 Paid editing, The encyclopedic version |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
  |
| jayvdb |
 Mon 20th February 2012, 11:25pm
Post
#1
|
 Senior Member  Group: Contributors Posts: 271 Joined: Wed 28th Feb 2007, 2:15am From: Melbourne, Australia Member No.: 1,039 WP user page - talk check - contribs  |
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cooperation/Paid_editing_on_Wikipedia
With sections dedicated to: Jimmy Wales Wikipedia Review Microsoft More to come: Vatican Diebold CIA Walmart AstraZeneca Britain's Labour Party Dow chemical Disney Canadian government Industry Canada Church of Scientology Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet and Defence in Australia the US Republican Party the United Nations the US Senate US Democratic Party's Israeli government Dog Breeder's association of America Montana Sen. Conrad Burns' Fox News FBI Dell Anheuser-Busch, SeaWorld’s owner. Pepsi SCO Group (software) CBS Washington Post DuPont Ohio State (misc) Paid Illustrators Bell Pottinger Portland Communications, Newt Gingrich Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement (CREWE) Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) Wikiexperts.us GLAM |
   |
 
|
| SB_Johnny |
Mon 20th February 2012, 11:42pm
Post
#2
|
 It wasn't me who made honky-tonk angels Group: Regulars Posts: 2,128 Joined: Mon 15th Sep 2008, 3:10pm Member No.: 8,272 WP user page - talk check - contribs |
Well, they already have an article about navel-gazing, so now they can have a category!
|
|
|
|
| thekohser |
Tue 21st February 2012, 12:03pm
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Regulars Posts: 10,274 Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm Member No.: 911 |
QUOTE(jayvdb @ Mon 20th February 2012, 6:25pm)  Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cooperation/Paid_editing_on_Wikipedia With sections dedicated to: Jimmy Wales Wikipedia Review Microsoft I see they've already covered off on the excellent grammar of Wikipedia: "...a press release he put about about Wikipedia Review..." One doesn't "issue" or "publish" a press release, folks. One "puts it about". |
|
|
|
| lilburne |
Tue 21st February 2012, 12:14pm
Post
#4
|
 Chameleon Group: Contributors Posts: 890 Joined: Thu 17th Jun 2010, 11:42am Member No.: 21,803 WP user page - talk check - contribs |
QUOTE(thekohser @ Tue 21st February 2012, 12:03pm) QUOTE(jayvdb @ Mon 20th February 2012, 6:25pm) Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cooperation/Paid_editing_on_Wikipedia With sections dedicated to: Jimmy Wales Wikipedia Review Microsoft One doesn't "issue" or "publish" a press release, folks. One "puts it about". Well as we all know PR types are of loose morals. |
|
|
|
| Fusion |
Tue 21st February 2012, 10:13pm
Post
#5
|
 Senior Member Group: Contributors Posts: 346 Joined: Tue 29th Nov 2011, 12:40pm Member No.: 71,526 |
QUOTE(lilburne @ Tue 21st February 2012, 12:14pm) Well as we all know PR types are of loose morals.  |
|
|
|
| lilburne |
Fri 24th February 2012, 7:38pm
Post
#6
|
|
Chameleon Group: Contributors Posts: 890 Joined: Thu 17th Jun 2010, 11:42am Member No.: 21,803 WP user page - talk check - contribs |
So what is actually the problem here? I looked at the articles for the main companies in my field of software. Each consists of a couple of paragraphs of bumf written by the respective marketing depts, and pretty much that is all that wikipedia will ever have on these companies. Yet at least 3 of them were behind the development of computer graphics going back to the early 1960s. I'll take a couple of competitors and its product as an example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siemens_PLM_Software http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parametric_Te...ogy_Corporation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProEngineer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasolid and compare them against: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_chrome http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_maps Today, about 5 of the companies mentioned above, produce the software, that makes 90% of everything you buy. You'll never know that from a wikipedia article because the story behind all of that is buried in press releases and other company communications. |
|
|
|
| HRIP7 |
Fri 24th February 2012, 9:28pm
Post
#7
|
 Senior Member Group: Regulars Posts: 483 Joined: Sat 6th Feb 2010, 3:58pm Member No.: 17,020 WP user page - talk check - contribs |
Some things the page should mention are that
- Wikipedia has had and no doubt continues to have many articles on individuals and corporations that were unfair to their subjects, to the point of being attack pages. - Wikipedia's anonymous editing concept makes it an ideal venue for defamation, encouraging stalkers, jilted lovers, professional rivals and competitors to edit the articles of people they don't like. - While there is every arrangement and policy investment designed to protect anonymous editors, there is no comparable policy investment to protect biography subjects: for example, someone complaining at a noticeboard about another editor's "conflict-of-interest" edits or "legal threat" gets a response within 5 minutes, while a subject writing to OTRS may have to wait weeks for a reply; and while a biography subject who threatens to sue an editor for libel is blocked from Wikipedia, someone who is already in a real-life legal dispute with them can edit their biography, the top Google link for their name, with impunity. - Biography subjects who come to Wikipedia, alarmed that the no. 1 Google link for their name shows them in a worse light than they deserve, find themselves in a disorienting environment where the rules are stacked against them, and frequently end up hazed, mocked, and blocked from editing. - While Wikipedia has much the same reach as a top newspaper, it is not accountable to the public in any significant way, and people victimised by it have no voice. In such circumstances, a paid Wikipedia advocate might actually make sense; as would supervision by something like the press complaints commission. |
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 24th 5 13, 9:53pm |