| |
|
  |
 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: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |
