Talk:Astroturfing

Global view

Commenting on the (unnecessary) adding of tags to the top of this article. While the concept of Astroturfing is not a uniquely American concept, the article already establishes that such activities are not legal in Europe, UK and Australia. That is contrasted with the United States, where current court decisions have made it legal which in turn has encouraged this activity. Therefore, a lot more of the current information about the subject will come from the US.

Now there could be a whole discussion of mass astroturfing in communist societies. The single party, mass acclamation elections, the great parades showing unified support are effectively Astroturfing taken to an extreme. The difference, to anyone with any powers of observation, is the Communist model is obviously, blatant and fake. The US model is much less obvious because of the surreptitious nature of its execution, again necessitating much more discussion and explanation.

The key question I have to ask is: will these tags serve to bring in additional global information, or does it just serve to make wikipedia in general and this article in particular look less credible. I don't think tags help and certainly do hurt the look and credibility of the greater wikipedia project. Trackinfo (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to what you are referring to RE astroturfing being legal in the US? My understanding was that it is illegal in most industrialized countries, but a huge problem in the US, China and others - it is less common in Europe (I think). It's been a while since I contributed substantially to the article.

I agree on removing the tag - I almost removed it myself. It's possible the article does need a more global view, but to warrant a tag, the problem should be substantial. Every article is imperfect and it does not make sense to tag all of them. CorporateM (Talk) 22:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

List

This article originally had an excessive "Incidents" section that was mostly a magnet for poorly-sourced complaints. I moved it to the List of astroturfing cases while I culled through it for incidents that were of historical significance to include here.

Since I'm not sure I ever completely finished the task, I moved the article to Talk:Astroturfing/storage for anyone who cares to sift through it some more for additional incidents of historical significance. However, I think enough of the well-sourced stuff has been moved here for it to be better not to have that article.

CorporateM (Talk) 02:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Source

Came across a source that looks really terrific here. I wanted to store it on the Talk page here before I lost track of it. CorporateM (Talk) 16:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Hope you enjoyed the terrific source--I clicked on it and it is now missing. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC) PS: Maybe a Google-search could find it again.

@Charles Edwin Shipp: The link works fine for me. I emailed it to you. CorporateM (Talk) 00:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Politics

Are there any instances of left-wing or progressive organizations doing this? Could use some balance...GregRog (talk) 21:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussed previously – see Talk:Astroturfing/Archive_3#Political section POV. I found little at the time, but be WP:BOLD and add them and/or discuss here if you find reliable sources. Mojoworker (talk) 20:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

potential bias?

Is it just me or are all the examples listed of Republicans and conservatives? I feel like we should try to give the impression that we are looking at this issue from a neutral side and a lot of readers would think this article as it stands is a piece of political propaganda. 2600:1004:B024:5E04:3E93:9F15:4B0D:4A19 (talk) 07:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

See above. Once again, this has been discussed previously – see Talk:Astroturfing/Archive_3#Political section POV. I found little at the time, but be WP:BOLD and add them and/or discuss here if you find reliable sources. Mojoworker (talk) 20:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Correct the Record Astroturfing

I have added information about alleged astroturfing done by the Pro-Hillary Clinton Super PAC "Correct the Record". I have added more sources to support that some have accused the PAC of astroturfing. Before users revert my edits again, please explain on the Talk Page how the sources do not support the assertion that the PAC has, in fact, been accused of Astroturfing on social media. The first source, the Buisiness Insider Article, identifies the actions of the Super PAC as Astroturfing, which supports why it has been described as a case of alleged astroturfing in this article. The other two sources either show examples in the article of users of social media accusing the PAC of Astroturfing or both identify the actions of the PAC as astroturfing and discuss and provide examples for members of social media accusing the PAC of astroturfing, supporting my information about alleged "Correct the Record" astroturfing that I added to this article. Feel free to ad more sources. (I have restored the info along with another source). If you disagree that the sources support the information, please discuss on this talk page until a reasonable consensus can be reached before reverting. Wikipedia is a site committed to resolving disputes through discussion. Thanks. Randomresearcher42 (talk) 02:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Added another source. While it does not discuss accusations of "Astroturfing", it does provide information about the campaign itself. Considering that we included information about how some liberals have accused the Tea Party movement of astroturfing, I think that including information about how some pro-Sanders groups on social media have accused Correct the Record of Astroturfing is appropriate. Also, there are sources that have identified the movement as Astroturfing, so it is worthy of inclusion here. Randomresearcher42 (talk) 02:50, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for starting a Talk page discussion regarding your proposed addition to the article.

I have added information about alleged astroturfing...

And I have removed your edit per WP:BRD. The article is about astroturfing, not "alleged" astroturfing. Anyone can make an unfounded allegation, as you've proven with your cited sources.

I have added more sources to support that some have accused the PAC of astroturfing...

Again, we don't add unsupported accusations here. This isn't a tabloid, or an internet forum. Let's try to keep the article content encyclopedic.

Before users revert my edits again...

Actually, your edit proposal has been reverted, so perhaps you will please explain here what it is you are hoping to convey to our readers with your proposed addition?

The first source, the Buisiness Insider Article, identifies the actions of the Super PAC as Astroturfing...

No, it does not. Please read more carefully (and it's not a Business Insider article, it's a reprint of a .Mic opinion piece). The .Mic piece correctly defines astroturfing as "Drumming up artificial support meant to look like grassroots activism", but doesn't give any examples of that happening with this Super Pac. There is no attempt to hide their support, or misrepresent their actions. (The article does link to a legitimate case of minor astroturfing back in 2007, but that was insignificantly small and short-lived.)

The other two sources ... both identify the actions of the PAC as astroturfing...

Incorrect; they do not. Again, please read more carefully. The Daily Dot source only mentions astroturfing once, "In a viral post on Thursday, an r/SandersforPresident moderator warned redditors about potential astroturfing tactics", which wasn't specifically about the Super Pac. And the other source incorrectly says, "they’re paid internet commenters, the product of a shady practice known as astroturfing; the infiltration of websites and social networks by people with an agenda, reportedly working in a pay-per-post scheme" - which conveniently leaves out that in order for it to be astroturf, they would need to "mask the sponsors of a message or organization (the Super Pac) to make it appear as though it originates from and is supported by a grassroots participant instead." But you should expect such misinformation when you try to cite non-reliable sources like "Reverb Press".

Added another source. While it does not discuss accusations of "Astroturfing...

And that's why it was removed. This article is about astroturfing, and isn't a coatrack for adding critiques about political campaigns. Please stick to sources which discuss astroturfing, and please limit those to actual reliable sources, not tabloids which just repeat allegations. If there is any actual astroturfing going on, I'm sure one or more major, reputable reliable sources will cover it. When they do, bring those citations here, then we can talk about how adding that to this article will help readers better understand astroturfing. Just a word of advice, when you say things like "We have an example from liberals saying xxx, therefore I feel it's appropriate if we have another example from...", it may sound to other editors like you are more concerned with playing politics in this article, rather than create an encyclopedic article about the subject of "astroturfing", so you may wish to word your responses appropriately.

Considering that we included information about how some liberals have accused the Tea Party movement of astroturfing ...

Yeah, good catch, thanks for pointing that problem out. Of course other problems exist in all articles, but that is no reason to repeat the problem. I fixed it. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 05:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, your'e probably right. Randomresearcher42 (talk) 03:20, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Misstatement in opening paragraph.

The opening paragraph contains this sentence, here split into 2 parts:

The implication behind the use of the term is that there are no "true" or "natural" grassroots, but rather "fake" or "artificial" support,

although some astroturfing operatives defend the practice (see Justification below).

The first part, as written, is not true. The second part does not seem to have originally been part of that sentence.

Today was my first encounter with the word astroturfing. Wikipedia to the rescue! I will leave this up to the excellent folks who have worked on it so far.Zipzip50 (talk) 06:04, 9 July 2017 (UTC)