Slashdot Mirror
Wikipedia Blocks Hundreds of Accounts Doing Paid Editing
jan_jes writes: After weeks of investigation, Wikipedia has blocked 381 user accounts for "black hat" editing. The reason for the ban is that the accounts were engaged in undisclosed paid advocacy — the practice of accepting or charging money to promote external interests on Wikipedia without revealing their affiliation, in violation of Wikimedia's Terms of Use. In addition to blocking the 381 "sockpuppet" account, the editors deleted 210 articles created by these accounts.
Was there ever a more vile and sociopathic concept than "reputation management"?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Has Slashdot investigated if there are paid downmodders to hide comments certain factions don't like? Or upmod, for that matter?
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Well, think of this example: you run a nice little restaurant in town. Along comes Yelp and Google reviews, so people can post reviews of your restaurant online. Some customers are just assholes, and you happen to get one who is completely unreasonable, says racist stuff to one of your staff, whatever. Anyway they go away angry and write a nasty and completely false review of your restaurant on Yelp.
Since bad reviews hurt business, even if the reviewer is a liar or exaggerating the facts, there's nothing wrong with you responding to this review in some way. Doing so qualifies as "reputation management", whether you do it yourself, or you have a paid "reputation manager" do it for you (who could be a 3rd-party firm, or your niece).
Wikipedia is ran by abusive admins. Many admins have extreme mental disorders, such as nawlinwiki and bsadowski1. There are the deletionists as well who keep deleting articles even when they are notable, such as the Cult TV show Cat's Eyes
Heres is what needs to happen to fix Wikipedia. Abusive admins need o get treatment for their mental disorders, deletionists shold be banned and make it impossible to delete notable articles, plus the $50 million that Wikimedia is hoarding needs to be given to proper charitiess who will spend the money better.
Wikipedia shouldn be compaining about "sockpupets" when they have a cabal of edit reverters who have no life. I'm talking about you MaterialScientist.
One way you can deal with that is to make sure you have lots of positive reviews to drown out the nasty ones. And you get lots of positive reviews by doing positive things, like serving great food and having great service, not by hiring a bunch of people who have never been to your restaurant to write good reviews.
But you raise a good point.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I guess human nature varies. If I'm not 100% satisfied at a restaurant, I'll generally chalk it up to them having an off day. I might tell the proprietor, but I'm not gonna go rant on Yelp. If I have a really nice meal, I'll go give a good review. It's sort of the YMMV approach.
I'm generally not much for bad reviews, just as I very seldom mod any comments down. I'm a believer in the carrot over the stick.
You are welcome on my lawn.