Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-06-29/From the archives

Discuss this story

Once again, wolves get a bad name in the headline because of human (primate-like) self-interested behaviour. Wolves act in the best interests of the pack and not for themselves. Such terms as "Wolf of Wallstreet" might sound catchy as a media term but it is meaningless in the wild. William Harris • (talk) • 04:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies to Canis lupus and their relatives. Sometimes human beings behave so badly, that we just find it difficult to come up with appropriate analogies to our behavior.

I was slightly surprised to see this on the Signpost so soon, but there are some recent followups, e.g. the European Union is finally enacting laws that strictly limit the marketing of binary options to retail investors.

On a happy note, Simona Weinglass, a reporter for the Times of Israel, received an honorable mention at the TRACE Prize for Investigative Reporting. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-06-29/In the media

But there is always a darker side to financial scams. If you want to see how scams affect Wikipedia articles now (in real time), check out Bitcoin, Cryptocurrency, Initial coin offering and a couple hundred related articles.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:57, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Smallbones - you understand. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 22:40, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Money is one of the many motivations for bad-faith editors to act in ways that drain the resources of the rest of us. Money is also one of many motivations editors add unbiased, well-sourced content that's up to Wikipedia standards, but that motivation remains undetected because no one complains about good work. It was true 10 and 15 years ago and it's true now: any solution which simply targets paid editing without considering the broader range of advocacy editing would not only be shortsighted, the effort to create such a policy would draw upon those same editorial reserves with little return. Just because it's easier to understand money as a motivator doesn't mean the content is poor, and just because other reasons are harder to explain and identify doesn't mean that the problem isn't about much more than money.--~T P W 00:52, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- All paid editors have to do is declare their paid status, employer, client and affiliations, so that other people can review their work. See WP:Paid editing disclosure. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:34, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It would be legitimate for the Wikipedia community to sue anyone who acts on bad faith and abuses the project. If they made someone else work to fix their mess, they should pay for it.--Micru (talk) 21:54, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]