Do not go after Wikipedia because of one or two shitty people. We need it as a country. I would argue that the world needs it. Make it better and support it while calling out the shitty stuff, don’t take it down.
Do go for the shitty admins with no mercy though. We don’t need Wiki to slowly rot from the inside.
Why do US citizens think everyone on the internet is from their country ?
What the world needs, what you need as a country, is for people to be a bit more discerning and conscious about the reliability of what they read online, and that includes not treating Wikipedia like holy scripture in the way that far too many people do.
forgive me for being suspect about a random anti wikipedia website at a time when the right wing is spending billions to discredit and shut down wikipedia.
The issue that the article raises is legitimate, but actually looking through their archives is baffling, they’re really just hellbent on shitting on WP. One of their most read articles says Wikipedia should attract more female editors by reducing the anonymity on the site and making it more like a social media platform. What the hell? https://wikipediocracy.com/why-women-have-no-time-for-wikipedia/
Ah yes, I’d love people online to be positive I’m a woman and not just probably one! That would make me feel extremely safe! I am being extremely sarcastic!
Are you saying the article is false?
And do you think the right wing doesn’t spend any money to edit Wikipedia?
I like how you think …
This is what the rich choose to do instead of compete in a free market
deleted by creator
It only takes a single incident like this for people to completely loose trust in Wikipedia, granted Wikipedia was already put to an insanely unreasonable standard.
Of course that’s not true. A single incident on a massive website like this is not going to force people who actually trusted Wikipedia before to stop trusting it in the future.
Not really, but I am sick and tired of Wikipedia haters constantly using every tiny mistake to prove “Wikipedia cant be trusted”. Granted they still use the age old lie of “anyone can edit it” and “nobody moderates it”.
What does the PR acronym stand for ?
- Roman people
- pull request
- parliamentary report
- press release
- prize ring
- proportional representation
- Puerto Rico
- Permanent Resident
- Progress Report
- Pressure Regulator
- Park Ridge
- Pattern Recognition
- PageRank
- Planning and Responsibility
- Performance Review
- Performance Rating
- Problem Report
- Papa Roach
- Personal Record
- Peer Review
- ⁝
People roman ?
Yeah I read it Pull request first time lmao
Pretty sure wikipedia is almost entirely a compendium of PR posts.
After finishing the PhD, I got emails from people saying that for money they would manage a Wikipedia article for me. They said they had people in high places to make that my article communicates the right message.
Dear …,
Have you ever wondered of having a Wikipedia page for yourself or your company? We can help you get a Wikipedia page for yourself or your brand.
Why have a Wikipedia page?
Google loves Wikipedia and as such ranks it high in search results. Wikipedia is
also the first place people go when they Google your name. By leveraging
Wikipedia, you can help control your Online Profile and present yourself to the
world. Usually Wikipedia only accepts pages on celebrities and famous companies,
if you are looking to get one for yourself, we can help you with that. Having a page
for yourself in Wikipedia, brings you more credibility and makes you more
famous.
We have been editing on Wikipedia for 9+ years and We’ve created tons of pages
for companies, people, brands, products, and of course for academic purposes as
well.
We own multiple accounts on Wikipedia with page curation and new page
reviewer rights, so we can create and moderate pages with almost zero risk of
another mod taking it down.
There are few Wikipedia editors who are willing to create a page for money, and
most of them are scared to offer this service directly, so they do it through their
trusted sellers who mark up the price to $1500 - $2500 per page.
Because you’re buying directly from an experienced Wikipedia editor and mod,
you’ll get your page a lot cheaper, faster and with more reliability.
Let me know if you are interested.
RegardsThanks! I’ll contact them.
I’m guessing how that goes is you pay them, they do actually make you a page, it gets quickly deleted for not meeting Wikipedia’s standards, and then they go “sorry no refunds”. Step 0 to getting a Wikipedia page about yourself is to be notable enough for one, which >99.9% of people are not.
And even if technically notable enough, you still need some objective sources for any claims made, even simple things like profession, even if your works speak for themselves. And what the mods deem an acceptable source seems arbitrary.
I listen to a lot of indie music or local smaller bands, and often, even though they gig a lot and have several albums practically on every digital platform, I can’t find the bands in there, nor any of their members.
Often there’s a red page there with some contributor discussions where they argue with each other about these things.
Seems so wonky to me, since I just came from their gig, having listened to them for 10+ years.
I’m surprised and not surprised I guess that there’s a business offering to write Wikipedia articles like this. I suppose it’s naivety to think that Wikipedia articles are written with good intentions.
They should recruit more Reddit mods.
What does the article mean “Juniper Networks, despite being a “Good Article”, is also mostly PR”? It seems like a fine article to me, and as the article mentioned, Tinucherian disclosed his COI and appropriately sought review for edits in this case (though as the article also mentions, he’s edited other articles the wrong way).
What does the article mean “Juniper Networks, despite being a “Good Article”, is also mostly PR”?
It’s all part of their various horseshit attempt at making something which is pretty simple an innocuous into something that it isn’t.
Within the last few days, it looks like someone raised the issue on this guy’s page, the arbitration committee is getting in touch with him, and he’s saying he’ll get back to them. Presumably there’s a minor conflict of interest and they’ll look over the article and make sure he didn’t do anything slanty to it and then tell him to stay away from COI-adjacent articles in the future.
There’s absolutely nothing sinister here, and they are stringing together a bunch of misleading stuff (like “mostly PR”) to make a mountain out of a molehill to discredit Wikipedia. I’ve noticed a bunch of people doing this, presumably there is some organized campaign which actually is sinister in the way they’re implying WP is, that is trying to make people think badly of them.
Tried to add that the (two) famous classic swedish films “sälskaps resan 1 & 2” were copies of the french Les Bronzés, and remove the “is on DVD for exceptionnally cheap”.
Got reverted after like 1 minute.
Tried a bunch of times, complaints to no avail.
Some years later I tried again but you could no longer make changes IIRC.
Just checked, info still missing.
Edit: to all the doubtfully people, here is one reversed edit I aparently did in 2023: https://sv.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sällskapsresan&diff=prev&oldid=53585812 If someone lnows how to search for reversed edits …
Edit: mer info på svenska: här
Edit: Some say the specialized “swedish” jokes in the film was stolen from a Finnish film mamed Callemoss.
I just checked the articles for “Sällskapsresan” and “French Fried Vacation”. The only edit that was reverted (or at least the only edit whose author would’ve been notified by the revert) changed “Norwegian” to “German” on the former page. I also didn’t find “is on DVD for exceptionally cheap” anywhere. None of these articles are protected (i.e. “locked”) either. Which article did this happen on?
It was like 10 years ago.
Well, you still managed to check it, no?
The DVD ad was from ten years ago. My attempt to change things was from ten years ago. The blatant stealing/copying is still missing.
Which article is this?
No article, Wikipedia.
It strongly looks like you’re making things up lol
It is trivial to check what changes someone did or didn’t make 10 years ago on Wikipedia, if you know which page of Wikipedia it was on. Which page was it on?
