallucinations as well: For instance, because chatbots can be deceived by how a question is worded, false premises sometimes elicit false answers. Or, as Albon put it, If you were to ask, During the first lunar landing, who were the five people who landed on the moon? the chatbot wants to give you five names. Only two people landed on the moon in 1969, however. Wikipedia would help by offering the two names, Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong; and in the event the chatbot remained conflicted, it could say it didnt know the answer and link to the article.

Link:
Wikipedia's Moment of Truth - The New York Times