Page 27 of 35
Re: Paid Editing on WP is permissible
Posted: Thu Nov 25, 2021 9:24 pm
by ericbarbour
They're getting away with this....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aptera_(s ... c_vehicle)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... t=Fotoguru
Compare the present
Aptera Motors article to its
appearance in December 2011, when the company went bankrupt. Does not appear as if they had the assistance of paid editors, just random Wikifanatics jeering at the company.
Aptera learned their lesson. And Wikipedia mishandled the content. As usual.
I talked about this in a Wikipediocracy thread in 2012, so the Wikidiots can't claim it's a "new problem":
http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtop ... 954#p23954
Re: Paid Editing on WP is permissible
Posted: Tue Dec 14, 2021 1:20 am
by ericbarbour
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Brewing_Company
It looked VERY different--until this freak showed up in 2009 and totally rewrote it. Which no longer points out something people from upstate NY knew for decades, that Utica Club was one of the worst beers in America.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:C ... pfront2009
Re: Paid Editing on WP is permissible
Posted: Sat Dec 25, 2021 1:10 am
by ericbarbour
This was a tiny stub about a very obscure musician.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Sharp_(musician)
Until this account showed up a year ago and started "venerating" Sharp. Along with many other "industrial" musical acts. No one notices. Paid? Or just an obsessed sucker-editor? Ask him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tkiehne
Re: Paid Editing on WP is permissible
Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2021 10:39 pm
by ericbarbour
The
Mark Jenkins article (which Jenkins wrote himself OF COURSE) was AFDed, and survived. Still one of the most blatant autobiographies I've ever seen on Wikipedia. He even rewrote it in 2019, using a bare IP address. This is how Wikipedia fails.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Markjenkinsmusic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:C ... .145.173.3
Re: Paid Editing on WP is permissible
Posted: Thu Feb 10, 2022 2:10 am
by ericbarbour
Have to wonder: is this New Yorker being paid by app companies like Nextdoor and Citizen to edit their content?
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... .13.210.43
Re: Paid Editing on WP is permissible
Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2022 5:41 pm
by badmachine
ericbarbour wrote: ↑Tue Dec 28, 2021 10:39 pm
He even rewrote it in 2019, using a bare IP address. This is how Wikipedia fails.
Probably cuz his account was blocked by Nihonjoe on Christmas day 2010:
23:37, 25 December 2010 Nihonjoe talk contribs blocked Markjenkinsmusic talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite (autoblock disabled) ({{spamusernameblock}})
Re: Paid Editing on WP is permissible
Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2022 8:53 pm
by ericbarbour
Another recording related fanboy slobber display:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Massenburg
Needless to say, Binksternet (a professional recording engineer and probably an owner of GML equipment) is watching it. So no one will be permitted to change it to appear less "paid". Until Bink gets desysopped.
(Only mentioned because Eddie Ciletti, a well-known engineer and repairer of pro audio equipment, is trying to fix a GML 8900 limiter. Posted his complaints on Facebook. The
GML company "barely exists" anymore. NO support or schematics are available--PERIOD. It is a very complicated piece of gear and Eddie, who is a world-class expert on the subject, is having serious difficulty repairing the thing. You can learn more about George from
this page than you can from Wikipedia.)
Re: Paid Editing on WP is permissible
Posted: Fri Mar 25, 2022 5:03 pm
by ericbarbour
Re: Paid Editing on WP is permissible
Posted: Sat Apr 02, 2022 9:51 pm
by ericbarbour
Remember this from 2017?
https://wikipediasucks.co/forum/viewtop ... p=473#p473
In April 2018, someone who
must have worked there created an article about GBS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:C ... Ivanadavis
A succession of suckers and nuts messed with it. Then in 2020 CNN announced that GBS was done. The website was shut down. All that remains is the now-ignored YT channel......and an obviously-paid Wikipedia article.
God. Some of those videos are so stupid, I wonder if they were satirical.
Re: Paid Editing on WP is permissible
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2022 11:02 pm
by ericbarbour
I remember seeing this in 2010 and wondering if it was being controlled by Exploratorium employees. It was always a blatant advert and those tags are insultingly late. A bit like Wikipedia, the Exploratorium is notorious for operating more like a cult than a museum. I've dealt with Exploratorium people and thought they were all on the "weird side", way past the mere "old hippie" phase and into outright paranoia / Oppenheimer worship / etc.
Is this what happens if your nonprofit educational organization doesn't accept direct full-time government or corporate sponsorship, and ends up becoming "successful" anyway? Without maniac Scientology-like fans, it fails? I'm not criticizing the museum itself, it's well-run and serves its purpose, especially for school children. But like WP, holy crap, a peek in the back rooms can be quite disturbing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploratorium
Turns out, it got WORSE after 2010. "ExploratoriumPI" tried to nominate it for a GA in 2013. And failed. Probably why they gave up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:C ... ratoriumPI
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:C ... te.carlson