I was actually making a fairly decent go of it, until they got to the part about Communist China, public executions, and totalitarian societies. Why, it's like they're only now figuring this out!

And seriously, there were all sorts of grammatical errors in that statement, as well as the similar one from the RfC. They're going to have to do better than that if they want to really start raking in the wiki-megabucks.

Yeah, I figure my payment-to-time-invested ratio is probably 2x to 3x higher than Davies'.

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.

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

And the Reward Board is not all that much more lucrative, either.

It sort of makes you wonder why half of Wikipedia has gone so ape-shit over Wikipedia Review and other paid editors. As Somey has opined several times... there's really not ALL THAT MUCH MONEY in this particular industry, when it is something the customer could feasibly (and often does) just do themselves.

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:



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?)

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.

That's utterly out of order isn't it? What's become of the independence of Wikis to decide who's blocked?

Do they have independence? Give examples.

Plenty of people have been blocked on Wikipedia but not other projects.

Jimbo has really honed his skill at deflection on the subject of paid editing:

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...

Adambro, for the high crimes against logic and against good content you have perpetrated on Wikiversity, you are hereby disallowed from undertaking any paid editing engagement.

(Leave such activity to those of us who still have a shred of sense in our noggins.)

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:


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.

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.

This is delicious, though I'm strangely not finding it scandalous.

Maybe I'm growing soft, looking at that $100 check on the banister... a down payment from my most recent paid-editing client.

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.

You know, buried in that message is something that will likely be scandalous. It looks like Jimbo's considering pushing Wikinews off the WMF portfolio, and how much do you want to bet it ends up a property of either Bessemer, Omidyar, or Elevation Partners?

And Sue Gardner will say with a straight face that this privatized spin-off had "nothing to do with earlier financial contributions to Wikimedia from these investors, but everything to do with what is best for the ongoing success of the Wikimedia Foundation and future opportunity for Wikinews"?

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 liquid-threads extension looks useless as all get out, yet apparently is what the devs were working on instead of flagged revs.

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?

Stupidly,

MR

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.



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,

Matthew's own PR people obvious dare not touch their master's entry.

At the summit, on Google Wiki cult sage Jimmy Wales says ...

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.

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.

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=235825

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.


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.



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." 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.

Hah! I can still remember a time when I thought the British were more intelligent than us.

Jon

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.

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:

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.

The analogy fails to point out that some people often find they need some really stale bread because they have long ago thrown theirs out and can't recall the exact taste. Bakers have craftily decided to charge for access to their archives of stale bread, charging prices for a single slice of stale bread well in excess of the price of a fresh loaf. This is something that may catch on in the newsmedia industry...

Consider a summer intern doing Wikipedia editing work on behalf of the Marketing and Communications Department of a highly-rated university in Atlanta, then writing a magazine article about the experience. Is that editing a violation of Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines?

Gee, I hope no one checks that against Emory's website for cut and paste copyright violations...

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?

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.

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.

Maybe you should, because corporate WP pages tend to be either crap, or battlegrounds.


Have you added Wikipedia subculture words, like "editwar", "revert", "admin", "arbcom", and "abusive"?

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.

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?

These give me some good ideas, Eric -- thanks!

Nonsense. Everyone loves melloden!

You can't love anyone until you love yourself, they say.

Poor Greg, he doesn't even love himself

Leave it to you, mello, to bring paid editing all the way around to onanism.

As confirmation of his having made good choices, sure - why not?


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.