|
|
|
Paid editing, finally gets a full discussion |
|
|
Eva Destruction |
|
Fat Cat
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,735
Joined:
Member No.: 3,301
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 9th June 2009, 9:13pm) Starting a new thread, since this is likely to become an interesting spot: Requests for comment: Paid editing...has been opened by Rootology. I wonder if Wikipedia will invite one of the foremost authorities on paid editing of GFDL content, and its detection? They claim that they aren't opposed to expert participation in Wikipedia. I'm making myself available. I'd only need a temporary unblock, restricted to this topic only. The offer stands. I don't think the software can handle that – and I'm certain if I (or anyone) unblocked you it'd be reverted in seconds – but if you have something to say, post it here and I (or someone) will post it on your behalf. I assume even the "over my dead body" faction against you will recognise that you're in a unique position to comment on this one.
|
|
|
|
Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 9th June 2009, 4:13pm) Starting a new thread, since this is likely to become an interesting spot: Requests for comment: Paid editing… has been opened by Rootology. I wonder if Wikipedia will invite one of the foremost authorities on paid editing of GFDL content, and its detection? They claim that they aren't opposed to expert participation in Wikipedia. I'm making myself available. I'd only need a temporary unblock, restricted to this topic only. The offer stands. I'm guessing the whole exercise will be just about as productive of positive real-world results as Rootology's old WikiAbuseCom scam. Jon (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)
|
|
|
|
anthony |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,034
Joined:
Member No.: 2,132
|
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Tue 9th June 2009, 9:21pm) Well, if it helps, I'd go there and point out that Greg deserves a hearing. But if I did, I'd just cause trouble and be auto-banned....
"Why is he community banned?" "Because no one will unblock him." "What happens if I unblock him." "You'll be banned." "Why will I be banned for unblocking him?" "Because he's community banned." "Why is he community banned?" "Because no one will unblock him."
|
|
|
|
RMHED |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 936
Joined:
Member No.: 11,716
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 9th June 2009, 9:13pm) Starting a new thread, since this is likely to become an interesting spot: Requests for comment: Paid editing...has been opened by Rootology. I wonder if Wikipedia will invite one of the foremost authorities on paid editing of GFDL content, and its detection? They claim that they aren't opposed to expert participation in Wikipedia. I'm making myself available. I'd only need a temporary unblock, restricted to this topic only. The offer stands. Becoming a tad project space obsessed is Rootology, can't say I'm surprised though, after all he is a born again Wikipedian.
|
|
|
|
Eva Destruction |
|
Fat Cat
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,735
Joined:
Member No.: 3,301
|
QUOTE(RMHED @ Tue 9th June 2009, 11:19pm) QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 9th June 2009, 9:13pm) Starting a new thread, since this is likely to become an interesting spot: Requests for comment: Paid editing...has been opened by Rootology. I wonder if Wikipedia will invite one of the foremost authorities on paid editing of GFDL content, and its detection? They claim that they aren't opposed to expert participation in Wikipedia. I'm making myself available. I'd only need a temporary unblock, restricted to this topic only. The offer stands. Becoming a tad project space obsessed is Rootology, can't say I'm surprised though, after all he is a born again Wikipedian. In his defense, 100+ of those edits were to a single Arbcom case he was involved in ( Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black/Workshop)
|
|
|
|
thekohser |
|
Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
|
QUOTE(Hipocrite @ Tue 9th June 2009, 5:16pm) QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 9th June 2009, 8:13pm) They claim that they aren't opposed to expert participation in Wikipedia. I'm making myself available. I'd only need a temporary unblock, restricted to this topic only. The offer stands.
You aren't an expert in the fields of PR or Ethics. You might be an expert in Military History, and possibly in Market Research, but neither of those have anything to do with PR. You're betraying a fatal flaw of bias yourself, Hipocrite. Paid editing of GFDL content suitable for Wikipedia isn't always about public relations (PR). In fact, a good portion of the paid editing that I've ever done that has been published on Wikipedia was for clients who were seeking nothing more than a factual, encyclopedic documentation of their existence. Sometimes this was for legal reasons, other times to address the assumption that general inquiries about the company's history would be better handled on a publicly-maintained Wikipedia page than even by a buried "About Us" sub-page on the corporate web site. In these cases, it was not about "managing" the flow of information between the company and the public (which is the purpose of PR), but "ceding control" of information about the company to the public. One article, in fact, I made sure to include an entire paragraph about the controversial social implications of the product, since that's what was frequently appearing in the news cycle at the time, and it would have inevitably been added by an opponent of the product, sooner or later. I was surprised, though, when Wikipediots like yourself managed, over time, to quietly excise that paragraph from the live article. Please don't lecture me about public relations or ethics, until you've gotten that beam out of your eye. What are your credentials, Hipocrite? Who are you? What productive contributions have you made to your local community, to the economy, to society? You seem to know my background better than we know yours. Are you deliberately doing that to try to appear to have a position of superiority over those you look down upon? Why didn't you follow through, Hipocrite?
|
|
|
|
thekohser |
|
Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
|
QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 10th June 2009, 12:35am) QUOTE(Hipocrite @ Tue 9th June 2009, 4:16pm) You aren't an expert in the fields of PR or Ethics. You might be an expert in Military History, and possibly in Market Research, but neither of those have anything to do with PR. When did "ethics" even enter into this discussion? This is Wikipedia we're talking about, remember? (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif) Besides, Market Research has lots to do with PR, if the PR is being done for an entity that's trying to sell something. Anybody with an ounce of knowledge of the subject knows that. Golly, could it possibly be that you don't actually care about reality or fact, and that you're just... trolling us? Surely this cannot be! Yeah, it's kind of weird that I didn't even bother to dismiss Hipocrite's stupid claim that Market Research has nothing to do with PR, when I wrote a paper entitled: Market Research for PR
|
|
|
|
Hipocrite |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 203
Joined:
Member No.: 8,832
|
QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 10th June 2009, 4:35am) Besides, Market Research has lots to do with PR, if the PR is being done for an entity that's trying to sell something. Anybody with an ounce of knowledge of the subject knows that. Golly, could it possibly be that you don't actually care about reality or fact, and that you're just... trolling us? Surely this cannot be!
Being an expert in Market Research does not make one an expert in Public Relations, the same way that being an expert in Financial Economics does not make one an expert in Sociology. One might be related to the other, but they're disparate diciplines. QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 10th June 2009, 5:21am) You're the admin, you could ban Hipocrite.... I DONT LIKE WHAT HE'S SAYING! BAN HIM! BAN HIM! I guess it's goose gander equivalence here as well.
|
|
|
|
thekohser |
|
Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
|
This comment by FayssalF is hilarious. He advises readers to look at the Yahoo! Answer that was selected as "best answer" by the voters on that site. Thing is, it got eleven votes as "best answer", when most of the best answers in the Wikipedia category are awarded with 2, 3, or 4 votes, typically. This particular answer was voted up by sockpuppets, because it was in the middle of my "war" with the Filipino Chess Boy, and he was very determined to make sure his answers were beating out mine (which I was socking up with 4-5 additional votes). So, FayssalF is unwittingly holding up as evidence of "people's minds" the result of 2 or 3 users making themselves appear to be 11 users. GREAT EXAMPLE, FayssalF! Greg P.S. I love that Wikipedia allows this, too: "Greg Kohs was a bit of a dickhead, but only after he was shafted by Wikipedia." At least he couched it with "a bit". This post has been edited by thekohser:
|
|
|
|
Somey |
|
Can't actually moderate (or even post)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
|
QUOTE(Hipocrite @ Wed 10th June 2009, 8:22am) Being an expert in Market Research does not make one an expert in Public Relations, the same way that being an expert in Financial Economics does not make one an expert in Sociology. One might be related to the other, but they're disparate diciplines. I'd say you're somewhat confused, though this statement of yours is slightly more reasonable at least. (OTOH, it's still not particularly relevant to what we're discussing...) Basically "Market Research" is an activity, "Public Relations" is an industry. Market Research takes place within the PR industry (or more accurately, the Advertising/PR industry); the difference between Market Research that takes place within the context of Product Development and that which takes place within the context of Advertising/PR is that the latter is usually placed in the hands of agencies, whereas the former is usually done internally, and often in secret. "Financial Economics" isn't really a subset of Sociology, IMO. QUOTE I DONT LIKE WHAT HE'S SAYING! BAN HIM! BAN HIM! We don't usually ban people for being wrong, unless they're doing it deliberately and maliciously. In your case I suspect there's a smidgen of that, but for the most part I think you just don't know what the hell you're talking about.
|
|
|
|
thekohser |
|
Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
|
Jimbo has kicked it up a notch. The battle over whether or not to allow paid editing on Wikipedia, two-and-a-half years after I made it famous, is now being fought tooth and nail. Jimmy Wales kicked it up a notch, declaring "policy" where he (probably) no longer holds the reputation capital to pull it off. The current box score: Paid editing - 52 Jimmy Wales - 22. In American football, that's a blowout, folks. What I'm wondering -- where the heck are JzG, Calton, and Sam Blanning? We need those guys to get the fire REALLY HOT. As for Jimbo's comment... I enjoy how in paragraph two he says, "I think the opening statement on this page is a red herring." Then in paragraph three he says, "Are we free and independent scribes doing our best to record all human knowledge? Or are we paid shills. I know what I choose." Also, "Just imagine the disaster for our reputation." Spoken like someone who knows intimately about disasters and reputations. This post has been edited by thekohser:
|
|
|
|
TungstenCarbide |
|
Allegedly shot down by stray Ukrainian missile
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,405
Joined:
Member No.: 10,787
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 11th June 2009, 2:40am) As for Jimbo's comment... I enjoy how in paragraph two he says, "I think the opening statement on this page is a red herring." Then in paragraph three he says, "Are we free and independent scribes doing our best to record all human knowledge? Or are we paid shills. I know what I choose." Oh . My . God. Jimbo's been suckleling at the teat for years now; from speaking fees to Russian massage parlors to Wikia to pussy. "we" This is the first I've heard of Jimbo being a humble scribe.
|
|
|
|
Cock-up-over-conspiracy |
|
Now censored by flckr.com and who else ... ???
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined:
Member No.: 9,267
|
Interesting ... the third person to become involved in this debate is the David 'Shankbone' Miller himself who we recently discussed receiving big hand outs, and multiple opportunities of professional advancement, care of the Israeli government. Sadly, there are none of his pictures of pissing Zionist goats or engorged genitalia in this topic though. All the same, I am pretty sure that you could find perverts who would pay to have pictures of their genitals on a top ranking website like the Wikipedia. Could I just flag up a little inequality and imbalance here, what he and they are, basically, say is "we get paid to write, shoot sponsored photos, stretch the limits of what are 'facts' or what is 'PR' or not, use the Wikipedia for our own personal advancement ... the lowly serfs then have to pay with their time to police us for free and the unpaid janitors (admins) waste their time over the disputes that will arise". Time is also money. Likewise, could someone also widen the discussion that not all "paid for" editing and POV creation is "paid for" per se ... palm greasing comes in many subtle forms as above; sponsorship, back scratching, blow jobs etc. QUOTE Users who endorse this summary:
rootology ©(T) 19:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC) SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC) >David Shankbone 19:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC) QUOTE Statement by David Shankbone
I have always supported paid editing if you can get that work. Unfortunately, in the past the person/people most associated with paid editing are unpleasant and disliked; thus, the issue has been paired with them.
It's time to review the idea outside of the past, and ask why our other policies and guidelines will not take care of perceived WP:COI issues. They would. Paid editing happens; only diligent review of material for NPOV, V and OR will circumvent problems with any of our material, paid or unpaid. -->David Shankbone 19:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC) And surely spoken like a true whore ... QUOTE At the end of the day, our core policies are our core policies, and collusion--for whatever motivation--to circumvent our core policies is cause for sanctions. I think Root's main point with this RFC is that ... money is no more odious an incentive than fandom, love, identification or ideology ... for writing about a subject. -->David Shankbone 20:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC) This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy:
|
|
|
|
Milton Roe |
|
Known alias of J. Random Troll
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
|
QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Wed 10th June 2009, 9:25pm) And surely spoken like a true whore ... QUOTE At the end of the day, our core policies are our core policies, and collusion--for whatever motivation--to circumvent our core policies is cause for sanctions. I think Root's main point with this RFC is that ... money is no more odious an incentive than fandom, love, identification or ideology ... for writing about a subject. -->David Shankbone 20:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Time for the Devil's Advocate bit. While I'm no fan of Shankbone or his work, I do happen to agree with his specific sentiment, above. Moreover, I see nothing wrong with "whores" (though it's a rather loaded word). Whores of various sorts can be (though are not always) refreshingly honest. There are far worse things than honest whores, and one of them is dishonest whores. Let COIs be declared and caveat emptor (or lector). Furthermore, if somebody like Shankbone says that time is money, that doesn't mean it's not true. (IMG: http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll191/Shrlocc/einstein.gif)
|
|
|
|
Somey |
|
Can't actually moderate (or even post)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
|
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Wed 10th June 2009, 11:52pm) Time for the Devil's Advocate bit. While I'm no fan of Shankbone or his work, I do happen to agree with his specific sentiment... But it's still self-serving, because of the classic Wikipedian conflation tactic. In fact, money really is a more odious incentive than love (I'm sure Greg would tell you the same thing), and probably more odious than fandom, though that depends on what the person is a fan of. It's significantly less odious than ideology, though that depends on where you're sitting ideologically. As for "identification," by that he presumably means that people who are "in the closet" in terms of sexual orientation should be forced out of the closet by people like Shankers himself, or at least that's what Shankers' past actions would tend to suggest. And money is far less odious an incentive than that, at least in my opinion. QUOTE Furthermore, if somebody like Shankbone says that time is money, that doesn't mean it's not true. It's a "humanocentric" statement, though, which depends on an individual's time being such that a dollar amount can be assigned to it. This is essentially what Jimbo is afraid of, and indeed what he should be afraid of. If unpaid editors start having to work with editors who are being paid, they're going to start thinking that maybe voluntarism isn't all it's cracked up to be. In reality it has nothing to do with the integrity of the paid editors; rather it has everything to do with the simmering resentment of the unpaid ones, and the attrition that will probably result. 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)
|
|
|
|
thekohser |
|
Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Somey |
|
Can't actually moderate (or even post)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 11th June 2009, 9:06am) 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. Well, I would have pointed that out too, but I didn't want to give away any trade secrets! (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) But yes, I believe you're absolutely right - a "paid editor" is going to have a huge incentive to produce highly-finished articles on practically the initial (new-page) edit (so as to avoid attention from RC patrollers), keep his/her head down in general, and not get into serious arguments with anyone over anything, if at all possible. Whereas someone who's known to be getting paid who is also argumentative and "tendentious" probably isn't going to be getting paid for long, and should probably look for a new line of work.
|
|
|
|
Cedric |
|
General Gato
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,648
Joined:
From: God's Ain Country
Member No.: 1,116
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 11th June 2009, 9:46am) Is this comment a joke? QUOTE I know in my soul that this project will flounder if we don't follow Jimbo's example of being free and independent scribes. Jimbo, let me know if you need anything; I'll be right here under the table. It's my honor and right to wash your articles while you receive sleep or other good and valuable consideration. --[[User talk:NE2|NE2]] 12:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Unfortunately, probably not. NE2 is a roadster, who are not known for their sense of humor ( this is what passes for "humor" amongst roadsters).
|
|
|
|
TungstenCarbide |
|
Allegedly shot down by stray Ukrainian missile
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,405
Joined:
Member No.: 10,787
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 11th June 2009, 2:46pm) Is this comment a joke? QUOTE I know in my soul that this project will flounder if we don't follow Jimbo's example of being free and independent scribes. Jimbo, let me know if you need anything; I'll be right here under the table. It's my honor and right to wash your articles while you receive sleep or other good and valuable consideration. --[[User talk:NE2|NE2]] 12:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Looks damn funny to me. Double entendres [sole] 'flounder', washing jimbo's [ dirty laundry] articles. Not sure what 'under the table' is supposed to mean ... This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide:
|
|
|
|
Cla68 |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined:
Member No.: 5,761
|
QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 11th June 2009, 2:19pm) QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 11th June 2009, 9:06am) 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. Well, I would have pointed that out too, but I didn't want to give away any trade secrets! (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) But yes, I believe you're absolutely right - a "paid editor" is going to have a huge incentive to produce highly-finished articles on practically the initial (new-page) edit (so as to avoid attention from RC patrollers), keep his/her head down in general, and not get into serious arguments with anyone over anything, if at all possible. Whereas someone who's known to be getting paid who is also argumentative and "tendentious" probably isn't going to be getting paid for long, and should probably look for a new line of work. This is my point exactly. Openly POV-pushing advocates of a certain position, person, or organization, like Jayjg or Jossi, eventually get noticed, dealt with, and their articles receive a lot of negative attention and scrutiny. That's why it would be best for a paid editor to make sure that the article follows Wikipedia's rules to the "T". I suspect that Shankbone supports paid editing because he wants to actually be paid for doing it. Well, that goes for me too. As long as he or anyone else follows the rules, I don't care. This comment on the subject is a good one. This post has been edited by Cla68:
|
|
|
|
Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
QUOTE(Cla68 @ Thu 11th June 2009, 5:23pm) QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Thu 11th June 2009, 9:20pm) I think it's kinda weird that you guys can't figure out where this is going — after all this time observing the Wiki-Wiles of Wiki-Wales.
Well, I noticed that Jimbo apparently feels that its ok for himself to openly try to make money off of Wikipedia, but no one else should be allowed to, if that's what you mean. Okay, you get some sh*nkbonus points for that. Naturally, a few crumbs of wiki-privilege will be doled out to MIGS of the wiki-palace guard. And the standards on paid editing, like the standards on all other Auto-Promo and COI, will always be kept fuzzy enough to be doubled — excused for the in-group of wiki-pets and used against folks who suddenly find themselves on the way out. Jon
|
|
|
|
Cock-up-over-conspiracy |
|
Now censored by flckr.com and who else ... ???
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined:
Member No.: 9,267
|
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Thu 11th June 2009, 9:30pm) I think it's kinda weird that you guys can't figure out where this is going — after all this time observing the Wiki-Wiles of Wiki-Wales. Going back to the 'Cult Theory of Wikipedia Involvement' ... most if not all cults are financial pyramid scams where a few at the top gain all the benefits of the money and free labor donated by the massed followers. Sauce for the goose is not for the ganders. In pyramid scams, generally a few carrots of "success cases" are dangled to encourage on the drones ... "you too could be in on this tomorrow, if you kiss our asses today and don't challenge the status quo" ... but basic arithmetics, and social entropy combined, ensure that in the 'numbers game' it is only a tiny minority can or will ever make it into the power, money, free sex or whatever else it is they are are into. It works this way for gurus and it works this way for multi-level marketing outfits. Who else remembers the "airplane scams" back in the 1980's? I am thinking right now that for many, as in other cults, the 'hook' in the Wikipedia beyond merely acting out are the "free drugs" ... the adrenal or endomorphin rushes involved in. So the hamsters on the wheel now want free drugs AND the right to be sponsored by corporations outside of the cage for running on their wheels ... Good heavens, what is the world coming to!?! It is the Wiki equivalent of athletic doping. Luckily for the Wiki Pee Foundation, most hamster-drones are genetically pre-programmed by generations of serfdom and bound by fatal idealism to the degree that they would never consider expecting a payback. (Free) Work makes free. Is the Wikipedia, even as an "amateur sport", a level playing field as it is ...? No, of course not. Time is money is power and the more you have to invest, the more you get. Its level is already determined by finances, (e.g. class, race, access to IT equipment and internet), where irresponsibility (a life without serious responsibilities) is more highly rewarded ... as in most cults. Don't cults mostly divide families and split partnerships demanding increased involvement to reach higher levels? But no one seems to have raise the issue of more subtle "payments" ... e.g. PR sponsorship, professional advancements etc. I suspect the "under table reference" refers to dick sucking on knees ... or do I just have a dirty mind?
|
|
|
|
The Joy |
|
I am a millipede! I am amazing!
Group: Members
Posts: 3,839
Joined:
From: The Moon
Member No.: 982
|
|
|
|
|
Cock-up-over-conspiracy |
|
Now censored by flckr.com and who else ... ???
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined:
Member No.: 9,267
|
QUOTE(Cla68 @ Thu 11th June 2009, 1:52pm) I suspect that Shankbone supports paid editing because he wants to actually be paid for doing it. Excuse me if I appear to beating my drum (rather than anything else to hand) ... but this link is exactly what I would define as "under the table" and on one's knees ... Until WP:JIMBO is repealed, WP:JIMBO stands. -->David Shankbone 17:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC). QUOTE(David Shankbone) To be fair, you made a relatively strong WP:JIMBO statement when you said,
"I will personally block any cases that I am shown. There are of course some possibly interesting alternatives, not particularly relevant here, but the idea that we should ever accept paid advocates directly editing Wikipedia is not every going to be ok. Consider this to be policy as of right now."
-->David Shankbone 16:45, 10 June 2009(UTC) Now what makes it more interesting is that, surely, he must know through NYB and the official ( New York Wikipedia Foundation and others about the Israeli government sponsorships of David 'Shankbone' Miller, and all those juicy shmoosing opportunities with Rushdie, Auster, Amos, Sharon et al ... even if the fruit it bore was only Zionist goat piss pictures and a few badly photographed gay clubs. I don't see Jimbo handing out blocks over that ... surely that is " pay for point of view" (PPOV). Or is this an example of the " interesting alternatives, not particularly relevant here" ... because, perhaps, they also bore fruit for the Foundation, e.g. the conference in Israel? I dont know ... but it makes me wonder, as in " we will turn a blind eye and let you get away with it, because there was a buck in it and more for us coming our ways"? I think paid editing for a chosen *undisclosed* few ... never mind the sort of POV that Shanker came up with over that Palestinian kids playing with guns ... is bound to cause rot unless is transparent and clearly account for. But "for a chosen few" is what obvious stands at present. At the very least, surely they ought to have a note on their edits saying, "Wiki-whore for rent" or "Sponsored by ..." or something? Its not that I am saying that prostitution is wrong ... I just would not want by kids playing in the same street as they work.This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy:
|
|
|
|
Cock-up-over-conspiracy |
|
Now censored by flckr.com and who else ... ???
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined:
Member No.: 9,267
|
FayssalFÂ (T-C-L-K-R-D)
leads the 'charge' ( ho ... ho ... ho ...) with a page for Wikipedia:Contract_Editing_Review. Still no apparent discussion about heavy weight financial sponsorship deals and offers of professional advancement ... such as the Israel government's splashing about its PR budget on "leading Wikipedian" David 'Shankbone' Miller in the hope of a Wikipedia-sized money shot all over the face of Google. This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy:
|
|
|
|
Cock-up-over-conspiracy |
|
Now censored by flckr.com and who else ... ???
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined:
Member No.: 9,267
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Sat 13th June 2009, 4:26am) You're not even reading my posts, are you, Cock-up? Ah, come on. You missed the chance for a good pun, I took it ... "Paid ... charge ... " etc.To be honest, I am not taking any position on this issue and, beyond a bit of sport, its really not worth engaging in. Nothing will change, it will just get worse. I think that there is likely to be nothing 'evil' about doing an honest job, on a benign topic, inline with general journalistic ethics. I think the point David Shankbone made very badly ... thereby exposing his own values and morality ... is that we all do 'something' for 'something'; even if it is only an altruistic glow of self-satisfaction that gives us confidence in other areas of our lives. However, I do think taking government or political money to alter cultural or national bias decided is. There is a reason that is disallowed or monitored closely in politics and mainstream media. Equally, I think allowing highly motivated but entirely indoctrinated and irresponsible individuals, whether Korean nationalists or cult members, to rip up the contents of other people's time, money and lives to suit their own guru's mania or personal psychoses, is also wrong. In a perfect world, or even an acceptable world as with the politics of our day, at least one is able to demand and see on record 'who got what for what'. Our opinion formers are bound by law to disclose their interests. But how can that be fixed in the whacky, anonymous, unaccountable world of the Wiki-Pee Soup? To me, it just appears to one big clusterfuck where you are encouraged to try and get away with whatever you can, for as long as you can, in manner possible and without little thought about others. Why should I try to be "good" when the system is run by and rewards crap? It is irrational. And, as we are talking money here, I suppose that is the capitalist model. If you can make a buck off it, do because sure as hell the opportunity wont last. I pay for me to edit. We all do/did. There is a huge scale of difference between some individual just paying to have their hardware store on and a highly politicized entity paying to use the Piss Pee-dia to manipulate the collective consciousness of generations around the world. This is why I keep asking ... why are they not talk about sponsorship deals like ones the Israeli government gave to Shankbones?Don't they know? This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy:
|
|
|
|
thekohser |
|
Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
|
Our young Filipino chess guy who runs Yahoo! Answers and will show me no mercy ("My fellow Wikipedians, we should go for a war against Wikipedia Review. Prepare for glory!"), has decided to weigh in on the Paid Editing discussion. His own quote is self-contradictory: QUOTE Anyone who would advertise paid editing of Wikipedia would lead the project into corruption. Why pay someone else if you can do it yourself? Wikipedia is open for everyone, without distinctions of any kind and without limitations in any manner. Okay, so then why are you against the "everyone" that includes paid editors? Do you have any concept of what "without distinctions of any kind and without limitations in any manner" actually means? Silly, ignorant teenager... so typical of the thought leadership at Wikipedia.
|
|
|
|
Cock-up-over-conspiracy |
|
Now censored by flckr.com and who else ... ???
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined:
Member No.: 9,267
|
I don't know Photobucket ... QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Mon 15th June 2009, 8:12pm) Of course that isn't necessarily true as the agent in question may instead be exploiting the client's inability to write coherently (or lack of time to spend on it) Or it might just be a fair trade ... You probably did not mean "exploiting" in that manner. Far more exploitation is going on in the cultic 'unpaid model'. But for real life PR companies, buying Wikipedia time and expertise would be a very cheap and efficient bang for their bucks. Part of the 'free market model' of society is that workers actually get paid for their labor, and part of the 'democratic model' of society is that they have some rights to the fruit of their labor. It really is only the 'cultic religion model' that have such a disparity of incomes between the workers and the bosses, and offer no rights. You can't eat barnstars, share them to your children, or even trade your admin status. Has anyone started trading 'edit histories' yet? Its just another commodity after all.
Funny, but even your own editing history is not your own property on the Pee-dia. I am thinking of mass producing edit histories in the Far East. In the meanwhile, let me buy yours ... 'Caucasian' edits are still more powerful and worth more than 'Asian' edits, currently, but in the future, as China comes online, that might change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |