Update on paid article creation by MyWikiBiz Options Rating

[thekohser]

Just thought the Wikipedia Review community might like to hear how things are going with past volunteer article creation, past and present paid article creation, and past and present "covering fire" article creation on Wikipedia, from Wikipedia Review.

While a user in good standing on Wikipedia, I created over 30 new articles that still reside today in Wikipedia. In the month of October 2010, they collectively garnered a total of 37,178 page views, with the leading articles being about the Czech Air Force, Carolina Ardohain, line management, Avia, Resorts Atlantic City, and job sharing.

In over four years, I have also created at least ten articles in exchange for payment, which have garnered nearly 9,200 page views in the month of October 2010. Of course, I have also worked extensively on at least as many other articles in exchange for payment, but they were already-existing pages that needed client-driven modifications. I wish I could share the list of these various articles, but there is a teeny, tiny chance that might possibly subject them to retaliatory editing by Wikipediots. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ph34r.gif) Sorry!

Also over those four years, I have created a few additional new articles for free, but only as "cover" for the paid-article user accounts, so as not to look too suspicious. These articles have drawn more than 1,550 page views in October 2010. Again, while they weren't paid output, I still can't reveal them.

One more recent paid project asked for an external link from various Wikipedia articles to the client's web site. They were having trouble getting them to stick, because they lacked the reputation of an existing active account in good standing (such as the several that I maintain). So far, the links I've gotten to stick are driving traffic from Wikipedia articles that net over 170,000 page views per month.

This is the productivity and content influence of a "Founder-banned" user of Wikipedia. How are the rest of y'all doing?

Any questions?

[GlassBeadGame]

Just thought the Wikipedia Review community might like to hear how things are going with past volunteer article creation, past and present paid article creation, and past and present "covering fire" article creation on Wikipedia, from Wikipedia Review.

While a user in good standing on Wikipedia, I created over 30 new articles that still reside today in Wikipedia. In the month of October 2010, they collectively garnered a total of 37,178 page views, with the leading articles being about the Czech Air Force, Carolina Ardohain, line management, Avia, Resorts Atlantic City, and job sharing.

In over four years, I have also created at least ten articles in exchange for payment, which have garnered nearly 9,200 page views in the month of October 2010. Of course, I have also worked extensively on at least as many other articles in exchange for payment, but they were already-existing pages that needed client-driven modifications. I wish I could share the list of these various articles, but there is a teeny, tiny chance that might possibly subject them to retaliatory editing by Wikipediots. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ph34r.gif) Sorry!

Also over those four years, I have created a few additional new articles for free, but only as "cover" for the paid-article user accounts, so as not to look too suspicious. These articles have drawn more than 1,550 page views in October 2010. Again, while they weren't paid output, I still can't reveal them.

One more recent paid project asked for an external link from various Wikipedia articles to the client's web site. They were having trouble getting them to stick, because they lacked the reputation of an existing active account in good standing (such as the several that I maintain). So far, the links I've gotten to stick are driving traffic from Wikipedia articles that net over 170,000 page views per month.

This is the productivity and content influence of a "Founder-banned" user of Wikipedia. How are the rest of y'all doing?

Any questions?

I've always wondered, do the people who hire you to write articles on WP know up-front that you are banned from that site?

[thekohser]

I've always wondered, do the people who hire you to write articles on WP know up-front that you are banned from that site?

Well, ever since I was banned (but not originally, nor when I was under the ArbCom un-ban), I have always found it more productive to engage the client with my back-story, fully informing them that I'm "persona non grata" on Wikipedia, so that they know that the account that will be helping them is "me", but that they might not immediately recognize it as "me". Mutual non-disclosure is an important set-up for any of my paid projects.

Remember, also, most people who find their way to me, seeking a paid editing solution, have already seen the ugly inner workings of Wikipedia and gave up trying to make progress on their own. I don't think any prospective client of mine has ever been the least bit surprised that I'm a "banned" editor who still has full editing access to the site.

[JohnA]

Total added to Wikipedia this year: zero

Articles used for research this year: < 10

My web-based research appears to be focussed on original content and arxiv.org

I question very much that Wikipedia is improving at all. Some articles that should have been written by a professional biographer or historian years ago are still stubs or short, pathetic articles that say virtually nothing.

There's a lot of dreck on the Internet, and Wikipedia appears to have concentrated the dreck.

It's been a good while since I've seen an article on WP that is even half decent as an encyclopedia entry. It's clear that Wikipedia policies and admin-protected vandals have driven scholars away.

[NuclearWarfare]

How much money did you make for creating these articles?

[thekohser]

How much money did you make for creating these articles?

Because it's been distributed over several years, I'd need to look up records to verify, but total revenue related to content generation has been about $2,200 to $2,400. There have been other revenue sources associated with Wikipedia Review, as well as costs, of course.

[powercorrupts]

Can you give at least one article? One from your banned account, which nobody could possibly get away with reversing, and where the client wouldn't mind. It would be evidence that someone has edited WIkipedia for money, and any response would be interesting. Even better would be the client admitted they did it. I mean - what could Wikipedia actually do?

I assume of course you do more than just insert product suppliers in the external links, and you create articles for notable companies, or supply/correct information for them with a link when it is relevant (I used to amuse myself removing blatant link spamming when I saw it was happening across a particular electronic field a couple of years ago - interestingly I was the only editor who noticed it, and a lot of totally free 'get it here' advertising had been effectively hosted by Wikimedia for quite a while).

Is any of it BLP stuff, where the person cannot do it him/herself?

This post has been edited by powercorrupts:

[thekohser]

Can you give at least one article? One from your banned account, which nobody could possibly get away with reversing, and where the client wouldn't mind. It would be evidence that someone has edited WIkipedia for money, and any response would be interesting. Even better would be the client admitted they did it. I mean - what could Wikipedia actually do?

I assume of course you do more than just insert product suppliers in the external links, and you create articles for notable companies, or supply/correct information for them with a link when it is relevant (I used to amuse myself removing blatant link spamming when I saw it was happening across a particular electronic field a couple of years ago - interestingly I was the only editor who noticed it, and a lot of totally free 'get it here' advertising had been effectively hosted by Wikimedia for quite a while).

Is any of it BLP stuff, where the person cannot do it him/herself?

You have many amusing notions in your post, which I have highlighted in bold above. It is as if you seriously think Wikipedia "rules" apply to the real world!

Let me provide a few links to respond to a few of those notions.

• evidence that someone has edited WIkipedia for money
• better would be the client admitted they did it
• any of it BLP stuff, where the person cannot do it him/herself

Now, if you'd like to restructure your questions so that they actually probe for something new and illuminating, I'll again consider answering. But, as phrased above, I don't see that we really gain anything from my disclosure, while risking only grief and trouble.

[powercorrupts]

Can you give at least one article? One from your banned account, which nobody could possibly get away with reversing, and where the client wouldn't mind. It would be evidence that someone has edited WIkipedia for money, and any response would be interesting. Even better would be the client admitted they did it. I mean - what could Wikipedia actually do?

I assume of course you do more than just insert product suppliers in the external links, and you create articles for notable companies, or supply/correct information for them with a link when it is relevant (I used to amuse myself removing blatant link spamming when I saw it was happening across a particular electronic field a couple of years ago - interestingly I was the only editor who noticed it, and a lot of totally free 'get it here' advertising had been effectively hosted by Wikimedia for quite a while).

Is any of it BLP stuff, where the person cannot do it him/herself?

You have many amusing notions in your post, which I have highlighted in bold above. It is as if you seriously think Wikipedia "rules" apply to the real world!

Let me provide a few links to respond to a few of those notions.

• evidence that someone has edited WIkipedia for money
• better would be the client admitted they did it
• any of it BLP stuff, where the person cannot do it him/herself

Now, if you'd like to restructure your questions so that they actually probe for something new and illuminating, I'll again consider answering. But, as phrased above, I don't see that we really gain anything from my disclosure, while risking only grief and trouble.

I do wish you weren't such a nob all the time. If it risks trouble, don't answer. If it's so secret squirrel - don't ask (and find some other way of advertising Wikipedia Review, or 'amusing' yourself).

You don't have to be such a pedant. "people who can't do it themselves" isn't a 'naive' notion about how it is seen a somehow 'wrong' for BLPersons to edit their own articles - I actually rave against that control-freakism whenever I get a chance. The most obvious fact should be that article-editing is actually technical and often laborious work, and is simply too hard for most people to do. The most obvious paid work is surely to simply offer a technical editing service (the programming, in essence). The prose, the links etc could all be supplied by a WP-savvy customer. For Wikipedia to moan about that is to show a shocking prejudice against those who are simply unable get their heads around technical stuff. People surely have a human right to pay others to do it for them.

In reality, the technical nature of WP makes sure it is only an "encyclopedia for everyone" in the sense of "everyone can read it". And yes - they would not have it any other way. They don't want it to be good, and are not interested in serious article completion.

In response to your links:

The Reward Board was a just a quirk, like the Core Competition. It was never intended to be a proper bartering area. Same as the charity fund for drawing technical pictures. They show how giddy Wikipedia is, but they don't prove that people are paying professional editors for a service.

Same goes for Microsoft's speculation – it's not really proof of a market. Their beef is that IBM do it themselves, not hire from an independent-market supplier like yourself. Unfortunately Microsoft are daft enough to go along with Wikipedia's illogical and controlling Conflict of Interest = biased Point of View equation. The WP top dogs of course abuse it all the time.

Is this a question of guts, Greg? Why not take on a job where you are both open about what you are doing?

This post has been edited by powercorrupts:

[thekohser]

I'm sorry, but who is this calling me a nob and asking if I have guts? I didn't catch your name.

You make some good points in that last post. I'd just correct you that "amusing ourselves" is probably the main purpose of this website. We just happen to do it through the medium of Wikipedia criticism.

I liked your phrase "shocking prejudice" -- that describes Wikipedia culture and governance quite well.

Hey, I just remembered a recent paid article that the 'pediots found out about when it was transacted in a publicly-viewable space (Freelancer.com). You can see what happened to it on Wikipedia after it was published. The article was "SEO 2.0". If you want to see how it looked originally, go to that website I keep "advertising" here. Step back a few weeks in the history, though, to see how it actually looked on Wikipedia for 7 hours before deleted. (I've since modified the article to reflect my opinion after the buyer shorted me on my fee.). How's that for "guts", Mr. Corrupts?

I'm also curious how you know what the "intention" of the Reward Board was. If not a "proper bartering area", what was its true intent?

[powercorrupts]

I'm sorry, but who is this calling me a nob and asking if I have guts? I didn't catch your name.

You make some good points in that last post. I'd just correct you that "amusing ourselves" is probably the main purpose of this website. We just happen to do it through the medium of Wikipedia criticism.

I liked your phrase "shocking prejudice" -- that describes Wikipedia culture and governance quite well.

Hey, I just remembered a recent paid article that the 'pediots found out about when it was transacted in a publicly-viewable space (Freelancer.com). You can see what happened to it on Wikipedia after it was published. The article was "SEO 2.0". If you want to see how it looked originally, go to that website I keep "advertising" here. Step back a few weeks in the history, though, to see how it actually looked on Wikipedia for 7 hours before deleted. (I've since modified the article to reflect my opinion after the buyer shorted me on my fee.). How's that for "guts", Mr. Corrupts?

I'm also curious how you know what the "intention" of the Reward Board was. If not a "proper bartering area", what was its true intent?

I'll answer that later - I'm off out. Why not think of looking for that mutually open job? I'm sure you could run everywhere with it.

[thekohser]

Why not think of looking for that mutually open job? I'm sure you could run everywhere with it.

I honestly don't know what you mean by "mutually open job". You mean, a client that publicly proclaims they want a paid article completed, and then I complete it and publish it on Wikipedia?

If so, then you really want to see "SEO 2.0", in its original form, and how it turned out on Wikipedia.

This post has been edited by thekohser:

[powercorrupts]

Why not think of looking for that mutually open job? I'm sure you could run everywhere with it.

I honestly don't know what you mean by "mutually open job". You mean, a client that publicly proclaims they want a paid article completed, and then I complete it and publish it on Wikipedia?

If so, then you really want to see "SEO 2.0", in its original form, and how it turned out on Wikipedia.

You need to go for something that is less problematic than the above article (which was relatively easy for them to delete, even though it all their deletions rub against their pathological inclusionism). Either something that already exists in some weak form, or a totally uncontroversial new article. Then you can boast about it and see what happens.

People need to have these debates, otherwise the world will simply follow Jimbo's want. You have to make the point that being 'banned' is no reason at all for not contributing (the 'community' side is usually nonsense), and that it is essential for people to take responsibility for their own lives. You are basically creating 'alternative editing accounts', which is normally allowed, and anonymity is encouraged on Wikipedia.

Also important to get across to people is that when encyclopedic entries are properly made, it shouldn't matter how many sock puppets are around. Style is the key. A single massive online 'encyclopedia of everything that everyone can edit' is simply one of humanities inevitable inventions - it is owned by us as a human right, it operates courtesy of our donations, and we shouldn't be bullied into when we can and cannot be 'allowed' to edit it.

This post has been edited by powercorrupts:

[thekohser]

You need to go for something that is less problematic than the above article (which was relatively easy for them to delete, even though it all their deletions rub against their pathological inclusionism). Either something that already exists in some weak form, or a totally uncontroversial new article. Then you can boast about it and see what happens.

I'll await your PayPal payment of $44.50 (that's half price, PC, since I like you) along with your requested totally uncontroversial new article topic. Give me eight days to research, write, and publish it to Wikipedia (using an account that doesn't expose any of my other paid editing clients), and then we can boast about it and see what happens.

Surely there's some topic of interest to you that is not already covered in Wikipedia? Might I suggest one? There's a holding company just south of the Fortune 500 that is in Wikipedia, but only as a redirect to a popular retail brand, because the Wikipediots don't seem to realize that the holding company consists of not just the retail brand, but another unaffiliated industrial brand. So, I think that either that unaffiliated industrial brand, or a re-build of the redirected holding company entity, would be a nifty test of the paid editing waters. Let me know privately that you're interested in this, and I'll then reveal the brands to you. You're free to take them as a suggestion, or make your own. I won't create a BLP against the person's wishes, though.

[thekohser]

Why doesn't this site offer a 'market' style forum for editing WP articles? ...

Aside from anything, it's a much needed and genuinely worthy service, and perhaps more in line with the philosophy of this place, it could be a real wallop to the ultra-controlling hegemony at Wikipedia.

That would work way better than the Reward Board!

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

[Zoloft]

<deleted content - this post no longer made sense, as the one it was replying to was moved>


This post has been edited by Zoloft:

[Eva Destruction]

Why doesn't this site offer a 'market' style forum for editing WP articles? ...

Aside from anything, it's a much needed and genuinely worthy service, and perhaps more in line with the philosophy of this place, it could be a real wallop to the ultra-controlling hegemony at Wikipedia.

That would work way better than the Reward Board!

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

Would it look something like this? As Greg knows, nobody's ever going to get rich on paid Wikipedia editing; for almost every corporation, time and cash spent on improving their own website and Google presence is better spent than paying someone to goof about on Wikipedia.

[GlassBeadGame]

Mod Note: PC's post concerning using WR as a WP notice board to bid out articles moved to The Annex. Good luck with that.

[powercorrupts]

It wasn't about 'bidding out' articles (as you have humerously re-titled it you insulting bastard) - and you have removed my reply to the above. You didn't even fucking read it, you just got a admin-style cock rush.

It has little to do with 'Annex', as what I am discussing doesn't happen at Wikipedia. It is about how Wikipedia relates to the real world in general, and you damn well know it. This is serious abuse of your power here, relating entirely to your admitted prejudice against anything that touches WIkipedia is a remotely positive sense (even a removed one). They must really chuckle over there when they think of you being a MOD here.

What a Wikipedia badmin you are - and I cannot imagive a worse insult to you either.

GlassBeadGame, you are a Wikipedia badmin of the first and worst order.

Why doesn't this site offer a 'market' style forum for editing WP articles? ...

Aside from anything, it's a much needed and genuinely worthy service, and perhaps more in line with the philosophy of this place, it could be a real wallop to the ultra-controlling hegemony at Wikipedia.

That would work way better than the Reward Board!

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

Would it look something like this? As Greg knows, nobody's ever going to get rich on paid Wikipedia editing; for almost every corporation, time and cash spent on improving their own website and Google presence is better spent than paying someone to goof about on Wikipedia.

It's not about bidding, as I explained to you in the post that the pumped up idiot GlassBeadGame so insultingly removed to Annex.

It's also not about making money - it's about human rights.

This post has been edited by powercorrupts:

[thekohser]

I thought it was about bidding, and making money, and repeating an infrastructure that's been on Wikipedia for nearly 5 years, I believe. Annex was the perfect spot for that.