Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-10-16/News and notes

Discuss this story

You know part of me, a small part, wishes we could delete and salt the articles of all of the Wiki-PR's clients (just a few months or so) but I know that would be inappropriate.

No measures that Wikipedia could enforce or the vigilance of volunteer Editor has the same strength of Wiki-Pr acquiring a bad reputation for not delivering what was paid for. It only takes a few spectacular fails. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I wasn't expecting to be quoted quite that extensively. As a note, Priceline's spokesperson seems to have confirmed they used Wiki-PR's services for all of their subsidiary brands. You can see a presumptive before/after diff on one of their brands here. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Agoda was pure advert. I've stubbified it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you take a look at the other articles about Priceline.com subsidiaries, you'll find the same, if you feel like going on a stubbing spree. :) Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why in God's name would you pay someone else to work on Wikipedia article when you could spend a week or two doing it yourselves - correctly, the first time around - and save a four figure sum? Are people so damn lazy these days they can not even type anymore without hiring someone specifically inclined to do that? Sheesh... TomStar81 (Talk) 06:28, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because WP editing—the rules, the policies, the culture, even the syntax—are daunting to outsiders. A particular specialisation lies in maximising the PR value of articles on companies et al. These commercial opportunities (temptations, if you like) arise from the way WP has evolved; ironically, the very enabling of effective crowd-sourcing requires complexity and impenetrability, restricting the freedom of crowd-sourcing.

These are good reasons to take the bull by the horns, as the German WP has done, and set up a system of open registration for company and professional PR editors. I believe de.WP has about 500 such accounts, and they are watched wherever they go. It's not ideal, but it's more practical than what we have now. Tony (talk) 10:37, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the latter paragraph (openly register them and keep an eye on them; not ideal but better than not): I believe that's where the future ought to lie for all WPs, regarding this topic. — ¾-10 16:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Good faith editing should be separated from propaganda lies. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 08:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help comparing it to Prohibition. You have some human behavior that you'd like to prevent by simply declaring, "You're not allowed to do that." Well, that just drives it underground and puts criminally inclined shysters and cons in charge of it—but it doesn't prevent it. Perhaps better to get it out in the open and keep watch over it. I realize that this concept doesn't apply to everything in life, but so far it strikes me as aptly applying to paid editing of WP. — ¾-10 02:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding File:Emad Rahim.jpg: Wikipedia:OTRS noticeboard#File:Emad Rahim.jpg should mean that the file will either be transwikied to the Commons or deleted when the this file percolates to the top of the OTRS backlog, or sooner if someone decides to give it a priority boost. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do we know Wiki-PR really is a multi-million dollar company? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 18:23, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I wonder why Vice thought Jimmy Wales was a likely customer. That sounds odd, but anything's possible. What's the evidence for that? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 18:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]