Showing posts with label Wikipedia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Wikipedia. Show all posts

Sunday, August 23, 2020

Sockpuppets and where to find them

The Disguiser. An unrelated scene.
Internet Sockpuppets are an annoying online phenomenon. 

* A sockpuppet qualifies as a fake account, when it assumes a fake identity -- typically with a real-sounding name, a physical location that sounds real, a random photo scrapped from the Internet ideally not of a popular person, and some profile text/story to create a persona that looks real to a non-suspecting reader. 

* A sockpuppet qualifies as an anon account, when it comes with minimal identifying information -- no real name, no photo, nothing personal or identifiable information.

So what exactly is a sockpuppet?

There are several definitions. My definition goes like this:

"A sockpuppet is a fake or an anonymous profile created by someone with an existing established profile in the same platform, when the new profile aims to boost the popularity/prominence of his/her established profile (i.e., the "primary" account) or attack those presented opposing views of the existing account."

The distinction needs to be made because, sockpuppets are typically attached to the hand of the owner. They cannot stray away. That is the same for the Internet sockpuppets too. They stay close to the primary account.

Why do sockpuppets exist?

1) To manipulate the social media democracy + meritocracy

Social media and online platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, Wikimedia, and StackOverflow thrive by a combination of democracy and meritocracy. 

Each account usually has a single "vote". That means, you can typically "like" or "upvote" a comment/story only once. This is a democracy.

On the other hand, those who with most views/likes/shares/retweets receive larger reach and prominence in the discussions. As you receive larger reach, you are also rewarded by the platform. For example, you may get promoted to an "upper level" and receive additional capabilities such as moderating new posts (in case of platforms such as StackOverflow and Wikipedia). This is a meritocracy.

Then why doesn't this beautiful combination of democracy and meritocracy work flawlessly? This combination should work well in the physical world. But in social media, a vote typically means an account. Most platforms do not have proper means in place to ensure that a human creates only one account. In fact, several platforms allow and encourage owning multiple accounts for various purposes. I have maintained 3 bot accounts in my Twitter life so far (they are listed here), to automatically post updates from my blog and undergrad project. But of course, they are not sockpuppets. They are stand-alone bots. They are not fake, not really anon either as they have identifying information pointing to me. 

A sockpuppet, on the other hand, *will* interact with its primary in some way or another. Because that is their responsibility: making the primary appear stronger than it really is. With the "rich gets richer" scenario in social media, retweets by a large number of fake accounts (including sockpuppets) is expected to receive more legitimate retweets too. Sockpuppets, unlike typical fake or bot accounts, will organically interact with the primary account for the betterment of the primary account, through supportive comments, retweets, and likes.

2) To fight the opposing views without compromising the primary account's legacy

The sockpuppet, once created, will start traversing its primary account and respond accordingly. I have identified several sockpuppets in Twitter, from all sides of political spectrum.


Sockpuppet owners can be actually smart people. Don't underestimate them. That makes the sockpuppets smart too - but with no accountability (since they are a fake/anon). That is a dangerous combination.

Unlike the primary account, the sockpuppet will attack you vigorously, perhaps using racist, provocatory, or vulgar messages.

How to spot a sockpuppet?

In fact, it is easier to spot and confirm a sockpuppet than you expect. Sockpuppets are close to their primary. They respond positively to the views that support the primary. They will attack the opposing views with nastiest mean comments. They all follow a similar pattern, and leave obvious traces to connect with the primary. Typically, they will reply to the negative comments that haven't been replied by the primary adequately (if at all). Their replies will be uninhibited. This aims to maintain the neutral stance of the primary and to keeps the primary more professional. Sockpuppets will try to provoke you. They are a sockpuppet whereas you are in your main and perhaps the only account in the platform, which you may also be using for professional purposes and connect with your colleagues. Sockpuppets thus use your restrain as their strength.

However, sockpuppets fortunately have a big weakness unlike other fake accounts. That is, their proximity to the primary. They will first reply to the messages directed at the primary, or try to be smart and reply to the posts made by the opponents - but not directly on the same thread as the primary. Their language and timing usually will leave sufficient hints to tie the sockpuppet's identity to the primary. 

Some sockpuppets try to be too smart and alter their behavior. I once dealt with a sockpuppet (who is in real a software developer and a Twitter star) who pretended he did not know how to message via Twitter! This is a deliberate attempt to look different. Most sockpuppets will also casually talk with the primary (as in a dual acting by the same actor in a movie), to make it sound like they are different people. Sockpuppets also have a trait of deleting their old tweets to remove traces for future interactions. Because, unlike you, sockpuppets don't really have a reason to keep their tweets safe. Once they have served their purpose (for example, trolling their opponent), they can be deleted.

Every time I suspect a sockpuppet, I casually drop the name of the suspected primary, after sufficiently distracting the sockpuppet. The sockpuppet instantly panics and loses its cool and track/flow. Once, a sockpuppet stopped responding to my tweets for hours but instantly in 5 seconds replied with a nasty tweet once I mentioned the suspected primary's name as in "Hi [primary]!"Usually, if you publicly accuse the primary for being the same person as the sockpuppet, the primary will categorically reject the claim.

How do online platforms treat the sockpuppets?

Wikipedia bans sockpuppets outright. I love that. They trace the IP addresses and once they confirm the sockpuppets (ensuring that you are not merely two people from the same household), they suspend and ban the sockpuppet instantly. It ensures that Wikipedia is fair, especially when making important decisions: should we keep this new wikipedia page that is proposed for a speedy deletion, for one example. If a repeat offense is detected, Wikipedia will also ban the primary.

Twitter does the same too, but not that vigorously. Because, Twitter indeed allows multiple accounts. But if the sockpuppet is proven malicious, then Twitter bans it. Make sure to report the suspected sockpuppets to Twitter when they become disruptive. Twitter will check the pattern and suspend them if confirmed.

The first step in winning a sockpuppet is to identifying one, and then making sure the sockpuppet does not emotionally attack you to make you a weaker persona than the primary. Let's keep the social media clean and sane. Peace!

Friday, June 13, 2014

Freelancer.com exams and reviews - why you should not trust them..

Fig 1. Spammers on "Freelancer exams"
It has been around ~20 months, since I wrote the review on Freelancer.com, "Is Freelancer.com a complete scam, or a partial scam?". Recently I was reviewing the comments section of the article and did more research. The situation hasn't changed much lately. Rather it just got worse. Before discussing further, I just clarify the readers that I am not a Freelancer.com user, except the use for reviewing purposes. Freelancer.com sucks. Here we will see why.


1. Freelancer.com exams is a joke.
Seriously. How can you measure someone's qualification or ability through some non-standard examination? Moreover, there are groups of scammers who even do these exams for you, if you pay them. They will require your credentials to do those exams on your behalf. There is a potential identity theft. This actually highlights an essential flow in the exams. You cannot trust these examinations as a genuine indication of someone's expertise.

The spam comments (See Fig 1) on my blog post from the desperate exam providers elaborate how these scammers will do the exams on your behalf! Instead of using proper marketing for their 'service', they decided to spam my blog post with the links to their 'service'. I have deleted the spammers comments from the blog post, such that the readers will not be misled.

These exam providers function for all the freelancing sites such as elance and oDesk. So this issue is not really specific to Freelancer.com. Anyway, to do an exam, you have to pay. Hence, this is a way for Freelancer.com to earn some money.

2. Most Valuable "Asset"
What makes a service attractive? You may have the excellent technology in your web site. But what if it does not have users? Specifically services that require a "match-making". Just like dating services make the potential partners meet, Freelancer web sites let the employers and freelancers meet. So, users are the most valuable asset of a system.

By vigorously acquiring multiple freelancing sites, and deploying strong media and marketing strategy, Freelancer.com has survived and thrived, despite the strong criticism it has received from the customers who felt violated by Freelancer.com. Freelancer.com however, does not respect its users at all. One who scan through the user reviews or even the comments on my previous blog post will notice this clearly.

3. Heavy delays on Payments. WHY?
You may successfully transfer money to your freelancer or employee via PayPal in a matter of seconds. But Freelancer takes days. It goes from 3 days and more. If this is the first time transfer, there is a verification process that lasts two weeks. You may be in a hurry to earn some money; but you will be delayed for at least 16 days, if this is your first time with the site.

Why? Is the Freelancer.com a police? No. Why do they do this? Because they can. Not only Freelancer.com. Plenty of web sites exploit their unsuspecting users. Employers have the wealth; freelancers have the time. Freelancer.com has users. As a third-party, Freelancer.com exploits the weakness of its users. In an ideal world, employers should be able to find their freelancers without a third party such as Freelancer.com. But it is not possible for everyone, as not everyone is blessed with connections and online visibility.

4. Canned responses from the support team
If you are stuck with some issue, you may expect to receive some help from the support team of Freelancer.com, which is, technically, nonexistent. They just provide canned responses. If they please, they will freeze your account for "verification purposes". This will happen, specially when your account has a considerable money in it.

Are they really so concerned that people are using their site for illegal purposes? I suspect. You do not hear much complains about PayPal or similar services.

5. Wikipedia Edit War
Fig 2. Edit war on Wikipedia Freelancer.com page
Now, those who got irritated by this web site, want to make their voice heard. They attempt to use Wikipedia for that. However, this has created an edit war in the Freelancer.com page on Wikipedia. It seems, an employee or a dedicated team of employees of Freelancer.com carefully monitors the Wikipedia page, and removes whenever something negative or controversial is added on their wiki page. They make sure the Wikipedia page is "clean".

The complaints from the users are noteworthy as they have appeared in multiple sources. However, due to the Wikipedia requirements to have "verifiable" sources, it is becoming very difficult to update the Wikipedia page with the other side of the story, given that the page is carefully monitored by Freelancer.com team, as well as some genuine Wikipedians. Refer to Fig 2 to see how unsatisfied users of Freelancer.com tried to add a section of "Criticism" on the Wikipedia page, and how Freelancer.com staff or supporters were successful in keeping it removed consistently. Fig 3 shows a screen shot of the "Criticism" section, when it existed.

If you have something to share, use web sites and blogs to make your voice heard. Before attempting to edit Wikipedia with your feelings, make sure you have already collected verifiable resources. You may consider publishing your side of the story to third-party publishers, which will later appear in the Wikipedia page.
Fig 3. Criticism section on the Wikipedia page

6. Fake positive reviews on employers and freelancers
It is not uncommon to see someone who has received highly positive reviews to be a bad employer or freelancer. Some of the reviews are proven to be fake. These users function as a network. It is like a mafia. Do not trust the reviews blindly. Suspect more, if all the reviews are from the same employer or freelancer. I hope Freelancer.com is aware of this, and ensure they eliminate the scammers out from their system when they detect them.

What can you, as a freelancer or employer, do?
As an employer or freelancer, try to avoid third-party services, if possible. If you still have to use them, try to find better alternatives to Freelancer.com, considering the very high number of negative experiences found. If you are already successful in Freelancer.com or similar sites, congratulations! You are lucky.

What can you, as freelancer.com, do? 
The problem with your service is real. Instead of denying it, attend to it genuinely. You probably do not need to rob the hard-earned money of the poor freelancers. Go through the Internet genuinely, and attend to them personally, instead of throwing some political reply to keep them wondering. Learn from other services. Develop a genuine interest in the users before it is too late.

What can you, as an entrepreneur, do?
There is surely a gap here. Try to create something new. Even if you have the most excellent technology, it won't be a success, unless you have people. Attract the people with your service. Give something new. Make it genuine. Learn what is needed and create something that can cater the need. If you already have a better alternative, publish it, advertise it, and reach to the audience.

I hope this post was useful, if you arrived here looking for some suggestions. Please share your thoughts in the comments.

Saturday, November 12, 2011

Copyrights - "Safely ignored"s in the Internet

I recently found an exact copy of one of my blog posts in another blog, without any credit or pointer to my blog. I tried to comment on his blog post with the link to the original post. He never approved my comment. Hence I decided to report his blog to google, for the copyright violation.

In the topmost banner of the blogger blogs, you can see "Report Abuse". I just clicked, and reported the post.

Google replied with,
Thanks for reaching out to us!

We have received your legal request. We receive many such complaints each

day; your message is in our queue, and we'll get to it as quickly as our
workload permits.

Due to the large volume of requests that we experience, please note that

we will only be able to provide you with a response if we determine your
request may be a valid and actionable legal complaint, and we may respond
with questions or requests for clarification.  For more information on
Google's Terms of Service, please visit http://www.google.com/accounts/TOS

We appreciate your patience as we investigate your request.


Regards,

The Google Team

After within a few hours, Google took the page that violated the copyrights down in accordance with DMCA (The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998), and sent me this message.

Hello,

Thanks for reaching out to us.

In accordance with the DMCA, we have completed processing your
infringement complaint and the content in question no longer appears on
the following URL(s):
http://{blog-name}.blogspot.com/
2011/07/{post}*.html
Please let us know if we can assist you further.

Regards,
The Google Team

* I have removed the blog url to avoid harassing the blogger who copied the blog post.



One of my friends mentioned, why would I report that person's blog post. My friend mentioned that the person who copied my post is indeed helping me by spreading my thoughts to the followers of his blog. 

No, it doesn't work that way. If someone finds his post in web search instead of me, further interaction with the reader will not be possible. If my view point is challenged in the blog post of that person, he will not be in a position to advocate for my thoughts. Most probably he himself would have forgotten the original post that he copied from, leaving the discussion to a nowhere-zone.

In print, everyone takes utmost care about the copyrights. But when it comes online, it is taken for granted that anyone can violate others' copyrights. It is common to see posts that are copied from the web, even in newspapers as "Thanks: The Internet" or "Thank you: The web". No one bothers to give the exact url or the author of the post, which is in fact a bad practice, and offensive just like any other pirated material.

I, however support open knowledge. Some restrictive licenses prevent others from using the content at all, than merely reading and understanding it. Licenses should be open, just like the open source licenses. In "Llovizna" (and wherever online/offline), I made sure to use only the content or images that are in the public domain, or made sure to provide the credentials to the original license holder, whenever I reused others' contents. Many images with supportive licenses, or those are in the public domain can be found in wikipedia or wikimedia. We need more of them.

Sharing is not just a copy-pasting. It should provide value to the original content, while giving the appreciation that it deserves, and engaging with the content.

Monday, October 3, 2011

Welcome policy of Wikipedia

Something I like about the welcome policy of wikipedia is, whenever a registered user visits a new language wikipedia for the very first time, they will get a welcome message like the below from the bot of the specific language wikipedia.

For example, I visited Malayalam wikipedia and Amaric Wikipedia recently, and got welcome mails from the wikipedia in the respective languages. This assumes that whenever a registered user visits a new language wikipedia for the very first time, there is a chance of getting him in as a contributor to that language wikipedia. In my opinion, this association is pretty correct and reasonable. Hence the welcome message essentially gives the important links and suggestions specific to the specific language wikipedia projects.

This can be an analogy for the behavioral targeting of the companies. This helps to get more new leads into the system, who are likely to be interested  in the topic under consideration. Wikipedia welcomes the new contributors with love.

From: MediaWiki Mail <wiki@wikimedia.org>
Date: 2011/10/2
Subject: വിക്കിപീഡിയ സംരംഭത്തിലെ ഉപയോക്താവിന്റെ സംവാദം:Pradeeban എന്ന
താൾ Jotter സൃഷ്ടിച്ചു
To: Pradeeban <kk.pradeeban@gmail.com>

പ്രിയ Pradeeban,
ക്കിപീഡിയ സം‌രംഭത്തിലെ
ഉപയോക്താവിന്റെ സംവാദം:Pradeeban
താൾ 2 ഒക്ടോബർ 2011-ൽ Jotter എന്ന
ഉപയോക്താവ് സൃഷ്ടിച്ചു,
ഇപ്പോഴുള്ള പതിപ്പിനായി
http://ml.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B4%89%E0%B4%AA%E0%B4%AF%E0%B5%8B%E0%B4%95%E0%B5%8D%E0%B4%A4%E0%B4%BE%E0%B4%B5%E0%B4%BF%E0%B4%A8%E0%B5%8D%E0%B4%B1%E0%B5%86_%E0%B4%B8%E0%B4%82%E0%B4%B5%E0%B4%BE%E0%B4%A6%E0%B4%82:Pradeeban
കാണുക.

ഇതൊരു പുതിയ താളാണ്‌

തിരുത്തിയയാൾ നൽകിയ
സം‌ഗ്രഹം: സ്വാഗതം!

തിരുത്തിയയാളെ
ബന്ധപ്പെടുക:
മെയിൽ:
http://ml.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B4%AA%E0%B5%8D%E0%B4%B0%E0%B4%A4%E0%B5%8D%E0%B4%AF%E0%B5%87%E0%B4%95%E0%B4%82:%E0%B4%89%E0%B4%AA%E0%B4%AF%E0%B5%8B%E0%B4%95%E0%B5%8D%E0%B4%A4%E0%B5%83%E0%B4%87%E0%B4%AE%E0%B5%86%E0%B4%AF%E0%B4%BF%E0%B5%BD/Jotter
വിക്കി:
http://ml.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B4%89%E0%B4%AA%E0%B4%AF%E0%B5%8B%E0%B4%95%E0%B5%8D%E0%B4%A4%E0%B4%BE%E0%B4%B5%E0%B5%8D:Jotter

താങ്കൾ ഈ താൾ
സന്ദർശിക്കുന്നില്ലങ്കിൽ
മറ്റ് അറിയിപ്പുകൾ
ഒന്നുമുണ്ടാകുന്നതല്ല.
ശ്രദ്ധിക്കുന്ന താളുകളുടെ
പട്ടിക സന്ദർശിച്ചും
ഉൾപ്പെട്ട താളുകളിലെ
അറിയിപ്പ് മുദ്രകൾ
താങ്കൾക്ക്
പുനഃക്രമീകരിക്കാവുന്നതാണ്‌.
            താങ്കളുടെ
വിക്കിപീഡിയ സുഹൃദ്
അറിയിപ്പ് സജ്ജീകരണം
--
ശ്രദ്ധിക്കുന്ന
പട്ടികയിലെ
ക്രമീകരണങ്ങളിൽ മാറ്റം
വരുത്താൻ, സന്ദർശിക്കുക
http://ml.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B4%AA%E0%B5%8D%E0%B4%B0%E0%B4%A4%E0%B5%8D%E0%B4%AF%E0%B5%87%E0%B4%95%E0%B4%82:%E0%B4%B6%E0%B5%8D%E0%B4%B0%E0%B4%A6%E0%B5%8D%E0%B4%A7%E0%B4%BF%E0%B4%95%E0%B5%8D%E0%B4%95%E0%B5%81%E0%B4%A8%E0%B5%8D%E0%B4%A8%E0%B4%B5/edit

താൾ താങ്കൾ
ശ്രദ്ധിക്കുന്നവയുടെ
പട്ടികയിൽ നിന്ന്
നീക്കംചെയ്യാൻ,
സന്ദർശിക്കുക
http://ml.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E0%B4%89%E0%B4%AA%E0%B4%AF%E0%B5%8B%E0%B4%95%E0%B5%8D%E0%B4%A4%E0%B4%BE%E0%B4%B5%E0%B4%BF%E0%B4%A8%E0%B5%8D%E0%B4%B1%E0%B5%86_%E0%B4%B8%E0%B4%82%E0%B4%B5%E0%B4%BE%E0%B4%A6%E0%B4%82:Pradeeban&action=unwatch

അഭിപ്രായം അറിയിക്കാനും
മറ്റു സഹായങ്ങൾക്കും:
http://ml.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B4%B8%E0%B4%B9%E0%B4%BE%E0%B4%AF%E0%B4%82:%E0%B4%89%E0%B4%B3%E0%B5%8D%E0%B4%B3%E0%B4%9F%E0%B4%95%E0%B5%8D%E0%B4%95%E0%B4%82

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Effectively Using Wikipedia

When using Wikipedia or other similar Wiki's most of us just read the article only. But there are much more details, which can be found if we use the wiki effectively. This post is written having Wikipedia in mind, but it is still applicable to the other wiki's as well.

1. Wiki articles have their earlier revisions accessible to the users. By accessing the 'history' tab on top of the article, you can get a list of the earlier edits. This is really useful, for a current hot-topic, a news item, or a subject with the conflicts on interest. In some not-so-maintained wiki's this option allows to omit the latest version, if it has some irrelevant material inserted into it. However Wikipedians are active that random text or irrelevant spam inserted into an article is removed immediately as it is found.

See whether there is a considerable difference exist between the revisions, by comparing them. If a considerable change has been found, it is worth looking at earlier revisions. Usually the contents of the wiki articles are removed to maintain the size of the article to a standard level. Some are removed to maintain the unbiasedness of the article.

Whatever the case reviewing the earlier revisions give a panoramic view on the topic.

2. In some case, the 'discussion' page will be available. Usually there you can find a summarized information regarding the issues going around the article. Taking a look at this will give you the first hand knowledge about the alternate views and interests.

3. If you are multilingual, try to read the article in the other languages, if it is available, as the articles in different languages are not a mere translation of the English version. However, it is always recommended to take a look at the article written in a local language related to the topic, even if you are not familiar with that language at all. At least you will be able to find more images and links.