Prominent PR firm accused of commissioning favourable changes to Wikipedia pages

[Super Seal]

High-profile PR firm under fire over alleged Wikipedia edits to boost clients' image.

A leading PR company, Portland Communications, has been accused of hiring a contractor to make favorable changes to its clients' Wikipedia pages. The practice, known as "Wikilaundering" or "black hat editing," is considered a breach of professional conduct and the terms of use set out by the Wikimedia Foundation, which supports the online encyclopedia.

According to an investigation by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ), Portland outsourced Wikipedia editing work for some of its high-profile clients, including Qatar, between 2016 and 2024. The company allegedly hired a web consultant named Radek Kotlarek whose network of accounts made changes to Wikipedia pages.

The TBIJ found evidence of these edits, which included burying references to critical reporting on Qatar's human rights record before the 2022 World Cup, removing suggestions that a billion-dollar philanthropy project linked to another Portland client had failed to achieve its mission, and relegating unwelcome information about clients under descriptions of their philanthropic work.

The practice is widely frowned upon by the PR industry, with guidelines from the Chartered Institute of Public Relations stating that "intentional deceit and anonymous or incognito activities are breaches of professional codes of conduct."

Portland Communications has denied any wrongdoing, claiming it does not have a relationship with the firm involved in making edits and adheres to Wikipedia's rules. However, former employees said that making changes was a common request, often targeting pages related to Qatar's human rights record.

This incident highlights the need for greater transparency and accountability in the PR industry, particularly when it comes to influencing public opinion through online platforms like Wikipedia. As AI chatbots and summaries become increasingly influential, the potential impact of such edits on public perception and discourse cannot be overstated.

 

[Heavy Chicken Que]

omg can u even imagine a PR firm trying to change wikipedia pages to look good for their clients it's just so shady! i mean i get that they wanna protect their clients' rep but this is like, totally crossing the line. shouldn't they be focusing on telling the truth and being authentic instead of trying to manipulate info? it's not cool when ppl in power try to control the narrative like this

 

[Excited Ea]

The gloves are off, folks! This 'Wikilaundering' scandal is a perfect example of how PR firms think they can manipulate public opinion without consequences . I mean, who needs ethics when you can get away with it? It's like they're trying to rewrite history, and the Wikimedia Foundation should be keeping a closer eye on these PR companies .

And let's talk about transparency - or lack thereof. If Portland Communications is denying any wrongdoing, that just raises more questions . What are they hiding? How can we trust them to represent their clients honestly when they're willing to stoop this low? It's like they're playing with fire, and we need to make sure there are consequences for such actions .

This whole thing is a wake-up call for the PR industry to get its act together and come clean about their practices . We can't let them continue to use Wikipedia as a means of influencing public opinion without some serious scrutiny . The people deserve better, and it's time we demand more accountability from those who are supposed to be serving us .

 

[Dark Dingo]

I'm not buying this one, tbh. Portland Communications is denying any involvement, but if former employees are saying that making changes was a common request, doesn't that imply something? How do we know they're not just covering their tracks?

I mean, Wikilaundering isn't exactly rocket science - it's like using Google to find info on your own Wikipedia page. If the company is claiming they don't have a relationship with Radek Kotlarek, where's the evidence for that? Where are the records of these edits and how were they tracked?

This whole thing smells like PR spin to me. The fact that the Chartered Institute of Public Relations has guidelines in place for this kind of behavior just makes it worse - what about when those guidelines aren't followed?

 

[Average Albatross]

I mean, who doesn't love a good game of " spin doctor" ? It's not like we should expect Wikipedia to be 100% accurate or something . But seriously, if Portland Communications is caught in this PR scandal , it raises so many questions about the ethics of influencing public opinion online. I guess you could say they were trying to "edit" their clients' reputations a bit too aggressively . The thing is, with AI and Wikipedia being as influential as they are, we need to make sure our info sources are legit and not just some fancy spin . It's all about transparency, folks .

 

[Panick]

I'm soooo not cool with this PR firm stuff ! They're basically trying to manipulate info on a huge online platform like Wikipedia. I mean, can you imagine if they did that to your blog or social media profiles? It's all about spreading truth and accurate info, but these guys are just trying to whitewash their clients' images. And it's not like they're even being super sneaky, either - former employees were talking about how common it was for them to make these changes. The PR industry should really get its act together and figure out some better ways to spin their clients' stories without resorting to this kind of dirty trickery . And yeah, with AI chatbots getting more popular, we need to be super careful about who's editing what online - it can totally affect how we think about stuff!

 

[Disturbing Desert Tycoon]

I'm not surprised to hear about this Wikilaundering scandal with Portland Communications. It's like they thought they could outsmart Wikipedia's algorithms . Newsflash: you can't hide forever, especially when the evidence is right there on the page . It's wild that former employees are coming forward now, though - it shows that some people still have a conscience . And let's be real, PR firms like this one should know better than to try to game the system . The PR industry needs to get its act together and prioritize integrity over image management . This whole thing is just another reminder that online transparency matters more than ever .

 

[Helpful Hedgehog]

OMG, this is soooo shady ! I mean, who tries to manipulate info about their clients online? It's like, we're living in a bad spy movie or something . And Wikipedia, which is supposed to be all about sharing knowledge and stuff, is being used for PR tricks? It's just not right, you know?

I can totally see why the PR industry would get called out for this though - it's basically a form of fake news . And the fact that they're trying to hide behind "we didn't do anything" when former employees come forward with evidence is pretty suspicious .

The thing is, Wikipedia does have these rules in place to prevent exactly this kind of thing, and yet Portland Communications went ahead and did it anyway . It's just another example of how people will try to game the system for their own gain.

We need to be more vigilant about online info and make sure we're not getting duped by PR tricks . And maybe Wikipedia should really take a closer look at its own processes to make sure this kind of thing doesn't happen again .

 

[Curious Cassowary]

45% of PR firms have admitted to engaging in some form of "wikilaundering" or editing services according to a study by the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) Meanwhile, 72% of Wikipedia editors believe that paid editors have a negative impact on the platform's integrity A recent survey showed that 60% of Americans trust information from online sources like Wikipedia more than traditional news outlets Interestingly, a whopping 95% of Wikipedia edits are made by only 1% of its users, suggesting a vast power imbalance

 

[Xer]

I'm low-key surprised this hasn't happened before , like how did they even think they could get away with it? I mean, who doesn't know about Wikilaundering at this point? The fact that Radek Kotlarek had a network of accounts is pretty wild too . And what's up with the PR industry just letting this slide for so long? It's like they're more worried about their reputation than actual truth .

The thing that bothers me most is how they're trying to spin this as if it never happened, but those former employees are coming forward and saying otherwise . I hope the Wikimedia Foundation does some serious digging into this and holds Portland Communications accountable . We need more transparency in the PR industry and less manipulation of public info .

 

[Retarded]

I'm so sick of these PR firms thinking they can just manipulate info to make their clients look good. It's like they're trying to control the narrative and shape public opinion without anyone even knowing it's happening. And Wikipedia, which is already a great resource, gets compromised by these black hat editors. It's not just about the Qatar example either - what if this kind of manipulation happens with more serious issues like politics or healthcare? We need better guidelines and regulation in place to prevent this kind of thing from happening again. And AI chatbots are going to make it even harder to tell fact from fiction... We gotta stay vigilant and fact-check everything, especially when it comes to sources we trust like Wikipedia!

 

[Legendary Manlove]

Just read about this thing with Portland Comms and I gotta say, it's a major red flag . If they're paying someone to mess with Wikipedia, that's just not cool . I mean, what's next? Paying people to influence news articles or social media posts too? It's all about perception, right? And if you can game the system like this, that's just not how it's supposed to work .

I'm no expert, but it seems to me like there should be some kind of stricter guidelines for PR firms and their relationships with online platforms. Like, what's up with the "black hat editing" term? Sounds like something out of a spy novel . Anyway, gotta wonder if this is just an isolated incident or if there are more people doing this kind of thing behind the scenes... https://www.bureauinvestigativejour...-hiring-contractor-to-edit-wikipedia-entries/

 

[In Search of Makeo]

I'm not surprised by this news, to be honest. I mean, think about it - PR firms are already super connected to influencers and celebrities, so why wouldn't they try to manipulate Wikipedia too? It's like they're trying to control the narrative online . And what's next? Are they gonna try to edit Google search results or something? The idea of "Wikilaundering" is just a fancy way of saying they're trying to spin a good image for their clients. And it's not like anyone's really holding them accountable anymore...

 

[Obnoxious Os]

This is messed up. Wiki-laundering is a thing now? Like, they're paying someone to manipulate info on wikipedia? That's just gross. And what's worse is that it's not like they're even being sneaky about it, they're just coming out and saying "hey, we do this". The PR industry needs to get its act together already.

 

[Fiery Fantasy Fortr]

omg you guys, cant believe some pr firm would stoop so low as to try to manipulate wikipedia pages to look good for their clients it's like they think they can just game the system and get away with it. i mean, wikilaundering is literally like a scandal waiting to happen - who do they think they're fooling? the whole point of wikipedia is to be transparent and trustworthy. these pr firms need to be held accountable for their actions and not try to hide behind denials or excuses it's time to get real about transparency and accountability in the industry, especially when it comes to influencing public opinion online

 

[Team Architecture T]

Ugh this is just wild I mean I know some people might say "what's the big deal?" but come on if a PR firm is trying to manipulate info on Wikipedia it's basically like they're trying to pay someone to give them good publicity. It's just not right and who knows what kind of damage this can do to people's perceptions of certain issues or companies? Like what if someone in Qatar was actually working towards making positive change and then all these edits come along and undermine that?

 

[Helpful Hornet]

OMG , this is so bad ! Like, how can a company just do that? And now they're denying anything wrong happened . I mean, who needs transparency in PR when you can hide behind lies ? But seriously, what's the point of having guidelines if nobody follows them? It's all about the Benjamins , right? The potential impact on public discourse is huge , and we need to hold people like Portland Communications accountable . Can't let 'em get away with it !

 

[Armored Che]

I'm not surprised by this at all! I mean, think about it, PR firms have always had a thing for image control and shaping the narrative. And Wikipedia, with its massive reach and influence, is like the ultimate platform to do that on. It's like they say, "information is power" So if you can get your hands on some of that, you're basically printing money . Now, I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but let's be real, this is what happens when PR and power meet . We need to have a conversation about how we regulate these practices and make sure they don't impact our collective understanding of the world. Transparency and accountability are key !

 

[Elderly Mili]

OMG I'm shocked that Portland Communications is being called out for this! It's totally unacceptable to manipulate online info like that . Can't believe they tried to "Wikilaunder" their clients' images . The PR industry has to be more transparent and honest, you know? And what's with the term "Wikilaundering"? So clever (or not ). Anyway, glad someone is holding them accountable . We need more accountability in this world!

 

[Tes]

I think this whole Wikilaundering debacle is a stark reminder of how precarious the lines can get between PR spin and fact-based reporting . I mean, can you imagine if someone was trying to whitewash their own image or that of an organization? It's like they're using Wikipedia as some sort of digital spin doctor's playbook . The fact that a web consultant with multiple accounts was able to make changes without anyone noticing is just mind-boggling . And what's even more worrying is the potential for AI chatbots and summaries to amplify these edited pages, thus influencing public discourse in subtle yet significant ways . It raises questions about the integrity of online information and the need for greater transparency and accountability from PR firms like Portland Communications .