The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> General Discussion? What's that all about?

This subforum is for general discussion of Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. For a glossary of terms frequently used in such discussions, please refer to Wikipedia:Glossary. For a glossary of musical terms, see here. Other useful links:

Akahele.orgWikipedia-WatchWikitruthWP:ANWikiEN-L/Foundation-L (mailing lists) • Citizendium forums

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Wikipedia impact on real life
mbz1
post Mon 20th February 2012, 1:51am
Post #1


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined: Tue 24th Aug 2010, 10:50pm
Member No.: 25,791



I wonder, if there were any studies, of what impact Wikipedia entries have on the real life events.
For example, it is known that some companies hire payed editors to improve their wikipedia entries, but how it reflects on their performance in a real life.
Or let's say a politician hired somebody to improve his wikipedia entry. Would it somehow change his results in the next elections?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Mon 20th February 2012, 2:28am
Post #2


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



These hypotheses would be impossible to prove out without a rigorous control/test experiment. And even so, because Wikipedia would be just one small component of a politician's or a corporation's communication portfolio, it would be next to impossible to tease out the effect that Wikipedia had, that was not influenced by other factors in the portfolio.

Here's something I find amusing, though...

When Bell Pottinger was discovered to be manipulating clients' entries on Wikipedia, its parent company's stock (Chime Communications) was trading at about 180. In the following week, the stock dropped to about 165. However, since then, the stock took a dizzying climb up to about 250, before settling out at about 220 now. So, one might conclude that if you do "wrong" by Wikipedia, it's great for your market capitalization!

evilgrin.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mbz1
post Mon 20th February 2012, 3:25pm
Post #3


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined: Tue 24th Aug 2010, 10:50pm
Member No.: 25,791



QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 20th February 2012, 2:28am) *

These hypotheses would be impossible to prove out without a rigorous control/test experiment. And even so, because Wikipedia would be just one small component of a politician's or a corporation's communication portfolio, it would be next to impossible to tease out the effect that Wikipedia had, that was not influenced by other factors in the portfolio.

Here's something I find amusing, though...

When Bell Pottinger was discovered to be manipulating clients' entries on Wikipedia, its parent company's stock (Chime Communications) was trading at about 180. In the following week, the stock dropped to about 165. However, since then, the stock took a dizzying climb up to about 250, before settling out at about 220 now. So, one might conclude that if you do "wrong" by Wikipedia, it's great for your market capitalization!

evilgrin.gif

An interesting observation. smile.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Fusion
post Mon 20th February 2012, 10:22pm
Post #4


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 346
Joined: Tue 29th Nov 2011, 12:40pm
Member No.: 71,526



As a general rule and in many different circumstances, all publicity is good.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mbz1
post Mon 20th February 2012, 10:24pm
Post #5


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined: Tue 24th Aug 2010, 10:50pm
Member No.: 25,791



QUOTE(Fusion @ Mon 20th February 2012, 10:22pm) *

As a general rule and in many different circumstances, all publicity is good.

Even a bad one?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Fusion
post Mon 20th February 2012, 10:46pm
Post #6


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 346
Joined: Tue 29th Nov 2011, 12:40pm
Member No.: 71,526



QUOTE(mbz1 @ Mon 20th February 2012, 10:24pm) *

QUOTE(Fusion @ Mon 20th February 2012, 10:22pm) *

As a general rule and in many different circumstances, all publicity is good.

Even a bad one?

Very often, yes. Not always, but surprisingly often.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mbz1
post Mon 20th February 2012, 10:56pm
Post #7


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 461
Joined: Tue 24th Aug 2010, 10:50pm
Member No.: 25,791



QUOTE(Fusion @ Mon 20th February 2012, 10:46pm) *

QUOTE(mbz1 @ Mon 20th February 2012, 10:24pm) *

QUOTE(Fusion @ Mon 20th February 2012, 10:22pm) *

As a general rule and in many different circumstances, all publicity is good.

Even a bad one?

Very often, yes. Not always, but surprisingly often.

In this case I am going to be just fine. tongue.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 24th 5 13, 8:18pm