Page 14 of 35

Re: Paid Editing

Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2018 7:01 pm
by CrowsNest
A classic example of why declaring a conflict of interest is not remotely a sensible thing to do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =850224088

This user's treatment at the hands of cowboy Administrators who hate any and all forms of paid editing, is of course against policy. A user is entitled to join Wikipedia and edit only about what they are paid to edit about, as long as they follow all the relevant rules.

These Administrators don't give a crap that they are off-reservation, enforcing the rules that they want to exist, not that actually exist. And nobody else will care, if they even notice.

And if these articles ever appear again, it will be assume they were created by socks of this guy, and deleted with prejudice. So the company will never ever get recognition on Wikipedia, even if they deserve it.

All because they tried to follow Wikipedia's rules.

DO. NOT. DECLARE. It is not worth it.

Re: Paid Editing

Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2018 1:24 am
by ericbarbour
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watkins_M ... ng_Company

So stupid and outrageous, CorporateM himself removed some puffery:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =535645425

Also, this was added by an IP address belonging to a business in Vista, California. The homebase of Watkins.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =724027148

Amateurs....

Re: Paid Editing

Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2018 2:55 am
by ericbarbour
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kayenta_Mine

Created by and almost entirely written by PR Alma.
An undeclared paid editor. Who also wrote the bulk of this. The place where most of Kayenta's coal goes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navajo_Generating_Station

The environmental movement has hated the NGS and Kayenta mine since they were started in the 1970s. Building a huge stripmine and coal-fired power plant to pollute the clean skies of northern Arizona would be unthinkable today. Do you see the usual "Controversy" sections in those articles? Not that it matters much, Peabody Coal has been circling the drain for a few years. (Maybe Peabody should have hired PR Alma? I bet the Navajo Nation could use her help too, eh? Not that someone spindoctoring on Wikipedia could save the coal industry at this point.)

The "Wiki-Luv-Pedians" damn well know what happened, because in 2013 Fred Bauder fought with her, and gave up:
(cur | prev) 12:09, 29 July 2013‎ Fred Bauder (talk | contribs)‎ . . (42,950 bytes) (+129)‎ . . (December 22, 2044) (undo)
(cur | prev) 12:02, 29 July 2013‎ Fred Bauder (talk | contribs)‎ . . (42,821 bytes) (+189)‎ . . (→‎Future requirements) (undo)
(cur | prev) 11:44, 29 July 2013‎ Fred Bauder (talk | contribs)‎ . . (42,632 bytes) (-84)‎ . . (→‎Air quality impacts: air quality in the area is high) (undo)
(cur | prev) 04:32, 29 July 2013‎ PR Alma (talk | contribs)‎ . . (42,716 bytes) (+84)‎ . . (Undid revision 566032272 by Fred Bauder (talk). Please see NGS talk page.) (undo)
(cur | prev) 22:53, 27 July 2013‎ Fred Bauder (talk | contribs)‎ . . (42,632 bytes) (+192)‎ . . (→‎Future requirements) (undo)
(cur | prev) 22:30, 27 July 2013‎ Fred Bauder (talk | contribs)‎ . . (42,440 bytes) (+39)‎ . . (→‎Future requirements: Best Available Retrofit Technology) (undo)
(cur | prev) 22:29, 27 July 2013‎ Fred Bauder (talk | contribs)‎ . . (42,401 bytes) (+1,802)‎ . . (→‎Future requirements) (undo)
(cur | prev) 22:26, 27 July 2013‎ Fred Bauder (talk | contribs)‎ . . (40,599 bytes) (+2,844)‎ . . (→‎Future requirements: summary of proposed rule) (undo)
(cur | prev) 15:40, 27 July 2013‎ Fred Bauder (talk | contribs)‎ . . (37,755 bytes) (-84)‎ . . (→‎Air quality impacts: air monitoring does not measure health impacts) (undo)

Re: Paid Editing

Posted: Sun Aug 12, 2018 4:41 am
by ericbarbour
Virtually unnoticed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P._J._Byrne
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meredith_Bagby

Both substantially the work of Eviezc. I mean, come on, don't insult us:
(cur | prev) 22:45, 21 June 2012‎ Eviezc (talk | contribs)‎ . . (11,307 bytes) (+7,491)‎ . . (Re-organize data as per PJ Byrne's request.) (undo)

Re: Paid Editing

Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2018 8:17 pm
by ericbarbour
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elk_Creek,_California
The town of Elk Creek is just north of Stony Gorge Reservoir, a nice place for camping, fishing, and boating. Elk Creek, the town's namesake, runs out of the Coast Range mountains to the east into Stony Creek. Stony Creek runs from the dam at Stony Gorge into another lake a bit further up the map called Black Butte Lake – also an excellent place to fish, boat, camp, hike, and partake in various other outdoor activities. Hunting is restricted to shotguns and bows.

it's been there for TEN YEARS. And no one cares.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =148764324

Re: Paid Editing

Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2018 8:16 am
by ericbarbour
Ya know, it's a pretty good bet that Accurate1000 was employed by either the U.S. Air Force or Raytheon, and did nothing but make the Active Denial System seem more benign than it really is.....

Re: Paid Editing

Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2018 9:34 am
by AndrewForson
ericbarbour wrote:Ya know, it's a pretty good bet that Accurate1000 was employed by either the U.S. Air Force or Raytheon, and did nothing but make the Active Denial System seem more benign than it really is.....

I don't know how "benign" a weapon can be, or to what extent this one "really is", and I don't suppose you do either. What you mean, I think, is that they were paid to present an aspect of the weapon system that was not being presented by the people anxious to include material criticising it.

Re: Paid Editing

Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2018 10:23 pm
by ericbarbour

Re: Paid Editing

Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2018 5:27 pm
by sashi
A circular link to this thread via Helen of desTroy.
A follow-up piece and another. Footnotes inside... she's done a lot of work.

The first essay is general and gets some things wrong. (she shouldn't say Wikimedia owns WikiTribune to pick one example... or radicalize the things I've written into accusations against the mighty mighty Clintons. )

The second and third are particularly concerned with quackwatch.com (specifically Stephen Barrett) and nutritional supplements respectively. Any thoughts?

Re: Paid Editing

Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2018 4:10 am
by ericbarbour
sashi wrote:A circular link to this thread via Helen of desTroy.
A follow-up piece and another. Footnotes inside... she's done a lot of work.
The first essay is general and gets some things wrong. (she shouldn't say Wikimedia owns WikiTribune to pick one example... or radicalize the things I've written into accusations against the mighty mighty Clintons. )
The second and third are particularly concerned with quackwatch.com (specifically Stephen Barrett) and nutritional supplements respectively. Any thoughts?

Do me a favor--try to contact Ms. Buyniski and have her email or PM me directly. I can share a copy of the book wiki notes. She obviously need them.