- cross-posted to:
- wikipedia@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- wikipedia@lemmy.world
You must log in or # to comment.
Do not go after Wikipedia because of one or two shitty people. We need it as a country. I would argue that the world needs it. Make it better and support it while calling out the shitty stuff, don’t take it down.
Do go for the shitty admins with no mercy though. We don’t need Wiki to slowly rot from the inside.
We need it as a country.
We need it as a world.
Why do US citizens think everyone on the internet is from their country ?
After finishing the PhD, I got emails from people saying that for money they would manage a Wikipedia article for me. They said they had people in high places to make that my article communicates the right message.
Dear …,
Have you ever wondered of having a Wikipedia page for yourself or your company? We can help you get a Wikipedia page for yourself or your brand.
Why have a Wikipedia page?
Google loves Wikipedia and as such ranks it high in search results. Wikipedia is
also the first place people go when they Google your name. By leveraging
Wikipedia, you can help control your Online Profile and present yourself to the
world. Usually Wikipedia only accepts pages on celebrities and famous companies,
if you are looking to get one for yourself, we can help you with that. Having a page
for yourself in Wikipedia, brings you more credibility and makes you more
famous.
We have been editing on Wikipedia for 9+ years and We’ve created tons of pages
for companies, people, brands, products, and of course for academic purposes as
well.
We own multiple accounts on Wikipedia with page curation and new page
reviewer rights, so we can create and moderate pages with almost zero risk of
another mod taking it down.
There are few Wikipedia editors who are willing to create a page for money, and
most of them are scared to offer this service directly, so they do it through their
trusted sellers who mark up the price to $1500 - $2500 per page.
Because you’re buying directly from an experienced Wikipedia editor and mod,
you’ll get your page a lot cheaper, faster and with more reliability.
Let me know if you are interested.
RegardsI’m guessing how that goes is you pay them, they do actually make you a page, it gets quickly deleted for not meeting Wikipedia’s standards, and then they go “sorry no refunds”. Step 0 to getting a Wikipedia page about yourself is to be notable enough for one, which >99.9% of people are not.
And even if technically notable enough, you still need some objective sources for any claims made, even simple things like profession, even if your works speak for themselves. And what the mods deem an acceptable source seems arbitrary.
I listen to a lot of indie music or local smaller bands, and often, even though they gig a lot and have several albums practically on every digital platform, I can’t find the bands in there, nor any of their members.
Often there’s a red page there with some contributor discussions where they argue with each other about these things.
Seems so wonky to me, since I just came from their gig, having listened to them for 10+ years.
I’m surprised and not surprised I guess that there’s a business offering to write Wikipedia articles like this. I suppose it’s naivety to think that Wikipedia articles are written with good intentions.
I suppose it’s naivety to think that Wikipedia articles are written with good intentions.
I think the amazing thing is that most still are.
The vast majority, in fact.
Yeah, all those biased articles on procyonidi… what are you talking about?
For some reason they didn’t reach out to me after I received my doctorate in Geopsychology at Abide University…
If the information on the page is accurate, what exactly is the issue here?
What does the article mean “Juniper Networks, despite being a “Good Article”, is also mostly PR”? It seems like a fine article to me, and as the article mentioned, Tinucherian disclosed his COI and appropriately sought review for edits in this case (though as the article also mentions, he’s edited other articles the wrong way).
What does the article mean “Juniper Networks, despite being a “Good Article”, is also mostly PR”?
It’s all part of their various horseshit attempt at making something which is pretty simple an innocuous into something that it isn’t.
Within the last few days, it looks like someone raised the issue on this guy’s page, the arbitration committee is getting in touch with him, and he’s saying he’ll get back to them. Presumably there’s a minor conflict of interest and they’ll look over the article and make sure he didn’t do anything slanty to it and then tell him to stay away from COI-adjacent articles in the future.
There’s absolutely nothing sinister here, and they are stringing together a bunch of misleading stuff (like “mostly PR”) to make a mountain out of a molehill to discredit Wikipedia. I’ve noticed a bunch of people doing this, presumably there is some organized campaign which actually is sinister in the way they’re implying WP is, that is trying to make people think badly of them.
Both things are technically true: the article is primarily made up of content literally written by the company or people contracted by them for PR purposes, and it is a Good Article (Wikipedia jargon for having passed a review of certain quality standards around writing, coverage and sourcing, but not the higher standard required to be classed as a Featured Article).
How much of a problem this is probably depends on the subject. Does Juniper Networks have any bad practices which the article omits because the people who researched it (i.e. Juniper Networks) didn’t think they needed to go in the article? You’d basically need an independent observer to research anything that potentially should be in the article but isn’t there, but how many people that aren’t getting paid are invested in researching a corporate networking business?
There’s absolutely merit to Wikipedia having articles that are written by people paid to write them by their subjects, because a lot of it would otherwise be missing from Wikipedia entirely. But it’s also good to know that many articles are not necessarily written by impartial authors.
They should recruit more Reddit mods.
Good thing they got caught
What does the PR acronym stand for ?
