| |
|
  |
 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: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Cla68 |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,763
Joined:
Member No.: 5,761
|
QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 11th June 2009, 2:19pm) 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. This is my point exactly. Openly POV-pushing advocates of a certain position, person, or organization, like Jayjg or Jossi, eventually get noticed, dealt with, and their articles receive a lot of negative attention and scrutiny. That's why it would be best for a paid editor to make sure that the article follows Wikipedia's rules to the "T". I suspect that Shankbone supports paid editing because he wants to actually be paid for doing it. Well, that goes for me too. As long as he or anyone else follows the rules, I don't care. This comment on the subject is a good one. This post has been edited by Cla68: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
QUOTE(Cla68 @ Thu 11th June 2009, 5:23pm) QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Thu 11th June 2009, 9:20pm)
I think it's kinda weird that you guys can't figure out where this is going — after all this time observing the Wiki-Wiles of Wiki-Wales.
Well, I noticed that Jimbo apparently feels that its ok for himself to openly try to make money off of Wikipedia, but no one else should be allowed to, if that's what you mean. Okay, you get some sh*nkbonus points for that. Naturally, a few crumbs of wiki-privilege will be doled out to MIGS of the wiki-palace guard. And the standards on paid editing, like the standards on all other Auto-Promo and COI, will always be kept fuzzy enough to be doubled — excused for the in-group of wiki-pets and used against folks who suddenly find themselves on the way out. Jon |
|
|
|
|
|
| Cock-up-over-conspiracy |
|
Now censored by flckr.com and who else ... ???
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined:
Member No.: 9,267
|
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Thu 11th June 2009, 9:30pm) I think it's kinda weird that you guys can't figure out where this is going — after all this time observing the Wiki-Wiles of Wiki-Wales. Going back to the 'Cult Theory of Wikipedia Involvement' ... most if not all cults are financial pyramid scams where a few at the top gain all the benefits of the money and free labor donated by the massed followers. Sauce for the goose is not for the ganders. In pyramid scams, generally a few carrots of "success cases" are dangled to encourage on the drones ... "you too could be in on this tomorrow, if you kiss our asses today and don't challenge the status quo" ... but basic arithmetics, and social entropy combined, ensure that in the 'numbers game' it is only a tiny minority can or will ever make it into the power, money, free sex or whatever else it is they are are into. It works this way for gurus and it works this way for multi-level marketing outfits. Who else remembers the "airplane scams" back in the 1980's? I am thinking right now that for many, as in other cults, the 'hook' in the Wikipedia beyond merely acting out are the "free drugs" ... the adrenal or endomorphin rushes involved in. So the hamsters on the wheel now want free drugs AND the right to be sponsored by corporations outside of the cage for running on their wheels ... Good heavens, what is the world coming to!?! It is the Wiki equivalent of athletic doping. Luckily for the Wiki Pee Foundation, most hamster-drones are genetically pre-programmed by generations of serfdom and bound by fatal idealism to the degree that they would never consider expecting a payback. (Free) Work makes free. Is the Wikipedia, even as an "amateur sport", a level playing field as it is ...? No, of course not. Time is money is power and the more you have to invest, the more you get. Its level is already determined by finances, (e.g. class, race, access to IT equipment and internet), where irresponsibility (a life without serious responsibilities) is more highly rewarded ... as in most cults. Don't cults mostly divide families and split partnerships demanding increased involvement to reach higher levels? But no one seems to have raise the issue of more subtle "payments" ... e.g. PR sponsorship, professional advancements etc. I suspect the "under table reference" refers to dick sucking on knees ... or do I just have a dirty mind? |
|
|
|
|
|
| The Joy |
|
I am a millipede! I am amazing!
Group: Members
Posts: 3,839
Joined:
From: The Moon
Member No.: 982
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Cock-up-over-conspiracy |
|
Now censored by flckr.com and who else ... ???
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined:
Member No.: 9,267
|
QUOTE(Cla68 @ Thu 11th June 2009, 1:52pm) I suspect that Shankbone supports paid editing because he wants to actually be paid for doing it. Excuse me if I appear to beating my drum (rather than anything else to hand) ... but this link is exactly what I would define as "under the table" and on one's knees ... Until WP:JIMBO is repealed, WP:JIMBO stands. -->David Shankbone 17:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC). QUOTE(David Shankbone) To be fair, you made a relatively strong WP:JIMBO statement when you said,
"I will personally block any cases that I am shown. There are of course some possibly interesting alternatives, not particularly relevant here, but the idea that we should ever accept paid advocates directly editing Wikipedia is not every going to be ok. Consider this to be policy as of right now."
-->David Shankbone 16:45, 10 June 2009(UTC) Now what makes it more interesting is that, surely, he must know through NYB and the official ( New York Wikipedia Foundation and others about the Israeli government sponsorships of David 'Shankbone' Miller, and all those juicy shmoosing opportunities with Rushdie, Auster, Amos, Sharon et al ... even if the fruit it bore was only Zionist goat piss pictures and a few badly photographed gay clubs. I don't see Jimbo handing out blocks over that ... surely that is " pay for point of view" (PPOV). Or is this an example of the " interesting alternatives, not particularly relevant here" ... because, perhaps, they also bore fruit for the Foundation, e.g. the conference in Israel? I dont know ... but it makes me wonder, as in " we will turn a blind eye and let you get away with it, because there was a buck in it and more for us coming our ways"? I think paid editing for a chosen *undisclosed* few ... never mind the sort of POV that Shanker came up with over that Palestinian kids playing with guns ... is bound to cause rot unless is transparent and clearly account for. But "for a chosen few" is what obvious stands at present. At the very least, surely they ought to have a note on their edits saying, "Wiki-whore for rent" or "Sponsored by ..." or something? Its not that I am saying that prostitution is wrong ... I just would not want by kids playing in the same street as they work.This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Cock-up-over-conspiracy |
|
Now censored by flckr.com and who else ... ???
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined:
Member No.: 9,267
|
FayssalFÂ (T-C-L-K-R-D)
leads the 'charge' ( ho ... ho ... ho ...) with a page for Wikipedia:Contract_Editing_Review. Still no apparent discussion about heavy weight financial sponsorship deals and offers of professional advancement ... such as the Israel government's splashing about its PR budget on "leading Wikipedian" David 'Shankbone' Miller in the hope of a Wikipedia-sized money shot all over the face of Google. This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy:
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Cock-up-over-conspiracy |
|
Now censored by flckr.com and who else ... ???
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined:
Member No.: 9,267
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Sat 13th June 2009, 4:26am) You're not even reading my posts, are you, Cock-up? Ah, come on. You missed the chance for a good pun, I took it ... "Paid ... charge ... " etc.To be honest, I am not taking any position on this issue and, beyond a bit of sport, its really not worth engaging in. Nothing will change, it will just get worse. I think that there is likely to be nothing 'evil' about doing an honest job, on a benign topic, inline with general journalistic ethics. I think the point David Shankbone made very badly ... thereby exposing his own values and morality ... is that we all do 'something' for 'something'; even if it is only an altruistic glow of self-satisfaction that gives us confidence in other areas of our lives. However, I do think taking government or political money to alter cultural or national bias decided is. There is a reason that is disallowed or monitored closely in politics and mainstream media. Equally, I think allowing highly motivated but entirely indoctrinated and irresponsible individuals, whether Korean nationalists or cult members, to rip up the contents of other people's time, money and lives to suit their own guru's mania or personal psychoses, is also wrong. In a perfect world, or even an acceptable world as with the politics of our day, at least one is able to demand and see on record 'who got what for what'. Our opinion formers are bound by law to disclose their interests. But how can that be fixed in the whacky, anonymous, unaccountable world of the Wiki-Pee Soup? To me, it just appears to one big clusterfuck where you are encouraged to try and get away with whatever you can, for as long as you can, in manner possible and without little thought about others. Why should I try to be "good" when the system is run by and rewards crap? It is irrational. And, as we are talking money here, I suppose that is the capitalist model. If you can make a buck off it, do because sure as hell the opportunity wont last. I pay for me to edit. We all do/did. There is a huge scale of difference between some individual just paying to have their hardware store on and a highly politicized entity paying to use the Piss Pee-dia to manipulate the collective consciousness of generations around the world. This is why I keep asking ... why are they not talk about sponsorship deals like ones the Israeli government gave to Shankbones?Don't they know? This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy: |
|
|
|
|
|
| thekohser |
|
Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
|
Our young Filipino chess guy who runs Yahoo! Answers and will show me no mercy ("My fellow Wikipedians, we should go for a war against Wikipedia Review. Prepare for glory!"), has decided to weigh in on the Paid Editing discussion. His own quote is self-contradictory: QUOTE Anyone who would advertise paid editing of Wikipedia would lead the project into corruption. Why pay someone else if you can do it yourself? Wikipedia is open for everyone, without distinctions of any kind and without limitations in any manner. Okay, so then why are you against the "everyone" that includes paid editors? Do you have any concept of what "without distinctions of any kind and without limitations in any manner" actually means? Silly, ignorant teenager... so typical of the thought leadership at Wikipedia. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Cock-up-over-conspiracy |
|
Now censored by flckr.com and who else ... ???
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined:
Member No.: 9,267
|
I don't know Photobucket ... QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Mon 15th June 2009, 8:12pm) Of course that isn't necessarily true as the agent in question may instead be exploiting the client's inability to write coherently (or lack of time to spend on it) Or it might just be a fair trade ... You probably did not mean "exploiting" in that manner. Far more exploitation is going on in the cultic 'unpaid model'. But for real life PR companies, buying Wikipedia time and expertise would be a very cheap and efficient bang for their bucks. Part of the 'free market model' of society is that workers actually get paid for their labor, and part of the 'democratic model' of society is that they have some rights to the fruit of their labor. It really is only the 'cultic religion model' that have such a disparity of incomes between the workers and the bosses, and offer no rights. You can't eat barnstars, share them to your children, or even trade your admin status. Has anyone started trading 'edit histories' yet? Its just another commodity after all.
Funny, but even your own editing history is not your own property on the Pee-dia. I am thinking of mass producing edit histories in the Far East. In the meanwhile, let me buy yours ... 'Caucasian' edits are still more powerful and worth more than 'Asian' edits, currently, but in the future, as China comes online, that might change. |
|
|
|
|
|
| tarantino |
|
the Dude abides
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,441
Joined:
Member No.: 2,143
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 17th June 2009, 6:58pm) I wonder how long before Wikipedia is hosting its very own revenge article about Elance? There seems to be no shortage of reliable sources. Elance is projecting $70 million in billings from 90,000 freelancers this year and there's multiple articles in WSJ, CNN and other sources, but when someone asked to create an article last month, it was declined because it read like an ad.* They went ahead anyway and it was deleted as "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". Meanwhile, crap like Chicagowebmanagement is overlooked. * With no offers of free assistance to get it into acceptable shape, I wonder where they'll turn? |
|
|
|
|
|
| SarekOfVulcan |
|
Junior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 71
Joined:
Member No.: 6,874
|
QUOTE(tarantino @ Wed 17th June 2009, 6:38pm) Meanwhile, crap like Chicagowebmanagement is overlooked. That took me about 5 seconds to evaluate, it had so many things wrong with it... This post has been edited by SarekOfVulcan: |
|
|
|
|
|
| LaraLove |
|
Wikipedia BLP advocate
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,741
Joined:
Member No.: 4,627
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Thu 18th June 2009, 12:40pm) I'm fine with these articles being deleted as self-promotional... just as long as Wikipedia never, ever deletes the photo images of these biographical subjects. Classic! http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...Brad_Sugars.jpg . . . (7.17 megabytes of sub-nasal stubble!) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...n_Underwood.jpg . . . (Shades borrowed from David Caruso of CSI) [youtube vid] Ah, those images are awesome. The metallic silver pinstripes and horrid pink tie are boss. And I hate Heracio Cane. Casting David Caruso for that role had to be a joke they were too embarrassed to go back on after he accepted. |
|
|
|
|
|
| tarantino |
|
the Dude abides
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,441
Joined:
Member No.: 2,143
|
QUOTE(carbuncle @ Thu 18th June 2009, 4:12pm) The for-pay articles that have been sent to AFD seem to be getting a fairly merciless treatment. AFD for [[Brad Sugars]], for example (which links to the others). another blatant paid editor Tayzen. He's the Romani wiki admin Desiphral (T-C-L-K-R-D)
. He speaks English, Spanish, French and Romani, and has at least four other accounts that are used to post linkspam and articles on many wikis. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Milton Roe |
|
Known alias of J. Random Troll
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
|
QUOTE(tarantino @ Thu 18th June 2009, 3:42pm) QUOTE(carbuncle @ Thu 18th June 2009, 4:12pm) The for-pay articles that have been sent to AFD seem to be getting a fairly merciless treatment. AFD for [[Brad Sugars]], for example (which links to the others). another blatant paid editor Tayzen. He's the Romani wiki admin Desiphral (T-C-L-K-R-D)
. He speaks English, Spanish, French and Romani, and has at least four other accounts that are used to post linkspam and articles on many wikis. Damn those Gypsy editors. Put in a coin and you never know what your fortune card will say. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Floydsvoid |
|
Junior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 91
Joined:
Member No.: 4,216
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 17th June 2009, 10:48am) Wow... User:Dcoetzee actually gets it. Spot on. I saw Greg's reply on slashdot t'other day QUOTE 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...
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 someone from the WikiHive intent on deleting paid promotional puff pieces?
Guess what? The articles that result are relatively 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. So articles written by a professional are wikindistinguishable from articles written by volunteers except they are more professionally written? By trade I am a programmer. I contribute a lot of code to open-source projects, one of them being the linux kernel. Linus, the whore that he is, will accept contributions from anyone, regardless if they're paid to do it or not. The code just has to be acceptable. A lot of people are paid to contribute code to such projects. What the hell is the problem here? |
|
|
|
|
|
| Malleus |
|
Fat Cat
Group: Contributors
Posts: 1,682
Joined:
From: United Kingdom
Member No.: 8,716
|
QUOTE(LaraLove @ Fri 19th June 2009, 3:36am) QUOTE(Malleus @ Thu 18th June 2009, 10:17pm) QUOTE(Floydsvoid @ Fri 19th June 2009, 2:04am)
What the hell is the problem here?
The problem is quite simply that not everyone is able to see things as clearly as you and I can. We should feel sympathy for them, not condemn them. Can we do both? A fair question. I do, so I suppose you can as well. This post has been edited by Malleus: |
|
|
|
|
|
| taiwopanfob |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 643
Joined:
Member No.: 214
|
QUOTE(Floydsvoid @ Fri 19th June 2009, 1:04am) What the hell is the problem here? Based on the open-source experience, professional writers may actually get down to the job. They may even take a dim view to the whole wikidrama thing, preferring to work rather than waste time engaging the peanut gallery. Can you imagine the damage this may do to the Project? Maximum content, minimum soap opera? It would be interesting indeed if somehow Jimbo could be shown the door and someone like Linus installed as Imperial Leader of the Project. QUOTE The problem is quite simply that not everyone is able to see things as clearly as you and I can. We should feel sympathy for them, not condemn them. No, you should ignore the ideology and laugh at the adherents. A rational agency would just run the experiment for however long and and see what happens. Someone could make a quick executive decision, if one is needed. What is the worst case scenario? |
|
|
|
|
|
| Floydsvoid |
|
Junior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 91
Joined:
Member No.: 4,216
|
QUOTE(taiwopanfob @ Thu 18th June 2009, 11:26pm)
It would be interesting indeed if somehow Jimbo could be shown the door and someone like Linus installed as Imperial Leader of the Project.
No, you've got it wrong. Linus aspires to nothing more than be a herder of cats. The difference between Wikipedia and open-source projects like linux is this: Any open-source project is almost Fascist in its governance. Only a trusted few have commit access (to update the source). You fuck up enough times you don't have commit access any more. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone (almost) can update. This philosophy is totally anathema to the open-source philosophy, Yes, anyone can contribute to open-source code, but your code is filtered by the people that can actually update the code. If people could contribute willy-nilly then the code would be lucky to compile, much less perform as it is supposed to. Saying Wikipedia is based upon the open-source coding model is like saying the sky is blue, open-source is blue, and we're blue too. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Malleus |
|
Fat Cat
Group: Contributors
Posts: 1,682
Joined:
From: United Kingdom
Member No.: 8,716
|
QUOTE(taiwopanfob @ Fri 19th June 2009, 4:26am) QUOTE(Floydsvoid @ Fri 19th June 2009, 1:04am) What the hell is the problem here? Based on the open-source experience, professional writers may actually get down to the job. They may even take a dim view to the whole wikidrama thing, preferring to work rather than waste time engaging the peanut gallery. Can you imagine the damage this may do to the Project? Maximum content, minimum soap opera? It would be interesting indeed if somehow Jimbo could be shown the door and someone like Linus installed as Imperial Leader of the Project. QUOTE The problem is quite simply that not everyone is able to see things as clearly as you and I can. We should feel sympathy for them, not condemn them. No, you should ignore the ideology and laugh at the adherents. A rational agency would just run the experiment for however long and and see what happens. Someone could make a quick executive decision, if one is needed. What is the worst case scenario? Yours is; replacing one tyrant with another. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Cock-up-over-conspiracy |
|
Now censored by flckr.com and who else ... ???
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined:
Member No.: 9,267
|
QUOTE(Floydsvoid @ Fri 19th June 2009, 4:04am) The difference between Wikipedia and open-source projects like linux is this: Any open-source project is almost Fascist in its governance. Only a trusted few have commit access (to update the source). You fuck up enough times you don't have commit access any more.
Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone (almost) can update. This philosophy is totally anathema to the open-source philosophy, Yes, anyone can contribute to open-source code, but your code is filtered by the people that can actually update the code. If people could contribute willy-nilly then the code would be lucky to compile, much less perform as it is supposed to. Fascist is the wrong word. Fair, responsible, sensible and practical are the ones you are looking for. You probably agree. Wikipedia is "compiling" public opinion based around its reality warp and becoming "source code" and exe files for a generation of minds. Anything with as much influence carries an equal responsibility, an opinion not shared by the idiots running it. Sure, the internet is full of garbage. One does not need to add to it. To "paid editing", I would like add "paid copyediting" which would help as well. Uninvolved, non-partisan, professional editors working to a single model manual of style where they have no COI. A locked, "fixed" Wikipedia polished to a professional standard and with a uniform editorial quality (if not overview) ... with as much cooking going on in the background before new content was added ... would have been a fine and excellent thing. Folks should have been more inhibited from spunking up on the topic pages ( e.g. rather than "banning", why not just ban everyone from topic pages but allow them on "research", rather than "talk" pages ... and keep those pages off Google). It would not work, as the current model, to attracting the same number of new cult adherents. But it might attract and keep the kinds of individuals who could make a different. |
|
|
|
|
|
| tarantino |
|
the Dude abides
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,441
Joined:
Member No.: 2,143
|
QUOTE(tarantino @ Thu 18th June 2009, 10:42pm) QUOTE(carbuncle @ Thu 18th June 2009, 4:12pm) The for-pay articles that have been sent to AFD seem to be getting a fairly merciless treatment. AFD for [[Brad Sugars]], for example (which links to the others). another blatant paid editor Tayzen. He's the Romani wiki admin Desiphral (T-C-L-K-R-D)
. He speaks English, Spanish, French and Romani, and has at least four other accounts that are used to post linkspam and articles on many wikis. There's a ban discussion going on at WP:AN where MER-C trumpets his discovery of Desiphral. They hive really should pay closer attention. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Rhindle |
|
Senior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 327
Joined:
Member No.: 6,834
|
QUOTE(Malleus @ Wed 8th July 2009, 1:28pm) QUOTE(Rhindle @ Wed 8th July 2009, 9:19pm) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=300952694This user Yannismarou (T-C-L-K-R-D)
really has a problem with paid editing. He even needs to describe this travesty at the top of this user page. He's gonna quit if this is legitimized unless it's on the down-low even though he's a self-confessed wiki-addict. Paid editing is already a fact, and there's nothing wikipedia can do to stop it. I know that. I just found it amusing that this guy has his panties in a bunch over the concept. |
|
|
|
|
|
| thekohser |
|
Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
|
I really got a kick out of this guy's position: QUOTE Fight paid editing like the devil. Eradicate it from Wikipedia! If I knew that this could be te projest, I would have '''never''' participated in the project. Paid editing is not only bad; it is also stupid and dangerous at the same time! The fact that it is difficult to track it down does not mean that gives us the right to legitimize it.--[[User:Yannismarou|Yannismarou]] ([[User talk:Yannismarou|talk]]) 08:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC) What makes it extra funny is that the day before, he restored text accusing the Turkish Armed Forces of "a war crime, and more specifically as an example of ethnic cleansing" with the following edit summary: QUOTE Pardon me? Soap box?! The section is about the Turkish armed forces' invasion of Cyprus, so of course the alleged or not violation of international law is relevant Sounds like a really savvy encyclopedist with a keen sense of what constitutes NPOV, who knows how not to get emotionally drawn into his non-paid content editing. |
|
|
|
|
|
| tarantino |
|
the Dude abides
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,441
Joined:
Member No.: 2,143
|
A group of paid editors has responded by releasing a statement. They previously participated in the RFC, but were blocked for using a shared account. Wikipedia Review and Wikipediareview are mentioned in the statement. QUOTE 2009 Paid Editing Investigations on WikipediaThe very tip that created the row has the features of a personal vendetta. The screenshot presented as a proof of the activities of the Elance account was taken at the beginning of this year, showing a "Last sign-in" of the owner on 28 January and displaying only the feedback he received during 2008. This while the owner of the account was active and worked on Elance in all the months until June. YellowMonkey knew about this Elance account and its Wikipedia-related work at least since January of this year. An in-depth research reveals that both him and the squeaked user live in Australia and share a common interest in cricket (somehow a recurring theme there). This invalidates the claim of an unselfish tip of a random discovery, as it was presented to the community. This is further confirmed by the way YellowMonkey paraded him inside and outside Wikipedia as a "bad guy", with an obvious goal of public shaming. Nobody bothered to ask about these obvious facts, the Wikipedia authorities played to the tune of YellowMonkey and the account of the Wikipedia user presumed to work on the behalf of the Elance account was quickly blocked. It is noteworthy to say that Jimbo considered that an explanation from the targeted user would be enough, this accusation would not entitle ending the years-long career of a valued Wikipedia user. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Kato |
|
dhd
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,521
Joined:
Member No.: 767
|
I'm copying the whole thing, because I can't read that white-on-black text, and it looks interesting: http://www.indymedia.org/en/2009/07/926495.shtmlQUOTE 2009 Paid Editing Investigations on Wikipedia
Wexperts.net 08 Jul 2009 13:24 GMT
The lack of willingness on Wikipedia to address the circumstances of "paid editing" produces a favourable environment for power abuses, personal vendettas and free speech suppressions.
In principle, Wikipedia, the largest on-line encyclopedia, was intended to grow through the voluntary work of registered and unregistered users. However, the importance it gained in the last years and the erratic patterns created by such voluntary contributions determined a serious disadvantage for notable subjects not yet included or poorly covered. This is complicated by the increasing amount of knowledge necessary for editing in wiki code and for understanding the "Wikipedia common sense", thus impeding the outsiders' attempts to write there without a previous training. Although this problem became one of the most discussed issues around this website, the higher authorities did not take any measures to address it, considering they can live with it. The expected outcome, disadvantaged parties hiring experienced users for covering missing areas, was subsequently frowned upon by the same authorities and also by some of the users.
The issue of "paid editing", as it was labeled, got a public scrutiny first in summer 2006, when the Wikipedia user Wikipedia Review announced his willingness to be paid for covering subjects still missing there. The founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, quickly blocked the user and opted for keeping the issue underground. Thus even today, this issue does not have a clear regulation on Wikipedia. Nevertheless, the paid editing kept growing in importance, usually, due to the price competition, recruiting users with backgrounds from the traditional geographic areas of outsourcing.
The concept of paid editing surfaced again on June 2009, this time determining a community debate and a series of internal investigations. Since we work in this field, being directly affected by what is going on, we started our own investigation, and this is what we have found.
The row was unleashed at the beginning of June 2009 with a notification made by the Wikipedia user YellowMonkey about suspecting another user being a paid editor. The assumption was based on the details of an Elance account, reminding of a certain user from Wikipedia. Jimbo (Jimmy Wales) reiterated his desire to keep the issue underground. However, this time the community became too much interested, creating a competitive milieu for "who's finding the most paid edits". It appeared also an unprecedented lengthy debate about the pros and cons of this practice.
As the "paid editing round-up" (as the hunt was subsequently baptized) kept growing in proportions, it acquired the characteristics of a classical mob violence, used as a mean for personal revenges and for self-promotion of individuals as "saviors". Additionally, it surfaced a strong bias against "outsourcing" people, with non-Western backgrounds.
The very tip that created the row has the features of a personal vendetta. The screenshot presented as a proof of the activities of the Elance account was taken at the beginning of this year, showing a "Last sign-in" of the owner on 28 January and displaying only the feedback he received during 2008. This while the owner of the account was active and worked on Elance in all the months until June. YellowMonkey knew about this Elance account and its Wikipedia-related work at least since January of this year. An in-depth research reveals that both him and the squeaked user live in Australia and share a common interest in cricket (somehow a recurring theme there). This invalidates the claim of an unselfish tip of a random discovery, as it was presented to the community. This is further confirmed by the way YellowMonkey paraded him inside and outside Wikipedia as a "bad guy", with an obvious goal of public shaming. Nobody bothered to ask about these obvious facts, the Wikipedia authorities played to the tune of YellowMonkey and the account of the Wikipedia user presumed to work on the behalf of the Elance account was quickly blocked. It is noteworthy to say that Jimbo considered that an explanation from the targeted user would be enough, this accusation would not entitle ending the years-long career of a valued Wikipedia user.
The success of the tip and the subsequent fame of YellowMonkey prompted other users to find other such accounts on Elance. Some of them conducted minute searches through the Elance and the Wikipedia accounts, giving them the possibility to become rapidly famous inside the community. Interestingly, the second one spotted did not induce any harsh reaction. This although it used the same user name of John Bulten, both on Elance and on Wikipedia (no wonder it was the first one discovered after a true search) and the edits on Wikipedia corresponded to the jobs performed on Elance. Some of his articles got some mild tags and that was all, he keeps editing happily on Wikipedia even now. For some reasons, one of the other Elance accounts, named Tayzen, became the next preferred target. When contacted by us in relation to the reasons of targeting, the reply was:
"We are sure that our East European location, our exotic account name and our multilingual approach played an important part in targeting us or at least in the level of 'permitted' violence against us. We could change later on our account only the location, to look 'boringly Western', hoping for a similar approach as in the case of John Bulten (funny name, isn't it?), but it was too late. The first Elance account under fire belongs to an Indian student from Australia, this indicating a preferred targeting of non-Western people. There may be also other reasons and we are currently trying to find out what is going on, why exactly us. Anyway, the result is a clear favoring of the other Elance accounts, the Wikipedia-related jobs keep appearing, only that the others take them (we suspect also an intended indirect rigging of the bidding process)."
Another disturbing pattern of this "round-up" is the suppress of free speech when users try to point out the murky side of the recent frenzy. We learned this by ourselves, when, several days ago, we tried to bring our arguments in the discussion. To our surprise, the text we added in order to draw attention to the circumstances of YellowMonkey's "discovery" (this is how it looked at that moment) was deleted after half an hour. Few hours later both the account of our team and the one of our spokesperson were blocked. Somewhere else on Wikipedia it followed a tragicomic dialogue between some users wondering which would be the official explanation of the blocking, for this "first shoot then ask" approach. Finally someone found a provision saying that organization accounts are not permitted, it must be an individual account. Well, even admitting this pretext, this does not entitle the blocking of the spokesperson. The reason added there, that the individual account would be a sockpuppet (in Wikipedia jargon, this means an account of another user, used for deceiving purposes, to create the illusion of more people), is untrue and childish. The spokesperson mentioned clearly the relation with the other account and this is permitted on Wikipedia. Even the initial "informer" has two accounts (1 2) clearly mentioning the relation between them. In this manner, even now the account of Wicked Pundit is blocked without any reason complying with Wikipedia rules, presumably because some users considered it is better to mute us.
However, we find even more tragicomic and worrisome a strange case that occured in the last few days. One of the "detectives" found that the Tayzen account from Elance included in its portfolio from October 2008 the work of Desiphral, a veteran user who contributed a great deal of voluntary work at English Wikipedia and also founded the Wikipedia in his native language. The proposed conclusion, namely that this user is engaged in paid editing, was accepted by most of the other users without any inquiries. Quickly, in the discussion place there appeared users seemingly having some previous grudges against Desiphral, using the opportunity to request his block. Additionally there appeared some at least dubious users requesting the closure of the Wikipedia founded by Desiphral (in the language of a certain minority of Indian origin widely discriminated). In a normal (or better said, a previous) communication process at Wikipedia, such conclusions would have been dismissed as a good joke, but it was not the case here. We took our liberty to check the edits of the incriminated user and we did not find anything to suggest paid editing. Needless to say that the accusers too did not present any actual evidences for their allegations.
After a few days, when it appeared there Desiphral himself, it turned out that he had some years ago a collaboration on Wikipedia with people from the staff of Tayzen, but not in the field of paid editing (our investigation found out that the respective Elance account did not even exist at that time). Somehow unexpectedly (given the current atmosphere of fear and adulation at Wikipedia around the issue of paid editing), besides complaining about the attempt of public shaming, he started to point out the unprofessional manner of conducting the current purges. There followed some retorts, then... silence. When we contacted Desiphral to find out what exactly is going on there, we learned that his account was blocked, but the blocking notice was hidden somewhere in the talk page, not displayed on the user account, as it is the common practice at Wikipedia. The "death sentence" was done on the sly, after talking too much, somehow reminding of our attempt to talk openly there. We found the blocking reason really sarcastic, namely that "he indicated he permitted the use of his account for commercial purposes" (without showing where exactly was that indication, while we could not find anything of this kind in his replies). Even if it would have been true, this is not a punishable offense on Wikipedia... only you'll get intro trouble with those who do not like this. The accusers changed later the reason for blocking to "group account", because he permitted some years ago some people to learn how to edit, using his account. Obviously, a pretext, the same "first shoot, then ask" pattern, since the casual teaching of other people did not amount to what is understood at Wikipedia as a "group account", plus that the respective user was not active on Wikipedia for about a year and a half and at the time scale of Wikipedia such old issues are not considered when judging an user.
The suppressed user also told us that he was not announced by e-mail about the public shaming (he was not active on Wikipedia for long time and for such cases this would be the standard procedure), thus preventing him to present his position. He was not announced also about the following requests of somebody to block him in the Wikipedias in all languages and to close down the one he founded. The most ironic thing in all this affair is that those suspected editing on behalf of Tayzen are free to edit even at this moment (although they keep being hindered), while the one who was wrongly accused to associate with them was taken to the backyard and executed on the sly for sulking against the conduct of the purges. The language and the conduct of this episode suggests a combination of muting the dissent and a seizure of the opportunity by some people who have a problem with the respective user and/or with the Wikipedia he started.
In this manner, the current frenzy on Wikipedia determines a level of (self)censorship reminding of Communist China's approach to Internet. This suppression of free speech, combined with the encouragement to tip the "enemies of the people", produces a violent atmosphere of accusations, power struggles, public executions or backyard executions, reminding too much of a totalitarian society with an "unique truth". The higher authorities of Wikipedia consider they can live with the issues developed by its growth, but this approach only produces the necessity of a group allegiance to a certain "truth". In this particular case studied here, they do not give an answer to the disadvantage Wikipedia creates for subjects entitled to be covered, but currently absent there. We would like to point out that the "paid editing", as the outcome was labeled, has a regulatory effect not noticed until now. Those likely to work on Wikipedia are people from less affluent countries/backgrounds, this permitting them to contribute further voluntarily on the subjects not covered and not affluent enough to pay for their coverage (which, in the current composition of Wikipedia, tend to belong exactly to the universe of such people).
As one may imagine, the paid editing is currently a reality there, only that it must not be disclosed. The recent crackdown and denouncements used loopholes in the bidding process of the on-line marketplaces. Here (Paid editing roundup section) it is described shortly the way to find paid users in such places. It is necessary to not give hints about the intended work. The best way seems to remain the direct contact with people working in this field, guaranteeing a fair approach to the eventual texts written on Wikipedia in this manner.
Anyway, the current "paid editing madness" on Wikipedia does not show signs to cool down, while there are no signs of a willingnes to address the issue (and it is likely we will come with follow-ups). This is our attempt to highlight what is going on there and to draw attention to the abuses produced around this issue. |
|
|
|
|
|
| thekohser |
|
Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
|
QUOTE(tarantino @ Mon 13th July 2009, 11:02pm) QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 14th July 2009, 2:12am) QUOTE(Adambro @ Mon 13th July 2009, 7:24pm) So how do I go about getting paid? Wouldn't mind some extra cash. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif) Here's a pretty easy $25, if you get crackin'. Man, that's chump change. Roger Davies is currently offering US$250 each to bring Saladin, Alexander the Great and World War I to featured article status. Yeah, I figure my payment-to-time-invested ratio is probably 2x to 3x higher than Davies'. |
|
|
|
|
|
| thekohser |
|
Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
|
QUOTE(LaraLove @ Tue 14th July 2009, 3:44pm) QUOTE(tarantino @ Mon 13th July 2009, 11:02pm) Roger Davies is currently offering US$250 each to bring Saladin, Alexander the Great and World War I to featured article status. Hmm. I might have to take a semi-break from the BLP stress for a while, grab Bully and get crackin' on WWI. I could use the cash. Whoa - whoa - WHOA ! ! !Careful with what you think you're getting into! These cheeseball offers are on the BOUNTY Board, not the REWARD Board, as mine is. Note, on the Bounty Board... If the Bounty Hunters complete the task, the person offering the bounty – known as the Bounty Keeper – donates the bounty money to the Wikimedia Foundation in the name of the Bounty Hunters who worked so hard on the article. Have fun with that. Sue and Erik won't even send you a "thank you" card. This post has been edited by thekohser: |
|
|
|
|
|
| LaraLove |
|
Wikipedia BLP advocate
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,741
Joined:
Member No.: 4,627
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 14th July 2009, 4:10pm) QUOTE(LaraLove @ Tue 14th July 2009, 3:44pm) QUOTE(tarantino @ Mon 13th July 2009, 11:02pm) Roger Davies is currently offering US$250 each to bring Saladin, Alexander the Great and World War I to featured article status. Hmm. I might have to take a semi-break from the BLP stress for a while, grab Bully and get crackin' on WWI. I could use the cash. Whoa - whoa - WHOA ! ! !Careful with what you think you're getting into! These cheeseball offers are on the BOUNTY Board, not the REWARD Board, as mine is. Note, on the Bounty Board... If the Bounty Hunters complete the task, the person offering the bounty – known as the Bounty Keeper – donates the bounty money to the Wikimedia Foundation in the name of the Bounty Hunters who worked so hard on the article. Have fun with that. Sue and Erik won't even send you a "thank you" card. Aw... fuck that noise. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Eva Destruction |
|
Fat Cat
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,735
Joined:
Member No.: 3,301
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 14th July 2009, 9:10pm) QUOTE(LaraLove @ Tue 14th July 2009, 3:44pm) QUOTE(tarantino @ Mon 13th July 2009, 11:02pm) Roger Davies is currently offering US$250 each to bring Saladin, Alexander the Great and World War I to featured article status. Hmm. I might have to take a semi-break from the BLP stress for a while, grab Bully and get crackin' on WWI. I could use the cash. Whoa - whoa - WHOA ! ! !Careful with what you think you're getting into! These cheeseball offers are on the BOUNTY Board, not the REWARD Board, as mine is. Note, on the Bounty Board... If the Bounty Hunters complete the task, the person offering the bounty – known as the Bounty Keeper – donates the bounty money to the Wikimedia Foundation in the name of the Bounty Hunters who worked so hard on the article. Have fun with that. Sue and Erik won't even send you a "thank you" card. Why the hell would anyone want "a donation made to the Wikimedia Foundation made in your name"? Incidentally, this initiative has proved so successful that it's paid out a total of £225 in the entire history of Wikipedia |
|
|
|
|
|
| thekohser |
|
Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
|
So, the Wikipediots try to "nutshell" the closed discussion. The greatest support (by about a 35% margin) was for the opening statement that prioritized quality of content as being far more important than worrying about the provenance of paid content. But, the Wikipediots decide that the statement with the most votes should be mentioned... (wait for it)... at the very end of the nutshell! I tried quickly to restructure the nutshell, so that fewer readers would be confused about the actual outcome of opinion about paid editing. But, I am promptly reverted by some dip-wad who comments emphatically back to me: QUOTE (not sure why this should be given prominence and mentioned twice; the flow of the statement is summary; opposition; support) So, this editor looked at the evidence, looked at my attempt to balance it more proportionately, then decided NOPE! -- we're going to emphasize the minority opposition, and bury the majority support down in the dregs of the wall of words. Nice freakin' nutshell, Wikipediots. In my estimation, these kind of nuts can go to hell in their nutshell, for all I care. (I recommend a wheel war to resolve this issue. Who's "got my back", Jayjg style?) |
|
|
|
|
|
| tarantino |
|
the Dude abides
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,441
Joined:
Member No.: 2,143
|
QUOTE(tarantino @ Sat 4th July 2009, 1:45am) There's a ban discussion going on at WP:AN where MER-C trumpets his discovery of Desiphral. So, Desiphral was blocked then unblocked two days later by Fred with the rationale of "No evidence of recent improper behavior". He was blocked again a couple of days ago after it was discovered he had 30 accounts, most of which were created after his unblock, that were engaged in paid editing. Way to assume good faith Fred! Tayzen's Desiphral account is still an admin on the Romany wiki, but the rest of his known accounts were globally blocked by Rdsmith4. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Appleby |
|
Member
Group: On Vacation
Posts: 167
Joined:
Member No.: 13,585
|
QUOTE(tarantino @ Mon 21st September 2009, 10:46pm) the rest of his known accounts were globally blocked by Rdsmith4. That's utterly out of order isn't it? What's become of the independence of Wikis to decide who's blocked? |
|
|
|
|
|
| The Wales Hunter |
|
Hackenslasher
Group: Regulars
Posts: 869
Joined:
Member No.: 4,319
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 6th January 2010, 3:47pm) Jimbo has really honed his skill at deflection on the subject of paid editing: QUOTE I'm afraid I don't know enough about it to have a strong opinion.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 19:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC) To be fair, Greg, I think he's referring to the question, which appears to be about something happening on the German Wikipedia. |
|
|
|
|
|
| carbuncle |
|
Fat Cat
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,601
Joined:
Member No.: 5,544
|
QUOTE(The Wales Hunter @ Wed 6th January 2010, 4:30pm) QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 6th January 2010, 3:47pm) Jimbo has really honed his skill at deflection on the subject of paid editing: QUOTE I'm afraid I don't know enough about it to have a strong opinion.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 19:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC) To be fair, Greg, I think he's referring to the question, which appears to be about something happening on the German Wikipedia. Yes, I'm sure if someone showed Jimbo a clear example on English Wikipedia, he'd be all over it. Or ignore it without a response... |
|
|
|
|
|
| tarantino |
|
the Dude abides
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,441
Joined:
Member No.: 2,143
|
Jimmy Wales was recently in London to give the keynote speech at The Guardian’s Changing Media Summit and he quoted the founder of the PR firm Freud Communications. The same day he was also editing the Strategy Wiki from the offices of Freud Communications. Ripe database query: CODE % Information related to '80.169.89.64 - 80.169.89.127'
inetnum: 80.169.89.64 - 80.169.89.127
netname: COLT-FREUD-COMMUNICATIONS-LTD
descr: FREUD COMMUNICATIONS LTD
country: GB
admin-c: MW4136-RIPE
tech-c: MW4136-RIPE
status: ASSIGNED PA
mnt-by: COLT-UK
source: RIPE # Filtered
person: MARCUS WHISTLER
address: FREUD COMMUNICATIONS LTD
address: 55 NEWMAN STREET, London, W1P 3PG
phone: +44 02030036423
nic-hdl: MW4136-RIPE
mnt-by: COLT-UK
source: RIPE # Filtered
Back in 2007, when Freud Communications was caught editing Wikipedia articles about their clients, their spokesman Oliver Wheeler said the edits were "very factual" and "perfectly justifiable." So there you go. If you're a top 10 PR firm, and your paid editing on Wikipedia is factual and justifiable, it's A-OK. Jimmy may even 'friend' you! This post has been edited by tarantino: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Cock-up-over-conspiracy |
|
Now censored by flckr.com and who else ... ???
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined:
Member No.: 9,267
|
QUOTE(tarantino @ Thu 25th March 2010, 8:07pm) Back in 2007, when Freud Communications was caught editing Wikipedia articles about their clients, their spokesman Oliver Wheeler said the edits were "very factual" and "perfectly justifiable." So there you go. If you're a top 10 PR firm, and your paid editing on Wikipedia is factual and justifiable, it's A-OK. Jimmy may even 'friend' you! Well done. Good catch. So there you go, TheKohser ... you are just a worm he can squit, Freud's dick he will, metaphorically, suck. It was not a question of "paid editing". It is a question of how useful and influential the editors making the paid editors are to Jimbo ... Hypocryte. I would say he has just handed you the name and address book for a fine hit list for your next exposé or letter of concern. QUOTE Matthew Freud's grandfather was Sigmund Freud, he is the nephew of artist Lucian Freud and his cousins include fashion designer Bella Freud, novelists Susie Boyt and Esther Freud. Freud Communications is currently the eighth largest public relations company in the UK, with around 150 employees handling such campaigns as the London 2012 Olympics, Nike, Pepsi and UNHCR's Gimme Shelter. A star in the "new culture of public relations and marketing in politics, business and journalism" which rose in the Clinton-Blair years and "the most influential PR professional in the UK". Freud's first wife married the 9th Earl Spencer and became the sister-in-law of Diana, Princess of Wales. His second wife is Elisabeth Murdoch, second daughter of media magnate Rupert Murdoch. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Milton Roe |
|
Known alias of J. Random Troll
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
|
QUOTE(tarantino @ Thu 25th March 2010, 1:07pm) Jimmy Wales was recently in London to give the keynote speech at The Guardian’s Changing Media Summit and he quoted the founder of the PR firm Freud Communications. The same day he was also editing the Strategy Wiki from the offices of Freud Communications. Ripe database query: CODE % Information related to '80.169.89.64 - 80.169.89.127'
inetnum: 80.169.89.64 - 80.169.89.127
netname: COLT-FREUD-COMMUNICATIONS-LTD
descr: FREUD COMMUNICATIONS LTD
country: GB
admin-c: MW4136-RIPE
tech-c: MW4136-RIPE
status: ASSIGNED PA
mnt-by: COLT-UK
source: RIPE # Filtered
person: MARCUS WHISTLER
address: FREUD COMMUNICATIONS LTD
address: 55 NEWMAN STREET, London, W1P 3PG
phone: +44 02030036423
nic-hdl: MW4136-RIPE
mnt-by: COLT-UK
source: RIPE # Filtered
Back in 2007, when Freud Communications was caught editing Wikipedia articles about their clients, their spokesman Oliver Wheeler said the edits were "very factual" and "perfectly justifiable." So there you go. If you're a top 10 PR firm, and your paid editing on Wikipedia is factual and justifiable, it's A-OK. Jimmy may even 'friend' you! Hmmm. If you look at user:80.169.89.66 on WP it says it's just one outlet IP port of COLT Telcom GmbH, which is a proxy-server. Ironic that Jimbo is using one (since users are generally not supposed to), but I don't necessarily thing it puts him in the Colt Telcom offices. Anymore than I'm in Reston, VA when I use Comcast. |
|
|
|
|
|
| tarantino |
|
the Dude abides
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,441
Joined:
Member No.: 2,143
|
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Thu 25th March 2010, 11:14pm) Hmmm. If you look at user:80.169.89.66 on WP it says it's just one outlet IP port of COLT Telcom GmbH, which is a proxy-server. Ironic that Jimbo is using one (since users are generally not supposed to), but I don't necessarily thing it puts him in the Colt Telcom offices. Anymore than I'm in Reston, VA when I use Comcast. Don't trust everything that you see on wikipedia. The IP is from a netblock assigned to Freud Communications, as the Ripe link I included shows. Now, if Jimmy is in London, quoting Matthew Freud and editing the same day from an IP address assigned to Freud Communications, well you should be able to put all that together. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Kelly Martin |
|
Bring back the guttersnipes!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined:
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696
|
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Thu 25th March 2010, 6:14pm) Hmmm. If you look at user:80.169.89.66 on WP it says it's just one outlet IP port of COLT Telcom GmbH, which is a proxy-server. Ironic that Jimbo is using one (since users are generally not supposed to), but I don't necessarily thing it puts him in the Colt Telcom offices. Anymore than I'm in Reston, VA when I use Comcast. And you trust Fabrictramp (T-C-L-K-R-D)
to have come to that conclusion responsibly? It seems far more likely that that information was provided by someone who sought to conceal Freud's involvement. It's fairly clear from RIPE records that that IP address is assigned to Freud, who gets their transit service from COLT's UK division, along with IP neighbors Comac Capital LLP and Fragomen GB Limited, both also UK corporations. Also, the .66 address is the second IP (out of 64) in the range allocated to Freud. Freud is using a 3com device, possibly a 3036, as their gateway device, at 80.169.89.65, so .66 is the first available IP on their address block and is likely used either as the PAT address for the internal network or for an internal HTTP proxy server. Their email is outsourced to Frontbridge and their web hosting to Publicis Technology of Paris, France, so they probably have no public services on the 80.169.86.64/26 network, making that allocation a waste of at least 48 and arguably as many as 63 perfectly good IP addresses. The statement that the IP is a "proxy server" is probably technically correct, as is the statement that the IP belongs to COLT Telecom. It's just that the proxy server is owned by Freud and used only by Freud, and the IP, while "owned" by COLT is being leased to Freud for their exclusive use. Exactly the sort of "truth" I expect from a marketing firm. The idea that a PR firm would attempt to conceal by misdirection their involvement in Wikipedia is, of course, completely unfathomable. And we've had plenty of demonstrations from people (such as the esteemed Alison) of the general incompetence of Wikipedia's administrators at interpreting forensic IP evidence. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Cock-up-over-conspiracy |
|
Now censored by flckr.com and who else ... ???
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined:
Member No.: 9,267
|
German COLT Telcom are one of the UKs largest internet and telephony providers. They own backbone. Obviously their traffic goes through their cables and routers. Top marks to Kelly Martin for knowing their shit. I go back to underline the inequality issue. Surely one law should apply to all equally? What is Jimmy doing in Freud's offices? Promoting the Porno-pedia or himself or both. If so, in what proportion? Why can Freud be paid to edit and not TheKohser? Well, obviously, TheKohser is not so useful to Jimbo.If it was a properly run business or a properly run NPO rather than a fiefdom one would have a right to know. He would have to account for it. I'd be working the communications to Freud if I were you Kohser. He is a private business using the not-for-profit volunteer work for personal gain. The problem is that Wikipedian contributors, the voluntary workers, "the community" are not stakeholders in any of this ... but disempowered slaves to the god king cult. It is cult dynamics all over again ... just a cult tells its followers we are all "Family", so the Porno-pedians are told, "we are all community". There is a saying in the Brahma Kumari cult which I have studied and presented papers about to governmental, police and UN NPOs, " the [cult] is a family when they want something from you, but an organization when you want something from them". The only sure thing is that the money goes one way, the org is amassing real estate (which I predict will be the next stage of the Mediawikia Foundation) and life is getting better for leaders. There are similar dynamics going on here. This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Milton Roe |
|
Known alias of J. Random Troll
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
|
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Thu 25th March 2010, 7:38pm) QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Thu 25th March 2010, 6:14pm) Hmmm. If you look at user:80.169.89.66 on WP it says it's just one outlet IP port of COLT Telcom GmbH, which is a proxy-server. Ironic that Jimbo is using one (since users are generally not supposed to), but I don't necessarily thing it puts him in the Colt Telcom offices. Anymore than I'm in Reston, VA when I use Comcast. And you trust Fabrictramp (T-C-L-K-R-D)
to have come to that conclusion responsibly? It seems far more likely that that information was provided by someone who sought to conceal Freud's involvement. It's fairly clear from RIPE records that that IP address is assigned to Freud, who gets their transit service from COLT's UK division, along with IP neighbors Comac Capital LLP and Fragomen GB Limited, both also UK corporations. Also, the .66 address is the second IP (out of 64) in the range allocated to Freud. Freud is using a 3com device, possibly a 3036, as their gateway device, at 80.169.89.65, so .66 is the first available IP on their address block and is likely used either as the PAT address for the internal network or for an internal HTTP proxy server. Their email is outsourced to Frontbridge and their web hosting to Publicis Technology of Paris, France, so they probably have no public services on the 80.169.86.64/26 network, making that allocation a waste of at least 48 and arguably as many as 63 perfectly good IP addresses. The statement that the IP is a "proxy server" is probably technically correct, as is the statement that the IP belongs to COLT Telecom. It's just that the proxy server is owned by Freud and used only by Freud, and the IP, while "owned" by COLT is being leased to Freud for their exclusive use. Exactly the sort of "truth" I expect from a marketing firm. The idea that a PR firm would attempt to conceal by misdirection their involvement in Wikipedia is, of course, completely unfathomable. And we've had plenty of demonstrations from people (such as the esteemed Alison) of the general incompetence of Wikipedia's administrators at interpreting forensic IP evidence. Thank you. Fascinating! So as I read you, we can with reasonable certainty conclude that Jimbo cannot have posted from that IP address by simply using COLT somewhere else in the UK. He's posting from a block assigned permanently to Freud, and while the IPs may rotate fromwhat within that, if they come out to the net at 80.169.89.66, as Jimbo's just did, they have to go IN from a computer connecting to the net via a Freud-owned company server. Which would mean that Jimbo at least was in the Freud company offices someplace, using their WiFi from his laptop to access the net from their company. I think Tarantino is right-- this sort of doesn't pass the sniff test for somebody who has been up on their high horse about paid editing on WP. Particularly not with a firm that has already been caught doing it wrong. So Jimbo's talking to a really big PR firm in London, one that has already been caught getting paid to edit articles for clients on WP years ago (yeah, sure, they've stopped doing that, I bet). So, do we think Jimbo's in their offices to do some kind of business with them? It's not like WMF to pay money to anybody if they can get it for free or by trading something for it. What sort of informal deal do you suppose WMF and Jimbo are doing with Freud? Let me guess, according to WMF's spokesman, it must be that Jimbo is after what WMF is always after from PR flacks: photos of Freud's offices that Jimbo can upload to COMMONS to illustrate a neutrally written article about the company. Ya think? (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif) Stupidly, MR |
|
|
|
|
|
| Cock-up-over-conspiracy |
|
Now censored by flckr.com and who else ... ???
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined:
Member No.: 9,267
|
Elsewhere, there is Jimmy Wales flatteringly quoting Matthew Freud ... is that a "fresh off the latté" quote from a meeting in person or one read off the PR sheet? Is Wales going for consultancy fees from established media operations next ... off the backs of the Wiki-cult slaves? Wales gets the "the founder of Wikipedia" label from The Guardian paper and apparently "laid down the founding principles and content, establishing an Internet-based community of contributors during that year". The real miracle for business is how does the "high priest of the Cult of the Amateur" Wales get his Wiki-cult slaves to BOTH work for free 24/7 AND pay for it!!!Right-wing leaning Matthew Freud was been judged the 2010 UK's most powerful PR professional, following research among 20 senior journalists. Cuts from the interview are, here. QUOTE Newser and Wikipedia founders spotlight start-up media business opportunitiesWikipedia founder Jimmy Wales quoted a metaphor from Matthew Freud, boss of Freud Communications this morning during his keynote at The Guardian’s Changing Media Summit, to demonstrate the flaw in the business model of traditional media. “A baker sells fresh bread each day and gives away the previous day’s stale bread. By contrast the media gives away its fresh product [online] and sells the previous day’s product [print]. The concept of a news cycle shouldn’t exist in an environment where content can be published round the clock said Wales. He cited the example of an international story such as the international response to the Haiti earthquake. “A newspaper might provide a daily news update but that doesn’t provide any context in the way that a Wikipedia entry would. Newspapers could easily provide contextual information yet they are focussed too much on the news cycle,†said Wales. In his afternoon keynote Newser-founder Michael Wolff (@MichaelWolffNYC) agreed that traditional media remained focussed on news cycles but that consumers had an unsatisfied appetite for news in the morning as a kickoff to the day. “Television, radio and print are all tied to a morning agenda,†said Wolff. But no one has cracked this concept online,†he said. In response Emily Bell said that although The Guardian was a continuous news operation it tried to deliver to a morning agenda. “Entrepreneurs should spent time exploring new models. Morning internet is an opportunity,†said Wolff. Laughing enough ... and this underline the state of the nation ... for the most influential man in UK media from an extended family of the most illustrious Freuds on the planet and biggest media moguls, the Wikipedia page for says, QUOTE "This article may not meet the general notability guideline. Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic. If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted. (April 2009) Matthew's own PR people obvious dare not touch their master's entry. At the summit, on Google Wiki cult sage Jimmy Wales says ... QUOTE “I know Larry and Sergei and they’re a little bit naive. Freud ... which porn film or sci-fi series did he or she star in? ... Do they have a railway station named after them? ... bah, not notable then. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Straightforward |
|
Neophyte
Group: Contributors
Posts: 17
Joined:
Member No.: 18,049
|
QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Thu 25th March 2010, 9:38pm) Matthew Freud's grandfather was Sigmund Freud, he is the nephew of artist Lucian Freud and his cousins include fashion designer Bella Freud, novelists Susie Boyt and Esther Freud. Freud Communications is currently the eighth largest public relations company in the UK, with around 150 employees handling such campaigns as the London 2012 Olympics, Nike, Pepsi and UNHCR's Gimme Shelter. A star in the "new culture of public relations and marketing in politics, business and journalism" which rose in the Clinton-Blair years and "the most influential PR professional in the UK". Freud's first wife married the 9th Earl Spencer and became the sister-in-law of Diana, Princess of Wales. His second wife is Elisabeth Murdoch, second daughter of media magnate Rupert Murdoch. There are more Freuds than that. Actually Lucian Freud is Sigmund's grandson. Lucian's brother and Matthew's father was prominent MP and popular media personality Clement Freud so Sigmund was his great-grandfather. Matthew's sister is also a popular media personality, Emma Freud. Even more interesting, Matthew's cousin is Lord Freud. He was a supporter of the Labour party and advised Tony Blair on welfare refoem. He then switched to the Conservatives wh made him a peer and an opposition spokesman in the Lords. No doubt he will become even more notable if the Conservatives win the next election. A formidable family indeed. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Peter Damian |
|
I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined:
Member No.: 4,212
|
QUOTE(tarantino @ Thu 25th March 2010, 9:07pm) Jimmy Wales was recently in London to give the keynote speech at The Guardian’s Changing Media Summit and he quoted the founder of the PR firm Freud Communications. The same day he was also editing the Strategy Wiki from the offices of Freud Communications. Ripe database query: CODE % Information related to '80.169.89.64 - 80.169.89.127'
inetnum: 80.169.89.64 - 80.169.89.127
netname: COLT-FREUD-COMMUNICATIONS-LTD
descr: FREUD COMMUNICATIONS LTD
country: GB
admin-c: MW4136-RIPE
tech-c: MW4136-RIPE
status: ASSIGNED PA
mnt-by: COLT-UK
source: RIPE # Filtered
person: MARCUS WHISTLER
address: FREUD COMMUNICATIONS LTD
address: 55 NEWMAN STREET, London, W1P 3PG
phone: +44 02030036423
nic-hdl: MW4136-RIPE
mnt-by: COLT-UK
source: RIPE # Filtered
Back in 2007, when Freud Communications was caught editing Wikipedia articles about their clients, their spokesman Oliver Wheeler said the edits were "very factual" and "perfectly justifiable." So there you go. If you're a top 10 PR firm, and your paid editing on Wikipedia is factual and justifiable, it's A-OK. Jimmy may even 'friend' you! I thought I would bump this thread as it relates to my post in the lounge here http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=235825It seems certain that the 'friend' that Wales brought to the London meetup yesterday was from the London firm Freud Communications, which specialises in PR and image consultancy and that sort of thing. They have (or rather had) a very close relationship with the NuLab administration. Why would Jimbo be hanging around with these people? Very expensive people, I assume. This post has been edited by Peter Damian: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Milton Roe |
|
Known alias of J. Random Troll
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
|
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Mon 10th May 2010, 8:57am)
It seems certain that the 'friend' that Wales brought to the London meetup yesterday was from the London firm Freud Communications, which specialises in PR and image consultancy and that sort of thing. They have (or rather had) a very close relationship with the NuLab administration.
Why would Jimbo be hanging around with these people? Very expensive people, I assume.
Thanks for Tarantino for noting that citical comment and tracking down that very revealing IP. QUOTE(Milton) Fascinating! So as I read you, we can with reasonable certainty conclude that Jimbo cannot have posted from that IP address by simply using COLT somewhere else in the UK. He's posting from a block assigned permanently to Freud, and while the IPs may rotate fromwhat within that, if they come out to the net at 80.169.89.66, as Jimbo's just did, they have to go IN from a computer connecting to the net via a Freud-owned company server. Which would mean that Jimbo at least was in the Freud company offices someplace, using their WiFi from his laptop to access the net from their company.
I think Tarantino is right-- this sort of doesn't pass the sniff test for somebody who has been up on their high horse about paid editing on WP. Particularly not with a firm that has already been caught doing it wrong.
So Jimbo's talking to a really big PR firm in London, one that has already been caught getting paid to edit articles for clients on WP years ago (yeah, sure, they've stopped doing that, I bet). So, do we think Jimbo's in their offices to do some kind of business with them? It's not like WMF to pay money to anybody if they can get it for free or by trading something for it. What sort of informal deal do you suppose WMF and Jimbo are doing with Freud? It's probably what we think it is. Jimbo being given the assignment to use some of the millions in donated WMF money, to polish up the public WP image which has been totally trashcanned, in no small part by his own "non-negotiable policies." Nice work if you can get it. QUOTE Jimmy Wales was recently in London to give the keynote speech at The Guardian’s Changing Media Summit Who but Jimbo could standing there giving a keynote speech at a media summit, and claim what he's saying is done with "quiet humility." (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) Jimbo, if you want to keep quiet, you should keep quiet. And forget about the humility part altogether if you accept an engagement like THAT. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Somey |
|
Can't actually moderate (or even post)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 20th February 2011, 10:45pm) Jimbo may even 'impregnate' you! Yes, but will he finally divorce his first wife so he can 'marry' you? That's the big question here. Also, I never bothered to point out that this "Matthew Freud quote" is actually a misplaced, if not incorrect, analogy. QUOTE A baker sells fresh bread each day and gives away the previous day’s stale bread. By contrast the media gives away its fresh product (online) and sells the previous day’s product (print)... First of all, anyone who actually feeds himself (as opposed to having a house full of servants do it for you) should know that it takes several days for bread to become stale. Whereas the media continues to give away the same stories for free online long after they've been written. Some people prefer the greater convenience, stability, and archivability of print media, and are willing to pay for them - these things are actually advantages, and they don't preclude buyers from also getting the same stories for free online too, before or after the print editions come out. Putting that aside, though, is Freud suggesting that the media should be more like bakers, in that they should sell their online content and give away their print content merely because the print content has a time lag? If the analogy has to be bakers, then it should look more like this: QUOTE An internet-savvy baker goes online and describes the bread he's going to bake that day, complete with pictures and reviews of his previous efforts, and then he bakes the bread and sells it, and whatever he can't sell he gives away after it goes stale, several days later. By contrast, the media goes online and gives away their fresh product, complete with pictures and reviews, and continues to give it away as long as they can afford to keep running their website, but they also sell a paper version of the same product, which can be read without electricity and can last for decades before mold starts growing on it, depending on storage conditions. Only that's an even worse analogy, because while it's more accurate, it doesn't make any sense as an analogy, nor does it support what Freud (and by extension, Jimbo) is trying to suggest. So, what can we conclude from this? Obviously, Matthew Freud needs work on his analogies, and Jimbo needs work on choosing other people's analogies to crib from - this much we already know. Beyond that, they haven't unloaded Wikinews yet, so either they haven't gotten a good-enough offer, or they don't think they can get away with it. I'm guessing they've given up on the idea, because nobody in their right mind would actually pay them for it. It is, to use an analogy that's actually accurate, a pig in a poke. |
|
|
|
|
|
| melloden |
|
.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 450
Joined:
Member No.: 34,482
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 27th May 2011, 4:03pm) It has been a while since I last overtly marketed Wikipedia Review as a paid editing service for Wikipedia. Despite that, I was getting about one call per week from prospective clients, desperate for assistance on Wikipedia. I've decided to more neatly package my presentation of paid editing on Wikipedia, and to launch a small Google AdWords campaign to more actively promote my business. I have several affiliates now to help with the work load. If anyone has keyword ideas for the AdWords campaign, let me know. What're your current keywords? |
|
|
|
|
|
| melloden |
|
.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 450
Joined:
Member No.: 34,482
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 29th May 2011, 6:20pm) QUOTE(melloden @ Sat 28th May 2011, 10:57pm)
What're your current keywords?
How will that help you? Because, I could see that helping those who would rather see me not do well. Oh, right--I forgot that you seem not to like me ... because why exactly? I don't dislike you. I disagree with some of your opinions but I think you're fine as a person. And I don't waste my time writing Wikipedia articles for companies. |
|
|
|
|
|
| EricBarbour |
|
blah
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
|
QUOTE(melloden @ Sun 29th May 2011, 3:24pm)
Oh, right--I forgot that you seem not to like me ... because why exactly? I don't dislike you. I disagree with some of your opinions but I think you're fine as a person. And I don't waste my time writing Wikipedia articles for companies.
Maybe you should, because corporate WP pages tend to be either crap, or battlegrounds. QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 29th May 2011, 1:38pm) Do you have some keyword ideas, or no? Have you added Wikipedia subculture words, like "editwar", "revert", "admin", "arbcom", and "abusive"? (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Milton Roe |
|
Known alias of J. Random Troll
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
|
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Thu 25th March 2010, 9:31pm) QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Thu 25th March 2010, 7:38pm) QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Thu 25th March 2010, 6:14pm) Hmmm. If you look at user:80.169.89.66 on WP it says it's just one outlet IP port of COLT Telcom GmbH, which is a proxy-server. Ironic that Jimbo is using one (since users are generally not supposed to), but I don't necessarily thing it puts him in the Colt Telcom offices. Anymore than I'm in Reston, VA when I use Comcast. And you trust Fabrictramp (T-C-L-K-R-D)
to have come to that conclusion responsibly? It seems far more likely that that information was provided by someone who sought to conceal Freud's involvement. It's fairly clear from RIPE records that that IP address is assigned to Freud, who gets their transit service from COLT's UK division, along with IP neighbors Comac Capital LLP and Fragomen GB Limited, both also UK corporations. Also, the .66 address is the second IP (out of 64) in the range allocated to Freud. Freud is using a 3com device, possibly a 3036, as their gateway device, at 80.169.89.65, so .66 is the first available IP on their address block and is likely used either as the PAT address for the internal network or for an internal HTTP proxy server. Their email is outsourced to Frontbridge and their web hosting to Publicis Technology of Paris, France, so they probably have no public services on the 80.169.86.64/26 network, making that allocation a waste of at least 48 and arguably as many as 63 perfectly good IP addresses. The statement that the IP is a "proxy server" is probably technically correct, as is the statement that the IP belongs to COLT Telecom. It's just that the proxy server is owned by Freud and used only by Freud, and the IP, while "owned" by COLT is being leased to Freud for their exclusive use. Exactly the sort of "truth" I expect from a marketing firm. The idea that a PR firm would attempt to conceal by misdirection their involvement in Wikipedia is, of course, completely unfathomable. And we've had plenty of demonstrations from people (such as the esteemed Alison) of the general incompetence of Wikipedia's administrators at interpreting forensic IP evidence. Thank you. Fascinating! So as I read you, we can with reasonable certainty conclude that Jimbo cannot have posted from that IP address by simply using COLT somewhere else in the UK. He's posting from a block assigned permanently to Freud, and while the IPs may rotate fromwhat within that, if they come out to the net at 80.169.89.66, as Jimbo's just did, they have to go IN from a computer connecting to the net via a Freud-owned company server. Which would mean that Jimbo at least was in the Freud company offices someplace, using their WiFi from his laptop to access the net from their company. I think Tarantino is right-- this sort of doesn't pass the sniff test for somebody who has been up on their high horse about paid editing on WP. Particularly not with a firm that has already been caught doing it wrong. So Jimbo's talking to a really big PR firm in London, one that has already been caught getting paid to edit articles for clients on WP years ago (yeah, sure, they've stopped doing that, I bet). So, do we think Jimbo's in their offices to do some kind of business with them? It's not like WMF to pay money to anybody if they can get it for free or by trading something for it. What sort of informal deal do you suppose WMF and Jimbo are doing with Freud? LOL. This reminds me again how "informal" this really could be, whatever else it was. In March 2010, Jimbo probably was posting from Freud Communications from Kate Garvey's office computer there. Since she was apparently... em... working directly under him on the WMF account there. Mystery solved. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif) |
|
|
|
|
|
| melloden |
|
.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 450
Joined:
Member No.: 34,482
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 29th May 2011, 8:38pm) QUOTE(melloden @ Sun 29th May 2011, 3:24pm)
Oh, right--I forgot that you seem not to like me ... because why exactly? I don't dislike you. I disagree with some of your opinions but I think you're fine as a person. And I don't waste my time writing Wikipedia articles for companies.
Do you have some keyword ideas, or no? The answer to that question shouldn't be contingent on seeing the list of my existing keywords. Well, would it be helpful if all the keywords I gave you were ones you already had? I'm not sure why you're so unwilling to provide this list to me--or maybe because you just don't like me? |
|
|
|
|
|
| thekohser |
|
Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
|
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sun 29th May 2011, 6:48pm) QUOTE(thekohser @ Sun 29th May 2011, 1:38pm) Do you have some keyword ideas, or no? Have you added Wikipedia subculture words, like "editwar", "revert", "admin", "arbcom", and "abusive"? (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif) These give me some good ideas, Eric -- thanks! |
|
|
|
|
|
| melloden |
|
.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 450
Joined:
Member No.: 34,482
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 30th May 2011, 12:51pm) QUOTE(Gruntled @ Mon 30th May 2011, 7:58am) QUOTE(melloden @ Mon 30th May 2011, 3:10am)
or maybe because you just don't like me?
Nonsense. Everyone loves melloden! You can't love anyone until you love yourself, they say. Poor Greg, he doesn't even love himself (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Somey |
|
Can't actually moderate (or even post)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
|
QUOTE(melloden @ Sun 29th May 2011, 9:10pm) Well, would it be helpful if all the keywords I gave you were ones you already had? As confirmation of his having made good choices, sure - why not? QUOTE I'm not sure why you're so unwilling to provide this list to me--or maybe because you just don't like me? Isn't it obvious? If the list were to become public, angry Wikipedians might Google-bomb the listed terms with anti-MWB material. Do you think they wouldn't? Right now, for example, if you do a Google search on "wikipedia editing service," the very first non-WP result is entitled "Dangers of Hired Wikipedia Editing," and mentions Greg Kohs by name, right there in the summary. These are not idiosyncratic or unusual "jargon" terms, these are common words used in everyday conversation. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Abd |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
|
QUOTE(Somey @ Mon 30th May 2011, 4:36pm) Right now, for example, if you do a Google search on "wikipedia editing service," the very first non-WP result is entitled "Dangers of Hired Wikipedia Editing," and mentions Greg Kohs by name, right there in the summary. These are not idiosyncratic or unusual "jargon" terms, these are common words used in everyday conversation. I'm as interested in what pops up for Wikipedia in that search. Wikipedia:Paid editing (policy) is shown as a Failed Policy. This is part of what failed: QUOTE Paid editing on Wikipedia is defined as writing or editing on Wikipedia in return for money, or similar inducements. This includes inserting or deleting content to the advantage of the editor's employer or client into or from an article, talk page, or policy. Many, but not all, types of paid editing are forbidden. For example, paid editing of a talk page is generally acceptable, but undisclosed paid editing of a policy page is forbidden. All paid editors are required to disclose their paid status on both their user page and on the affected article's talk page. Wikipedia:Paid editing (guideline) is also a "Failed proposal." Wikipedia:Paid editing simply says "Wikipedia does not currently have an official written policy or guideline on paid editing." That page links to some stuff, such as Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Paid editing What fun? Great comment from Thekohser there, and some really rich comments from some, the usual Wikipedia hostile lunacy. I prefer crazy friends who are nice. I loved this from Greg: QUOTE Experience shows that most POV pushers are loners (with some notable exceptions in easily-identifiable topics regarding clashes between ethnic or religious groups). There may be two or three editors supporting a fringe POV, but they have no particular motivation to organize off wiki. By contrast, some large corp would undoubtedly have weekly or even daily meetings regarding their latest promotional campaign, and if one team member reports they are having trouble getting a POV to stick in Wikipedia, the response will be "What can we do about it?", and the answer will be exactly what Novickas said above. The only long-term defense Wikipedia has is the shame for the corporation of being found to be in breach of a policy regarding how paid editing may occur ("no paid editing unless such-and-such conditions apply"). Johnuniq (talk) 00:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm thinking of someone who is quite the expert on group dynamics and ethical social behavior, and he would have had quite an instructive response to anyone who foolishly thinks that "shaming" is an effective social construct upon which to achieve progress and knowledge. But, you all ran him off the project, too. -- Thekohser 02:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC) My response to Johnuniq would be, "So, Wikipedia should damage the "sum of all human knowledge" in order to punish someone? What sort of process would make this determination? Of course, no policy was accepted. Did he think Wikipedia would have subpoena power? The really nutty thing here matches my life experience. I've found it far easier to deal with people who were motivated by money than those who were motivated by "doing good." Landlords who thought they were doing my organization a favor were awful, tendentious, and quick to sue and to refuse to negotiate, landlords who were just out for a buck were much saner. People on nonprofit boards would stab each other in the back and lie and cheat much more easily than seems to be the case in most ordinary business, etc. Something about "doing good" makes people crazy. I've been reviewing certain situations on Wikipedia and found that editors whom I thought were relatively "reasonable," when I looked carefully, were serious POV pushers who took every opportunity to get anyone banned who disagreed with them. The reasonableness was a pretense. I have someone in mind, and he's not being paid. If he were, I doubt that he'd be what he is. More power to Greg. Reading that RfC, I got the impression of someone who truly understands ethical business, in a modern environment, where being unethical is, long-term, stupid. No wonder he was banned. Unethical is stupid and it seems that stupid may be unethical. In the land of the unethical, the ethical are outlaws. Ah! I get it! If I'm doing good, and you oppose me, you must be Bad. Therefore whatever I do to stop you is Good The ends justify the means. The end is Good, i.e., what I do. Go away, you Bad Person. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Abd |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,919
Joined:
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 7th June 2011, 11:20am) Take a look at Slide 11 of this research output that was (obviously) intended to be delivered orally by the presenter, Judd Antin. Antin is a research scientist in the Internet Experiences Group at Yahoo! Research. QUOTE "Do you think Wikipedia would be different if people got paid?"
"Oh yeah, I think there'd be a lot of bullshit in there. I think people would just throw a lot of stuff in there thinking, 'I'm getting paid so it really doesn't matter what I'm putting down!' [The way it is now] I think people really put their heart and soul into it because they like doing it." Where do these crazy notions come from? That was an older truck driver. Or I'd have said that the ideas come from some kid in a basement somewhere who never worked for a living. Why in the world would one imagine that someone would pay for a pile of bullshit? And isn't "putting their heart and soul into it" an indicator of possible bias? It all depends on what one is being paid for. Anyone being paid to vandalize Wikipedia? If the payer is a government or large corporation, they might be paid to harass opposing editors. But if the client is small, paying for a wikiwar would be way expensive. Rather, they will pay for skilled editing, designed to satisfy Wikipedia guidelines, albeit with a possible slant. If they start a war, any slant will get buried in the avalanche. Not what a skilled editor will do. Wikipedia is full of slant promoted by editors who imagine themselves neutral. To recognize slant is easiest when one has an opposing POV, that's why diversity in editors is so important, and why the failure of Wikipedia to encourage real consensus-formation is so telling. |
|
|
|
|
|
| The Joy |
|
I am a millipede! I am amazing!
Group: Members
Posts: 3,839
Joined:
From: The Moon
Member No.: 982
|
QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 30th August 2011, 3:28pm) With all of the grace of a bison in a crystal shop, Jimbo tries to clearly portray how he feels about paid editing. Jimbo even comes down rather firmly against the Campus Ambassadors program, funded by the Wikimedia Foundation via a Stanton grant: QUOTE If those [student] editors edit as paid advocates (whether paid by money or course credit), then that's wrong, and banned.
-- Jimbo Wales The "community" has begun its familiar process of conveying to Jimbo -- without themselves getting banned for saying so -- that he is mostly an idiot. Certainly better than being a complete idiot, I assume? It's been said before and it will be said again: Who cares about paid editing as long as the information is correct and of high quality? Wikipedia is supposedly an "encyclopedia." I want good, current, high quality information from my encyclopedia. Who cares how the sausage is made? |
|
|
|
|
|
| Zoloft |
|
May we all find solace in our dreams.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,332
Joined:
From: Erewhon
Member No.: 16,621
|
QUOTE(The Joy @ Tue 30th August 2011, 7:20pm) <snip> Who cares how the sausage is made? Ingredients: Mechanically separated paraphrases, filler, UCE, BLP (some content may be verifiable but not factual), stubs, coloring, obsession, paraphilia, cruft, and natural flavors (no more than 2% of: ottava, malleus, giano, high fructose porn syrup). Processed in a facility where nuts may be present. |
|
|
|
|
|
| milowent |
|
Junior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 86
Joined:
Member No.: 20,085
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jim...days_of_the_webi don't think was posted here yet (but feel free to delete if it has ...), jimbo posted this to his talk page ... ---- A story from the early days of the web (This ended up being a bit of a mini-essay, but it's worth being really clear about my position here.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC) This is just a story related to the discussion of paid editing, up above. In the pre-Google days there was great competition between Yahoo and Altavista and several others. One of the questions out there was the question of algorithmic search versus human curated directories. Algorithmic search won out for the most part, in the long run, but my story is not about that. Yahoo hired teams of editors to review websites and list them in their directory. I don't remember now exactly how many people this was, but I think it safe to say it was in the hundreds. These editors could find websites any old way, of course, and include whatever in their judgment was worth including, but there was also the possibility of submitting your site to Yahoo. Yahoo at the time was incredibly powerful and so of course the submission queue was voluminous - to the point that it was nearly useless. Someone at Yahoo then had the idea of "paid submission". It still exists today. It costs $299 annually(!) for most sites, $600 annually for "adult content and/or services". Yahoo insisted that paying for expedited review of your website was not a compromise on the editorial neutrality of the directory. But the public perception was very strongly negative. Once they took that step, the obvious incentive structure means that it's in Yahoo's interest to give a favorable review. Let's say I have a movie website, and I pay to get one page of it reviewed by Yahoo. If that page is rejected, I won't submit again. If my page about Clint Eastwood is accepted, and the amount of traffic I receive is worth it, I'll pay again and again. Maybe I'll submit 1000 pages, and pay $300,000. That's real money. Acceptance of a really crappy page might be bad for Yahoo, of course, but notice that the cost/benefit analysis has shifted for Yahoo. They have a strong financial incentive to list my site as long as I don't do more than $300,000 per year in damage to the Yahoo brand. Yahoo liked to insist that this wouldn't happen, but the public trust in Yahoo was diminished. Today, of course, Yahoo is no longer regarded as a dominant leader, and I think that shortsighted moves like this are a big part of the reason why. (That algorithmic search turned out to be the right answer in most cases is of course also a part of it.) If you want to buy Google today, well the total market value of the stock is 174 billion. Yahoo, one tenth of that at 17.4 billion. Now let's apply this line of thought to newspapers. We all know that newspapers make money from advertising, and that quality newspapers do take steps to isolate the editorial department from the advertising department. It's not perfect, but the system does mostly work. Now imagine that the New York Times announced a program. For a $10,000 fee, you can pay them to send around a reporter to write a story about you. Imagine that it is claimed that this is no guarantee of the story actually being published. It still has to go through the normal processes and procedures, it is said. How would that impact the credibility of the newspaper? My view is that it would be incredibly destructive. As per what I outlined above, simple financial incentives suggest that large companies would give it a try a few times, and if it resulted in favorable coverage they wouldn't have gotten, they'd do it again and again. And if it was a waste of money, they wouldn't do it again. With advertising we worry about the indirect influence of the money on the editorial staff. That's problematic enough. But when connection between pay and getting coverage is made direct in this fashion - bleh. Now imagine that you're a member of the general public and you read a story in the newspaper about Wikipedia. Two possible story lines. In one version, it's "Wikipedia announces paid submission program" - in a sudden change of heart and policy, Wikipedia has decided to allow a formal program whereby experienced Wikipedia editors are paid by PR companies to write articles for Wikipedia. Oh no, we insist, nothing changes about our editorial policies, of course not. People would rightly be deeply concerned about that. Suddenly people would read articles in Wikipedia and wonder - how tainted is this by the formal acceptance of Wikipedians being paid to write on behalf of companies? In the other version, it's "Wikipedia reiterates its stance against PR firms editing Wikipedia". The story is that Wikipedia editors have firmly rejected the concept of allowing people to come into Wikipedia as paid advocates to edit articles, due to the wrongness of the financial incentives, and the blurring of the passionate pursuit of the truth that has been a hallmark of the Wikipedia community. For me, this has been, and continues to be, an absolute principle. Paid advocacy is banned from Wikipedia. The objections that are often raised are not remotely compelling. Claiming that banning it only pushes it underground doesn't make sense, as there seems to be virtually no evidence for it. Most responsible PR firms understand that editing Wikipedia on behalf of clients is forbidden, and they have rules in place internally to prohibit it. Of course, this is a big place, and everything goes on to some extent - the goal is not to achieve perfection, but to have the right principles in place. Another response to this objection is that it ignores that PR firms have a perfectly valid way to interact with Wikipedia, well-respected by the community, totally above-board and ethical. And that's to post to the talk page, declaring your conflict of interest, and asking people to take another look at something. That's the ethical approach, and it works. It completely prevents the question of whether or not what ends up in Wikipedia ended up that way because the Wikipedians themselves are corrupt.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| thekohser |
|
Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
|
QUOTE The objections that are often raised are not remotely compelling. Claiming that banning it only pushes it underground doesn't make sense, as there seems to be virtually no evidence for it. Most responsible PR firms understand that editing Wikipedia on behalf of clients is forbidden, and they have rules in place internally to prohibit it. Of course, this is a big place, and everything goes on to some extent - the goal is not to achieve perfection, but to have the right principles in place.
Another response to this objection is that it ignores that PR firms have a perfectly valid way to interact with Wikipedia, well-respected by the community, totally above-board and ethical. And that's to post to the talk page, declaring your conflict of interest, and asking people to take another look at something. That's the ethical approach, and it works. It completely prevents the question of whether or not what ends up in Wikipedia ended up that way because the Wikipedians themselves are corrupt.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC) Thank you, Jimbo, for being so completely wrong about multiple claims made in these two paragraphs of yours. Also, your imaginary story about why Google outperformed Yahoo! is also amusing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |
