Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

_ General Discussion _ PR industry to "cooperate" with Wikipedia

Posted by: thekohser

There are a number of well-timed https://www.facebook.com/groups/crewe.group/ in the wake of the Bell Pottinger flap, where consortia of PR industry leaders are going to try to "reach out" to Wikipedia and gain consensus on how PR firms can dutifully and ethically interact with Wikipedia.

I have a feeling that in about 6 months there will be a lot of heartbroken, grieved people in the PR industry.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 6th January 2012, 12:48pm) *
where consortia of PR industry leaders are going to try to "reach out" to Wikipedia and gain consensus on how PR firms can dutifully and ethically interact with Wikipedia.
Wikipedia's community doesn't want to "interact" with PR firms. In fact, it systemically views PR firms as very nearly the ultimate enemy of truth, and wants absolutely nothing to do with them. This reflects Wikipedia's deep anticorporate, antibusiness, antiproperty attitudes. Not at all Wikipedians are communists, to be sure, but enough of them are, and especially in Wikipedia's early days, so that those ideologies run deep in the governing philosophy. And most of its current participants are not intellectually mature enough to contemplate the rules that they're given to follow, ascertain the underlying principles, and evaluate for themselves whether or not they really make sense. They just follow them, unquestioning, because that's what you do if you want to belong.

On top of that, Jimmy's personal interest in maximizing the size of the community (apparently above all other concerns) necessitates that there must not be any paid editors; otherwise, unpaid editors may come to feel like second-class citizens, resulting in a loss of participation. Basically, if any editor can be paid, why not all of them?

So I share your belief that the PR community is going to come out of this experience burned. An interesting possible side effect is going to be corporations recommending that the best strategies for dealing with Wikipedia are litigation and lobbying (if you can't handle it with PR, handle it with lawyers and politicians), and that's going to mean an attack on Section 230 as well as even more efforts to sue Wikipedians directly. I find it amusing that Wikipedia's intransigence on these issues are likely to hurt them badly, possibly even fatally, in the long run.

Posted by: thekohser

Herostratus is perhaps the Wikipediot Tool of the Month for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Herostratus/Wikiproject_Paid_Editing_Watch.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 6th January 2012, 11:46pm) *

Herostratus is perhaps the Wikipediot Tool of the Month for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Herostratus/Wikiproject_Paid_Editing_Watch.


And we knew it wouldn't be long before Wikipedia's Number One Moron glommed to the idea. Also, it didn't take long for him to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Herostratus/Wikiproject_Paid_Editing_Watch&diff=next&oldid=470009621 for PR "advocates".

What will now happen, of course, is that the "advocate" label will get tossed around just as the "POV pusher" label gets tossed around, and all sorts of fun will ensue.

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez

QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 6th January 2012, 11:46pm) *

Herostratus is perhaps the Wikipediot Tool of the Month for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Herostratus/Wikiproject_Paid_Editing_Watch.


Wikipedia have established yet another http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror / http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide.

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Herostratus/Wikiproject_Paid_Editing_Watch/Principles

This sounds as if it were written by a four-year-old.

Posted by: Silver seren

Okay, that's it, i'm going to go start "another" Wikiproject. How about Wikiproject Cooperation?

Or...Wikiproject Cooperation and Education?

It'll be used to work with companies and users being paid by companies, to help them understand how Wikipedia works and what the rules are that they must follow. How they have a COI and must tread lightly and it would be far better for them to suggest changes on the talk pages rather than make the changes themselves.

Also, that it would be good for them to make drafts of their wanted changes and submit them for review by other users, who can check them for issues and then insert them into the articles.


Posted by: melloden

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Fri 6th January 2012, 6:58pm) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 6th January 2012, 12:48pm) *
where consortia of PR industry leaders are going to try to "reach out" to Wikipedia and gain consensus on how PR firms can dutifully and ethically interact with Wikipedia.
Wikipedia's community doesn't want to "interact" with PR firms. In fact, it systemically views PR firms as very nearly the ultimate enemy of truth, and wants absolutely nothing to do with them. This reflects Wikipedia's deep anticorporate, antibusiness, antiproperty attitudes. Not at all Wikipedians are communists, to be sure, but enough of them are, and especially in Wikipedia's early days, so that those ideologies run deep in the governing philosophy. And most of its current participants are not intellectually mature enough to contemplate the rules that they're given to follow, ascertain the underlying principles, and evaluate for themselves whether or not they really make sense. They just follow them, unquestioning, because that's what you do if you want to belong.

On top of that, Jimmy's personal interest in maximizing the size of the community (apparently above all other concerns) necessitates that there must not be any paid editors; otherwise, unpaid editors may come to feel like second-class citizens, resulting in a loss of participation. Basically, if any editor can be paid, why not all of them?

So I share your belief that the PR community is going to come out of this experience burned. An interesting possible side effect is going to be corporations recommending that the best strategies for dealing with Wikipedia are litigation and lobbying (if you can't handle it with PR, handle it with lawyers and politicians), and that's going to mean an attack on Section 230 as well as even more efforts to sue Wikipedians directly. I find it amusing that Wikipedia's intransigence on these issues are likely to hurt them badly, possibly even fatally, in the long run.

But because there's no official policy against PR editing, the WMF or Jimbo sometimes asks OTRS and other unpaid users to deal with articles that PR firms have complained about. So instead of the PR people doing it, the job is getting outsourced to volunteers who don't really care about the topic they're writing about.

QUOTE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Herostra...atch/Principles

This sounds as if it were written by a four-year-old.


"It's not OK to edit the Wikipedia in return for financial compensation, or under the orders of any government, corporation, or similar organization. It is not against policy. But it is still wrong and bad."

Osama bin Laden was wrong and bad. The KKK is wrong and bad. Adolf Hitler was wrong and bad (except his artwork was only marginally bad). Paid editing is only bad if you're being a dumbass while doing it.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Silver seren @ Mon 9th January 2012, 5:06pm) *

Okay, that's it, i'm going to go start "another" Wikiproject. How about Wikiproject Cooperation?

Or...Wikiproject Cooperation and Education?

It'll be used to work with companies and users being paid by companies, to help them understand how Wikipedia works and what the rules are that they must follow. How they have a COI and must tread lightly and it would be far better for them to suggest changes on the talk pages rather than make the changes themselves.

Also, that it would be good for them to make drafts of their wanted changes and submit them for review by other users, who can check them for issues and then insert them into the articles.


Great idea! Now, who will hold the Wikipediots to the other end of the implied contract -- that they will treat the COI party's requested changes with respect and promptly implement those changes that any rational person would determine to be appropriate for improving an encyclopedia?

Oh, wait -- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arch_Coal&diff=255482597&oldid=255480884 admins deal with content suggestions on Wikipedia -- out with the good, back in with the bad!

Here's a suggested name for your project, Silver: Wikiproject Hoodwink.


QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Mon 9th January 2012, 4:27pm) *

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Herostratus/Wikiproject_Paid_Editing_Watch/Principles

This sounds as if it were written by a four-year-old.


Really, it's just three mental midgets:
QUOTE
Participants

Herostratus (talk) 19:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Ebikeguy (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Wikid77 (talk) 08:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Posted by: thekohser

http://blog.philgomes.com/2012/01/open-letter-to-jimmy-wales-and-wikipedia.html. Phil is not pleased. And I basically let Jimbo have it with two comments in reply.

Posted by: Silver seren

Kohser, I don't think you're a very good representation of paid editing. Sure, you're correct about the Arch Coal incident, but your actions since 2006 have been less than scrupulous.

Posted by: EricBarbour

JD The Fat Boy speaks!

QUOTE
The instructions on Conflicts of Interest are useless, as with so many Wikipedia policy pages, for which I can only apologise (indeed, I helped write the first draft of that policy).


O RLY?

Posted by: dogbiscuit

QUOTE(Silver seren @ Tue 10th January 2012, 7:30am) *

Kohser, I don't think you're a very good representation of paid editing. Sure, you're correct about the Arch Coal incident, but your actions since 2006 have been less than scrupulous.

We don't think Wikipedia is a very good representation of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. yak.gif confused.gif yecch.gif tongue.gif

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Silver seren @ Tue 10th January 2012, 2:30am) *

Kohser, I don't think you're a very good representation of paid editing. Sure, you're correct about the Arch Coal incident, but your actions since 2006 have been less than scrupulous.


Criticism from the guy who fantasizes about people dressed in fur suits? I'll take it!

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Herostratus/Wikiproject_Paid_Editing_Watch/Editor_Registry

They're handing out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_badge.

These Stars will eventually find their way onto article talk pages as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Herostratus/Wikiproject_Paid_Editing_Watch#Talk_page_template

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Tue 10th January 2012, 9:04am) *

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Herostratus/Wikiproject_Paid_Editing_Watch/Editor_Registry

They're handing out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_badge.

These Stars will eventually find their way onto article talk pages as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Herostratus/Wikiproject_Paid_Editing_Watch#Talk_page_template


Why is Wikipedia Review not on that list?!?! I want my gold star!

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Herostratus/Wikiproject_Paid_Editing_Watch/Editor_Registry

It's funny how Herostratus uses the word "proof" (i.e. "gotcha") instead of "evidence" or "public, self-make disclosure".

It's also funny how the list only displays the transparent, honest users and not the sneaky, dishonest ones. The list enables the Committee of Public Safety to stalk and spy on the "Good Guys" instead of enabling users to investigate the "Bad Guys". The "registry" is basically a hit list.

Posted by: Fusion

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 10th January 2012, 12:25pm) *

Criticism from the guy who fantasizes about people dressed in fur suits? I'll take it!

You should try being in Archangel in mid-winter. Fur suits are very valuable.

Posted by: Silver seren

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 10th January 2012, 12:25pm) *

QUOTE(Silver seren @ Tue 10th January 2012, 2:30am) *

Kohser, I don't think you're a very good representation of paid editing. Sure, you're correct about the Arch Coal incident, but your actions since 2006 have been less than scrupulous.


Criticism from the guy who fantasizes about people dressed in fur suits? I'll take it!


Nice way to try to deflect the point of the comment.

Explain to me again, Gregory, why are you in the CREWE group? It's pretty self-evident that you don't really support the "Ethical Wikipedia Engagement" part of the acronym. And a number of the members there know it as well.

Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(Silver seren @ Tue 10th January 2012, 8:32pm) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 10th January 2012, 12:25pm) *

QUOTE(Silver seren @ Tue 10th January 2012, 2:30am) *

Kohser, I don't think you're a very good representation of paid editing. Sure, you're correct about the Arch Coal incident, but your actions since 2006 have been less than scrupulous.


Criticism from the guy who fantasizes about people dressed in fur suits? I'll take it!

Nice way to try to deflect the point of the comment.
I thought it was a nice way to do it too! boing.gif
QUOTE(Silver seren @ Tue 10th January 2012, 8:32pm) *
Explain to me again, Gregory, why are you in the CREWE group?
Link? hmmm.gif

Posted by: Silver seren

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Wed 11th January 2012, 1:49am) *

QUOTE(Silver seren @ Tue 10th January 2012, 8:32pm) *
Explain to me again, Gregory, why are you in the CREWE group?
Link? hmmm.gif


https://www.facebook.com/groups/crewe.group/

Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(Silver seren @ Tue 10th January 2012, 9:09pm) *

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Wed 11th January 2012, 1:49am) *

QUOTE(Silver seren @ Tue 10th January 2012, 8:32pm) *
Explain to me again, Gregory, why are you in the CREWE group?
Link? hmmm.gif


https://www.facebook.com/groups/crewe.group/

Wow. If you want to see Jimmy Wales being a serious foot-in-mouth prick, check out that FB page. dry.gif

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Silver seren @ Tue 10th January 2012, 8:32pm) *

Explain to me again, Gregory, why are you in the CREWE group? It's pretty self-evident that you don't really support the "Ethical Wikipedia Engagement" part of the acronym. And a number of the members there know it as well.


I hope you're prepared to listen to me, because you really need a talking to.

You've called my "actions" "less than scrupulous", but provided no evidence.

I've been engaging on a friendly basis with Steve Rubel and Shel Holtz since 2006 and 2007. I've been in touch with Phil Gomes since two years ago. I wrote a promotional http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7iRAEA1P1kcAAUBXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE0ZTVoOTkzBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA1FJMDE3XzE4Nw--/SIG=127e499lh/EXP=1326284992/**http%3a//www.icrsurvey.com/docs/MR%2520for%2520PR.doc about marketing research's role in the PR industry. When I was a research supplier, PR firms like Manning Selvage & Lee, Ogilvy PR, and Euro RSCG would pay my company hundreds of thousands of dollars per year for my services. I think I have a right to provide my valuable input on the http://www.facebook.com/groups/crewe.group group.

Now, what are your credentials in the PR industry, fur ball?




QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Tue 10th January 2012, 9:29pm) *

https://www.facebook.com/groups/crewe.group/

Wow. If you want to see Jimmy Wales being a serious foot-in-mouth prick, check out that FB page. dry.gif

I wish I could see what he's saying, but somehow he has his Facebook set to exclude my account from viewing his content, even in the group.

Posted by: Silver seren

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 11th January 2012, 4:36am) *

QUOTE(Silver seren @ Tue 10th January 2012, 8:32pm) *

Explain to me again, Gregory, why are you in the CREWE group? It's pretty self-evident that you don't really support the "Ethical Wikipedia Engagement" part of the acronym. And a number of the members there know it as well.


I hope you're prepared to listen to me, because you really need a talking to.

You've called my "actions" "less than scrupulous", but provided no evidence.

I've been engaging on a friendly basis with Steve Rubel and Shel Holtz since 2006 and 2007. I've been in touch with Phil Gomes since two years ago. I wrote a promotional http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7iRAEA1P1kcAAUBXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE0ZTVoOTkzBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA1FJMDE3XzE4Nw--/SIG=127e499lh/EXP=1326284992/**http%3a//www.icrsurvey.com/docs/MR%2520for%2520PR.doc about marketing research's role in the PR industry. When I was a research supplier, PR firms like Manning Selvage & Lee, Ogilvy PR, and Euro RSCG would pay my company hundreds of thousands of dollars per year for my services. I think I have a right to provide my valuable input on the http://www.facebook.com/groups/crewe.group group.

Now, what are your credentials in the PR industry, fur ball?


When I said "less than scrupulous", I was referring to your actions on Wikipedia, not elsewhere (how would I even know about those?).

And in terms of your actions on Wikipedia, I really only have to use one word that encompasses most of your actions: Sockpuppets.

And then I can also link to your very recent comment in this forum http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=36136&view=findpost&p=293252

And we both know you're made more outright comments of that nature on WR before.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Silver seren @ Tue 10th January 2012, 11:42pm) *

When I said "less than scrupulous", I was referring to your actions on Wikipedia, not elsewhere (how would I even know about those?).

And in terms of your actions on Wikipedia, I really only have to use one word that encompasses most of your actions: Sockpuppets.

And then I can also link to your very recent comment in this forum http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=36136&view=findpost&p=293252

And we both know you're made more outright comments of that nature on WR before.


Oh... then I probably owe you an apology. I didn't realize you were one of those WikiLove disciples who believes that every WikiRule that is broken in order to achieve right outcomes in the real world, is a matter of "unscrupulous" action in the real world.

When you eventually graduate from college in a couple of years, I hope that you'll come to realize that "sockpuppeting on Wikipedia" doesn't always equal "less than scrupulous" in the real world. If it takes a sockpuppet to remove lies from the world's largest defamation platform, then the right and just man sockpuppets.

Are you going to Wikimania 2012 in Washington? I'll hope to meet you there. I'm going to learn a lot about the "true believer" personalities.

Sorry about the "fur ball" epithet, too. http://www.3wishes.com/images/naughtypussycat-r.jpg are kind of cute.

Posted by: Silver seren

Washington is rather far away from both Texas and Nebraska, so likely not.

And I just think that that opinion of yours, while valid, I suppose, is at odds with the point of the CREWE group, who would feel that sockpuppeting is not a part of the ethical stance they're trying to take.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Silver seren @ Wed 11th January 2012, 12:17am) *

Washington is rather far away from both Texas and Nebraska, so likely not.

And I just think that that opinion of yours, while valid, I suppose, is at odds with the point of the CREWE group, who would feel that sockpuppeting is not a part of the ethical stance they're trying to take.


Just wait... Given enough asinine retorts from Jimmy Wales, by the end of 2012, half of that CREWE will have decided that sockpuppeting is the only way to get things properly done on Wikipedia.

You don't seem to realize, and they don't seem to realize, that they are still in the "I haven't discovered how utterly corrupt and insane Wikipedia is" phase.

Posted by: Silver seren

We'll see. If Wikiproject Cooperation is successful, then it'll be a moot point.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Silver seren @ Wed 11th January 2012, 12:59am) *

We'll see. If Wikiproject Cooperation is successful, then it'll be a moot point.

Well, I see you already have William Beutler (recent guest star on a Q&A show on C-SPAN) making http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Silver_seren/Wikiproject_Cooperation&diff=470745700&oldid=470707700 at your feet, so you must be feeling quite proud and successful already!

I'm curious... when Jimbo eventually storms into your Wikiproject and calls for it to be shuttered, what will you do then?

Posted by: Silver seren

Jimbo already commented on the talk page. He wanted to make sure that we wouldn't be encouraging COI editors to be actively editing article space and we said no, just talk pages and article drafts and things. And then he was fine with it, as far as I can tell.

I'm still trying to discuss about allowing minor changes, like grammar, spelling, and things like that, since that would be a pain for them to have to keep asking if it's okay to make this or that change and such changes don't really fall under any COI issues anyways.

And I wonder what William would say if he saw you saying things like that about him. hrmph.gif

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 11th January 2012, 5:05am) *

Are you going to Wikimania 2012 in Washington? I'll hope to meet you there. I'm going to learn a lot about the "true believer" personalities.


Arghh!! Outing! Harassment OMG!! Ban Kohs!!

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Silver seren @ Wed 11th January 2012, 1:32am) *

I'm still trying to discuss about allowing minor changes, like grammar, spelling, and things like that, since that would be a pain for them to have to keep asking if it's okay to make this or that change and such changes don't really fall under any COI issues anyways.


I guess you didn't hear Jimbo -- he clearly said about your project:
QUOTE
There is little to no chance of "Death by Jimbo" as long as this project emphasizes front and center that paid advocates should never edit Wikipedia articles directly.


How are your listening and comprehension skills?

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Silver seren @ Wed 11th January 2012, 1:32am) *

And I wonder what William would say if he saw you saying things like that about him. hrmph.gif


William probably doesn't have the time or energy to worry about things I'm saying about him, when his head is probably spinning from what Jimbo said about him:
QUOTE
As the editor who, as far as I know, has done the single best job of abusing our assumption of good faith and illustrating why it's so critical that people in your position be completely restricted from making edits in article space, your position is unsurprising. Nor is it likely to carry the day.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


Let me know in December 2012 how many PR professionals are still engaged in your Wikiproject cooperation.

Posted by: thekohser

Credit where it's due... Silver did have the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Silver_seren/Wikiproject_Cooperation&diff=470760276&oldid=470759218 to call Jimbo's comment "extremely rude and not at all professional".

I give this WikiProject until June 2012 before it's getting less than three edits per week, or has been closed by Jimbo.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

I see Jimmy is using his usual oubliette strategy with the CREWE people. Somehow I doubt it will work with them.

Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 11th January 2012, 9:10am) *

I see Jimmy is using his usual oubliette strategy with the CREWE people. Somehow I doubt it will work with them.

QUOTE
(Jimmy on Facebook): I did not simply ignore the complaint that people don't look at talk pages - I denied it. It is very simply false. If you follow best practices, it is trivially easy to get someone to help you in Wikipedia.

Any action or proposed action put forward in defiance of the facts of reality is destined to fail. A great many of the arguments put forward are unrecognizable to experienced Wikipedians. Can we do a better job of helping to educate you on how to ethically participate in Wikipedia (i.e. NEVER EDIT ARTICLES but do X, Y, and Z) instead? Yes, of course, and that should be the sole focus of this group.

I don't see what is formulaic about my response. It's clear and to the point, and fully addresses the concerns that people have raised. There is a right way and a wrong way to approach Wikipedia if you are a paid advocate - the right way will work, will benefit you and your clients, as well as benefitting Wikipedia. The wrong way calls your ethics into question, embarrasses your clients, and damages the credibility of Wikipedia.

So much for the encyclopedia anybody can edit.

Posted by: dogbiscuit

Greg, I guess you'd take issue with this Jimbo "fact" in the context of paid editing:

QUOTE
And yes, I think it would be valuable to have specific examples. I have never - not even once - been shown an example where someone did things according to my recommendations and they did not get a proper resolution.


There is a wonderful weaselliness about those qualifications, isn't there?

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

QUOTE(Silver seren @ Wed 11th January 2012, 6:32am) *

Jimbo already commented on the talk page. He wanted to make sure that we wouldn't be encouraging COI editors to be actively editing article space and we said no, just talk pages and article drafts and things. And then he was fine with it, as far as I can tell.

I'm still trying to discuss about allowing minor changes, like grammar, spelling, and things like that, since that would be a pain for them to have to keep asking if it's okay to make this or that change and such changes don't really fall under any COI issues anyways.

And I wonder what William would say if he saw you saying things like that about him. hrmph.gif


Damn Silver seren, you're really getting some traction on this. I respect your efforts, but am sure Jimbo will find a way to insert himself and muck up the works. Are you a member of the CREWE Group on facebook?

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Wed 11th January 2012, 11:32am) *

Greg, I guess you'd take issue with this Jimbo "fact" in the context of paid editing:

QUOTE
And yes, I think it would be valuable to have specific examples. I have never - not even once - been shown an example where someone did things according to my recommendations and they did not get a proper resolution.


There is a wonderful weaselliness about those qualifications, isn't there?
No true Scotsman, indeed.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(dogbiscuit @ Wed 11th January 2012, 12:32pm) *

Greg, I guess you'd take issue with this Jimbo "fact" in the context of paid editing:

QUOTE
And yes, I think it would be valuable to have specific examples. I have never - not even once - been shown an example where someone did things according to my recommendations and they did not get a proper resolution.


There is a wonderful weaselliness about those qualifications, isn't there?


Essentially any time Jimbo is moving his lips or typing on his keyboard, I take issue.

evilgrin.gif

I guess he's forgotten entirely about Arch Coal, which was the grand-daddy of article process following his recommendations exactly. The result? An out-of-process deletion, a restoration that had been plagiarized by an admin without attribution, protection of the admin who plagiarized, and a two-year refusal to apologize for the disgraceful outcome.

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Wed 11th January 2012, 12:42pm) *

Are you a member of the CREWE Group on facebook?


He is. His Facebook name is "Sterling Ericsson".

Posted by: Silver seren

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Wed 11th January 2012, 5:42pm) *

QUOTE(Silver seren @ Wed 11th January 2012, 6:32am) *

Jimbo already commented on the talk page. He wanted to make sure that we wouldn't be encouraging COI editors to be actively editing article space and we said no, just talk pages and article drafts and things. And then he was fine with it, as far as I can tell.

I'm still trying to discuss about allowing minor changes, like grammar, spelling, and things like that, since that would be a pain for them to have to keep asking if it's okay to make this or that change and such changes don't really fall under any COI issues anyways.

And I wonder what William would say if he saw you saying things like that about him. hrmph.gif


Damn Silver seren, you're really getting some traction on this. I respect your efforts, but am sure Jimbo will find a way to insert himself and muck up the works. Are you a member of the CREWE Group on facebook?


I must admit that Jimbo's comments thus far in both venues has not been very helpful. I'd prefer if he'd just let us work on it ourselves.

And, yes, as Gregory said, I joined with my Facebook account under my real name, which all of you should know about anyways.

Posted by: thekohser

By the way, Phil Gomes banned me from the CREWE group yesterday, because Jimmy Wales complained to him about a photo I published on Facebook of me shooting an AK-47.

A friend of mine had commented, "i really hope you're not planning on killing anything with that."

As a joking reply, I typed, "I understand that Jimmy Wales often carries a gun, so I have to remain prepared with counter-fire."

Jimmy considers this an actual threat to his safety, and so he asked Gomes to remove me from the CREWE group. Poof! I was gone, and now I cannot read my content there, nor will Gomes allow me back in for 24 hours to gather up my content, which I'd like to use elsewhere.

Posted by: Eclipsed

QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Tue 10th January 2012, 3:04pm) *

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Herostratus/Wikiproject_Paid_Editing_Watch/Editor_Registry

They're handing out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_badge.

Wow, I'm #1 on that list. I'm assuming it's just because of Alphabetical order...

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Eclipsed @ Tue 28th February 2012, 6:46pm) *

QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Tue 10th January 2012, 3:04pm) *

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Herostratus/Wikiproject_Paid_Editing_Watch/Editor_Registry

They're handing out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_badge.

Wow, I'm #1 on that list. I'm assuming it's just because of Alphabetical order...


Welcome, paid editor.

Love,

Paid editor

Posted by: Eclipsed

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 29th February 2012, 6:45am) *

QUOTE(Eclipsed @ Tue 28th February 2012, 6:46pm) *

QUOTE(Michaeldsuarez @ Tue 10th January 2012, 3:04pm) *

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Herostratus/Wikiproject_Paid_Editing_Watch/Editor_Registry

They're handing out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_badge.

Wow, I'm #1 on that list. I'm assuming it's just because of Alphabetical order...


Welcome, paid editor.

Love,

Paid editor


Yes, welcome, welcome all.

As for the list: thanks for the free publicity. But what if people view it as a community-supported list of editors to contact if one wishes to hire a Professional Wikipedian?

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Eclipsed @ Sat 3rd March 2012, 9:58pm) *

As for the list: thanks for the free publicity. But what if people view it as a community-supported list of editors to contact if one wishes to hire a Professional Wikipedian?

Sauce for the goose.

Posted by: SB_Johnny

Apparently Jimmy http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Corporate+Representatives+for+Ethical+Wikipedia+Engagement. laugh.gif

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Mon 12th March 2012, 7:36am) *

Apparently Jimmy http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Corporate+Representatives+for+Ethical+Wikipedia+Engagement. laugh.gif


Some of the guys on CREWE were so enthusiastic about "working with" Jimmy Wales. I told them that was a hare-brained notion. Phil Gomes banned me from CREWE because he became very, very afraid of a photo of me on a private firing range, miles from civilization, shooting a gun owned by a municipal police officer.

Is there a sort of "You told us so" barnstar that someone could slap on Thekohser's WP User page?

More comic discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Corporate_Representatives_for_Ethical_Wikipedia_Engagement now.

The funny thing is that Selina was the primary influence on Jimmy's action against CREWE. The nutty leading the nut.

Posted by: Selina

Thought you'd left (again)? rolleyes.gif

QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 12th March 2012, 1:17pm) *
Some of the guys on CREWE were so enthusiastic about "working with" Jimmy Wales. I told them that was a hare-brained notion. Phil Gomes banned me from CREWE because he became very, very afraid of a photo of me on a private firing range, miles from civilization, shooting a gun owned by a municipal police officer.
Is this what you are referring to?
Image

(So you know, I'm licensed too. smile.gif)

QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 12th March 2012, 1:17pm) *
Is there a sort of "You told us so" barnstar that someone could slap on Thekohser's WP User page?

More comic discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Corporate_Representatives_for_Ethical_Wikipedia_Engagement now.

The funny thing is that Selina was the primary influence on Jimmy's action against CREWE. The nutty leading the nut.

And yeah, I can claim credit for that one. smile.gif Actually got him to do something good.

Got threatened with blocks again if I post on the AFD, too (after I got blocked last time for challenging the PR cabal).

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Selina @ Mon 12th March 2012, 9:23am) *

And yeah, I claim credit for that one. smile.gif Actually got him to do something good.

Got threatened with blocks again if I post on the AFD, too (after I got blocked last time for challenging the PR cabal).

You should post to the AFD. Stomping on these PR hacks is the most important cause on Wikipedia, as far as I'm concerned, Selina. You shouldn't withhold from DOING THE RIGHT THING, just because of some idle threat about blocking you. They CAN'T block you, Selina! You're too powerful! Great WikiArmies would rise up against anyone who would dare block you.

Posted by: Selina

Selina 2012, an AK for every child?

Posted by: Eppur si muove

Nice to see the type of mature discussion of this subject that has so enhanced the reputation of WR, Selina, Gomi, HK, Kohs etc this year.

Posted by: Selina

Agreed, but it'd be inappropriate to delete anything - the best way to deal with the unhinged is to show you don't acknowledge their accusations seriously really.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Selina @ Mon 12th March 2012, 9:27am) *


Image



Wow, it looks like you live in a nicely appointed home, Selina. I love what you've done with the decorating. Did you use an interior designer?

Posted by: Selina

So are you denying those pictures are of you?

Posted by: Emperor

:facepalm:

Lookit Greg, we all know you're not going to shoot Jimbo but on the other hand you do eat drink sleep breath and play Jimbo an awful lot, so you probably shouldn't even joke about it.

Now you're dissing Selina's house or something, come on. We've got to do better.

Posted by: Cunningly Linguistic

It seems Greg misspelt "licensed" when he actually meant "certified".

Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Mon 12th March 2012, 10:13am) *

It seems Greg misspelt "licensed" when he actually meant "certified".

That was Selina, not Greg.

Posted by: Selina

(Mod note: tangent on rights to bear arms and the American Revolutionary War split to the politics forum: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=37174 )

Posted by: Ottava

Mr. Kohs,

I sent you an email that you might find interesting on the topic - basically, a group that is helping to teach government employees how to scrub online identities. They don't blatantly mention Wikipedia, but it does give you some names that, with a cursory investigation, reveal some interesting things.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Ottava @ Mon 12th March 2012, 2:02pm) *

Mr. Kohs,

I sent you an email that you might find interesting on the topic - basically, a group that is helping to teach government employees how to scrub online identities. They don't blatantly mention Wikipedia, but it does give you some names that, with a cursory investigation, reveal some interesting things.

Thank you for the e-mail. It didn't surprise me in the least.

Posted by: thekohser

Here's Selina http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FCorporate_Representatives_for_Ethical_Wikipedia_Engagement&diff=481544099&oldid=481542303 on Wikipedia.

Here's Fur-ball http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Corporate_Representatives_for_Ethical_Wikipedia_Engagement&diff=481545003&oldid=481544306.

That does it. Wikipedia is now more amusing than Wikipedia Review.

Posted by: Selina

Actually, it's a discussion about an article I've edited, so it's not breaking it.

And I dunno, it's pretty amusing to see you siding with him. wink.gif

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Selina @ Mon 12th March 2012, 3:13pm) *

And I dunno, it's pretty amusing to see you siding with him. wink.gif

I'm not siding with either of you. If you were each run over by a city bus today, I would feel no more remorse (or glee) about either event.

Posted by: Cunningly Linguistic

QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 12th March 2012, 7:15pm) *

QUOTE(Selina @ Mon 12th March 2012, 3:13pm) *

And I dunno, it's pretty amusing to see you siding with him. wink.gif

I'm not siding with either of you. If you were each run over by a city bus today, I would feel no more remorse (or glee) about either event.


After the driver was dazzled by your forehead presumably?

Posted by: Selina

A whole city bus? I didn't know you cared. smile.gif

Posted by: Ottava

QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 12th March 2012, 3:11pm) *

Here's Selina http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FCorporate_Representatives_for_Ethical_Wikipedia_Engagement&diff=481544099&oldid=481542303 on Wikipedia.

Here's Fur-ball http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Corporate_Representatives_for_Ethical_Wikipedia_Engagement&diff=481545003&oldid=481544306.



Did we ever confirm that he is a real furry? smile.gif


By the way, I always found it distasteful that they impose such unblock conditions. I don't care about free speech, but I do care about how they trump up "consensus" then do whatever they can to get rid of people from being part of the consensus. It is like a child who makes up the rules as they go along.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Mon 12th March 2012, 3:17pm) *

After the driver was dazzled by your forehead presumably?

I call it my fivehead. It stopped being just a forehead a long time ago.

Posted by: Fusion

QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 12th March 2012, 7:11pm) *

Here's Selina http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FCorporate_Representatives_for_Ethical_Wikipedia_Engagement&diff=481544099&oldid=481542303 on Wikipedia.

Here's Fur-ball http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Corporate_Representatives_for_Ethical_Wikipedia_Engagement&diff=481545003&oldid=481544306.

That does it. Wikipedia is now more amusing than Wikipedia Review.

It wasn't User:Furball, who only ever made two posts in 2005.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Furball

It was User:Silver Seren.

Posted by: Tarc

QUOTE(Fusion @ Mon 12th March 2012, 5:29pm) *

QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 12th March 2012, 7:11pm) *

Here's Selina http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FCorporate_Representatives_for_Ethical_Wikipedia_Engagement&diff=481544099&oldid=481542303 on Wikipedia.

Here's Fur-ball http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Corporate_Representatives_for_Ethical_Wikipedia_Engagement&diff=481545003&oldid=481544306.

That does it. Wikipedia is now more amusing than Wikipedia Review.

It wasn't User:Furball, who only ever made two posts in 2005.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Furball

It was User:Silver Seren.


So which is it? Either a weak attempt at humor, or you really have http://encyclopediadramatica.ch/Furfag http://encyclopediadramatica.ch/Silver_Seren why the term "furball" is applicable to Seren.


Posted by: Fusion

QUOTE(Tarc @ Mon 12th March 2012, 9:40pm) *

So which is it? Either a weak attempt at humor, or you really have http://encyclopediadramatica.ch/Furfag http://encyclopediadramatica.ch/Silver_Seren why the term "furball" is applicable to Seren.

Thank you very much for this. However, I have never looked at the site you link to, and have no wish to start now.

Posted by: Selina

http://wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Please.2C_keep_the_bunny
^ thekohser, if you think it's all about you, it honestly isn't, if anything the fact you bring it to more attention is probably a good thing, because you're pretty benign compared to what it could be. smile.gif It's like I said on my talk page before when people were telling me to stop fighting it, it well, really is pointless for any small group of individuals to try because they'll always be outnumbered.

It will likely end up far, far, worse than it is now, since I can't really work out what changes they could actually do, if any, other than writing the whole thing off as a failed experiment... It may be easy to say nah, now, but if you read about what is being built, and the potential (check the links I made), well, yeah. I'm kind of skeptical of religion but it does have a good purpose sometimes in that at least you'll have a conscience from doing anything really creepy even if you occasionally forget the long list of Jesus quotes about intentionally deceiving people. wink.gif

Posted by: jsalsman

QUOTE(Selina @ Tue 13th March 2012, 7:15pm) *
It may be easy to say nah, now, but if you read about what is being built, and the potential (check the links I made), well, yeah.
Organized sockfarms will always draw attention to themselves. No amount of organized collective effort is going to be able to counter spontaneous zeitgeist. Political ads are still more effective when they are direct and out in the open.

Posted by: Selina

Nah, read the links from my message there.


btw there's another related thread going too: http://wikipediareview.com/?showtopic=36755