Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Paid editing by slander artists
Wikipedia Review > Wikimedia Discussion > General Discussion
nobs
From Wikien-1
QUOTE
Rob Smith nobs03 at gmail.com
Mon Mar 5 17:44:31 UTC 2007

There are various techniques in the Internal Revenue Manual that could be
employed; for example, reviewing the edit contributions of an employee of a
non-profit organization, a reasonable estimate of manhours allocated by that
non-profit organization over a given period of time would meet standards of
proof to establish income from paid editing, as well as the activities of
the employer, not to mention possible conflicts of interest, or violations
of Wikipedia's internal policies.
QUOTE
Mercenary Wikipedian mercenarywikipedian at hotmail.com
Wed Mar 7 21:48:11 UTC 2007

What does any of this have to do with Wikipedia? There are already policies
in place regarding NPOV and NPA, and there are multiple dispute resolution
processes in place to handle serial/chronic non-compliance. What protections
does _anyone_ have against defamation on Wikipedia? Well, if they are the
subject of an article there is WP:BLP. If they are just an editor and not
the subject of the article there is the policy mandating No Personal
Attacks. What makes you think these won't work if people are getting paid?
Is this an issue of scalability? If so, it seems a little late to be worried
about whether or not the idea of Wikipedia is scalable.
QUOTE
Rob Smith nobs03 at gmail.com
Wed Mar 7 22:22:46 UTC 2007

None is addressed in current policies. And there is evidence Wikipedia is
being used for purposes *other than* writing an encyclopedia, i.e. to target
certain individuals and smear their character. The Daniel Brandt episode is
one such case. Stephen Kinsella and the Ludwig von Mises Institute is
another. The Free Congress Foundation and Paul Weyrich is a target for much
questionable content being added, as well as an anonymous editor who
identified himself as a professional journalist and friend of Weyrich
received a community ban for efforts to instill NPOV & fairness in those two
articles.

By contrast, User:Katefan0 of *Scripps Howard* did
precisely the samething as Weyrich's friend, admitted a conflict of interest
prior to initiating official Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Policy, was
promoted to Admin, presented evidence before Arbitrators admitting her
conflict of interest

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...ty_and_bullying

yet the Arbs used her evidence against an aggrieved party. There are
numerous other instances to be cited where a pattern is established that the
intent of some parties, acting as agents of others, are using Wikipedia to
pursue their own aims and not constructively contribute to the encyclopedia.
QUOTE
Slim Virgin slimvirgin at gmail.com
Wed Mar 7 22:29:04 UTC 2007

Rob Smith (User:Nobs) has just named a former admin who did not choose
to name herself. Can the people monitoring the list step in, please?
QUOTE
David Gerard dgerard at gmail.com
Wed Mar 7 22:34:39 UTC 2007

That was indeed the last straw. He's on mod now.
Somey
I was sorry to see that, actually. What are your plans now?

Not to drop any hints or anything, but Hawaii is nice this time of year...
nobs
QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 7th March 2007, 10:54pm) *

I was sorry to see that, actually. What are your plans now?

Not to drop any hints or anything, but Hawaii is nice this time of year...

The next logical step: present the information before the Foundation.

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/found...rch/028220.html

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/found...rch/028225.html

This is not a problem of persons or personalities, finding a fall guy like Essjay for example, who really is just a victim of his own stupidity in a war he never understood. It's a cumulative systemic problem that cannot be understood without looking a specific examples, who may happen to be Admins or subjects of BLP. And constantly impugning motives not only shields our eyes from investigating these institutional problems, it's also part of the larger accumulated institutional problem.

The User:SlimVirgin, for example, who may or may not be a real person, I don't know and I don't give a crap, really has caused a serious problem for the Foundation; and this is evidenced by yesterdays actions when she reinserted questionable third party source material after agreeing the same source was ( 1 ) questionable ( 2 ) innapropriate. She did not review potentially defamatory material in a BLP before inserting it. And she writes the damn policies. Given that the Foundation has tasked her to author thier policies, and she has proven herself incapabale of making a spot editorial judgement about questionable, potentially slanderous, and defamatory material, she showed herself to be a machine programed executor of Foundation policy.
Somey
All good points, actually!

But when you say "present the information before the Foundation," what Foundation are you referring to? Surely not the Wikimedia Foundation, who are even less likely to take your evidence seriously (and not just ignore you) than the editors and admins on Wikipedia itself...

I just think you have to publish this independently somehow, and by that I mean on paper. Can you afford it, though? I mean, you would definitely need a very good copy editor, and I definitely wouldn't want to be the person tasked with ensuring that your written presentation is clearly focused and easily understandable, but if someone can actually manage to do it, I'd say there's at least a magazine article in it.

Maybe even two magazine articles!
nobs
QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 8th March 2007, 12:05am) *

All good points, actually!

But when you say "present the information before the Foundation," what Foundation are you referring to? Surely not the Wikimedia Foundation, who are even less likely to take your evidence seriously (and not just ignore you) than the editors and admins on Wikipedia itself...

I just think you have to publish this independently somehow, and by that I mean on paper. Can you afford it, though? I mean, you would definitely need a very good copy editor, and I definitely wouldn't want to be the person tasked with ensuring that your written presentation is clearly focused and easily understandable, but if someone can actually manage to do it, I'd say there's at least a magazine article in it.

Maybe even two magazine articles!

Well, the record is clear. Other Foundation members who may not be aware of what is clearly a Foundation policy and objective are now being informed. It needs to be placed on the level of a policy review and analysis.

Ever the historian, oddly enough we've found the origins of this mess, in all places, Nixon's [[Russian Wheat Deal]] aka International Grain Agreement (IGA) of 1972.

Please don't ask me to connect the dots just yet.
Somey
QUOTE(nobs @ Thu 8th March 2007, 1:29pm) *
Ever the historian, oddly enough we've found the origins of this mess, in all places, Nixon's [[Russian Wheat Deal]] aka International Grain Agreement (IGA) of 1972.

Dang! I always knew there was something fishy about that whole business! I remember I was 11 years old at the time, and thinking, "Y'know, someday this is going to come back and totally bite me in the ass"...

QUOTE
Please don't ask me to connect the dots just yet.

Trust me, I would never, ever do anything like that! smile.gif
blissyu2
Whenever Wikipedia faces difficult questions, they have one simple answer - make history disappear!

In this case, they simply used their ruling about personal identities, with regards to a person who had already been exposed previously, to fail to answer a valid question.

This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.