FORUM WARNING [2] Division by zero (Line: 2933 of /srcsgcaop/boardclass.php)
"Advocacy Articles" -
     
 
The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> "Advocacy Articles"
Herschelkrustofsky
post
Post #1


Member
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined:
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130



There is a new debate about what might more accurately be described as POV Battleground articles, and it is to be found at Wikipedia:Advocacy articles (T-H-L-K-D). The good news is that they are actually trying to formulate some sort of response to the problem, and among the suggestions are various types of disclaimer labels that warn the reader to expect opinion, not fact. That, IMO, would be a step in the right direction. In other words, abandon the pretense of being an "encyclopedia."
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Replies
Michaeldsuarez
post
Post #2


Ãœber Member
*****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 562
Joined:
From: New York, New York
Member No.: 24,428



http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=475380264:

QUOTE
Also an interesting topic, but a different topic. The idea that since there is unpaid advocacy, we should ignore the solvable problem of paid advocacy is a total non sequitur.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 11:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=475407006:

QUOTE
I agree. That's why it is important and valuable to clarify policy around paid advocacy - it's achievable and it will work. Unpaid advocacy is a different problem, also worthy of attention, but usually when people make your point they are asking the community to either lump the two together or to give up in despair. I see zero relevance. They are different problems, and they need different solutions.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 15:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


How's paid advocacy more "solvable" than unpaid advocacy? Both unpaid and paid editors will use anonymity to game the system. Are they simply going to going to put up a sign that says, "Paid advocacy isn't allowed." How will that solve anything? It'll only force paid editing to go underground (i.e. into anonymity), just as banning the drug trade only forced the drug trade to go underground rather than eradicate it.

Jimbo's second comment is in response to the anon's comment of "Paid advocates, by contrast, are usually doing a job, and often have a reputation to protect." What about anonymous paid editors? Will outing and invasion of privacy be tolerated?

This post has been edited by Michaeldsuarez:
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post



Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now:
 
     
FORUM WARNING [2] Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home2/wikipede/public_html/int042kj398.php:242) (Line: 0 of Unknown)