| |
|
  |
 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) |
|
|
|
|
|
| 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: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |
