The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> Help

This subforum is for critical evaluation of Wikipedia articles. However, to reduce topic-bloat, please make note of exceptionally poor stubs, lists, and other less attention-worthy material in the Miscellaneous Grab Bag thread. Also, please be aware that agents of the Wikimedia Foundation might use your evaluations to improve the articles in question.

Useful Links: Featured Article CandidatesFeatured Article ReviewArticles for DeletionDeletion Review

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Paid editing, The encyclopedic version
jayvdb
post 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
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SB_Johnny
post 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!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post 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".
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lilburne
post 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.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Fusion
post 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.

wtf.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lilburne
post 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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
HRIP7
post 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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

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

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 25th 10 14, 9:26am