Re: Paid Editing on WP is permissible

[ericbarbour]

The best Wikipedia content money can buy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_C._Griffin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citadel_LLC

Much spluttering about his philanthropy. Nothing about his longtime membership in, and financial support of, the Koch network. If his WP article were more honest about Griffin's political activities, it would look like this. Mercer is another major Koch network supporter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mercer

[ericbarbour]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business ... cbd85d94ee

A current big scandal on the business page. Misuse of pension funds is a common feature of our happy new world of deregulation, but what Sun did to the Marsh employees is probably outright criminal fraud. We shall see.

And speaking of fraud, Sun Capital Partners simply reeks of paid editing. So far Mr. Leder got his money's worth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:C ... s/Aeduffin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:C ... shenriquez
Plus the usual diddles by Patapsco913.

[ericbarbour]

Self-promotion at its most obvious.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audiocubes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bert_Schiettecatte

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:C ... s/Ettepuop

[ericbarbour]

One must wonder if this "library professional" was a friend or paid to do this.....so far as I can tell, Ms. Dolan was a deeply obscure DJ whose main claim to notoriety was her death in the Ghost Ship fire. And not her actual music.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherushii
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... t=Bookseum

[ericbarbour]

Why do I keep seeing these pathetic, abandoned press-release-like articles about corporations?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendrell_Corporation

No real updates since 2011. As far as I can tell, the ICO satellite system is defunct and Pendrell is chasing DRM technology instead. All the "External Links" are dead or outdated. Maybe Pendrell SHOULD pay someone.

[CrowsNest]

I have never seen content written by an undisclosed paid editor that was any good. Often it looks superficially accurate but when you start looking at the refs they are typically poor and many often do not support the content they are placed behind. Paid editing is trying to mislead our readers and thus it harms our encyclopedia and our reputation. Those doing it are not interested in becoming editors who contribute high quality content but simple want to promote those who pay them and will try anything to continue to do so. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

What are the betting any of the following is true:

1. He's never seen top quality UPE because the name of the game is not to be detected. Passing off paid work as legit encyclopedia content, is ultimate goal. And it is waaaay easier than he assumes.

2. He's seen top quality UPE, perhaps after the editor being caught by means other than just looking at their work. But his assessment of the quality of the work is then immediately coloured by the knowledge it was paid for without disclosure.

3. He's seen top quality UPE, stuff easily good enough to pass as the work of an unpaid volunteer, certainly one as shit at writing articles as him, but he's just so against it, he happily lies in posts like this.

The last line is hilarious. How many cases have there been of UPE happening as a result of a seriously long term and much celebrated and committee volunteer editor waking up to the fact they have certain skills which can be turned into money if they just don't tell anyone that's their brand new motivation?

This bloke is a fucking mug. He's also a WMF Board member.

[Abd]

:lol:

I have never seen content written by an undisclosed paid editor that was any good. Often it looks superficially accurate but when you start looking at the refs they are typically poor and many often do not support the content they are placed behind. Paid editing is trying to mislead our readers and thus it harms our encyclopedia and our reputation. Those doing it are not interested in becoming editors who contribute high quality content but simple want to promote those who pay them and will try anything to continue to do so. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

What are the betting any of the following is true:

1. He's never seen top quality UPE because the name of the game is not to be detected. Passing off paid work as legit encyclopedia content, is ultimate goal. And it is waaaay easier than he assumes.

It is trivial to write WP content for hire. It is not even contrary to policy if one does not post it, but someone else does. Doc James was incredibly naive to write that. I've been paid to create wikitext, all totally policy-compliant. Yes, paid editors are not neutral, necessarily, but can create good content, and people with strong beliefs (such as the ever-popular blatantly policy-violating Scientific Point of View faction -- that's an oxymoron --) can also "try to mislead readers". And do, commonly, by cherry-picking sources, rejecting strong sources that evidence the contrary of their beliefs, and pushing weaker sources that are in the other direction. If there is a bio of an author, they scrape the web for weak sources with criticism, and reject strong sources for bogus reasons, such as "author is a fringe believer," when RS policy is about publishers, not authors. And it has been going on for many years, and the damage accumulates.

2. He's seen top quality UPE, perhaps after the editor being caught by means other than just looking at their work. But his assessment of the quality of the work is then immediately coloured by the knowledge it was paid for without disclosure.

So much for deep understanding.

3. He's seen top quality UPE, stuff easily good enough to pass as the work of an unpaid volunteer, certainly one as shit at writing articles as him, but he's just so against it, he happily lies in posts like this.

I know Doc James. He would not lie. But he might exhibit selective judgment and memory.

The last line is hilarious. How many cases have there been of UPE happening as a result of a seriously long term and much celebrated and committee volunteer editor waking up to the fact they have certain skills which can be turned into money if they just don't tell anyone that's their brand new motivation?

There was a well-known case of a probable paid editor, where the customer was a multi-billion dollar corporation. Now, if such a corporation wants to influence the project by hiring editors and even administrators, what is to stop them. Policy?

ROTFL.

So Monster Corp. wants an admin in their pocket. They find *anyone* with some competence and pay them to become a "regular Wikipedian." It is not difficult if you are willing to work in the salt mines, i.e., Recent Changes, for a while. They instruct their contractor to stay out of trouble and do good work, focusing on what can create an appearance of a good admin candidate. This is honestly not difficult at all.

So then they have an admin, who can act very carefully, and as long as each action is defensible as within discretion, they can push things their way. They can find a critic and, using other troll accounts, push the critic into apparent policy violations. It doesn't even need to be actual policy violations, just something that can appear that way. So the admin blocks the critic.

I've seen it happening, though not in a case where I thought the troll and admin was paid, but they were clearly in cahoots. On the other hand, there are organizations that will pay for action furthering their purposes, and some will do it for free, believers in that cause.

This bloke is a fucking mug. He's also a WMF Board member.

Actually, he was removed from the board, rather abruptly, for no stated reason.

[CrowsNest]

This bloke is a fucking mug. He's also a WMF Board member.

Actually, he was removed from the board, rather abruptly, for no stated reason.

....and then reelected, because the community are bigger mugs than he is.

https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/P ... n_Montreal

Since re-election, he's continued to play a starring role in a number of major screw ups, this being a typical example of his editing activities.....

https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... f=13&t=516

He's a complete fuckwit, whose lack of even basic knowledge of the thing he's been bashing away at for years, is still astonishing.....

https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... =11&t=1088

He never faced any consequences for basically saying what Jytdog did was no big deal, and he is "irreplaceable". Random editors saying that is one thing, and many did, but a Board Member? Wow.

The Wikipedians are blind to it all. Or they happily accept this is the best they can do.

[ericbarbour]

Actually, he was removed from the board, rather abruptly, for no stated reason.

....and then reelected, because the community are bigger mugs than he is.
https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/P ... n_Montreal
Since re-election, he's continued to play a starring role in a number of major screw ups, this being a typical example of his editing activities.....
https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... f=13&t=516
He's a complete fuckwit, whose lack of even basic knowledge of the thing he's been bashing away at for years, is still astonishing.....
https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... =11&t=1088

Heilman again? Hah. He's living proof that Jimbo Management Process can live at the WMF. Be an egomaniac, and demand asskisses from the insider gang. Go along with their stupidity and make the right propagandistic noises to the press. And no matter how incompetent or batshit crazy you are, you will be a STAR. And unfireable.

[ericbarbour]

A rotten deal I noticed some years ago. It has never EVER been fixed. If anything, the WP insiders know about this and are facilitating it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Lynn

Is a VERY obscure figure. I have never heard of him, have you? So far as I can tell, his career as a Portland singer has not produced any chart hits or awards. He blogs for the LOGO television channel on LGBTQ issues. He has a few friends in Hollywood. Not much else seems to justify his 91k-byte obvious autobiography. It's an embarrassing self-gratification display. Other far more famous musicians have shorter bios. (Stevie Wonder's bio is only 88k bytes. He has 22 Grammy awards--Mr. Lynn has nothing.)

Major content creator: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:C ... ieQueenPDX
Plus a couple of IP addresses--from Portland of course.

Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... on=history

AND DRMIES KNOWS HE'S DOING IT. Clearly. Lynn's bio got longer and longer in January 2014 thanks to the fanatical grinding of "IndieQueenPDX" and IP address 76.115.54.155, and Drmies AND Eric Corbett would show up and politely fix the river of garbage. This is clear proof that LGBTQ "activists" receive unequal favorable treatment on Wikipedia. The rules are not for them.