Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
_ The Wikimedia Foundation _ Paid editing
Posted by: ebc123
To state my opinion up front, what does it matter if you are paid to write about a person or organization or whatever and you follow the conflict of interest, neutral point-of-view, etc. guidelines, include most if not all the necessary references and basically produce an average to above average encyclopedic page?
For one thing there are many notable people out there who likely will never have a page written about them unless someone else takes the initiative to contact them or if they decide to contact someone to do it for them. I mean, it's nice and all to donate your time but unfortunately in this world the bills arrive every month. Again if you're able to be up front with a client and spell out the Wiki ground rules and from there produce a quality piece, what does it matter that you were paid?
For another thing it stands to reason that many if not most pages on Wikipedia are originally created and subsequently edited by people who have some abiding (some may say "slanted") interest in the topic. Why else bother with the effort?
So there's that. I'm wondering as far as paid editing what other people have to say. In addition to the above comments namely:
1. If you submit to Wikipedia's encouragement to divulge your paid arrangement, are you forever and automatically tagged with a "conflict of interest" heading?
2. If you divulge your paid status, are you now basically chum for other editors to tear your piece apart no matter how well it conforms to style and substance?
Thank you for any thoughts on this.
Posted by: thekohser
Welcome, new member.
You'll want to http://www.wikipediareview.com/Directory:Your_Business_and_Wikipedia, I think.
Posted by: melloden
Welcome, new member.
You'll want to http://www.wikipediareview.com/Directory:Your_Business_and_Wikipedia, I think.
Never letting up a chance to spam your company, eh, Greg? Maybe we should have "paid WR posting" too. Like when Jimbo wants to say something here but is too afraid, so he hires a random noob to do it.
Posted by: Cla68
I support paid editing of Wikipedia. As Greg has pointed out, a paid editor will usually obey WP's rules because they want their edits to stick around and not be messed with.
Posted by: Somey
Will you give me a dollar for every time Greg refers to you as "Mike" from now on?
Posted by: Alison
Will you give me a dollar for every time Greg refers to you as "Mike" from now on?
Posted by: thekohser
Welcome, new member.
You'll want to http://www.wikipediareview.com/Directory:Your_Business_and_Wikipedia, I think.
Never letting up a chance to spam your company, eh, Greg? Maybe we should have "paid WR posting" too. Like when Jimbo wants to say something here but is too afraid, so he hires a random noob to do it.
I see you joined WR only hours before ebc123, yet you already are fluent in the "Greg advertising his company" meme.
...Mike...
Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky
Welcome, new member.
You'll want to http://www.wikipediareview.com/Directory:Your_Business_and_Wikipedia, I think.
Never letting up a chance to spam your company, eh, Greg? Maybe we should have "paid WR posting" too.
Posted by: Text
Posted by: ebc123
I suppose it's to be expected on occasion that a person is used as a pawn in previously-standing bad blood between other posters. Whatever. But in this case at least is it too much to ask for people to offer some information, especially answers my two questions, before or after they rip the other guy? I would really appreciate it. Thank you.
Posted by: SB_Johnny
I suppose it's to be expected on occasion that a person is used as a pawn in previously-standing bad blood between other posters. Whatever. But in this case at least is it too much to ask for people to offer some information, especially answers my two questions, before or after they rip the other guy? I would really appreciate it. Thank you.
You'll find that the vast majority here don't see anything wrong with paid editors, or with people being paid to write in general. The lack of direct response is mostly because we've been over it over and over (and because there isn't really anyone taking the other side to have a drag out flame war about, which means not enough lulz).
Welcome to WR.
Posted by: ebc123
Thanks SB Johnny for the reply and the welcome!
Actually I've gone through the forums quite a bit both manually and though search topics "paid editing" "conflict of interest" and didn't find all that much.
I still have these three questions that I'd be very appreciative if someone could supply answers to.
1. Do you recommend divulging a paid arrangement as per Wikipedia's suggested guideline?
2. If you do submit to Wikipedia's encouragement to divulge, are you automatically tagged with a "conflict of interest" or similar heading?
3. If you divulge your paid status, are you basically chum for other editors to tear your piece apart no matter how well it conforms to style and substance?
Thanks again!
Posted by: Basil
Do not divulge a paid arrangement.
Write articles. Take money. Keep mouth shut.
Good luck.
Posted by: EricBarbour
Write articles. Take money. Keep mouth shut.
Good luck.
Yep. Do not go around bragging about it.
Posted by: Somey
As indicated above, the answers are still "no," "yes" and "yes," but that may be changing over time as younger, more realistic WP'ers start to actually consider the problem.
In other words, past reactions to "paid editing" were based on the "information must be free!" meme popular with freikultur social libertarians, which of course is a crock, especially if applied as broadly as the WP'ers in question have wanted to apply it. These folks also have short attention spans, and don't really consider potentially positive rationales for businesses being paid to write WP content within the limitations of WP's own business model. Many of those rationales are not only legitimate, they're actually beneficial to the WP cause, and that's what many of them failed to understand.
On another level, you also have to bear in mind that WP'ers, who generally lack critical thinking ability and are unable to see moral/ethical grey areas, tend to take an all-or-nothing approach to anything that might seem new or unorthodox. If someone can come up with a single realistic example of someone abusing the system in a way they deem harmful (as opposed to their own abuse of others, which is "different"), then this often negates any positive examples brought up in the course of discussion. In fact, many WP'ers are actually extremely conservative, if not reactionary, in their approach to site administration - this is why we sometimes refer to them as "hard-liners" or even "cultists."
Posted by: SB_Johnny
Thanks SB Johnny for the reply and the welcome!
Actually I've gone through the forums quite a bit both manually and though search topics "paid editing" "conflict of interest" and didn't find all that much.
I still have these three questions that I'd be very appreciative if someone could supply answers to.
1. Do you recommend divulging a paid arrangement as per Wikipedia's suggested guideline?
2. If you do submit to Wikipedia's encouragement to divulge, are you automatically tagged with a "conflict of interest" or similar heading?
3. If you divulge your paid status, are you basically chum for other editors to tear your piece apart no matter how well it conforms to style and substance?
Thanks again!
YW
1. I would, but then that's just me.
2. Yup
3. Actually, the real problem is that there are probably one or two mentally disturbed wikipedians right now just waiting to try to connect your divulging with this WR thread, because WR is evil and anyone who asks questions here is evil. Any well-meaning advice you receive here will be held against you in the Court of Wikidrama.
Seriously though: if you're asking because you're not the kind of person who likes to deceive, then yes, of course, you should just talk straight. As long as you follow the other rulez, they'll bitch but they'll have no teeth.
Posted by: SB_Johnny
...
All it takes is one fella doing it the right way and in the open to screw the Old Guard.
Not that I'm saying this fella is the one to do it (or that he's not the fella to do it).
and I still think you've set the "merge to last post" clock waaaaaay to short.
Posted by: ebc123
Thanks for the information!
As far as "Actually, the real problem is that there are probably one or two mentally disturbed wikipedians right now just waiting to try to connect your divulging with this WR thread, because WR is evil and anyone who asks questions here is evil."
How is someone possibly connecting my divulging here?
How does someone determine on Wikipedia if you are getting paid?
Posted by: wikieyeay
Thanks for the information!
As far as "Actually, the real problem is that there are probably one or two mentally disturbed wikipedians right now just waiting to try to connect your divulging with this WR thread, because WR is evil and anyone who asks questions here is evil."
How is someone possibly connecting my divulging here?
How does someone determine on Wikipedia if you are getting paid?
Speculation and finger pointing, the Wikipedia stock-in-trade.
On which subject:
Stock in Trade (T-H-L-K-D)
Not hard at all.
Register a new account, and get editing.
Just don't make the mistake of including your company/product name in your wikipedia username, because although obviously that would be more transparent and accountable, in whacky wikiland it will earn you an instant permaban and your article will probably be deleted as well... Best to call yourself something portentous but meaningless, that way you'll be able to get away with indefinitely.
Obviously don't do all your paid editing from the same username, that risks the whole house of cards if you get 'busted' for one. Much better to have them separate.
If you do get seriously 'busted' they might break out the leet wikispy tools, which they laughably think can track down 'sockpuppets'. They can't, but they can track other users from the same IP.
It might be worth getting some VPN accounts (about $5/month) if you want to keep things strictly 'clean'.
Posted by: melloden
I see you joined WR only hours before ebc123, yet you already are fluent in the "Greg advertising his company" meme.
...Mike...
I know the trends. Mike is a boring name, at any rate.
Posted by: ebc123
Thanks everyone for the information!
I've done some research on VPNs but how it works exactly is eluding me. Sorry to be dumb but how does it work?
Posted by: melloden
Thanks everyone for the information!
I've done some research on VPNs but how it works exactly is eluding me. Sorry to be dumb but how does it work?
If you are running Window$, see http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314076. But I wouldn't bother with that; you're off to a longer block if they find out you're using more than one account undisclosed, which you're essentially admitting here. Figuring out your username and whatnot won't be overly difficult, I presume.
I, for one, am against paid editing, but I'm just wandering in the forest of writing for fun, a forest that is rapidly burning.
Posted by: thekohser
Thanks SB Johnny for the reply and the welcome!
You know, I was the first to welcome you, and I was the first to point you to some helpful information.
You're welcome.
Posted by: wikieyeay
Thanks everyone for the information!
I've done some research on VPNs but how it works exactly is eluding me. Sorry to be dumb but how does it work?
If you are running Window$, see http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314076. But I wouldn't bother with that; you're off to a longer block if they find out you're using more than one account undisclosed, which you're essentially admitting here. Figuring out your username and whatnot won't be overly difficult, I presume.
The WP RPG rulez state you can have multiple undisclosed accounts. If you want one for fighting Scientology and another for writing about nuclear physics that's ok. They only get upset when you're using multiple accounts to fight the same battle.
As for the VPN question, your internet traffic is routed via another computer (server) so that it appears that you are connected from there. So for instance if you normally edit from a Florida-based cable internet company, you can use a VPN IP based in London, England, to throw people off the scent. When you disconnect from one VPN and connect to another your IP changes. Obviously you would need to logout of Wikipedia if you are using the same browser - the cleanest approach is going to be separate virtual machines for this, but even using multiple browsers (say Firefox, Internet Explorer and Chrome) will help with this.
I would point out that unless they suspect something, they are not going to bother to check for multiple accounts. Paid editing is actually normally uncontroversial - things like 'Utah's number one print company' is treated as spam and an annoyance to be deleted, whereas if you get involved with controversial issues (Israel, animal rights, etc.), you're far more likely to get busted. So it's probably an unnecessary step, but that depends on how much money, etc., you have at stake.
Posted by: ebc123
My apologies “thekoser.†Thanks for the welcome. Your ebook looks interesting. I think it’s pricey for an ebook, especially since it doesn’t say anywhere how substantial it is (pages/words/etc.) But it looks interesting.
Thanks very much for all the info so far. It’s good to hear both sides and any details from experienced users.
If I could bother folks further (as answers often lead to more questions) I’m wondering:
As far as “wikieyeay’s†quote: “I would point out that unless they suspect something, they are not going to bother to check for multiple accounts.â€
1. What (if anything) might cause them to suspect something as a Conflict of Interest if it doesn’t contain promo language or controversial subjects?
2. If they decide one account is in voilation, can they discover your other accounts through IP address, sockpuppets (whatever they are), or something else?
As far as “Multiple accounts are probably an unnecessary step, but that depends on how much money, etc., you have at stake.
I’d like to generate a fair amount of income so of course money/reputation would be a factor. Here is where question 2 above comes into play. It’s one thing to have a problem with one article and another thing to have a problem with 5, 10 or more.
I suppose saying “Paid editing is actually normally uncontroversial...†says a lot. As I mentioned in my first post, I fully intend on complying with Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines. For one thing I hate that hack public relations style writing. I won’t do it and my potential clients will know it up front.
I guess my greatest concern is one of those Dungeons and Dragons type zealots might eventually decide to pull some IRS/Spanish Inquisition investigation out of sheer boredom and the wheels come off. I don’t know how and if this happens. That’s why I’m posting here. I definitely find none of these answers on any other posts. Thanks again for any help!
Posted by: thekohser
My apologies “thekoser.†Thanks for the welcome. Your ebook looks interesting. I think it’s pricey for an ebook, especially since it doesn’t say anywhere how substantial it is (pages/words/etc.) But it looks interesting.
Everything I do is substantial.
1. What (if anything) might cause them to suspect something as a Conflict of Interest if it doesn’t contain promo language or controversial subjects?
Well-written content about a commercial subject.
2. If they decide one account is in voilation, can they discover your other accounts through IP address, sockpuppets (whatever they are), or something else?
They'll use everything at their disposal. They'll checkuser the account in question, finding out every IP that it's used in the past 90 days. Then they'll back-trace all of the IPs found, to see if any other accounts have used them. Any that rise to even the faintest level of suspicion will also then be checkusered to discover more IPs. And so on. Yet, the Wikipediots will tell you that their site is one of the safest you can visit, because they don't "track" you with cookies or any personally-identifying information.
I’d like to generate a fair amount of income so of course money/reputation would be a factor. Here is where question 2 above comes into play. It’s one thing to have a problem with one article and another thing to have a problem with 5, 10 or more.
My rule of thumb is to never conduct paid editing with one user account for any more than two different clients, and to use different IP addresses for each user account. In other words, you should have a notebook that tracks something like this:
- User:Applesaucey One - working on Client A - use from coffee shop IP - Firefox
- User:Bananamashey Two - working on Client B - use from Aunt Sally's IP - MSIE
- User:Cherrypitter Three - working on Client C - use from Burger King IP - Chrome
If you live in a really rural area with few IP addresses to use and borrow, your efforts (if compromised) could all come tumbling down. You have to be really careful with this stuff, otherwise you can lose important User accounts. (Don't ask me about User:Cool3, okay?)
If you want to run a business with one hand tied behind your back, that's stupid; but you're entitled to try.
"Wheels coming off" is Wikipedia's middle name, kid.
Now, a question for you... How old are you, and what is the highest level of occupation you have ever ascended to?
Posted by: melloden
Now, a question for you... How old are you, and what is the highest level of occupation you have ever ascended to?
Hahahaha. If you're a kid looking for some extra cash, don't bother. If you're an adult interested in using Wikipedia commercially, you might want to make it less obvious first by emailing Greg and continuing your plans privately because you sure seem to know nothing about Wikipedia's internal operations at all and I'm just waiting for the noob mistakes to happen.
Posted by: wikieyeay
Now, a question for you... How old are you, and what is the highest level of occupation you have ever ascended to?
Hahahaha. If you're a kid looking for some extra cash, don't bother. If you're an adult interested in using Wikipedia commercially, you might want to make it less obvious first by emailing Greg and continuing your plans privately because you sure seem to know nothing about Wikipedia's internal operations at all and I'm just waiting for the noob mistakes to happen.
It's unlikely you'd notice. Even the most obsessive of wikifreaks can't keep track of all the new articles added to the Wikipediafiles each day. Add article, maybe somebody tags it for speedy deletion, dispute, then maybe you get an AfD, fight that, then setup a new account and follow the same procedure for another article. New accounts creaing new articles are nothing usual in wikiland.
And personally, if he is a kid looking for extra cash, well that seems better to me than if he's an adult. Wikipaedia just loves kids, and acting like one is just part of the game. If it goes wrong, that's no sweat, he was only doing it for pocket money.
Much better to do it that way than to assume Wikipedia is a venue for professionalism.
Posted by: melloden
And personally, if he is a kid looking for extra cash, well that seems better to me than if he's an adult. Wikipaedia just loves kids, and acting like one is just part of the game. If it goes wrong, that's no sweat, he was only doing it for pocket money.
Much better to do it that way than to assume Wikipedia is a venue for professionalism.
From my brief experience with children on the site, most users hate kids. Except the really smart kind that don't act like kids. People are more likely to fall for the act and offer to help with a paid editing venture they don't know about if the writer acts like a polite adult and not a myspacer.
Posted by: SB_Johnny
From my brief experience with children on the site, most users hate kids. Except the really smart kind that don't act like kids.
Well, the "opinion leaders" tend to be people who behave like children, so it's perhaps understandable (if you can wear the right shade glasses and screw your eyes real hard) that they would resent actual children playing a part in the game. I suppose they're just "grooming" the next generation of assholes.
Posted by: GlassBeadGame
And personally, if he is a kid looking for extra cash, well that seems better to me than if he's an adult. Wikipaedia just loves kids, and acting like one is just part of the game. If it goes wrong, that's no sweat, he was only doing it for pocket money.
Much better to do it that way than to assume Wikipedia is a venue for professionalism.
From my brief experience with children on the site, most users hate kids. Except the really smart kind that don't act like kids. People are more likely to fall for the act and offer to help with a paid editing venture they don't know about if the writer acts like a polite adult and not a myspacer.
Being intelligent, especially as it manifests itself on Wikipedia, is unlikely to fool anyone if you are a child posing as an adult. In fact many aspects of personality are harder to mask then you might think.
Posted by: thekohser
I wonder if the Wikipediot community has noticed http://www.wikipediareview.com/File:Get_Listed!.jpg yet?
Posted by: thekohser
I wonder if the Wikipediot community has noticed http://www.wikipediareview.com/File:Get_Listed!.jpg yet?
One of the more worthless webinars that I've ever received.
Posted by: thekohser
Wait! They reveal some previous client "success stories".
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Face2face&oldid=376855861
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_H._Evans&oldid=389102487
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pablo_Gimenez_Riili&oldid=387821843
Let's see what happens. C'mon, David Gerard, where are you?
Posted by: thekohser
Wait! They reveal some previous client "success stories".
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Face2face&oldid=376855861
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_H._Evans&oldid=389102487
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pablo_Gimenez_Riili&oldid=387821843
Let's see what happens. C'mon, David Gerard, where are you?
Let me reiterate. These are known, admitted, and flaunted PAID EDITING articles.
Is everybody okay with that?
Where is Enric Naval? Where is David Gerard? Where is Calton? Where is Guy Chapman?
Is paid editing so tolerated now that I can do a webinar on how to do it and give away my clients?
Posted by: Milton Roe
Wait! They reveal some previous client "success stories".
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Face2face&oldid=376855861
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_H._Evans&oldid=389102487
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pablo_Gimenez_Riili&oldid=387821843
Let's see what happens. C'mon, David Gerard, where are you?
Let me reiterate. These are known, admitted, and flaunted PAID EDITING articles.
Is everybody okay with that?
Where is Enric Naval? Where is David Gerard? Where is Calton? Where is Guy Chapman?
Is paid editing so tolerated now that I can do a webinar on how to do it and give away my clients?
All created by Niewenhuis (T-C-L-K-R-D) = Sharon Niewenhuis (as she reveals on her TALK page, no secret). These articles along with such notable Wikis as Vines of Mendoza, created by the bio'd people above.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nieuwenhuis makes interesting reading. Many of these articles were first rejected, and some still are tagged as "reading like advertisments"
The very idea! How rude.If the Webinar counts as a "reliable source" you should use it to add info to the BLP of Mr. Evans, that he paid a person to write up and upload Wikis on himself and his business. Why not? It's true and is public knowledge, is it not? And as notable as most of the rest of this stuff.
Posted by: tarantino
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=404561964#Solicitation_of_fake_sources, and despite credible allegations of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SqueakBox&oldid=404409671#Beber_Silverstein_Group, his account remains free to edit.
Posted by: thekohser
SqueakBox is noted as one of the top "wipers" of Jimbo's talk page.
Thus, I am sure the True Believers are having a tough time with handing out justice on this one. One of their very own Jimbo Juice Drinkers is getting paid for content development on Wikipedia, then lying about it.
I don't know what they're so upset about -- Jimbo does the same damn thing.
Posted by: Kelly Martin
The secret to doing paid editing on Wikipedia is to first ingratiate yourself with the Cabal. Only once you have done that should you initiate your paid editing activities. Because you are a "trusted Wikipedian" at that point, everyone will gladly accept your assertions that, of course, there is no conflict of interest. Your social connections within the Cabal will protect you from the generalized assumption of bad faith that all other editors are normally subjected to. Many editors, in fact, will treat your income stream as the just rewards for being a loyal Wikipedian and will actively defend you against those who suggest that it's inappropriate for you to be editing for pay.
Of course, the wheels will come off if and when you edit an article of interest to a significant power bloc. Cabal protection only covers you if you only edit articles that are of no interest to the Cabal. Tread carefully, as the articles and topics that are subject to Special Cabal Protection change frequently and without much notice. You'll have to spend a lot of time in minute political maneuvers to keep up with this and to maintain your CabalCred; it's likely that this'll make it hard for your business to be particularly profitable as a result.
Posted by: Infomercial
The secret to doing paid editing on Wikipedia is to first ingratiate yourself with the Cabal. Only once you have done that should you initiate your paid editing activities. Because you are a "trusted Wikipedian" at that point, everyone will gladly accept your assertions that, of course, there is no conflict of interest. Your social connections within the Cabal will protect you from the generalized assumption of bad faith that all other editors are normally subjected to. Many editors, in fact, will treat your income stream as the just rewards for being a loyal Wikipedian and will actively defend you against those who suggest that it's inappropriate for you to be editing for pay.
Of course, the wheels will come off if and when you edit an article of interest to a significant power bloc. Cabal protection only covers you if you only edit articles that are of no interest to the Cabal. Tread carefully, as the articles and topics that are subject to Special Cabal Protection change frequently and without much notice. You'll have to spend a lot of time in minute political maneuvers to keep up with this and to maintain your CabalCred; it's likely that this'll make it hard for your business to be particularly profitable as a result.
I really don't like the idea of paid editing. Users like me contribute heavily to WP with no compensation while these con men get paid to do the exact same thing. There are a variety of procedures if you want an article about yourself or your businesses, and if you're just patient, it'll be good in due time (as long as the notability requirement is met, of course (otherwise, you can suck it (or go to Wikipedia Review (we won't complain either way)))). Keep your dirty green presidents away from our site!
That's all I wanted to say.
Posted by: EricBarbour
So what does SqueakBox do? He says nothing. Silence.
If DGG doesn't follow up on this, you will know for certain that Jimbo's buttsniffers can openly edit
articles for money with complete impunity. While "troublemakers" like Greg shall be banned for infinity.
Posted by: thekohser
Their http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=405027345#Bringing_to_a_close on him is clearly past the laughable stage now.
Posted by: thekohser
Well, it looks like the Squeaker has finally been indefinitely blocked by Black Kite.
Meanwhile, Jimbo in his ever-familiar way of waffling on everything, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=405471872&oldid=405457122 about paid editing.
Everything clear?
Posted by: Somey
It's the end of an era...
Everything clear?
What he seems to be saying is that rewards should only be offered for articles related to (ideally, non-specific) topic areas, as opposed to specific individual persons or (worse) companies.
On the one hand this is stupid, because an "encyclopedia" shouldn't discriminate against specific entities merely because they might want to be written about. Like it or not, some people might very well want to read stuff about the entities in question, and if those entities are foolish enough to want to have WP articles about themselves, that's their funeral. On the other hand, Jimbo is essentially forced to say this because this is how activist Wikipedians define the site's "integrity" - anti-commercialism appears to be more important to many of them than content in general, and certainly more important than content about things they despise or, at best, don't care about.
It's easy to perceive this as basic hypocrisy, but in fact it's a kind of spoil-sport politics, with Jimbo trying to use the issue as a way to keep himself involved as a kind of high arbiter - or "spiritual leader," if you will. We know he doesn't care about the fact that people are making money writing articles. He probably understands that Wikipedia's definition of "COI" is ludicrously idiosyncratic, but likely doesn't care about that either. What he does care about is to ensure that the people who don't like the idea of anyone else making money at article-writing are exposed to it as little as possible.
Posted by: thekohser
What he seems to be saying is that rewards should only be offered for articles related to (ideally, non-specific) topic areas, as opposed to specific individual persons or (worse) companies.
Jimbo was most clear that the Reward Board request for article content about http://wiki.syncleus.com/index.php/DANN was "absolutely inappropriate".
But, then, do you notice that Jimbo doesn't so much as lift a finger to bring his displeasure to the attention of the guy who posted that request on Reward Board?
Maybe it's because that guy looks like he would http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Debeo_Morium.jpg out of Jimbo.
Posted by: Somey
As well he shouldn't. He's learned his lesson, and after all, he's got http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Age_disparity_in_sexual_relationships#This_is_perhaps_the_worst_article_I_have_seen_in_Wikipedia_in_ages!
Posted by: Infomercial
What he seems to be saying is that rewards should only be offered for articles related to (ideally, non-specific) topic areas, as opposed to specific individual persons or (worse) companies.
Maybe it's because that guy looks like he would http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Debeo_Morium.jpg out of Jimbo.
That guy looks like he'd whup that sh*t out of the Hulk.
Posted by: EricBarbour
Most of the really annoying crap in that article was inserted by a hopeless nerd called DeathBunny (T-C-L-K-R-D) .
It's been a major battleground for the past year---and I'll be damned if I can discern a pattern.
Posted by: ebc123
>> I really don't like the idea of paid editing. Users like me contribute heavily to WP with no compensation while these con men get paid to do the exact same thing. There are a variety of procedures if you want an article about yourself or your businesses, and if you're just patient, it'll be good in due time (as long as the notability requirement is met, of course (otherwise, you can suck it (or go to Wikipedia Review (we won't complain either way)))). Keep your dirty green presidents away from our site!
That's all I wanted to say. <<<
-- oldtimer
Considering the many rather well-documented "old-school" Wikipedia editor shenanigans described in this thread, the above post comes off to me as the proverbial stone thrown in a decidedly glass house. The "our site" stuff doesn't help much either.
I also find it hypocritical that on the one hand it's not difficult to find flimsy, obviously self-serving articles on Wikipedia that have been around for months and even years without so much as a "needs reference" flag; however, there are editors who ostensibly are just burning to toss any well-researched, properly-referenced and acceptably neutral-voiced baby out with the bath water because their detective work has determined said article was allegedly paid for. (In case you're confused oldtimer, unless someone comes out and admits paying for or being paid to write the article, the fruits of your snooping and consequent violation assertion is "alleged.") Stick to creating articles and making edits. You're needed.
It appears the majority here believe Wikipedia foremost should be a place where people can go for quality encyclopedic information. At least represent a decent starting point. Yet go to any interest group and you'll find many worthy subjects desiring an article. Surely there are a lot more that aren't listed. The notion then that a subject notable by definition should be happy to sit around and be patient while someone else MAYBE one day decides to get around to it--while someone NOW is willing to write a quality paid version--goes straight to that nose-in-the-air "our site" editorial mentality many posters here have described.
By the way, as far as my "newbie" status: true on the topic of paid editing. But I've been using and for the most part defending Wikipedia practically since it started. I've relied on it hundreds, maybe a thousand times or more as a research tool for personal and business purposes, and I wouldn't be surprised that a fair percentage of those hits landed on extremely helpful articles that were paid for. Wouldn't be surprised at all.
Finally, (I really am done but we'll see about oldtimers assertion) what these holier-than-thou editors fail to realize is that while they describe Wikipedia as a resource "for the people," they apparently give these very same people little or no credit for being able distinguish between the good, the bad and the ugly. Our site? Hardly. The "old-timers" are the gatekeepers by Zeus! Dungeons and Dragons would be nothing without them.
Posted by: thekohser
The notion then that a subject notable by definition should be happy to sit around and be patient while someone else MAYBE one day decides to get around to it--while someone NOW is willing to write a quality paid version--goes straight to that nose-in-the-air "our site" editorial mentality many posters here have described.
It's a point of fact that I got the idea for Wikipedia Review (the paid editing service) when I looked for a Wikipedia article about Resorts Atlantic City, the first casino hotel in Atlantic City, founded by the famed Merv Griffin, and there was nothing to be found. Then, to my dismay, only about 4 or 5 of the city's 12 or so casino hotels had articles.
I started to investigate, and I found that about 130 of the Fortune 500 companies (at the time, around May 2006) lacked Wikipedia articles.
Here's where that "we'll get around to it eventually" attitude gets you, currently in 2011, after almost 10 years of opportunity to work on a Fortune 500 company's article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Core-Mark&oldid=404712203
Look at that documentation, the wiki-linking, the reliable sources for all of that content! It's glorious, isn't it? And you know you can trust the information, because 95% of it was added by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mhautau. Before he came along, the article looked like this:
Contents
[hide]
* 1 History
o 1.1 Fleming Companies
o 1.2 Bankruptcy
o 1.3 Post Bankruptcy
* 2 References
* 3 External links
History
Fleming Companies
Fleming Cos was founded as Lux Mercantile in Topeka, Kansas in 1915 by O.A. Fleming, Gene Wilson and Samuel Lux. In 1941, the company name was changed to The Fleming Company, and Ned Fleming was named President, Chairman, and CEO. The company's IPO occurred in 1959, when 100,000 shares were offered. In 1981, R.D. Harrsion was elected Chairman and CEO of the company, with Dean Werries serving as President and COO. Fleming Cos grew to become the nation's largest supplier of consumer package goods to U.S. retailers, serving approximately 50,000 retail locations. These locations included supermarkets such as IGA,[1] convenience stores, supercenters, discount stores, concessions, limited assortment, drug, specialty, casinos, gift shops, military commissaries and exchanges and others. The company later moved its headquarters to Oklahoma City, Oklahoma in 1984 and then to Lewisville, Texas in 2000 before it went into bankruptcy.
Bankruptcy
Fleming Companies announced on April 2003 that it had filed for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The company's fortunes had suffered considerably over the previous two years as the result of an investigation by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission into questionable business and accounting practices. Fleming had also faced a class-action lawsuit from its shareholders over the validity of its public statements, ended its relationship with its largest customer, Kmart, and saw its stock price drop to less than one dollar per share. [2] Peter S. Willmott, a member of the company's board of directors, was appointed to lead Fleming through reorganization.
The plan Willmott adopted provided for the reorganization of Fleming's debtors around Core-Mark, a wholesale distribution company founded in 1888 and acquired by Fleming in June 2002. Fleming's other assets and liabilities were transferred to two special-purpose trusts, to be liquidated. All outstanding common stock in Fleming was canceled.[3]
Post Bankruptcy
On August 20, 2004, Core-Mark Holding Company, Inc. emerged from the Fleming bankruptcy under the direction of president and CEO J. Michael Walsh. Core-Mark currently serves 20,000 retail locations in the U.S. and Canada, providing marketing programs and distribution and logistics services. Core-Mark relocated its headquarters to South San Francisco.
References
1. ^ Corporatewindow.com
2. ^ Referenceforbusiness.com
3. ^ Fdreports.com
* CJonline.com, "Fleming files for bankruptcy; trading halted." The Capital Journal, 4/1/2003.
* Business.com, profile: Fleming Cos Inc.
* Corporate-ir.net, Supervalu press release, 10 August 2006.
* Fleming Companies, Inc. - Pre & Post Bankruptcy Petition Copyright Infringement
* Sec.gov, August 22, 2008 - SEC Settles Enforcement Proceedings Against Former Fleming Companies, Inc. Executives Mark David Shapiro, Albert M. Abbood, and James H. Thatcher for Their Roles in Financial Fraud Scheme.
* Sec.gov, September 14, 2004 - Securities and Exchange Commission v. Dean Foods Company and John D. Robinson, Civil Action No. 4:04 CV-321/Eastern District of Texas (Sherman Division)- Securities and Exchange Commission v. Kemps LLC, f/k/a Marigold Foods LLC, James Green and Christopher Thorpe, Civil Action No. 4:04 CV-323/Eastern District of Texas (Sherman Division)- Securities and Exchange Commission v. Digital Exchange Systems, Inc., Rosario Coniglio and Steven Schmidt, Civil Action No. 4:04 CV-324/Eastern District of Texas (Sherman Division)- Securities and Exchange Commission v. John K. Adams, Civil Action No. 4:04 CV-322/Eastern District of Texas (Sherman Division)- Securities and Exchange Commission v. Bruce Keith Jensen, Civil Action No. 4:04 CV-320/Eastern District of Texas (Sherman Division).
External links
* Core-Mark website
I have to say it...
Wikipedia: always improving, and quickly.
Posted by: Milton Roe
I have to say it...
Wikipedia: always improving, and quickly.
When you get to the lists of WP:NOT stuff that actually exists in profusion, then you come to what we might call the "Wiki-Apocrypha." It's the uncannonical part that is super-sized directory, almanac, defammation, dictionary work, loved quotations. And of course, add to this foundation decisions, official policies, pilars, unofficial policies, Sayings of Jimbo (Little Red Book of these), guidelines, recommendations, essays, past Arbcomm decisions, and a certain amount of Talmudic commentary on TALK pages associated with all of it.
About all of which we can only say: "Improvement commeth, and that right soon."
Posted by: thekohser
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Core-Mark&oldid=404712203
Look at that documentation, the wiki-linking, the reliable sources for all of that content! It's glorious, isn't it? And you know you can trust the information, because 95% of it was added by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mhautau.
Again, after almost 18 hours, nobody's lifted a finger on Wikipedia. One would have to conclude that they prefer this version of the Core-Mark article...
Contents
* 1 History
o 1.1 Glaser Brothers
o 1.2 Core-Mark
* 2 External links
History
Glaser Brothers
In 1888, Michaelis Glaser, a German immigrant and cigar roller by trade, opened a small tobacco shop near the center of San Francisco. Michaels' younger brother, Arnold, joined him from Germany in 1890 and it was then the company name became Glaser Bros. Arnold assumed the management of the growing retail store and Michaelis established a wholesale route selling tobacco products to other retailers. Each morning the elder brother loaded his horse-drawn wagon and delivered the orders he had received the previous day. Then in the afternoon he would take more orders from other customers on his route and the next day he repeated the ritual.
Firm policies were set by the brothers for the conduct of their business. An important one was never to deal in inferior goods; always offer the best products. By 1906 the retail and wholesale operations had grown and prospered to the degree a second retail store was opened. The eighteen years of labor had established a bright future for the Glaser Bros. It was destroyed in less than thirty seconds by one devastating San Francisco earthquake.
Blessed with the spirit to win over adversity, the two brothers began to build anew. Within two years they were larger in scope than before and had reduced their debt to nil. As part of the growth plan for the company, they entered the business of distributing candy. Their first line was Suchard Chocolates. They took on other lines and soon candy became a significant adjunct to their tobacco business.
Michaelis Glaser died in 1919, but he lived long enough to see part of his plans for expansion come into being with the opening of the company's first branch sales office and warehouse in Bakersfield. Arnold Glaser took over the complete running of the company and the firm began to branch out both to the north and the south of San Francisco.
Wall Street on the opposite coast crashed in 1929. With it collapsed hundreds of companies, and thousands of individuals went bankrupt. Glaser Bros. weathered the day because its assets were tied up in merchandise and not in the paper of other companies. The company entered 1930 doing 6 million dollars a year and despite the difficulties of the Depression, it ended that decade doing a volume of 11 million dollars annually.
The domestic shortages brought about by Word War II were doubly difficult for Glaser Bros. due to the shortages of tobacco and products made from sugar. Compounded by the shortage of gasoline to deliver their merchandise, the company set in motion a policy of fair pro rata share-out of available goods to their customers and in "zone" deliveries; they never once missed dispatching orders to buyers the day after the order was taken. The company continued to grow all through the war. Arnold Glaser, the last of the brothers, died in 1946 and the management passed to Marcus Glaser, the son of Michaelis. Arnold left the company that had 48 salesmen, 15 branches, about 3,000 customers and annual sales of nearly 38 million dollars. The early post war years saw the distributing company continue a program of expansion and further branches were established in California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Utah and Nevada. Candy distribution from its inception had been an important part of the Glaser Bros. structure. In 1966 the company founded a subsidiary, Cable Car Candies. The company, located in Long Beach, California, started manufacturing various types of confections for distribution by Glaser Bros. Eventually the lines included merchandise from small bagged items through to boxed gourmet chocolates. A milestone was reached in 1970 when the company achieved annual sales of 200 million dollars. The company now had 27 branches and nearly 800 employees.
In 1974 Marcus Glaser sold his majority shareholding to a group headed by David E. Gillespie. Gillespie, with a background in corporate administration and finance along with marketing experience on an international level, brought to the company a spirit to build and develop not unike the founding brothers. The company swiftly moved into an unprecedented era of growth and new design.
Core-Mark
Today, Core-Mark is one of the largest broad-line, full-service marketers and distributors of packaged consumer products in North America. Core-Mark provides distribution and logistics services as well as marketing programs to over 26,000 retail locations across the United States and Canada through its 26 distribution centers. Core-Mark services traditional convenience retailers, grocers, mass merchandisers, drug, liquor and specialty stores, and other stores that carry consumer packaged goods.
Core-Mark combines competitive pricing, on-time deliveries, innovative marketing programs and technology solutions so that our customers can focus on growing their business. Core-Mark is located in South San Francisco.
External links
* Core-Mark website
Categories: Companies listed on NASDAQ | Defunct companies based in Texas
Posted by: Zoloft
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Core-Mark&oldid=404712203
Look at that documentation, the wiki-linking, the reliable sources for all of that content! It's glorious, isn't it? And you know you can trust the information, because 95% of it was added by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mhautau.
Again, after almost 18 hours, nobody's lifted a finger on Wikipedia. One would have to conclude that they prefer this version of the Core-Mark article...
As a press release/corporate bio, I like it. It has snap and likeable characters. Those friendly cigar rollers in their horse-drawn wagon, fairly selling delectable candies to all. *wipes a tear from his eye*
As an encyclopedia article it's glurge.
Posted by: thekohser
Noted researcher Felipe Ortega is http://blog.felipeortega.net/2011/01/24/wikipedia-not-promo/ at commenting about paid editing and its ilk, but I conclude that he's mostly missing the mark, while his cohort Yaron Koren seems to have the better understanding.
Ortega:
Koren:
Kohs:
Comment awaiting approval.
Posted by: thekohser
Noted researcher Felipe Ortega is http://blog.felipeortega.net/2011/01/24/wikipedia-not-promo/ at commenting about paid editing and its ilk, but I conclude that he's mostly missing the mark, while his cohort Yaron Koren seems to have the better understanding.
Felipe published my comment. I think the commentary is absolutely worth further discussion, if anyone wishes to chime in here, or there.