Re: Paid Editing on WP is permissible

[ericbarbour]

Twenty-five years into the great Wiki-Babble experiment and I still routinely see corporate articles that were clearly paid-edited and not declared (and lacking in references). Free advertising. Paid for indirectly by the fools who donate to the WMF.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barco_(manufacturer)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:C ... Carlos0253
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:C ... ons/Writie

[ericbarbour]

Yet another one

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilmour_S ... chnologies

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:C ... atMeleeMan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:C ... ons/Mtan62

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:C ... radcamburn

That is "conveniently failing to mention" their failed launch today.....
https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/05/t ... ts-launch/

[ericbarbour]

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

Never heard of her. The vast bulk of this article (created 2 weeks ago) was written by two "apparently different" people in the UK.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Launchballer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Meena

Would not shock me if this was Audrey herself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1290942693

[ericbarbour]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Araw
VERY obscure experimental musician.

Major contributor: Roosterjack, who has edited almost nothing else on en-wiki. And all last year.

The only other major contributor, Michig, has a contribution history that makes me wonder if he used to be an Oracle employee. He claims to be a winner of an Erasmus Prize, which is rich, since there have been very few winners of it--including the "Wikipedia community" in 2015. Thus you could make the comical claim that millions of Wp editors deserve a share of the prize, including abusive vandals like Grawp and Willy On Wheels.

[Strelnikov]

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

Never heard of her. The vast bulk of this article (created 2 weeks ago) was written by two "apparently different" people in the UK.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Launchballer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Meena

Would not shock me if this was Audrey herself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1290942693

The goobers who edit Wikipedia probably think Audrey Hobert is notable because she wrote for a Loud House sequel series (whoop-de-doo) that was live action and that her father was a TV writer. The whole stub BLP looks like the creation of bona fides by an music agent so that Hobert could get gigs at music festivals because she doesn't have an album yet, and she is probably facing criticism from the crowds for being a "studio plant" (unlike in the glory days of the singer-songwriter, writing for other people before you are established is some sort of crime to the Spotify crowd.) Yes, doing what even Lou Reed did in 1964 is a fakery of the highest order.

[ericbarbour]

Yes, doing what even Lou Reed did in 1964 is a fakery of the highest order.

Ha ha, good point. Lou was doing a lot of stupid things in '64, the "golden age" of the Brill Building garbage song factory and its endless stream of "one hit wonders". It is no surprise at all that he was already a heroin addict and a year later, started the Velvet Underground.

The "Beachnuts" is not mentioned in the Lou Reed article, but this is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5r998weOUiM
Not the work of a "genius", if you go by the lyrics
https://genius.com/The-primitives-nyc-t ... ich-lyrics

Both Reed's article and the VU article show loads of past vandalism and OWNership. Malik Shabazz and Rothorpe (remember him?) have both edited all VU-related content heavily. Fanboys.

That is the "reward" Reed gets for being "one of the most influential musicians of his generation" etc. etc.