×

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!

The Rise of Paid Wikipedia Consulting

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the history-belongs-to-the-typers dept.

Wikipedia 85

jfruh writes "Roger Bamkin is a director at Wikimedia UK; he also is on retainer for the government of the British territory of Gibraltar, and has nominated and approved Gibraltar-related articles for the "Did You Know" box on the Wikipedia front page. Maximilian Klein runs a business called UntrikiWiki, and advertises his services by saying "A positive Wikipedia article is invaluable SEO." Are such users violating the spirit of what Wikipedia is about? Or should we trust that the wisdom of crowds will offset obvious shilling?"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

85 comments

Do you think (5, Insightful)

kiriath (2670145) | about a year and a half ago | (#41395019)

That this is the first time in history you have been able to pay to have the 'history books' 'doctored'?

Re:Do you think (4, Interesting)

Cryacin (657549) | about a year and a half ago | (#41395195)

I'm sure that Encyclopedia Britanica has an "alter encyclopedia entry" item in their shopping cart too.

I don't think it's so much that this is the first time in history that history can be bought. It's probably more of a discussion on the price.

Re:Do you think (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41395849)

yeah, but at that point wiki-foundation or whatever should just go ahead and charge for it as an entity and stop the "we are a nonprofit with no corporate overloards so please give us money" yearly charity drives. This degrades the integrity of the site just the same if not worse, because it survives on public donations to keep the servers running, then allows the already oft-bitched about moderators to sell what amounts to ad space for personal profit when they are in between talk page flame wars, online powertrips and other poor judgment calls.

hahaha (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41395021)

Wikipedia: for editors with no life and paid shills. I'll stick to Encyclopedia Britannica thank you very much.

Re:hahaha (4, Insightful)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | about a year and a half ago | (#41395219)

Wikipedia: for editors with no life and paid shills. I'll stick to Encyclopedia Britannica thank you very much.

Because Britannica has more content than the world's largest encyclopedia and you can be certain nobody is paying them, right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Size_comparisons [wikipedia.org]

Re:hahaha (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41395299)

Number of articles != quality. I don't need my encyclopedia filled with junk [wikipedia.org] .

Re:hahaha (2)

Alex Belits (437) | about a year and a half ago | (#41395389)

But someone may need a large list of fictional animals with pictures and descriptions for a lesson in biological taxonomy!

Re:hahaha (1)

loufoque (1400831) | about a year and a half ago | (#41397341)

Pokémon are part of popular culture.
Would you prefer an encyclopedia that ignores popular culture and only talks about science and classics?

Re:hahaha (1)

Doug Jensen (691112) | about a year and a half ago | (#41466129)

Pokémon are part of popular culture.
Would you prefer an encyclopedia that ignores popular culture and only talks about science and classics?

Yes--yes I would. Popular cuture" is an oxymoron.

Re:hahaha (1)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | about a year and a half ago | (#41415191)

Number of articles != quality. I don't need my encyclopedia filled with junk [wikipedia.org] .

I fail to see how an encyclopedia having an article that you don't find important detracts from that encyclopedia. Personally, I don't find North Korea very interesting and yet I don't complain about encyclopedias having articles on the subject.

Re:hahaha (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41397693)

I read a bit further down the "Size Comparisons" (ultimate e-peen page BTW) and found this gem:

"Evaluating the cost of a printed Wikipedia is fraught with difficulties. As of 14 March 2010 there were approximately 14 billion characters so assuming 5,000 characters per page that would yield 2.8 million pages. If you then add 25% for extra space for photos, tables, and diagrammes that would yield 3.5 million pages. This would produce 8,750 volumes of 400 pages each. As an example, allowing US$0.05 per page would yield a cost of US$175,000 without binding."

If I was loaded with money, I would totally do this for shits and giggles!

It'll just be a rip off (2)

nagasrinivas (1700232) | about a year and a half ago | (#41395039)

Ultimately somebody is going to edit the article to add the real story. The business model is as good as saying "We'll give you a good starting article".

Re:It'll just be a rip off (2)

Trepidity (597) | about a year and a half ago | (#41395089)

It might even help get some decent articles started in some areas. Maybe we should convince various countries that they're falling behind Gibraltar—they, too, need to start paying people to write informative Wikipedia articles on their towns, cities, and historical sites.

Re:It'll just be a rip off (3, Informative)

mysidia (191772) | about a year and a half ago | (#41395207)

That depends on if he has clients agree to a budget that includes bribes for other editors, admins, and additional sockpuppets and massive numbers of IP addresses, to ensure that the "consensus" of any editing discussion is in favor of the client.

Re:It'll just be a rip off (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41403131)

Of Course! Hitler/Jimbo wouldnt have it ANY other way.

Wikipedia is like dishwater coffee.
The Promise is good, and the premise is good too,
but it just turns out weak.

How t find out? Hit the random button, until you come to something that you actually know something about.
Look at the article both from a factual and from a presentation point of view.
Now imagine you are reading an article about something you dont know about...

Re:It'll just be a rip off (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41395329)

Why are we assuming that someone being paid to author something well, or clean up articles, must necessarily be in the business of lying?

It's entirely possible that the guy just gets paid to know what will and won't likely be removed. He'd know you have to cite sources, and can't just make shit up. He knows that garbage is going to get removed and the remaining edits will be suspect. He can also probably put together a readable sentence.

So, so long as they're working within the framework of rules... I don't see a problem at all. If they become a problem, it'll get dealt with.

Re:It'll just be a rip off (2)

ATMAvatar (648864) | about a year and a half ago | (#41396125)

The assumption is easy to make because corruption always occurs when there is money involved. If it's still mostly legitimate now, it is only a matter of time before it descends into payment for changing articles to omit negative facts and insert lies which are positive to the client. The problem with waiting until it becomes a problem (assuming it isn't one already) is by that point it is usually too late.

Re:It'll just be a rip off (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41396349)

because corruption always occurs when there is money involved

You lost every rational person right there.

I would take the time to list just a few of the good, quality things that humanity has produced where people were compensated, but I imagine it'd be a waste of time. But I'll open a door for you... you used an unfathomable number of them to share that inane comment with the world, and wikipedia wouldn't exist in any form without the same (and more).

I have been paid to write articles. (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41395045)

I have been paid to write articles and pitch them to many magazines just to create published sources that are then used to force wikipedia articles in a certain direction with sources. Specifically, I wrote about Quantum Fiction (which has a crazy misogynist edit history) and my article is getting published in a real magazine, at the end of this week. As soon as it appears, it will be used to further the edit war on the Quantum Fiction page.

Re:I have been paid to write articles. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41395499)

I checked out that Wikipedia page. It's awful. The novelist credited with coining the term sounds insufferable, and anyone who uses the phrase seriously should be gassed.

Re:I have been paid to write articles. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41407765)

As an experienced Wikipedia editor, this piece of trash is just what i abhor, and what ruins WP. nonnotable term, from a nonnotable author. sorry, im just right. I may not be an editor at a publishing house, but i have enough experience with books, bookselling, writing, etc, to know this is bs. Good luck getting truly reliable sources on this, esp. now that its known that various "sources" are planted information. this is an old game, similar to how Scientology would ask its followers to purchase multiple copies of its books, to push the book onto the NYT bestseller list. they would ship the copies back to the headquarters, to be sold again. bookstores would see evidence of this.

The first guy, yes, violating (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41395051)

He works for Wikimedia (and is on the board or something). He should not be using his position to promote articles that benefit his clients. In fact, he should steer completely clear of anything that gives even the impression of impropriety.

Re:The first guy, yes, violating (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41396397)

He's on the board of wikimedia UK which despite the name is a seperate organisation. He wasn't using his position to promote any articles. He was using his editor status for that. Anyone with enough active braincells can get an article through the Did you know process. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Did_you_know

What? I don't understand! Waaaaa! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41395053)

What's this have to do with Apple patent cases, iPhones being tracking devices or iTunes being a brainwashing device for the RIAA?
 
Where is the hate?!?!?!

Re:Dupe? (1)

Desler (1608317) | about a year and a half ago | (#41395103)

It was posted by samzenpus. That means at least half the time it's guaranteed to be a dupe. One can only hope dice will finally enforce some actual standards on these flunkies who claim to be "editors".

Re:Dupe? (2)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year and a half ago | (#41395159)

It was posted by samzenpus. That means at least half the time it's guaranteed to be a dupe. One can only hope dice will finally enforce some actual standards on these flunkies who claim to be "editors".

Maybe we could bribe a Wikipedia editor to help.

Re:Dupe? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41395179)

Lies!!! Look at what it says on Wikipedia!

Samzenpus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic. If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted. (September 2012)

samzenpus is a well-respected Slashdot [wikipedia.org] editor. He is renowned for his careful editing and focus on quality control [wikipedia.org] . [citation needed]

This biographical article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

Re:Dupe? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41395789)

Oh my fucking god someone else mod this funny shit up!!!!

Re:Dupe? (3, Funny)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year and a half ago | (#41395355)

When you spot a dupe you're not supposed to complain or even point it out; you're supposed to find the old article and repost the top rated comments under your own name, for a bit of easy instant karma.

Re:Dupe? (2)

Daetrin (576516) | about a year and a half ago | (#41396201)

When you spot a dupe you're not supposed to complain or even point it out; you're supposed to find the old article and repost the top rated comments under your own name, for a bit of easy instant karma. ...oh, wait, from the _old_ article! Sorry, missed that part. I'll have to go look for some other comments to steal now.

Seriously.... (1, Troll)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about a year and a half ago | (#41395071)

And what of Jimmy Wales? He has become VERY wealthy as a direct result of his association with Wikipedia. Sure, he draws a "nominal" check from Wikipedia itself, but on the Yakety-Yak circuit, it'll cost you 50k to have The Great Man speak at your Wikipedia worship service.

Jealous (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41395109)

Person 1 is paid to change Wikipedia for paid interests, not to make it better, but to get the pay.
Person 2 is associated with Wikipedia and makes money some other way that doesn't damage wikipedia.

F- off you anti Jimmy Wales troll.

Re:Seriously.... (3)

gman003 (1693318) | about a year and a half ago | (#41395155)

And? Larry Wall makes most of his money from his books - does that make Perl just some big scheme so he can sell books?

Neil Gaiman charges in the range of $50K to speak - not because he wants to make a lot of money (he donates much of it to charity), but because there's a very limited supply of him and a very high demand for him to speak.

And moreover, what effect do Wales's talks have on Wikipedia? Perhaps some indirect one, in that he could drive people either towards or away from Wikipedia, but he'd be doing that whether he gets paid for it or not.

The question here is whether being paid to edit Wikipedia by an entity with a vested interest in creating bias is ethical. My own stance (detailed below, in "Difference between adding and subtracting") is "sometimes", but I recognize that some will argue either "always" or "never". But the question is definitely not "is making money based off your personal experiences wrt Wikipedia ethical".

Re:Seriously.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41397089)

And? Larry Wall makes most of his money from his books - does that make Perl just some big scheme so he can sell books?

Wall may not have a Scheme but Sussman and Steele sure do.

Re:Seriously.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41397273)

Neil Gaiman charges in the range of $50K to speak - not because he wants to make a lot of money (he donates much of it to charity), but because there's a very limited supply of him and a very high demand for him to speak.

In which case he could still charge $5k and turn-down the majority of requests. Just like he does now, though he demands $50k.

He just wants to make a lot of money.

Re:Seriously.... (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year and a half ago | (#41395287)

As long as it keeps him from ruining Wikipedia, it's all good. He can talk to anyone he wants, and they can pay him whatever they want.

Frankly I'd really like to know who is on this speaking circuit thing. I am sure I would not pay $5 to go hear Jimmy Wales talk, who exactly is paying him?

Re:Seriously.... (1)

g8oz (144003) | about a year and a half ago | (#41400603)

Wrong! Wales became rich from trading options BEFORE starting Wikipedia/Nupedia

Difference between adding and subtracting (3, Insightful)

gman003 (1693318) | about a year and a half ago | (#41395101)

There's a difference between "promoting the good" and "hiding the bad".

You want to edit your country's (or corporation's, or religion's, or even your own personal) article to add sections about the lovely lakes, the wonderful telephone system, the many interesting furry animals, including the majestic moose, go right ahead. Obviously, you can't just make shit up (fact: Tuvalu is the world leader in nuclear fusion research[citation needed]), but there's nothing wrong with adding facts to the article. And yes, if you go completely overboard with it, writing a novel's worth of praise for the architecture, the geological features, the thriving and innovative independent film industry, it's going to get trimmed down even if it's completely unbiased (more so if it is).

But if you try to hide the undesirable things that are true, you can fuck right the hell off. If there's something about you that you don't want people to know, you probably shouldn't be doing it (doesn't apply *as* much to personal articles - it still applies in many cases, but not in many others). If you don't want people to find out about your ruthless secret police, or your massive sex trafficking biz, or your widespread pollution, you should try stopping those things rather than pay someone to edit Wikipedia to hide those facts. Because not only will editing Wikipedia *not* *work* (people will revert it right back), but it will add "tried to hide the truth from the Internet" to your list of crimes. Which is a pretty shameful, both in "you did something bad" and in "you did something bad that was petty and ultimately meaningless" - it makes you both evil, and a pretty low class of evil at that.

Re:Difference between adding and subtracting (0, Offtopic)

Alex Belits (437) | about a year and a half ago | (#41395473)

USA is the land of freedom and beautiful bald eagles. It is loved by Mexican poor as a great place to work and live, and Mexican rich as a great place to sell recreational drugs.

Re:Difference between adding and subtracting (1)

Artifakt (700173) | about a year and a half ago | (#41395655)

Gibralter has ruthless secret sex polution from their massive police? What are they hiding, that the rock had a slippage a few years back and doesn't exactly match the Mutual of Omaha logo anymore?

Re:Difference between adding and subtracting (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41396359)

There's a difference between "promoting the good" and "hiding the bad".

Not really. Free speech can be compromised just as much by too much noise as too little message. Readers do not have infinite time and if important facts are obscured by irrelevant facts this is is every bit as bad as important facts not being published at all or important facts being obscured by half-truths and/or lies.

but there's nothing wrong with adding facts to the article.

There is when unimportant facts obscure important facts. You are assuming readers have infinite time and resources and that is just not true, particularly on the internet where people are drowning in [mis]information. e.g. It is a tried and true method in bureaucracy and politics to bury unpleasant truths in bullshit.

Re:Difference between adding and subtracting (1)

colesw (951825) | about a year and a half ago | (#41399065)

And who is to say what is an important fact?

Someone interested in geological formations would obviously find those facts important. Someone interested in the wild life of the area could be very interested to know what type of moose your country has while doing a project.

This is the problem with a bias free publication, because just by omitting unimportant facts you are generating bias no matter what you would like the internet to believe.

Re:Difference between adding and subtracting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41406793)

And who is to say what is an important fact?

Somebody who is honest enough to write something benefiting the reader, not the writer. No publication can include everything, all publications are abstractions that concentrate on what the writer thinks will benefit the reader. That is, if not written by something trying to benefit themselves. The ideal is if the publication benefits both reader and writer. Unfortunately, for unsolicited advertising, and in particular for stealth advertising, that is almost never the case. No matter how much an advertiser wishes it wasn't so.

Someone interested in geological formations would obviously find those facts important. Someone interested in the wild life of the area could be very interested to know what type of moose your country has while doing a project.

Of course. That is why you have different publications. The problem here is bad faith actors trying to write stuff that will be of no benefit to the vast majority of readers of the targeted publication (wikipedia in this case), just to their clients. In addition, it's even worse than "no benefit" (neutral) because opportunity costs means that other, more useful content is not seen instead.

This is the problem with a bias free publication, because just by omitting unimportant facts you are generating bias no matter what you would like the internet to believe.

All publications have bias. The question is whether the publication has been written to benefit the reader or the writer. I want all things I read to benefit me. In other words biased to me. It's a human activity and thus can never be perfect but at least a good writer is trying. An advertiser is not even trying.

Unsolicited advertisers try to rationalize their arsehattery to themselves and others by endlessly trying to claim that what benefits them benefits the consumer. That's a blatant falsehood.

Re:Difference between adding and subtracting (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41396551)

You want to edit your country's (or corporation's, or religion's, or even your own personal) article to add sections about the lovely lakes, the wonderful telephone system, the many interesting furry animals, including the majestic moose, go right ahead.

A møøse once bit my sister, you insensitive clod.

Re:Difference between adding and subtracting (2)

Air-conditioned cowh (552882) | about a year and a half ago | (#41396947)

What does work more effectively on Wikipedia is "promoting the bad" by using weak sources or completely mus-representing, or making up, what the sources say (whoever checks a reference is being used properly for a relatively unknown organisation anyway) and "hiding the good". This is because people are generally more sensitised to shilling, probably because it happens more often, than they are to a psychopath owning an article.

Both (3, Insightful)

Bob9113 (14996) | about a year and a half ago | (#41395141)

Are such users violating the spirit of what Wikipedia is about? Or should we trust that the wisdom of crowds will offset obvious shilling?

Both. Wikipedia is not a paid content service, paid content is a clear violation. The wisdom of the crowds is now, has always been, and will always be a critical line of defense against disinformation. The conflict between well-informed citizens and those who would distort information has been going on for millennia. There's a whole lot of fancy new weapons in the game, but it's the same game.

Here's one of the most fundamental rules of dynamically unstable systems with lots of new weapons: Arm yourself or be subjugated. If you believe in truth, justice, and The American Way(*), detecting and outing shills is a fine way to serve your fellow man. Say what you will of human nature -- maybe we're all for sale, but the bad guys can't afford to buy us all. The not-paid-off people massively outnumber the shills. And if they do find a way to buy us all off, we can totally throw a rager with the money.

* in the starry-eyed Superman sense, not necessarily the current observed sense

Re:Both (1, Funny)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | about a year and a half ago | (#41395259)

And if they do find a way to buy us all off, we can totally throw a rager with the money.

I'm 1980226, and I approve this message.

Fire them both! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41395269)

IMHO, you can work for WikiPedia, or you can be a publicity shill. Not both.

Both of these people should be fired from WikiPedia and all related companies, and the remaining staff should be required to provide a legal undertaking that they will declare any conflict of interest and accept the consequences.

Perception management (3, Informative)

onyxruby (118189) | about a year and a half ago | (#41395425)

These services are called "perception management" and they operate under public relations and other marketing labels. This kind of thing has been going on for Centuries, hell the original name of Greenland was a "perception management" name given to attract settlers (Greenland has far more Ice than Iceland). Why is this portrayed as a new kind of thing?

Name any public website you can think of, Amazon, Twitter, Slashdot, Wikipedia or any other. There are companies that monitor those websites and respond to with accounts that are saved just for those purposes. These accounts can be rented out by thousands or tens of thousands. It's dishonest and it is something that websites have had to battle for years.

Articles about exposing professional shills have appeared and been covered extensively on the Atlantic, Wired, Slashdot, and a number of other sites I can think of in recent memory.

I think the more interesting technology piece on this would be to cover how websites go about detecting and burying shill accounts. It's really just a form of spam, and the war on shill accounts will likely mirror the war on spam in every regard. It's just something you have to watch out for.

Wisdom of crowds (1)

Brucelet (1857158) | about a year and a half ago | (#41395593)

Everyone else seems to trust that the wisdom of crowds will correct things, so I figure I might as well too.

reply (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41395877)

Shanghai Shunky Machinery Co.,ltd is a famous manufacturer of crushing and screening equipments in China. We provide our customers complete crushing plant, including cone crusher, jaw crusher, impact crusher, VSI sand making machine, mobile crusher and vibrating screen. What we provide is not just the high value-added products, but also the first class service team and problems solution suggestions. Our crushers are widely used in the fundamental construction projects. The complete crushing plants are exported to Russia, Mongolia, middle Asia, Africa and other regions around the world.
http://www.mcrushingplant.com
http://www.crusher007.com
http://www.sand-making-machine.com
http://www.china-impact-crusher.com
http://www.cnshunky.com
http://www.bestssj.com
http://www.shunkyen.com
http://www.crusheren.com
http://www.crusher02.com
http://www.portablecrusherplant.net
http://www.csconecrusher.com

Re:reply (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41403093)

I'm having trouble with some protestors. Would you recommend the use of your machinery, or should i just run them over with a tank? Advice appreciated.

I'm in (1)

physburn (1095481) | about a year and a half ago | (#41396047)

How much do i have to pay to get a complementing article about an fifth force between neutrinos in physics [science20.com] .

Re:I'm in (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41396715)

Probably more than what they pay for the editors of that article.

From the Article, first paragraph:

"The weak force is the most mysterious force in the standard model, it is the only force thatisn't long range, thanks to the Higgs mechanism, the weak forces carriers gain a mass can only travel a very short distance before there borrowed energy runs out. The weak force also acts only upon particles with left handed spin, ignoring those with right handed spin. It is entirely mysterious why the weak force is left handed. I find that I can help explain the handedness of the weak force only we if introduce a new fifth force to nature."

I was going to bold all the spelling and grammatical errors but that would have been most of the paragraph.

---
MV

Politicians, too (3, Insightful)

edibobb (113989) | about a year and a half ago | (#41396089)

Political parties have been paying consultants to write and maintain positive Wikipedia entries on their minor politicians for years. [citation needed]

Re:Politicians, too (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41397781)

Every company I've worked for in the last 5 years has had someone on staff who's job it is to scan wikipedia and make sure any mentions of their products are in a positive light. These aren't large companies either.

I'm more surprised slashdot think this is new. Wikipedia is a collection of consultants trying to out-edit each other.

"Wisdom of crowds" (4, Informative)

Arancaytar (966377) | about a year and a half ago | (#41396585)

Possibly used to apply to Wikipedia 6 or 7 years ago. Then its rise in popularity caused trolling and political shilling to become more attractive, libel lawsuits for living person biographies to become a danger, and an increasing obsession with "notability" (ie. having spawned at least one internet meme) to develop. Preventing the former and enforcing the latter required a tight and locked down command structure. Any moderately popular article is locked to anonymous edits now.

That means Wikipedia is no longer dependent on the wisdom of crowds, but the incorruptibility of its management and directorial staff.

Whoops.

Re:"Wisdom of crowds" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41396717)

now just to see what the "incorruptibility", objectivity and political independence of wikipedia staff really means, I suggest to take a look at the wikipedia entry ""Imperialism" and have a long laugh..

Re:"Wisdom of crowds" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41397581)

I suggest to take a look at the wikipedia entry ""Imperialism" and have a long laugh..

Given that we're talking about Wikipedia, I was pleasantly surprised to find that article isn't about Star Wars.

Re:"Wisdom of crowds" (1)

Trepidity (597) | about a year and a half ago | (#41397257)

Even most "locked" articles are still edited by crowds, just somewhat smaller crowds. When an article's locked to anonymous edits, it just means that you need a Wikipedia account to edit it. But literally hundreds of thousands of people have Wikipedia accounts; it's not like some exclusive club you have to apply to join.

Re:"Wisdom of crowds" (1)

idontgno (624372) | about a year and a half ago | (#41402411)

For many topics, if we're talking about effective edits which will not attract instantaneous reversion by an Editor, yeah, it's a damn small exclusive club.

It's kind of the opposite of the problem as TFA's: in the cited example, they bought their entry into the clique, but in this case, you join the cabal by integration with the hivemind.

I guess it's the same problem, if you boil it down: it's an insider's job. Even logged-in contributors are second-class citizens.

Captious post (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41396653)

Wikipedia is about truth. If Wikipedia was about spin, everybody would edit Wikipedia to spin their companies, art, or biographical pages - and Wikipedia would lose all of its prestige and reliability.
The Wikimedia UK issue (better covered on Slashdots post "Wikipedia Scandal: High Profile Users Allegedly Involved In Paid-Editing") is the kind of issue that Wikipedia cannot stand, for it threats all the reliability achieved over the years - and because of that, is expected for Wikipedia to react and clean thoroughly all Wikimedia UK works. Everybody expects this.
However, jfruh has chosen to write this post as if a reaction wasn't expected - as if Wikipedia Paid Editing was here to stay, and stand uncorrected. By doing this, jfruh is giving Wikipedia no credit at all - and all without a single rational basis. jfruh is using a single incident to trash the entire Wikipedia. Either jfruh is a sensationalist or a Wikipedia hater.-Ignacio Agulló

Re:Captious post (1)

toddmbloom (1625689) | about a year and a half ago | (#41397541)

Wikipedia is as much about truth and information as Youtube comments are to intellectual debate.

It was only a matter of time (1)

EmagGeek (574360) | about a year and a half ago | (#41397247)

It was only a matter of time before Wikipedia became yet another marketing platform designed to sell you something.

not surprising (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year and a half ago | (#41398167)

Wikipedia was a non-working idea from the ground up. It never could possibly work and the way it's designed would always have problems. You can't take something with that many blatant flaws and make it work. This isn't going to go away.

Shilling is Lying (1)

Deliveranc3 (629997) | about a year and a half ago | (#41399217)

The reasons lying is bad are obvious. Sometimes liars get caught, sometimes not depends on the situation.

Shilling is about starting a relationship with one of two companies (even if one is yourself). Lying at a strategic time can make all the difference.

Rise? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41399259)

Is "Rise" the right word here? This doesn't seem like a new problem.

Wikipedia is 100% biassed. (1)

firecode (119868) | about a year and a half ago | (#41408379)

Do you really think wikipedia is unbiased currently?

Just read companies or their product's wikipedia pages or pages about schizophrenia (nobody has never measured any chemical imbalance in such "disease") or read pages about popular tourism destinations or english pages about muslisms or al-qaida or pages about "toxic" substances and "good" medicines.
Check for New 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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...