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

...... so? by viperidaenz · 2012-09-18 16:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

Where is the problem?

Re:...... so? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-18 16:28 · Score: 0, Insightful

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? by mark_elf · 2012-09-18 16:30 · Score: 2

No problem, the best thing about wikipedia is all the arguing and drama. This is truly awesome.
Re:...... so? by hawguy · 2012-09-18 16:37 · Score: 5, Funny

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? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-18 16:38 · Score: 2, Informative

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? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-18 16:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

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? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-18 16:43 · Score: 0

Chimpanzees and humans are from the same family, so no surprise they're liars.
Re:...... so? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-18 17:26 · Score: 5, Funny

Bitches. You can't trust em.
Re:...... so? by TapeCutter · 2012-09-18 17:45 · Score: 1

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

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Re:...... so? by macshit · 2012-09-18 17:59 · Score: 4, Funny

larger animal often 'toy' with smaller until they die. eg: Cats.
"Well I planned to eat it, but ooooooooh, string! STring! String!"

--
We live, as we dream -- alone....
Re:...... so? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-18 18:24 · Score: 0

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? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-18 18:40 · Score: 1, Insightful

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? by Sigg3.net · 2012-09-18 18:59 · Score: 1

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.

--
Defining Statistics and Social Research
Re:...... so? by ydrol · 2012-09-18 20:02 · Score: 1

>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? by Chrisq · 2012-09-18 20:16 · Score: 1

Where is the problem?
Thanks, The cheque is in the post.
Re:...... so? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-18 21:09 · Score: 5, Informative

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

Jimmy Wales talk page where the argument is happeninng now:

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

Discussions on Wikipedia critics forum:

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

http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=926
Re:...... so? by 2.7182 · 2012-09-18 22:26 · Score: 2

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? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-18 22:38 · Score: 1, Insightful

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? by TapeCutter · 2012-09-18 22:42 · Score: 1

Caught by whom? Themselves?

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Re:...... so? by Teancum · 2012-09-18 22:53 · Score: 3, Interesting

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? by Teancum · 2012-09-18 23:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

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? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-19 00:44 · Score: 0

I don't know of any other animal that cheats, lies, steals, and deceives like we do. Whatever happened to just plain ol killing?!
Alpha/Beta societies in the animal kingdom are based on the beta males (and females) "lying, cheating and deceiving" to allow the betas to impregnate females.
Killing in the animal kingdom is so damn common I don't even know how you could seriously bring it up as an example.
"Stealing" is also dead common. The strong beat the weak all the time... it's not just because they can get the most, but they can take from others as well.
Re:...... so? by i · 2012-09-19 00:45 · Score: 1

The interesting part of this is that we often really LIKE when they do that, it's like they are more humanlike or social byt that.

--
Mundus Vult Decipi
Re:...... so? by Jiro · 2012-09-19 01:05 · Score: 1

By these criteria one of the most honest entities is a rock. It just sits there and never cheats or steals.
Given that only humans can form the mental concepts necessary to cheat or steal, of course only humans will do so. It's like praising people without hands for never pickpocketing.
Re:...... so? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-19 01:34 · Score: 1

Good. Use your aggressive feelings, boy. Let the hate flow through you.
Re:...... so? by sacrilicious · 2012-09-19 02:00 · Score: 1

In what way does Wales not have authority in the Wikipedia domain? This is not a rhetorical/snarky question, I'm genuinely curious. He holds the founding seat on the board, and at least claims to be highly involved. Is their coverage available that would support contrary views about his involvement and influence?

--
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
Re:...... so? by petermgreen · 2012-09-19 02:04 · Score: 2

as if Jimmy Wales has any real authority on Wikipedia any more
Right now the foundation board has 10 memebers 4 of which were apointed by the board, 5 by the community and one of which is wales himself.
So the real question is the loyalty of those 4 appointed board members. If they are more loyal to wales than the community it would be virtually impossible for the community to overrule him the most they could do is produce a tie in a board vote (interestingly the bylaws of the foundation don't seem to specify what happens in that case). OTOH if the appointed board memembers are more loyal to the community than to wales then the community could easilly override him.

--
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Re:...... so? by Atzanteol · 2012-09-19 03:42 · Score: 1

Can we get a +6 mod?

--
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

- Charles Darwin
Re:...... so? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-19 04:08 · Score: 0

By these criteria one of the most honest entities is a rock. It just sits there and never cheats or steals.
Given that only humans can form the mental concepts necessary to cheat or steal, of course only humans will do so. It's like praising people without hands for never pickpocketing.
Plenty of animals, especially primates, can form those concepts and also performs the acts.
If you have any doubt about animals ability to understand complex subjects then you should read about Washoe
Re:...... so? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-19 06:33 · Score: 0

Monkeys and dolphins are the worst. Lions are second. At least the lions have clearer evolutionary reasons why they kill their own cubs (leader changed, so old one must have been weak thus we must kill all his cubs as they'd be weaker too). Dolphins like gang raping everything and play target practice against specific organs inside other animals/fish. Adult monkeys start at chewing off your fingers and get more gruesome after that.
Re:...... so? by CyberKrb · 2012-09-19 10:30 · Score: 1

To begin with, Gibraltar is not a country (and never was). At most a highly dispute colony of the UK in former spanish territory. Once again: editors, please check your facts (and update the posting ASAP!) Yes, I'm a native spaniard, by the way. My personal opinion is that Gibraltar is a full-blown anachronism kept there truly because of pride and economic interests --- it is in fact mostly used just as a tax haven. However british the gibraltarians might want to feel (because it is highly convenient for most of them), they end up crossing essentially daily to Spain in order to shop, enjoy themselves or even for business reasons. Someone with more direct experience and more direct facts please expand on this.
Re:...... so? by viperidaenz · 2012-09-19 12:30 · Score: 1

Its the last known place where Neanderthals lived
Re:...... so? by Teancum · 2012-09-19 16:23 · Score: 1

Jimmy Wales gave up his authority and rights to the Wikipedia domain name, trademark and server farm when he set up the Wikimedia Foundation. While he still holds a seat on the board of trustees, he is but one of a nine member board and is no longer even the chair of that board.
There was an earlier little tiff where several members of the community tried to strip Jimmy Wales of his "founder" status so far as having any sort of access to administrator tools on the Wikimedia projects. Even on stuff like that, he has pretty much lost that authority although I think he still retains bureaucrat rights on the English language edition of Wikipedia.
In theory, his only real authority on Wikipedia is the same as another user. As a practical matter, he still has a pretty strong following of supporters who will back him up on some major issues, and if he proposes some changes to policies, his opinions will be heard and have some significant backers of his proposed changes. Jimmy Wales will also be otherwise highly considered since he was around since the beginning of the project and his involvement dates back to the Nupedia days.
Other than that "moral authority" and ability to influence discussions through his fans, he really lacks authority to make many changes. That is quite a bit of political power as it were, but he doesn't hold any god-king type authority to arbitrarily make changes to the project and make them stick. If he said "let's pull the plug and stop Wikipedia", the members of the community would say "thank you for your service, have a nice day" and ignore him from that point forward.
Re:...... so? by Teancum · 2012-09-19 16:43 · Score: 1

When the board was originally set up, the loyalty to Jimmy Wales was unquestioned. At this point, however, I don't think it is so axiomatic that they will go along with anything that Jimmy Wales would propose even though obviously it would be seriously considered and he can directly participate in board meetings.
The appointed board members supposedly are "specialists" who have a specific skill (legal, public relations, technical, or something like that) which can benefit the foundation and the projects. There have been a few changes from the original appointments where their loyalty is more to the board as a whole than to Jimmy Wales in particular. While I don't see them getting rid of Jimmy Wales or rocking the boat too much, they also won't blindly follow him to the ends of the Earth either.
There are also some pretty strong limits in terms of what Jimmy Wales can do, and has crossed the line more than a few times such as when he tried to delete "porn" on the Wikimedia Commons. His days of arbitrarily acting without community support is certainly over, even though I think if he raises a major issue it would be seriously considered.
Re:...... so? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-20 04:44 · Score: 0

Nothin but tricks and hoes, yo.
Re:...... so? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-24 16:04 · Score: 0

The actual reason is that female lions are not sexually receptive until their cubs mature or die. Barring death, this takes about two years. Since a male lion can usually only remain leader of a pride for a maybe five years at best, this greatly reduce his ability to spread his own genes. Therefore he immediately kills any cubs under two years old so the females will go into heat and he can start spreading his own genes.
Evolution doesn't reward the "strongest", it rewards those most able to reproduce.

According to wikipedia... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-18 16:23 · Score: 3, Funny

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... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-18 16:30 · Score: 2, Informative

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... by Yetihehe · 2012-09-18 18:01 · Score: 2

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?

--
Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
Re:According to wikipedia... by Chrisq · 2012-09-18 20:23 · Score: 2

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. 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 with "the rock" being under British rule.
Re:According to wikipedia... by Chrisq · 2012-09-18 20:26 · Score: 1

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. 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 with "the rock" being under British rule.
Damned spell check .. that's "Promontory off Spain" though Peninsula may have been better
Re:According to wikipedia... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-18 20:44 · Score: 1

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... by Richard_at_work · 2012-09-18 21:34 · Score: 2

This government is still better than the last government...
Re:According to wikipedia... by sa1lnr · 2012-09-18 21:49 · Score: 1

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... by Jiro · 2012-09-19 01:24 · Score: 2

There isn't any dispute that the inhabitants really are happy that it is under British rule. Spain says that the wishes of the inhabitants don't affect who owns it; Spain does not say that Britain is lying about the wishes of the inhabitants.
By the way, Spain itself owns little pieces of land next to Morocco similar to Gibraltar. Of course Spain insists that the situation is completely different since Spain conquered them in the 1500's instead of the 1700's.
Re:According to wikipedia... by Sir_Eptishous · 2012-09-19 02:33 · Score: 1

Their happy accordance with the state of affairs is a side effect of being next to the province of Cimbalta.

--
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
Re:According to wikipedia... by Pope · 2012-09-19 03:21 · Score: 1

And yet you missed "inhalants" in your correction. Sniffing glue again?

--
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Re:According to wikipedia... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-19 06:48 · Score: 0

Yeah - at least Mitt Rmoney has the balls to say he doesn't give a shit about anyone else apart from the 1%ers.

A bad thing? by The+Shootist · 2012-09-18 16:25 · Score: 1, Informative

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? by GigsVT · 2012-09-18 16:29 · Score: 3, Informative

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

--
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Re:A bad thing? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-19 04:45 · Score: 1

I'm a high school teacher. Browsing the Wikipedia User Contributions from our school's IP range makes me laugh and cry in turn.
Re:A bad thing? by Kalriath · 2012-09-19 16:31 · Score: 1

I work at a hospital. Browsing our IP range contributions just scares me.

--
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".

These things happen by tgeller · 2012-09-18 16:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
Tom Geller

Re:These things happen by khallow · 2012-09-18 17:37 · Score: 0, Flamebait

You're welcome to find an analogy that doesn't offend your delicate sensibilities.
Re:These things happen by sortius_nod · 2012-09-18 17:42 · Score: 1, Insightful

That's not what the parent poster was stating, nice straw man.
Re:These things happen by Penurious+Penguin · 2012-09-18 17:51 · Score: 1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiScanner#Media_coverage_and_reaction -- CTRL-F "Vatican". Probably just correcting a spelling error or something, but you never know ;)

--
Forward! -- Emperor Norton, 2012
Re:These things happen by TapeCutter · 2012-09-18 18:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Re:These things happen by evilviper · 2012-09-18 18:41 · Score: 2

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.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:These things happen by Alex+Belits · 2012-09-18 21:09 · Score: 1

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.

--
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Re:These things happen by malkavian · 2012-09-18 21:16 · Score: 1

You really don't get that whole progress through history thing, do you?
Re:These things happen by TapeCutter · 2012-09-18 22:41 · Score: 1

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

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Re:These things happen by CRCulver · 2012-09-18 22:43 · Score: 2

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.
Re:These things happen by OnePumpChump · 2012-09-18 23:02 · Score: 2

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.
Re:These things happen by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2012-09-19 00:05 · Score: 1

Here's what I got from the post:
> Wikipedia Scandal: High Profile Users Allegedly Involved In Paid-Editing
I wanna edit that and get rid of the hyphen.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Re:These things happen by alexo · 2012-09-19 02:11 · Score: 2

Identify the cretins, remove them, shame them publicly
... crush them, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentation of their women.
Re:These things happen by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-19 03:06 · Score: 0

TBH, that smacks of "The recurring failure of real-world Communism does not invalidate Marxist Socialism or its approach at all." When all real-world implementations of an ideal wind up critically flawed and susceptible to corruption, you have to wonder if the problem is with the ideal (specifically, its incompatibility with fundamental human nature and objective reality).
Re:These things happen by VENONA · 2012-09-19 04:44 · Score: 1

Evidence for progress seems a bit thin. Even a very senior Cardinal has said that the Catholic Church is 200 years behind the times.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19453974

--
What you do with a computer does not constitute the whole of computing.
Re:These things happen by gweihir · 2012-09-19 06:28 · Score: 1

That would be overkill. Also, what to do with female cretins (cretinas?) and male ones in a same-sex marriage? Accept lamentations of their husbands as well? No, better do without lamentations and crushing.

--
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Re:These things happen by mcgrew · 2012-09-19 07:46 · Score: 1

I wanna edit that and get rid of the hyphen.
And I want to edit your comment. Do spell checkers pass "wanna" these days?

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:These things happen by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-19 09:31 · Score: 0

> That an encyclopedia has more moral fiber than the Catholic Church
That's one way to look at it. Another is that Wikipedia has a whole lot less to lose than the Catholic Church.
Re:These things happen by Alex+Belits · 2012-09-19 14:39 · Score: 1

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.
Yes, however the Catholic Church dominance in Europe was the very aspect of society and politics that given that period such a derogatory-sounding name.

--
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Re:These things happen by Alex+Belits · 2012-09-19 14:41 · Score: 1

You really don't get that whole progress through history thing, do you?
That continues now, in exactly the same tradition:

and sabotage of economic and social development of Latin America

--
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.

This is Normal by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-18 16:29 · Score: 0, Troll

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

Remember DMOZ? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-18 16:30 · Score: 5, Interesting

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? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-18 19:49 · Score: 0

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? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-18 19:57 · Score: 0

it went away.
Um, no, it didn't.
Re:Remember DMOZ? by BorisSkratchunkov · 2012-09-18 21:49 · Score: 0

Slashdot: so dead, I may have just replied to this.
Re:Remember DMOZ? by dingfelder · 2012-09-18 22:55 · Score: 1

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.
Re:Remember DMOZ? by DerekLyons · 2012-09-19 00:47 · Score: 1

It's a bit more complicated than that... (it usually is). On top of a variety of internal problems, there was also the arrival of Google - which badly hurt hierarchical directory sites all over the web.
Not that DMOZ has gone away, it's still around... it's just irrelevant in the eyes of many. Not because of linkspam, but because it's harder to use.
Re:Remember DMOZ? by BeanThere · 2012-09-19 05:39 · Score: 2

DMOZ is dead and irrelevant because its editors have made sure its crap, not because of the arrival of Google. Try get a legitimate site on there, in a legitimate category, through the submissions process. Try it. I defy you to do it.
Re:Remember DMOZ? by DerekLyons · 2012-09-19 09:47 · Score: 1

Translation: "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts".

Sure Jimmy, sure. by Frosty+Piss · 2012-09-18 16:31 · Score: 0, Troll

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

Sure Jimmy, sure.

--
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.

Re:Sure Jimmy, sure. by Mr2cents · 2012-09-18 16:48 · Score: 1

And what about the children?

--
"It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
Re:Sure Jimmy, sure. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-18 18:03 · Score: 2, Informative

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. by gl4ss · 2012-09-18 18:50 · Score: 3, Informative

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.

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Re:Sure Jimmy, sure. by Vintermann · 2012-09-18 20:32 · Score: 1

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.

--
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
Re:Sure Jimmy, sure. by hvm2hvm · 2012-09-18 21:05 · Score: 1

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

--
ics
Re:Sure Jimmy, sure. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-18 22:16 · Score: 0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Re:Sure Jimmy, sure. by Atzanteol · 2012-09-19 03:57 · Score: 1

Obviously Wikipedia would be better served if Jimbo lived the life of a pauper and died penniless in the streets.

--
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

- Charles Darwin
Re:Sure Jimmy, sure. by BeanThere · 2012-09-19 05:42 · Score: 3, Interesting

Sure, I had a low view of Mr Wales, but I gained a lot of respect when he played such a major role in the SOPA blackout. If it weren't for him, and the bold step of blacking out Wikipedia, I'm not sure the blackout would have even been an event.
Re:Sure Jimmy, sure. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-19 06:33 · Score: 0

Yeah, he certainly doesn't deserve any monetary compensation for being one of the few people to start one of the most visited websites in the world, as well as a bastion of human knowledge for generations to come.
Re:Sure Jimmy, sure. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-19 08:03 · Score: 0

According to Wikipedia he's the founder. And while the departure of the other founder, Angela Beesley is mentioned, his isn't, so I assume he's still a part of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikia
Re:Sure Jimmy, sure. by GigsVT · 2012-09-20 07:51 · Score: 1

He was already rich when he started Wikipedia.

--
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Re:Sure Jimmy, sure. by Vintermann · 2012-09-21 08:17 · Score: 1

Wrong, and wrong. It's Wikia, Inc, a privately owned for profit enterprise. It was founded by Jimmy Wales (and Angela Beelsley, another Wikipedia bigwig), I'd call that a pretty big connection. They still own it as far as I know.

--
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
Re:Sure Jimmy, sure. by hvm2hvm · 2012-09-21 08:40 · Score: 1

Ok then, I just looked on the wikia site at the "about us" and nothing came up... Pretty sneak I guess.

--
ics

Incidentally... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2012-09-18 16:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

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?

First mistake by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-18 16:41 · Score: 0

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

GLAM by GigsVT · 2012-09-18 16:42 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

--
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.

Re:GLAM by peteforsyth · 2012-09-18 20:17 · Score: 1

[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/ http://meta.wikimedia.org/

--
Pete Forsyth
Re:GLAM by GigsVT · 2012-09-19 01:42 · Score: 1

"longtime Wikipedian"
A couple well connected people taking an idea straight to the foundation and the foundation ramming the idea down the throat of the community is nothing like the normal process.
The community would never accept the "Wikipedian in Residence" idea, for example. It's pretty much a built-in conflict of interest.
The burden is on you here. Show me the big community-wide discussions that lead to the creation of this GLAM stuff. They don't exist.

--
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.

OK... by Black+Parrot · 2012-09-18 16:45 · Score: 4, Funny

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

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade

Re:OK... by Penurious+Penguin · 2012-09-18 16:50 · Score: 2

You could try to append a link to this one.

--
Forward! -- Emperor Norton, 2012
Re:OK... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-18 17:31 · Score: 1

Discussion on Jimbo Wales talk page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales
Re:OK... by Crudely_Indecent · 2012-09-19 02:37 · Score: 1

How much is it worth to you?

--

"Lame" - Galaxar

Re:Provence of the Mind by Penurious+Penguin · 2012-09-18 16:46 · Score: 0

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

--
Forward! -- Emperor Norton, 2012

I knew something like this was or is happening by cyberzephyr · 2012-09-18 16:47 · Score: 0

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'm here for the experience, not the Hyperbole.

Re:I knew something like this was or is happening by Black+Parrot · 2012-09-18 16:50 · Score: 5, Funny

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.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Re:I knew something like this was or is happening by sumdumass · 2012-09-18 17:35 · Score: 5, Funny

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? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-18 16:53 · Score: 0

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

Gibraltar by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-18 17:00 · Score: 1

I knew Gibraltar couldn't be trusted.

"knowledge portal" or encyclopedia? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-18 17:01 · Score: 1

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 by pokoteng · 2012-09-18 17:04 · Score: 0

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?

--
the game

Re:This is expected by gweihir · 2012-09-18 17:19 · Score: 3, Interesting

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

--
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Re:This is expected by Serious+Callers+Only · 2012-09-18 18:29 · Score: 1

Thanks. That page on Altruism was wrong though, so I improved it for you.
Re:This is expected by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-18 18:31 · Score: 1

This is just human nature.
And that is what we call reductionism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism
Re:This is expected by BeanThere · 2012-09-19 05:46 · Score: 1

Why would someone who has no vested interest in the page do any work on improving it?
Are you making a joke? How do you think Wikipedia came to exist?

What??? by CarOne.vn · 2012-09-18 17:09 · Score: 1

It really ????

--
Mua ban oto

Re:DON'T LIKE IT DON'T USE IT !! by Alex+Belits · 2012-09-18 17:15 · Score: 1

I don't want to deal with misinformed people.

--
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.

These things happen by gweihir · 2012-09-18 17:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

--
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.

Gibraltar is not a country. by solferino · 2012-09-18 17:32 · Score: 5, Informative

Bamkin's current client is the country of Gibraltar.

Gibraltar is not a country, it is a British overseas territory.

Re:Gibraltar is not a country. by alostpacket · 2012-09-18 18:00 · Score: 5, Funny

-1 for not linking to the Wikipedia page

--
PocketPermissions Android Permission Guide
Re:Gibraltar is not a country. by Black+Parrot · 2012-09-18 18:19 · Score: 3, Funny

-1 for not linking to the Wikipedia page
I wanted an xkcd.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Re:Gibraltar is not a country. by necro81 · 2012-09-18 22:40 · Score: 1

More information on the strange taxonomy of the (former) British Empire can be found in this helpful Youtube video.
Re:Gibraltar is not a country. by Chemisor · 2012-09-19 03:12 · Score: 2

Here you go: http://xkcd.com/850/
It clearly labels Gibraltar as a country.

Sounds like an Onion story... by kaze · 2012-09-18 17:44 · Score: 1

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

Wikipedia by phantomfive · 2012-09-18 18:05 · Score: 4, Funny

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

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."

no such thing as Wikimedia Foundation UK by Submarine · 2012-09-18 18:27 · Score: 5, Informative

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 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-18 19:52 · Score: 0

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 by makomk · 2012-09-18 22:19 · Score: 2

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

Blatant abuse of power? At *Wikipedia*?? by shiftless · 2012-09-18 18:56 · Score: 1

I for one am shocked!

Re:Blatant abuse of power? At *Wikipedia*?? by viperidaenz · 2012-09-18 19:17 · Score: 1

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.

why is this even news? by crutchy · 2012-09-18 19:46 · Score: 2

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

Re:DON'T LIKE IT DON'T USE IT !! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-18 20:47 · Score: 0

I don't want to deal with misinformed people.

Move to another planet.

Re:DON'T LIKE IT DON'T USE IT !! by Alex+Belits · 2012-09-18 20:58 · Score: 0

NO U!

--
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.

The "Country" of gibraltar? by Dunbal · 2012-09-18 21:24 · Score: 1

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

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.

Follow the money by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-18 21:29 · Score: 0

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 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-18 21:45 · Score: 0

This is how the known history is written, right?

Wikipedia is a drama factory by OnePumpChump · 2012-09-18 22:59 · Score: 2

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.

Gibraltar is not a country by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · 2012-09-19 00:41 · Score: 1

There is no "country of Gilbraltar" as the anonymous coward who posted the article suggests. It is a British overseas territory. It's something akin to Guam or American Samoa which are territories of the USA and nobody thinks they are countries.

Pr... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-19 02:16 · Score: 0

Is there any pr person who isn't completely soulless?

Coincidental reddit thread by paiute · 2012-09-19 02:18 · Score: 0

The other day there was a reddit thread on the front page about a billionaire allegedly buying off Wikipedia to erase mention of his alleged incest. Oddly enough, the thread itself then also disappeared from reddit due to some questionable mod decisions.

http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/102qtm/til_that_wikipedia_deleted_a_page_about_a/

--
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine

Re:Coincidental reddit thread by Sigma+7 · 2012-09-19 03:16 · Score: 2

It was erased because it was not a suitable "TIL" submission.
Rule I is "Submissions must be verifiable", which was not the case. The only mention was a random blog that claimed that he tried threatening Wikipedia. Instead, it got remvoed as part of a regular deletion process.
Rule V: "No misleading claims". If lawyers were involved, there would be a record in WP:OFFICE, along with other discussion outside the regular deletion process. An example of a billionare-class entity badgering Wikipedia can be found on the Lava lamp page.
The archive version reads as a simple press release, and is not suitable as a wikipedia article (dead references, referenced don't match article content, etc.)
In other words, pics of those legal threats or they didn't happen.
Re:Coincidental reddit thread by paiute · 2012-09-19 04:00 · Score: 1

It still seems to me to be arbitrary decisions.

Rule 1: The submission linked to a Village Voice editorial which itself linked to the original story which itself linked to court records. The allegations in the story may or may not be true, but I have read many other submissions with less verifiable support.

Rule V: The claim was that Wikipedia deleted a page. Wikipedia did indeed delete the page. Why it deleted the page was the subject of the discussion.

--
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine

Re:DON'T LIKE IT DON'T USE IT !! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-19 02:58 · Score: 0

Then why are you on Slashdot?

Re:DON'T LIKE IT DON'T USE IT !! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-19 10:05 · Score: 0

I don't want to deal with misinformed people.

Obligatory xkcd

Re:DON'T LIKE IT DON'T USE IT !! by Alex+Belits · 2012-09-19 14:53 · Score: 1

That's why I don't want more and more horribly misinformed people.

--
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.

Re:DON'T LIKE IT DON'T USE IT !! by Alex+Belits · 2012-09-19 14:55 · Score: 1

Does this mean that you concede the argument, or is it some kind of bizarre demand to consider all arguments unimportant if they happen on the Internet?

--
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.

Slashdot Mirror

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

154 comments