QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 11th June 2009, 1:35am)
Remember, they could have allowed this years ago, and think of all the money they all could have made in the meantime. I'm thinking maybe
hundreds of dollars! (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)
Well, it's probably more like
a couple thousand dollars... but, who's arguing?
As for the mind-set of a true, underground Wikipedia paid editor... let me give you the insight in my mind.
When I am under contract with a person or corporation to write an article about said person or corporation, I have very, very, very little interest in presenting an "advocacy" position on behalf of that entity. Rather, success is measured in durability within Wikipedia, so my highest priority is...
...wait for it... ...because this is important... ...many, many hours of learning have gone into this outcome, so you'd better appreciate it...
How do I write (and publish) this article in such a way that it passes WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, and all the other WP:things, while simultaneously NOT DRAWING THE ATTENTION OF THE HIVE?Guess what? The articles that result are pretty bland, not puff pieces, quite encyclopedic, and (ever since I learned this technique) 100% durable within Wikipedia -- with surprisingly little follow-up maintenance, and likewise lasting appreciation of my clients.
That's why
Jimmy Wales is such a one-dimensionally thinking man, that he feels the need to frame my work as "paid shill" and the like. In order to rally his equally one-dimensional followers, he has to
demonize the paid editing effort, because it is potentially, in fact, so non-sinister in its undetectability. My paid content is virtually indistinguishable from the other crap on Wikipedia, except for the fact that, perhaps, it is of a higher encyclopedic and "neutral" quality.
So, thanks to Rootology, we've got our drama-of-the-week on Wikipedia, and I'm free to go back to paid editing that is undetectable and indistinguishable within the world's most irresponsible encyclopedia.