News

BPP accused of ‘disruptive editing’ by Wikipedia

By on
20

PR company steps in — gets blocked

Wikipedia moderators have accused BPP University of “disruptive editing” after an account bearing the name of a senior member of staff allegedly attempted to add “promotional or advertising material” to the education giant’s page.

The online encyclopaedia’s self-policing community also appears to have blocked a PR company after it attempted to “correct some of the inaccuracies” on BPP’s behalf.

BPP said it considers the changes to be “minor, constructive edits”, and that “some additions to the page from other users were factually incorrect”.

A user with the name of BPP’s head of brand and content, Natalie Procter, was first flagged by mods in January 2018 for apparently attempting to “remove content or templates” from BPP’s entry “without giving a valid reason” for doing so. “Please stop your disruptive editing”, the site’s admins urged.

The same user popped back up again in October of this year, according to a notice on the site.

The user claimed the information underneath the entry ‘Unfair Dismassal [sic] Tribunal’ was “factually incorrect in its entirety, and in conflict with the findings of the legal case”. The “entire section needs to be removed”, the account added. The entry relates to a recent employment tribunal claim involving a former BPP law lecturer.

The site’s admins stepped in again. First they requested that the user provide “sources” to support this claim before urging them to stop their “disruptive editing”. “If you continue to add promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at BPP University, you may be blocked from editing,” the notice reads.

Secure your place: The Legal Cheek December UK Virtual Law Fair

It also appears that a Wiki account connected to Gerard Kelly & Partners (GKR), a PR company acting on behalf of BPP, was “blocked indefinitely” for “advertising or promotion”. The account attempted to overturn the decision, according to a notice, however this was rejected by the site’s moderators.

A BPP spokesperson said: “As part of a periodic review of BPP University’s entry in Wikipedia, we added some relevant citation templates including the granting of indefinite taught degree awarding powers (TDAP) under the Office for Students (OfS) new regulatory framework.”

They continued, referring to another report of the story:

“We can confirm that this was not done ‘continuously’ as The Lawyer reported and we consider these changes to be minor, constructive edits or, as Wikipedia describes, ‘uncontroversial changes’. We also felt that some additions to the page from other users were factually incorrect, and these inaccuracies have now been logged with Wikipedia. We apologise that we did not propose changes on the ‘article discussion/talk page’ and, will ensure we follow Wikipedia’s guidance on this in the future.”

A GKP spokesperson added: “In future, and as advised by Wikipedia, we will request any changes through the article talk page using the edit request template. We have explained the circumstance to Wikipedia and our block has already been downgraded subject to us complying with rules surrounding paid contribution disclosure which we fully agree with.”

Procter has been approached for comment.

For all the latest commercial awareness info, and advance notification of Legal Cheek's careers events:

Sign up to the Legal Cheek Hub

20 Comments

yet another disgruntled LPCer

have the 50 million complaints that have been lodged against BPP in the past 12 months been added to the wiki? if they haven’t they should

(58)(5)

Anonymous

Could never be us

(2)(2)

Wow

How is BPP like this? Are the people in charge literal toddlers? Has no one heard of the Streisand effect?

(28)(4)

Roflcopter

BPP being BPP non-shocka

(19)(4)

AnActualWikipediaEditor

Wikipedia policies state no editor shall edit a page of which they have a conflict of interest.

(17)(1)

BPTC Student

Purely hypothetically, if i was a student at this university, and I was (along with many others) looking for a small partial refund for poor service, late books, faulty conferencing software etc and more. Then, if a response dismissed any concerns with a wave of the pen and then publicised on their intranet platform how successful their online platform has been, what would fellow legal cheekers advise? hypothetically of course.

(14)(2)

David

Send them a nasty letter/email simply outlining the facts and expressing your disappointment and what you want them to do to resolve the situation. If you don’t get a satisfactory response, go to a lawyer to see whether you have any legal recourse. If you do, follow their advice to the letter. If you don’t, try to tap up news stations (national or local) to run a story that might ramp up pressure, and also put some pressure on yourself via Twitter and any other social media channel you see fit.

(6)(1)

Polly

If you opt to send a physical letter you can include soiled undergarments to really show disgust.

(3)(1)

Archibald Pomp O'City

POLLY!

(0)(1)

BPTC student

I guess whoever had this issue might hypothetically be at the third stage of putting it on a social media if (and only if of course) a number of students had a unsympathetic and dismissive response from their provider. Maybe, they could even reserve the right to bring it to the attention of a court in relation to costs and conduct if it got that far and was not compliant with pre-action protocol or the overriding objective. I wonder if any chambers out there would be willing to look at a case like this pro bono?

(2)(1)

Help

Contact the students who led the LPC complaint maybe? The email I’ve seen is bppresponse@gmail.com

(2)(1)

Shocked Pikachu

Wait, Legal Cheek being critical of BPP? What’s happening? Did BPP forget to send Legal Cheek their cheque?

(23)(7)

Anonymous

Justice would be if this report now gets cited on the BPP University wiki page.

(11)(2)

Anonymous

Goodness me… this has made me do something I never thought I would – check BPP’s wikipedia.
I found two pages: BPP University and BPP Law School. The wiki contents seem accurate and properly sourced, but they do not make for a good reading.

(4)(1)

Be better

Its a real bad look for BPP to try to remove all public reference to their loss of an employment tribunal claim for discrimination by high level management….

(8)(5)

Anonymous

Where’s St. Carl Lygo when we need him?

(1)(2)

BPTC Student

He moved on to Arden University. I wonder why?

(2)(3)

Jeff Linton

This is such a non story!

(7)(5)

wookiepedia

you’d think they have better things to be doing really wouldn’t you, how sad they actually think editing your Wikipedia profile makes any difference to their reputation,

(5)(4)

Philip Merrills Dearn

Wiki is a joke, not peer reviewed. Still smiling about the invisible vampire goats of Galway.

(2)(2)

Comments are closed.

Related Stories