Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Rise of Paid Wikipedia Consulting

Posted by samzenpus on from the history-belongs-to-the-typers dept.

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?"

3 of 85 comments (clear)

  1. Do you think by kiriath · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  2. Re:hahaha by kelemvor4 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

  3. Re:It'll just be a rip off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.