https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewto ... 83#p288883
Now, granted, this might just be a throwaway comment where Beeblebrox is just trying to kiss the ass of one of the few Wikipediocracy posters who aren't hard wired to be subservient to him, and hadn't actually thought through what he was saying.it doesn't really add up for a schoolteacher to be fixated on making a biotech company look good.
But let's assume good faith and say this comment was made by Beeblebrox while being fully mindful of his recent reminder by his ArbCom coleagues to not say stupid stuff on Wikipediocracy, and trying to be a helpful poster.
So, what did he mean? What is it about that scenario, that doesn't add up? Where does he intend to take this conversation?
Is it not common knowledge that a common trait of a certain class of Wikipedia editor, is to fixate on a specific article, and try and polish and polish that turd, until you get the only actual form of writer's credit that actually exists in Wikipedia, a gold star? And is it not expected that such articles are just as likely, if not highly likely, to be a page on an obscure topic, rather than genuinely useful broad areas?
It should be noted that the very idea this person was even fixated on that one article, is laughably false. Strange, but not unknown, that a Wikipedia Arbitrator wouldn't look at the evidence before making a judgement.
And is not readily assumed that on Wikipedia, that you're not likely to find that the people who edit articles on X, are going to be the world's recognised experts in X? They wish it were the case, but it isn't. Because the pay sucks, and the environment is toxic. As such, it's far more likely that Wikipedia editors willing to take on article where it would be necessary to understand difficult concepts, would be someone with at least a modicum of education.
Assume good faith teaches us to assume that, absent evidence to the contrary, the right explanation for a school teacher editing a biotech company article, is that they want to benefit Wikipedia.
But Wikipedia long ago abandoned AGF. It now readily assumes that you actually need evidence that an editor is not being paid, before you readily assume taking an interest in a company article, is suspicious.
Not that Beeblebrox intends to do anything about this issue, which is actually more than stale, other than, of course, chat shit about a currently presumed innocent editor on Wikipediocracy.