Talk:MediaDefender/Archive 1: Difference between revisions
Northgrove (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
:I agree, the attempt should be added to the article and I don't see how the leaked emails could be challenged. Frankly there is just way too much information in them that checks out. I think there even needs to be a section just talking about the emails and giving some of the more important information found in them. Of coarse I also think that things like passwords in some of those emails will need to be censured. --[[User:Hadees|Hadees]] 06:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC) |
:I agree, the attempt should be added to the article and I don't see how the leaked emails could be challenged. Frankly there is just way too much information in them that checks out. I think there even needs to be a section just talking about the emails and giving some of the more important information found in them. Of coarse I also think that things like passwords in some of those emails will need to be censured. --[[User:Hadees|Hadees]] 06:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC) |
||
:I think that adding it now is original research. However, the mainstream media might well pick up on the story soon, if there's residual interest in corporate PR attacks on WP, after all the wikiscanner stories, so if/when they do, then this entry could well warrant a mention then. --[[User:82.45.163.18|82.45.163.18]] 11:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC) |
:I think that adding it now is original research. However, the mainstream media might well pick up on the story soon, if there's residual interest in corporate PR attacks on WP, after all the wikiscanner stories, so if/when they do, then this entry could well warrant a mention then. --[[User:82.45.163.18|82.45.163.18]] 11:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC) |
||
:Be aware that later emails say they're going to wait for the attention to die down, claiming that they should then be able to change the Wikipedia article without too much trouble [[User:Neververyvery|Neververyvery]] 01:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Re: True Face of Media Defender == |
== Re: True Face of Media Defender == |
||
Revision as of 01:37, 16 September 2007
Someone should mention that MediaDefender got pwned when 700MB of email made it onto.... you guessed it... bittorrent. http://torrentfreak.com/mediadefender-emails-leaked-070915/
MediaDefender employees manipulating the article
Torrentfreak (see [1]) reports that MediaDefender employees were encouraged to manipulate the wikipedia article to remove information about the mivii incident. Here is a shortened excerpt from the leaked emails:
Ben E: Can you please do what you can to eliminate this entry? Let me know if you have any success. R From: Dylan Douglas Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 2:20 PM To: Ben Ebert; Steve Lyons; Jay Mairs; Randy Saaf; Octavio Herrera Cc: Ty Heath; Ben Grodsky; Ivan Kwok (gmail) Subject: RE: MiiVi got Dugg Better yet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaDefender Miivi.com In February 2007, MediaDefender launched a video sharing site called Miivi.com in order to trap unsuspecting uploaders of copyrighted content.[5][6] ----- Dylan Douglas MediaDefender
Although the authenticity of the leaked mails could be challenged it seems somewhat unlikely after cursory review by different people. Thus the quoted parts should at least give enough cause to be vigilant about future edits of this page.
The manipulation attempt might also be noteworthy enough to drop it into the article itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.55.187.136 (talk) 05:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, the attempt should be added to the article and I don't see how the leaked emails could be challenged. Frankly there is just way too much information in them that checks out. I think there even needs to be a section just talking about the emails and giving some of the more important information found in them. Of coarse I also think that things like passwords in some of those emails will need to be censured. --Hadees 06:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think that adding it now is original research. However, the mainstream media might well pick up on the story soon, if there's residual interest in corporate PR attacks on WP, after all the wikiscanner stories, so if/when they do, then this entry could well warrant a mention then. --82.45.163.18 11:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Be aware that later emails say they're going to wait for the attention to die down, claiming that they should then be able to change the Wikipedia article without too much trouble Neververyvery 01:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Re: True Face of Media Defender
This is entirely unprofessional, and while I believe a reference to the e-mails is more than warranted, such childish titles as this in no way belong on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.227.208.90 (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed, that title is geared for sensationalism, not encyclopedias. A more proper title, if the purpose is to discuss the leak, it would simply be just that... Something like "Leaked MediaDefender e-mails". — Northgrove 22:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)