Cash for spam, functionary involved? Options

[carbuncle]

I found a job on that eLance site looking for someone to:

Expand "carpet cleaning" article and create articles on "carpet dry cleaning" and on major system manufacturers. Competitors will be included but every sourceable and encyclopedic marketing spin will be present. Ongoing stability advocacy is included ....

By sheer coincidence an editor who focuses on religious topics and US politicians also seems to have an interest in carpet cleaning and created a new article on [[Dry carpet cleaning]]. The fact that the WP editor and the eLance editor are both named John Bulten seems like another obvious joejob...

[MBisanz]

Well if Tarantino's research is correct, it is a simple case of a highly trusted user socking to avoid scrutiny of his edits, and I hope Arbcom and Jimbo deal with it as they see appropriate.

On the issue of paid editing, I was thinking about it on my train ride tonight and I had some thoughts.

We can agree that an article like Arch Coal isn't POV-pushing, biased, etc, despite the commercial intent in its creation. Under the RfC on paid editing, I would list its creation as permitted. But let's say Wikipedia Review kicked off and became highly successful. And Greg was able to afford a staff of people to create all the articles people were paying for. And then someone AFD' one of these articles. If Greg's staff all showed up at the AFD (since presumably they would all be experienced editors by this point), people would call "shenanigans" the same way they did in Scientology, Prem Rawat, CAMERA, etc. I suppose the fear of many people is that by permitting paid editing, it opens the door to paid cabaling on topics. I'm sure it happens now, I've seen enough mysterious new accounts at AFD on spam articles to confirm that, but I believe many in the community still think that maintaining an altruistic outlook as opposed to a for-profit outlook deters commercial abuse.

Greg, any thoughts? How do you maintain the idea of an NPOV, balanced, article when someone(s) has a fiduciary responsibility to promote the interests of their client? Let's say you added an article on Garreth Westwood to Wikipedia, and then it was discovered he had defrauded clients and someone added the news reference to the article. If he complained that now his paid article was harming his interests, you would be stuck in a sticky situation. Do you remove it from the article and hope no one notices or tell him "tough cookies" while he writes out his last check to you?

[TungstenCarbide]

Anyhoo, Mr. Rootlogy has started an RfC on Paid Editing. That should be good for some nice, wholesome entertainment...

Hopefully GeorgeWillaimHerbert will come and share his wisdom.


Here's a thought; what happens if paid editing is eventually accepted. Will there be competition between the big dogs? and will they resort to dirty tricks by sabotaging eachother's work ... "no, you don't want to go with my competitor, his articles always turn into mush after a short while "

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide: Wed 10th June 2009, 4:01am

[thekohser]

A Joe Job, Jehochman? Why don't you ask him? Then you can carry on with deleting Zithan's user space and pretend nothing's happened.

Might as well add this BLP article to the mix. He's the founder of Stereofame.com, which is the company that Zithan was paid to write a Wikipedia article about. Zithan made this article, too.

We can agree that an article like Arch Coal isn't POV-pushing, biased, etc, despite the commercial intent in its creation.

I have said this about 20 times before, in various places including WR. The Arch Coal article had no commercial intent. No money exchanged hands. Arch Coal was unaware that I had even written the article. The funny thing is that Jimmy Wales and nearly all of his Wikipediot sycophants simply assumed it was paid content. Lots of things are assumed about paid editing. That doesn't make these assumptions facts, though.

But let's say Wikipedia Review kicked off and became highly successful. And Greg was able to afford a staff of people to create all the articles people were paying for. And then someone AFD' one of these articles. If Greg's staff all showed up at the AFD (since presumably they would all be experienced editors by this point), people would call "shenanigans" the same way they did in Scientology, Prem Rawat, CAMERA, etc. I suppose the fear of many people is that by permitting paid editing, it opens the door to paid cabaling on topics.

What? On the encyclopedia "anyone can edit"? Where reality is determined by a not-a-vote majority reaching consensus? So, you object to the the rules of your encyclopedia only when you find that a majority that disagrees with you has suddenly gained control of your precious "consensus"?

Greg, any thoughts? How do you maintain the idea of an NPOV, balanced, article...

My thought is that you need more thought about the idea of NPOV in a document anyone can edit.

[Somey]

But let's say Wikipedia Review kicked off and became highly successful. And Greg was able to afford a staff of people to create all the articles people were paying for. And then someone AFD' one of these articles. If Greg's staff all showed up at the AFD (since presumably they would all be experienced editors by this point), people would call "shenanigans" the same way they did in Scientology, Prem Rawat, CAMERA, etc. I suppose the fear of many people is that by permitting paid editing, it opens the door to paid cabaling on topics.

If you assume there's going to be a requirement that all paid editors openly state their affiliation and/or client relationship up front, this might not be a problem... My assumption would be that the AfD "closer" would count all the affiliated votes as one, or ignore them altogether. And that attempts by such a group to "stack the process," if discovered, would be a blockable offense.

As for whether or not such a requirement could actually be effective, that's a different story... My suggestion would be to institute some sort of "Good Wiki-Housekeeping Seal of Approval" which clients of these supposed paid editors would look for, so as to be assured they're not going to be caught doing something sneaky and thus receive bad publicity.

It's an interesting problem, though. The real issue IMO isn't "paid cabalism," it's that already-established WP'ers who consider themselves "altruists" and "free culture" types will be very unhappy having to work on articles directly with people who are being paid. Some will simply disengage and/or quit, but others... I could definitely see some serious drama in the works here.

[EricBarbour]

I could definitely see some serious drama in the works here.

What, drama on top of the drama (on top of the drama)?
Have a dose of their already-going drama.

Those bastards can "drama" all they want, but until they unban people like Greg,
they're not serious.

It appears the general tone of that "discussion" is turning paid edit=COI=bad, bad, bad.
If the twits removed the anon editing of which they are sooo proud, it would be far
easier to catch the COIs they are sooo angry at.

I'd call that a philosophical conflict. They want it both ways, which is impossible.

Wikipedia will lose a great deal of respect from observers and readers;

Too late, fool. Didn't you notice that Stephen Colbert uses your "encyclopedia" as
the butt of jokes? Haven't you seen the flap in the UK press over Sam Blacketer?

[tarantino]

This technical writer offering his wikiskills for pay is undoubtedly the cricket-loving OS/crat/admin Nichalp.

Besides technical writing, I also am an accomplished senior Wikipedia administrator with several featured articles to my name.

I can help you by metamorphosing technical jargon into simple language that could be understood by a wide audience. If you need a good profile on Wikipedia, I can help you out there too through my rich experience.

The other members of functionaries-l must have convinced him to remove references to Wikipedia from his profile.

He's not the only admin doing it on the sly, just the first one caught.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=wi....com&as_qdr=all

[Nerd]

ArbCom got their naughty chair out and have now removed Nichalp's privs. Announcement

[MBisanz]

But let's say Wikipedia Review kicked off and became highly successful. And Greg was able to afford a staff of people to create all the articles people were paying for. And then someone AFD' one of these articles. If Greg's staff all showed up at the AFD (since presumably they would all be experienced editors by this point), people would call "shenanigans" the same way they did in Scientology, Prem Rawat, CAMERA, etc. I suppose the fear of many people is that by permitting paid editing, it opens the door to paid cabaling on topics.

If you assume there's going to be a requirement that all paid editors openly state their affiliation and/or client relationship up front, this might not be a problem... My assumption would be that the AfD "closer" would count all the affiliated votes as one, or ignore them altogether. And that attempts by such a group to "stack the process," if discovered, would be a blockable offense.

As for whether or not such a requirement could actually be effective, that's a different story... My suggestion would be to institute some sort of "Good Wiki-Housekeeping Seal of Approval" which clients of these supposed paid editors would look for, so as to be assured they're not going to be caught doing something sneaky and thus receive bad publicity.

It's an interesting problem, though. The real issue IMO isn't "paid cabalism," it's that already-established WP'ers who consider themselves "altruists" and "free culture" types will be very unhappy having to work on articles directly with people who are being paid. Some will simply disengage and/or quit, but others... I could definitely see some serious drama in the works here.

I think you give AFD closers too much credit. Look at User:JamesBurns. He used sockpuppets at over 300 AFDs with 28 sockpuppets. It wasn't until he used 9 socks on the same AFD that someone noticed something was amiss. And while it might be nice to have a "Seal of Approval", I suspect many, if not most, profiteers would figure out it is more profitable to sock to preserve an article at AFD and risk a CU noticing, than to seek the Seal and see their article deleted. Similar to how the Nintendo Seal of Approval never stopped Game Genie from making cheat add-ons since the disincentives were not large enough.

[CharlotteWebb]

Similar to how the Nintendo Seal of Approval never stopped Game Genie from making cheat add-ons since the disincentives were not large enough.

Well, one might dispute the strength of this analogy on the basis that cheating at Nintendo does not effect the gameplay of others.

[thekohser]

ArbCom got their naughty chair out and have now removed Nichalp's privs. Announcement

Wow. Dramatic!

I wonder if my e-mail to Jimbo had anything to do with this.

[thekohser]

Oh, wow. Now there's a story about it on the front page of Slashdot -- with a handy link to Wikipedia Review, right in the article. Getting about 75 to 100 additional uniques on my site, just in the past 2 or 3 hours. I hope the server can handle it!

Slashdot News Story

[EricBarbour]

Oh, wow. Now there's a story about it on the front page of Slashdot -- with a handy link to Wikipedia Review, right in the article. Getting about 75 to 100 additional uniques on my site, just in the past 2 or 3 hours. I hope the server can handle it!

You're lucky this happened on Saturday night. The Slashdot traffic will be minimal.
If they had posted that on Monday morning, your server would be melting right now.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

I think the idea someone had recently of an "editors union" is a wonderful idea but a wasted one to be as limp and impotent as an "association" of established authors.

Where you have an unaccountable system of abuse, that even involves minors and vulnerable individuals (I am thinking a mix of borderline personality disorders and psychopaths), it is the responsibility of any upright member of society to push their way in and confront it ... or if they cant be bothered confronting it, at least alert others and ridicule it.

Having created a "global community" the size of a corporation that will probably stick for a while, the Wikipedia now needs something more than just "pastoral care" for its frontline troops. It needs militant social workers, welfare agencies and a real workers' union to create and protect rights. These should be funded by a share of all those bucks spent on evangelism, or taken for the purpose of personal benefit by the likes of Jimmy Wales, David Shankbone and others.

The Wikipedia is someone's business. Albeit one using the cultic model of the abuse of others goodwill. I would not suggest doing it, unless one was paid to do it. A common element within cultic business models is to appoint adherents with low self value to apparent leadership positions (as in those willing to work for free or less than the going market rate), keep them vulnerable by the odd symbolic "public hanging" and retain real power elsewhere.

So, how to get them to the responsible point where they will consider paying people to do that is the obvious question ... ?

(As an aside, what was going on in the shift of "pedophilia apologist" Erik Möller from unpaid (but potentially powerful) to paid (but potentially sackable) and has it been covered here?)

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy: Mon 15th June 2009, 11:04am

[thekohser]

This technical writer offering his wikiskills for pay is undoubtedly the cricket-loving OS/crat/admin Nichalp.

Besides technical writing, I also am an accomplished senior Wikipedia administrator with several featured articles to my name.

I can help you by metamorphosing technical jargon into simple language that could be understood by a wide audience. If you need a good profile on Wikipedia, I can help you out there too through my rich experience.

This was another blockbuster uncovered, it seems, by Tarantino.

The WMF should hire him, the way computer network firms hire hackers to show them where they're vulnerable.

How many big discoveries has Tarantino uncovered? The man needs a press agent.

Greg

[jayvdb]

This was another blockbuster uncovered, it seems, by Tarantino.

The WMF should hire him, the way computer network firms hire hackers to show them where they're vulnerable.

How many big discoveries has Tarantino uncovered? The man needs a press agent.

Greg

Tarantino (M-P-T) is YellowMonkey (T-C-L-K-R-D) ?

Jimbo was informed that there was a problem on 4th June 2009, but I don't think he was told who. He forwarded that email to functionaries-en@wikimedia.org on June 7, and that email didn't include a name of the culprit.

YellowMonkey started the thread on Jimbo's talk on 9th June 2009, 02:56 UTC, and filled me in with the details at 3:32 UTC.

Viridae started this thread at 03:51 UTC, linking to YellowMonkey's post.

After discussing it with me, YellowMonkey informed the Arbitration Committee of the details at 04:32 UTC.

Alex Bakharev posted the Elance link onto Jimbo's talk page at 05:54 UTC.

Tarantino's first post here was 15:08 UTC, with no more details than what Alex publicly posted nine hours earlier. Tarantino mentions Zithan (T-C-L-K-R-D) here another four and a half hours later - I am pretty sure that everyone knew of that account by then.

[thekohser]

This was another blockbuster uncovered, it seems, by Tarantino.

The WMF should hire him, the way computer network firms hire hackers to show them where they're vulnerable.

How many big discoveries has Tarantino uncovered? The man needs a press agent.

Greg

Tarantino (M-P-T) is YellowMonkey (T-C-L-K-R-D) ?

Jimbo was informed that there was a problem on 4th June 2009, but I don't think he was told who. He forwarded that email to functionaries-en@wikimedia.org on June 7, and that email didn't include a name of the culprit.

YellowMonkey started the thread on Jimbo's talk on 9th June 2009, 02:56 UTC, and filled me in with the details at 3:32 UTC.

Viridae started this thread at 03:51 UTC, linking to YellowMonkey's post.

After discussing it with me, YellowMonkey informed the Arbitration Committee of the details at 04:32 UTC.

Alex Bakharev posted the Elance link onto Jimbo's talk page at 05:54 UTC.

Tarantino's first post here was 15:08 UTC, with no more details than what Alex publicly posted nine hours earlier. Tarantino mentions Zithan (T-C-L-K-R-D) here another four and a half hours later - I am pretty sure that everyone knew of that account by then.

Okay, duly noted. My mistake.

Tarantino is still way more awesome than 12 Wikipedia admins put together, though.

[TungstenCarbide]

Tarantino (M-P-T) is YellowMonkey (T-C-L-K-R-D) ?

Holy cow, I would have guessed Cyde.

[sbrown]

Tarantino (M-P-T) is YellowMonkey (T-C-L-K-R-D) ?

So the next question is who is Yellow Monkey.

[jayvdb]

Tarantino (M-P-T) is YellowMonkey (T-C-L-K-R-D) ?

So the next question is who is Yellow Monkey.

A very keen assessor, from what I have gathered.