Is somebody paying for inappropriate behavior at Wikipedia? Options

[mbz1]

What is this about?

I am putting together a schedule of visits and calls to major PR firms and to people who I can identify as paying for inappropriate behavior at Wikipedia. I think I need not be alone in this. I think members of the general public, including Wikipedians, have every right to enter the public debate by letting people who are funding the subversion of the basic principles of Wikipedia know that their actions are not appreciated and will be exposed, to their likely embarrassment. I would appreciate anyone interested in this issue helping me to identify the worst violators or potential violators so that we can begin to take more systematic action on this issue.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales|talk]]) 09:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

This post has been edited by mbz1: Fri 6th January 2012, 7:17pm

[Kelly Martin]

It's about Jimbo enforcing the rule that nobody can profit in any way from Wikipedia without his explicit permission.

[mbz1]

It's about Jimbo enforcing the rule that nobody can profit in any way from Wikipedia without his explicit permission.

Could he profit from wikipedia?

[Kelly Martin]

It's about Jimbo enforcing the rule that nobody can profit in any way from Wikipedia without his explicit permission.

Could he profit from wikipedia?

Of course, that's why it was created in the first place!

[Vigilant]

It's about Jimbo enforcing the rule that nobody can profit in any way from Wikipedia without his explicit permission.

Could he profit from wikipedia?

Of course, that's why it was created in the first place!

I'd have to consider his efforts to date to profit from wikipedia to be far on the left side of the Gaussian curve...

[Web Fred]

Anyone know the contact details, I'd be more than happy to go on the payroll?

[The Joy]

It's about Jimbo enforcing the rule that nobody can profit in any way from Wikipedia without his explicit permission.

Could he profit from wikipedia?

Of course, that's why it was created in the first place!

I'd have to consider his efforts to date to profit from wikipedia to be far on the left side of the Gaussian curve...

Jimbo profits indirectly from Wikipedia via Wikia. Wikians tend to copy from Wikipedia and rely heavily on it to at least begin their projects. I don't think Jimbo has really made a lot of money off of Wikia, though being the "Founder" of Wikipedia does give him significant perks and friends with benefits. I imagine his speaking engagement fees regarding Wikipedia and "free information" constitute a large portion of his income.

It is rather hypocritical of Jimbo to deny others from profiting from Wikipedia, when he does profit from Wikipedia. The WMF may never have sent him a check, but he certainly owes his rich lifestyle to Wikipedia.

[The Joy]

Anyone know the contact details, I'd be more than happy to go on the payroll?

http://www.wexperts.net/

http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/39304/page1/

http://waggeneredstrom.com/about/approach

http://losangeles.craigslist.org/lac/wri/2771348157.html

I'm sure there are more out there.

I guess the question I have is: Who cares? If a company is found to be paying people to edit articles, so? What is "shaming" them on Wikipedia going to do? If I'm making a buttload of money from clients to edit Wikipedia, why should I care what hippie, "information must be free!" Wikipedians think? There is no law to stop me and I can always create socks and new IPs to stay ahead of the zealot administrators and checkusers.

[Kelly Martin]

I guess the question I have is: Who cares? If a company is found to be paying people to edit articles, so? What is "shaming" them on Wikipedia going to do? If I'm making a buttload of money from clients to edit Wikipedia, why should I care what hippie, "information must be free!" Wikipedians think? There is no law to stop me and I can always create socks and new IPs to stay ahead of the zealot administrators and checkusers.

Indeed. And, in fact, the effect of the current "crackdown" is simply going to be to drive PR editors back underground, using socks and subterfuge and other such things to hide their behavior.

[timbo]

I guess the question I have is: Who cares? If a company is found to be paying people to edit articles, so? What is "shaming" them on Wikipedia going to do? If I'm making a buttload of money from clients to edit Wikipedia, why should I care what hippie, "information must be free!" Wikipedians think? There is no law to stop me and I can always create socks and new IPs to stay ahead of the zealot administrators and checkusers.

Indeed. And, in fact, the effect of the current "crackdown" is simply going to be to drive PR editors back underground, using socks and subterfuge and other such things to hide their behavior.

First make the rules clear and drive the flacks underground. Then ferret them out and ban their asses.

t

[thekohser]

First make the rules clear and drive the flacks underground. Then ferret them out and ban their asses.

t

You'd have to explain to at least my last 10 clients how "banning" me had no effect on my ability to get the content they wanted in Wikipedia, into Wikipedia.

[EricBarbour]

First make the rules clear and drive the flacks underground. Then ferret them out and ban their asses.

You still suck, Carrite.

(PS: I think you're quoting Conan the Barbarian. Grow up, little boy.)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Tue 10th January 2012, 7:48am

[timbo]

First make the rules clear and drive the flacks underground. Then ferret them out and ban their asses.

You still suck, Carrite.

(PS: I think you're quoting Conan the Barbarian. Grow up, little boy.)

kissy kissy...

t