Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Wikipedia Scandal: High Profile Users Allegedly Involved In Paid-Editing

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the citation-needed dept.

Wikipedia 154

An anonymous reader writes "A new Wikipedia scandal: two high profile users, one of them board member of Wikimedia UK seem to have been caught doing edits for personal profit. It was also discovered that they ran an SEO business related to Wikipedia. Quoting: 'Roger Bamkin, trustee of the Wikimedia Foundation UK, whose LinkedIn page describes him as a high-return-earning PR consultant, appeared to be using Wikipedia's main page "Did You Know" feature and the resources of Wikipedia's GLAM WikiProject (Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums) initiative to pimp his client's project. Bamkin's current client is the country of Gibraltar.'"

cancel ×

154 comments

...... so? (2, Insightful)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 2 years ago | (#41383157)

Where is the problem?

Re:...... so? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41383185)

Being human. That's the problem. I don't know of any other animal that cheats, lies, steals, and deceives like we do. Whatever happened to just plain ol killing?! Oh...never mind.

Re:...... so? (5, Funny)

hawguy (1600213) | about 2 years ago | (#41383237)

Being human. That's the problem. I don't know of any other animal that cheats, lies, steals, and deceives like we do. Whatever happened to just plain ol killing?! Oh...never mind.

My dog is pretty good at stealing - she'll take a steak off the table when I leave the room. When she hears me coming back, she'll scurry over to her bed and lie there innocently, which I guess is her way of lying about it. And she has never once admitted to getting into the trash while I'm at work, even if the trash is still stuck to her head. She think she is a good liar but she doesn't know when she's been caught red-handed.

If she ever catches a squirrel in the back yard, I think she'll prove herself to be a killer as well.

Re:...... so? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41383469)

Bitches. You can't trust em.

Re:...... so? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41383753)

You did not downvote that. That was a joke. Female dog...? Sigh. Eh. Slashdot is more angry and less informative than Fark, these days, don't know why I still bother.

Re:...... so? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41384883)

You did not downvote that. That was a joke. Female dog...? Sigh.

Eh. Slashdot is more angry and less informative than Fark, these days, don't know why I still bother.

I wish you reddit fucktards would stop saying 'downvote' here. This isn't reddit. Go back there and drool over silly cat pictures and leave us alone.

Re:...... so? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41384499)

Useful links:

The wiki page where the complaint was first raised:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Potential_abuse_of_DYK [wikipedia.org]

Jimmy Wales talk page where the argument is happeninng now:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales [wikipedia.org]

Discussions on Wikipedia critics forum:

http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=914 [wikipediocracy.com]

http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=926 [wikipediocracy.com]

Re:...... so? (3, Interesting)

Teancum (67324) | about 2 years ago | (#41384945)

I think it is incredibly slimy when Jimmy Wales' personal user talk page is made into a policy discussion forum.... as if Jimmy Wales has any real authority on Wikipedia any more. His talk page tends to be the last bastion of the trolls who aren't getting their way in other places and think that somehow Wales will bless their viewpoint and take action on something.

My experience when Jimmy Wales actually does something is that it is usually violating existing policies and often acts first and explains later... if ever. There are enough Wales fanbois to follow behind that the policies often change to rationalize the actions. Rarely the community pushes back, especially on English Wikipedia itself. The non-English projects seem to avoid that kind of cult-like following, so I think it is something unique to mostly en.wikipedia. On the other hand, when he weighs in on a controversial topic in the regular community forums by talking first and mostly leaving the actual implementation of the idea to others, his input is usually much more appreciated and considerably less damaging.

Back when Jimmy Wales actually owned the server farm running Wikipedia and the developers running that server farm were on his personal payroll, it might have made some sense to give him a little bit of extra authority on getting things done. That hasn't been the case for many years yet somehow the notion that he is "in charge" persists.

Re:...... so? (2)

2.7182 (819680) | about 2 years ago | (#41384827)

Also, there are many well-documented cases of situations of the type where a dog has a limp when the owner is around, getting all sorts of special treatment, but they if no one is in the has and the dog is observed through a window it does not limp.

I love my dog, but I also accept the fact that 100,000 years of evolution has turned him from a noble animal into a manipulative little parasite!

Re:...... so? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41383247)

Being human. That's the problem. I don't know of any other animal that cheats, lies, steals, and deceives like we do. Whatever happened to just plain ol killing?! Oh...never mind.

Pretty sure I read it here on /. that chimpanzees have been recorded lying/deceiving like we do. They even plan for their future lies/deceit.

Re:...... so? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41383277)

Chimpanzees and humans are from the same family, so no surprise they're liars.

Re:...... so? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41383263)

I have seen one where the some males pretend to be female in order to be able to approach the harem and secretly mate with the females. I also seen apes steeling food and hiding it knowing there will be consequence from past experience. Cheats, lies steal and deceives are what we, animals, do. INB4 man is the only animal that kill for purpose other then eating. Witch is false, larger animal often 'toy' with smaller until they die. eg: Cats. Also mating duel rarely result in death but it is a possibility. Moral of the story; stop comparing ourself to other species as either better or worst.

Re:...... so? (4, Funny)

macshit (157376) | about 2 years ago | (#41383589)

larger animal often 'toy' with smaller until they die. eg: Cats.

"Well I planned to eat it, but ooooooooh, string! STring! String!"

Re:...... so? (1)

ydrol (626558) | about 2 years ago | (#41384213)

>larger animal often 'toy' with smaller until they die.

Yup and male lions kill rival cubs. Foxes can rip heads off all chickens in a coop and leave bodies exposed. I'm sure certain monkeys do "bad stuff" too.

Re:...... so? (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 2 years ago | (#41383547)

Not a dog owner, huh? As for TFA, Wikipedians are keeping their own house in order, this is a good thing.

Re:...... so? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41383689)

Not a dog owner, huh? As for TFA, Wikipedians are keeping their own house in order, this is a good thing.

As for TFA, nope you misread it. This article is about them getting caught with their house in disorder.
Not that it should come as a shock to anybody.

Re:...... so? (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 2 years ago | (#41384905)

Caught by whom? Themselves?

Re:...... so? (5, Insightful)

Teancum (67324) | about 2 years ago | (#41384991)

Wikipedia airs their dirty laundry in public because of the collaborative nature of the project and general transparency of the discussion forums. Most other similar organizations do this kind of discipline much more in private and certainly not while "deliberations" are going on to decide upon a course of action or even to consider if the issue is relevant and should be addressed.

If that makes the whole process seem like a house of disorder, that is by design. Committees are rarely neat and tidy.

Re:...... so? (1)

Sigg3.net (886486) | about 2 years ago | (#41383847)

What are you talking about? Any social species do these things.

  Did it not occur to you that perhaps your "moral compass" is out of date with regards to scientific facts?

Go read News from Nowhere.

Re:...... so? (2)

mark_elf (2009518) | about 2 years ago | (#41383205)

No problem, the best thing about wikipedia is all the arguing and drama. This is truly awesome.

Blatant abuse of power? At *Wikipedia*?? (1)

shiftless (410350) | about 2 years ago | (#41383829)

I for one am shocked!

Re:Blatant abuse of power? At *Wikipedia*?? (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 2 years ago | (#41383977)

Abuse of power? Its a fun fact of the day. There were no lies published and no misinformation. Next thing we'll see is a Slashdot Scandal about how some guy paid some guy to put his quotes down at the bottom of the page.

I don't see how this damages the reputation of Wikipedia.

Re:...... so? (1)

Chrisq (894406) | about 2 years ago | (#41384277)

Where is the problem?

Thanks, The cheque is in the post.

According to wikipedia... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41383173)

Gibralta is a region just north of Africa that is under British rule and all the inhabitants are perfectly happy with this state of affairs

Re:According to wikipedia... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41383209)

We can ignore the fact that most British people are not happy with the government they have. A government that is in the business of selling that which belongs to the people of the country to their mates. Steal as much as they can while in office seems to be what's behind the actions of the cabinet.

Re:According to wikipedia... (2)

Yetihehe (971185) | about 2 years ago | (#41383603)

Steal as much as they can while in office seems to be what's behind the actions of the cabinet.

How this differs from any other government?

Re:According to wikipedia... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41384391)

Steal as much as they can while in office seems to be what's behind the actions of the cabinet.

How this differs from any other government?

In the US, the Obama administration does it with a smiley face and a "Hope and Change" logo.

You'd be surprised at how many people it's fooled.

Re:According to wikipedia... (2)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about 2 years ago | (#41384609)

This government is still better than the last government...

Re:According to wikipedia... (1)

sa1lnr (669048) | about 2 years ago | (#41384695)

This government is still better than the last government...

It's definitely better at U-Turns and demonising the low hanging fruit.

Re:According to wikipedia... (2)

Chrisq (894406) | about 2 years ago | (#41384309)

Gibralta is a region just north of Africa that is under British rule and all the inhabitants are perfectly happy with this state of affairs

While true it is a very odd description for a parliamentary off Spain [goo.gl] . Yes Spain is "a region just north of Africa", and the inhalants are happy being a British territory. Its odd not to mention that Spain are not very happy [wikipedia.org] with "the rock" being under British rule.

Re:According to wikipedia... (1)

Chrisq (894406) | about 2 years ago | (#41384321)

Gibralta is a region just north of Africa that is under British rule and all the inhabitants are perfectly happy with this state of affairs

While true it is a very odd description for a parliamentary off Spain [goo.gl] . Yes Spain is "a region just north of Africa", and the inhalants are happy being a British territory. Its odd not to mention that Spain are not very happy [wikipedia.org] with "the rock" being under British rule.

Damned spell check .. that's "Promontory off Spain" though Peninsula may have been better

A bad thing? (2, Informative)

The Shootist (324679) | about 2 years ago | (#41383181)

As FUBAR as wiki is I don't see how it can possibly matter.

As an aside, there is data concerning impact craters that is no longer correct, I tried to edit the entry for the Moon and Mars; the hoops one has to go through made the entire process less than worthwhile.

Re:A bad thing? (3, Informative)

GigsVT (208848) | about 2 years ago | (#41383199)

Articles like those get a lot of elementary school students messing with them, which is why they are often semi-protected.

These things happen (5, Insightful)

tgeller (10260) | about 2 years ago | (#41383191)

It's not the fault of WP. As long as they toss him out, they've done the right thing and all's well.

If they act like the Catholic Church and protect the abusers, that's another matter.

Re:These things happen (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41383365)

seriously? taking money to do WP edits == pedophilia?

Re:These things happen (0, Flamebait)

khallow (566160) | about 2 years ago | (#41383529)

You're welcome to find an analogy that doesn't offend your delicate sensibilities.

Re:These things happen (1, Insightful)

sortius_nod (1080919) | about 2 years ago | (#41383541)

That's not what the parent poster was stating, nice straw man.

Re:These things happen (5, Insightful)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 2 years ago | (#41383625)

seriously? That's what you got from the post?

Here's a comprehension clue for you, the GP is not talking about the act itself, he is talking about the morality of someone else covering them up to "protect" the institution. In TFA it was members of WP themselves who blew the whistle and took action, whereas the church has done everything it can to ignore the whistle, blame the victims, and shield the priests from the law. That an encyclopedia has more moral fiber than the Catholic Church should be a concern to everyone.

Re:These things happen (1)

Alex Belits (437) | about 2 years ago | (#41384497)

That an encyclopedia has more moral fiber than the Catholic Church should be a concern to everyone.

I don't think, any entity having higher moral standards than organization responsible for Inqusition, stagnation of all aspects of culture in Dark Ages, first European invasions of Middle East, and sabotage of economic and social development of Latin America, is in any way unusual or concerning for anyone.

Re:These things happen (1)

malkavian (9512) | about 2 years ago | (#41384535)

You really don't get that whole progress through history thing, do you?

Re:These things happen (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 2 years ago | (#41384893)

Thanks, couldn't have put it more eloquently myself. ;)

Re:These things happen (2)

CRCulver (715279) | about 2 years ago | (#41384909)

stagnation of all aspects of culture in Dark Ages

First of all, historians don't use the term "Dark Ages" and haven't for decades now. Late antiquity and the early medieval era were more complicated than such a simplistic label.

Secondly, only Western Europe saw a collapse in the early medieval era. In the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantium), the classical tradition of learning was preserved, literacy remained fairly high and there was ongoing exchange with the surrounding states. And yet there was a much closer bond between church and state (the so-called Byzantine symphonia) there than in the West. It's hard to blame the struggles of Western Europe during this particular era on the Catholic Church. A much larger role can be attributed to political, demographic and economic challenges that that institution was not responsible for.

This is Normal (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41383195)

This is why most of the articles get written. Wikipedia is essentially SEO linkbait.

Good news everyone! (-1, Troll)

Mr2cents (323101) | about 2 years ago | (#41383207)

This is really, really good news. Because if anyone of the CIA or something like that would have been involved, corpses would have been found in local creeks. So now that everything is fine, we can all go to rest, knowing everything is all right.

PS: Please everyone please send me your cellphone number. Thanks!

Remember DMOZ? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41383211)

If you remember DMOZ, the community edited links directory, that died a death because they didn't tackle paid interests.

I'd edit a category to remove keyword stuffing, and kill links to sites that were simply keyword stuffed pages with lots of links to another site. Obvious SEO stuff. As soon as I did that, a senior editor would drop buy, re-instate the links, and in coordination, the spammy gateway page would be replaced by a plausible site. After 2-3 months, the site would revert back to the spammy gateway page again.

Of course the senior editors were linked to those sites, and that's why there was such close co-ordination, but there was nothing you could do about it. DMOZ did nothing to fix it, and people just stopped caring, it went away.

Re:Remember DMOZ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41384153)

DMOZ, the community edited links directory, that died a death because they didn't tackle paid interests.

Why do you think Slashdot is dying, and was just sold to a recruitment company?

http://news.discovery.com/tech/seven-popular-website-dying-110825.html

Re:Remember DMOZ? (1)

BorisSkratchunkov (642046) | about 2 years ago | (#41384697)

Slashdot: so dead, I may have just replied to this.

Re:Remember DMOZ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41384197)

it went away.

Um, no, it didn't [dmoz.org] .

Re:Remember DMOZ? (1)

dingfelder (819778) | about 2 years ago | (#41384959)

maybe he meant it's "relevence" died.

I lost faith in the project after they rejected 5 in a row well formatted submissions (met all the rules, and were as good a fit or better than the existing links in the same category) with no excuse.

Very poor "customer" relations at the least IMHO.

I have not been back since.

Sure Jimmy, sure. (0, Troll)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 2 years ago | (#41383213)

From Jimmy Whales, the biggest WikiWhore of them all: "I'm shocked, SHOCKED, I TELL YOU"

Sure Jimmy, sure.

Re:Sure Jimmy, sure. (1)

Mr2cents (323101) | about 2 years ago | (#41383293)

And what about the children?

Re:Sure Jimmy, sure. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41383613)

Actually Jimmy takes no salary from the Wikimedia Foundation and doesn't even ask for expenses to be covered. He could have easily exploited Wikipedia's popularity to become a billionaire, but chose not to. Instead he just gets to be the butt of stupid jokes like this one from people who have no idea what they're talking about.

Re:Sure Jimmy, sure. (3, Informative)

gl4ss (559668) | about 2 years ago | (#41383797)

Actually Jimmy takes no salary from the Wikimedia Foundation and doesn't even ask for expenses to be covered. He could have easily exploited Wikipedia's popularity to become a billionaire, but chose not to. Instead he just gets to be the butt of stupid jokes like this one from people who have no idea what they're talking about.

he's found a better way than salary.

"The way Mr. Wales makes a living is by getting $50,000 to $70,000 per speaking engagement when he goes and lectures about Wikipedia.[6][7][8][9]."

he's burning through 21k/month from money ultimately derived from the bizniz, not bad.

Re:Sure Jimmy, sure. (1)

Vintermann (400722) | about 2 years ago | (#41384355)

1. Extremely expensive speaking engagements. Standard way to buy favors of politicians.
2. Wikia. Wikipedia is so deletionist as it is because if content is driven over to Wikia, Jimbo can make a profit of it with his giant Smurf ads.

Re:Sure Jimmy, sure. (1)

hvm2hvm (1208954) | about 2 years ago | (#41384465)

Wikia is not owned or doesn't have any connection to Jimmy Wales...

Re:Sure Jimmy, sure. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41384795)

DON'T LIKE IT DON'T USE IT !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41383215)

It's not like that's the only wiki (what the fuck was that from ??) in the universe !!

Re:DON'T LIKE IT DON'T USE IT !! (1)

Alex Belits (437) | about 2 years ago | (#41383429)

I don't want to deal with misinformed people.

Re:DON'T LIKE IT DON'T USE IT !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41384405)

I don't want to deal with misinformed people.

Move to another planet.

Re:DON'T LIKE IT DON'T USE IT !! (0)

Alex Belits (437) | about 2 years ago | (#41384455)

NO U!

Incidentally... (5, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 years ago | (#41383225)

Why would you trust anybody who(voluntarily no less) describes themselves as an 'SEO Consultant?

Surely such people would be as laboriously excluded from polite company as their abominable creations are from search indices and email queues?

Provence of the Mind (-1, Troll)

Penurious Penguin (2687307) | about 2 years ago | (#41383227)

First, I am very grateful for Wikipedia and would rather not imagine the world without it, even though one need only look back a decade to do so. As a fine and powerful, but fallible tool, it is like the scent of carrion to conniving circling buzzards -- and circling they be! Ahh, yes, the skies are clear you say; where are these buzzards?. Well, Chicken Little has been thoroughly plucked and I'm not following suit. Instead, I'll drop this link [wired.com] (this one too [echelon2.org] ), say a few things, specifically that I suspect there is a problem, and hope this /. article will motivate some capable Slashers to do a little digging and telling, if they will.

The first link directs to a Wired article on Virgil Griffith, a CalTech grad student who did a little forensic prodding, tracing the IPs of certain chivalrous Wikipedia editors. While such agencies and corporations as the CIA and Microsoft have been observed doodling gleefully about, a plenitude of other interesting sources have too. Certainly the CIA and Microsoft are welcome to make appropriate edits to Wikipedia; however, what qualifies as "appropriate" could probably use a good public review.

The second link is simply damned interesting, IMO.

Warning: Rant Begins Here:
It beggars the mind of a bumbling patriot like myself to conceive jingo-seraphim such as Petraeus diverting their genial hoof garments [guardian.co.uk] hither domestic. And surely fables of Mocking Birds [wikipedia.org] are no true tales of conniving buzzards. After all, elaborate psychological conditioning could never compete with the unhindered purity of the American phenotype shining so brightly amongst a world lightless without. No, it is not intentional manipulation [youtube.com] that deserves credit for the strength of our glorious consumer might. It is far more likely the intrinsic virtue of any decent ape-in-transition to be just as we are, or worse to be fair. Critical-thinking is a disease which must be mitigated by central intervention, by those who know best. For the masses would be lost in an endless banquet of sodomy and cannibalism without the guidance of Malthusian oversight to cull them. Without such counsel, humanity would grovel in the sorry wake of cretins like Tesla, reeling through horrid century after century of wanton growth, like a wicked and vibrant cancer that cannot be controlled, spreading beyond the sweaty grasp of central planning and anthropoid politics. There is a stark and deep Universe beyond the smoke and mirrors of our terrestrial slave'osphere. The iron hand that presses your shoulder every time you gaze into that forbidden abyss of the anti-ape, it only strives to protect you. Baby, it's cold out there.

Re:Provence of the Mind (0)

Penurious Penguin (2687307) | about 2 years ago | (#41383285)

OK, before I am attacked: Province. There you have it -- a typo.

First mistake (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41383269)

Letting anyone in "PR" be in a position of trust...

GLAM (3, Interesting)

GigsVT (208848) | about 2 years ago | (#41383273)

GLAM wasn't created by normal Wikipedia editors. It was something the foundation made up to draw in people who don't really give a shit about open source type ideals.

It's not really a surprise that it would end this way.

Re:GLAM (1)

peteforsyth (730130) | about 2 years ago | (#41384283)

[citation needed]

Actually, forget the citation -- this is simply untrue. GLAM outreach was envisioned by a longtime Wikipedian, implemented by another longtime Wikipedian, and supported by a number of longtime Wikipedians (among others). The Wikimedia Foundation has supported the work of the GLAM outreach community, but never driven it.

If people want links to support this background, I'll find some in the morning. They're all over the Outreach wiki, Meta, etc. http://outreach.wikimedia.org/ [wikimedia.org] http://meta.wikimedia.org/ [wikimedia.org]

OK... (4, Funny)

Black Parrot (19622) | about 2 years ago | (#41383279)

So who wants to write the Wikipedia article on this scandal?

Re:OK... (2)

Penurious Penguin (2687307) | about 2 years ago | (#41383305)

You could try to append a link to this one [wikipedia.org] .

Re:OK... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41383497)

Discussion on Jimbo Wales talk page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales

I knew something like this was or is happening (0)

cyberzephyr (705742) | about 2 years ago | (#41383289)

I use Wiki nominally so i don't care about this situation. I am personally not surprised about this because when it (the site) first popped up years ago i thought to myself "what's to keep someone who's pissed off at you putting up whatever they want about you?".

Think about it.

Re:I knew something like this was or is happening (5, Funny)

Black Parrot (19622) | about 2 years ago | (#41383301)

I use Wiki nominally so i don't care about this situation. I am personally not surprised about this because when it (the site) first popped up years ago i thought to myself "what's to keep someone who's pissed off at you putting up whatever they want about you?".

Think about it.

I did, and updated the article about you accordingly.

Re:I knew something like this was or is happening (5, Funny)

sumdumass (711423) | about 2 years ago | (#41383517)

I did that to win a fake argument and poke fun with someone once. This was a while ago when Wikipedia was newish and I was messing with someone who I know claimed that everything on Wikipedia was 100% correct. He was learning about networking and I tried to convince him that the E in cat5e stood for elevated, it was the cables you used to run above the ceiling tiles. He insisted I was wrong and demanded I checked the Wikipedia entry. I had a friend change the entry while we were arguing about it and not only did he edit it to say that cat 5e stood for the "elephant- because it never forgets" standard, but added that anyone listening to (his first name) would be wrong in any explanation by default.

You should have seen the look on his face when he looked it up to prove me wrong seconds later in front of 4 or 5 of us. Priceless.

Greed is Good? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41383325)

This is not surprising, more surprising is that it's not more widespread.

Gibraltar (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41383347)

I knew Gibraltar couldn't be trusted.

"knowledge portal" or encyclopedia? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41383357)

Just end all those "did you know", "in the news", "on this day", and "today's featured article" stuff - not only because they can potentially cause corruption (as maybe in this case) but mostly because they may be relevant for a "knowledge portal" but irrelevant for an -strict- encyclopedia.

This is expected (0)

pokoteng (2729771) | about 2 years ago | (#41383381)

This is just human nature. I'm sure even if it wasn't for financial reasons, the way wikipedia is written, it's purely worked on by people with interests in the topics they describe. Why would someone who has no vested interest in the page do any work on improving it?

Re:This is expected (3, Interesting)

gweihir (88907) | about 2 years ago | (#41383439)

Why would someone who has no vested interest in the page do any work on improving it?

Have a look at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism [wikipedia.org]

Re:This is expected (1)

Serious Callers Only (1022605) | about 2 years ago | (#41383705)

Thanks. That page on Altruism was wrong though, so I improved it for you.

Re:This is expected (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41383713)

This is just human nature.

And that is what we call reductionism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism

What??? (1)

CarOne.vn (2733679) | about 2 years ago | (#41383397)

It really ????

These things happen (5, Insightful)

gweihir (88907) | about 2 years ago | (#41383437)

Identify the cretins, remove them, shame them publicly and move on. Does not invalidate Wikipedia or its approach at all.

Re:These things happen (2)

evilviper (135110) | about 2 years ago | (#41383759)

Yes, it does invalidate WP... They've got tons of bureaucratic policies, crippling admins from intervening all the time, and making editing WP a nightmare. And yet none of it worked to flag or stop some true corruption of WP.

I long assumed WP would eventually die of neglect, as anonymous editors push their POVs in random articles with few editors. But maybe corrupt admins will do far more damage, much more quickly than the pleebs could ever hope to do so.

Re:These things happen (2)

OnePumpChump (1560417) | about 2 years ago | (#41384995)

Seriously, they need ONE central rule-making body, not different standards for different subjects, categories, and admins. Fucking lock everything down for a month or two and rework the administration system.

Gibraltar is not a country. (5, Informative)

solferino (100959) | about 2 years ago | (#41383503)

Bamkin's current client is the country of Gibraltar.

Gibraltar is not a country, it is a British overseas territory [fco.gov.uk] .

Re:Gibraltar is not a country. (5, Funny)

alostpacket (1972110) | about 2 years ago | (#41383595)

-1 for not linking to the Wikipedia page

Re:Gibraltar is not a country. (3, Funny)

Black Parrot (19622) | about 2 years ago | (#41383665)

-1 for not linking to the Wikipedia page

I wanted an xkcd.

Re:Gibraltar is not a country. (1)

necro81 (917438) | about 2 years ago | (#41384891)

More information on the strange taxonomy of the (former) British Empire can be found in this helpful Youtube video [youtube.com] .

Sounds like an Onion story... (1)

kaze (55923) | about 2 years ago | (#41383545)

Sounds like an Onion story... I didn't RTFA though.

MAJOR OH FUCKING SHIT MOMENT ARRIVES (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41383579)

And in 'internet time' to boot.

Not in any good.

Wikipedia will NOT survive. :(

Wikipedia (4, Funny)

phantomfive (622387) | about 2 years ago | (#41383621)

It's incredible how so many corrupt, self-absorbed people can make such a nice thing as Wikipedia.

no such thing as Wikimedia Foundation UK (5, Informative)

Submarine (12319) | about 2 years ago | (#41383701)

There is no such thing as "Wikimedia Foundation UK". There is "Wikimedia UK" (officially "Wiki UK limited"). The Wikimedia Foundation is a US-based organization that runs the servers that host Wikipedia and handles the associated administrative and financial matters. Wikimedia UK is just a local users' organization, also known as a "chapter".

By writing "Wikimedia Foundation UK", the article writer seemed to imply that Roger Bamkin was a powerful person regarding the management of Wikipedia / Wikimedia sites. This is not the case.

Re:no such thing as Wikimedia Foundation UK (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41384171)

By writing "Wikimedia Foundation UK", the article writer seemed to imply that Roger Bamkin was a powerful person regarding the management of Wikipedia / Wikimedia sites. This is not the case.

[citation needed]

Re:no such thing as Wikimedia Foundation UK (2)

makomk (752139) | about 2 years ago | (#41384805)

It looks like Roger Bamkin has been convincing his clients [wikimedia.org] that he's a powerful person regarding the management of Wikipedia sites, so...

SEO and Wikipedia (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41383871)

From someone that works in SEO, Wikipedia is one of the highest page ranked websites available... and you can simply upload whatever you want (until it gets edited that is). I have used it in the past where a clients link was suitable. I always suspected that there was some dubious content that they let pass for the strangest reasons. Please visit my blog - http://rossdavie.com.au - Thanks.

why is this even news? (2)

crutchy (1949900) | about 2 years ago | (#41384139)

wkipedia is an oligarchy full of trolls, gamers, bureaucrats and shills... has been for ages

anyone who thinks of wikipedia in the same light as britannica or world book is a moron

wikipedia is full of interesting stuff, but it should never be relied on as a reliable source

The "Country" of gibraltar? (1)

Dunbal (464142) | about 2 years ago | (#41384559)

That's like saying the country of Guam, or the country of Puerto Rico. Gibraltar is a territory. Its inhabitants are British.

Follow the money (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41384589)

So, assuming there is some corruption there, ( which is inevitable, there are humans here)
WHO gets the most benefit from the attempt to discredit Wikimedia?
Who is behind the accusations or expose, and who do they work for?

Let's face it, this is not about Wikipedia. It is about someone else who would discredit them for their own gain.
Apple?
Microsoft?
Amazon?
Fox?

All of the above?

The history (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41384671)

This is how the known history is written, right?

Wikipedia is a drama factory (2)

OnePumpChump (1560417) | about 2 years ago | (#41384981)

Differing sets of conflicting rules, senior editors making their own personal information kingdoms, colliding and sometimes colluding with people who think they're editing UrbanDictionary.

I only edit anonymously, and I do not talk to any other editors.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...