Jimmy Wales and "paid advocacy editing"
Posted: Sat Oct 26, 2013 8:27 pm
I might comment on this a bit more later, but I just saw that Jimmy Wales is a douchebag. He is complete scum. I feel sorry for anyone close to him.
The Wikipedia Critics' Forum
https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/
He really pisses you off, we all know...thekohser wrote:I might comment on this a bit more later, but I just saw that Jimmy Wales is a douchebag. He is complete scum. I feel sorry for anyone close to him.
That's already been showcased on another forum. I tried for days and weeks to be very polite and gracious with Jimbo, to get some clarification of the discrepancies between what he told me to do with MyWikiBiz, and what "the community" seemed to be developing as a new policy. He responded with curt, condescending, threatening tone. It all went downhill from there.Randy from Boise wrote:How about the backstory? How did you first bump into him and how did things get so bitter?
tim
The typical editor tone on en.Wikipedia; yet they keep doing surveys and studies to figure out why they can't keep editors.thekohser wrote:He responded with curt, condescending, threatening tone.
He still thinks I'm "banned" on Wikipedia. Let him think that.
It bears quoting, immediately below.thekohser wrote:I might comment on this a bit more later, but I just saw that Jimmy Wales is a douchebag. He is complete scum. I feel sorry for anyone close to him.
"Community consensus continuing to ban the editor" in the absence of periodic review is like asserting that the dead stay buried year after year by the will of the villagers. It's not like they're capable of going anywhere, even if, looking back, they were loved or valued or proved right after all. "Consensus" is the most horribly abused word at Wikipedia, it is so abused that Social Services should send out an abuse counselor and take it into protective custody. Jimbo is indeed full of it and self-servedly distorting language. But that is the hallmark of the administrative class. I used to think, not having read enough of him, that Jimbo was some wise executive figure at Wikipedia, but he's got neither the fortitude nor the disposition for it, nor even the willingness really to apply intellect to address decisions and comments in a rule-based or logic-based way. But he's no executive, he's more of a Wikipedia mascot. With the throat beard and wild eyes, he even resembles some sort of furry mascot.Jimbo Wales 26 Oct. '13 wrote: I have not changed my opinion from 2006, but it has been misunderstood and misrepresented here. I made the comment "absolutely unacceptable, sorry" as a specific response to a specific proposal from a specific user - one which has been borne out over the years by community consensus continuing to ban the editor in question. To interpret a private comment from email as a general policy pronouncement is deeply mistaken.
He must have caught a Pomposity Virus from Newyorkbrad.Triptych wrote:I find Jimbo's speech pompous
It's going around over there.EricBarbour wrote:He must have caught a Pomposity Virus from Newyorkbrad.Triptych wrote:I find Jimbo's speech pompous
I guess if we wanted to be charitable, we might say this was an attempt at "subtle irony"...?thekohser wrote:Basically just as bad as child pornography.
it's a tricky situation. Jimmy is all about appearance -- I don't
think he really cares strongly about the real conflict of interest
issue, but he doesn't want articles in Wikipedia that show up with
"MyWikiBiz" as the user who created them. Next thing he knows,
there'll be a media editorial about it, and he really doesn't want
that. I think you should use
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP%3AAFC
for now.
Well, he got that right.thekohser wrote:I wonder if it would be interesting if I could produce an e-mail from Erik Moeller to me in August 2006, where Erik said:
it's a tricky situation. Jimmy is all about appearance
One of the funniest things I've seen on Wikipedia in a long time, involves Coretheapple. You have to start here, then just go through each of the next 50 or 60 diffs, one by one, to see the comedy unveil itself.Midsize Jake wrote:This person, Mr. Coretheapple (T-C-L), has a decent-enough point in that by all rights this is indeed a problem that affects the WMF's reputation and not the reputations of users (who essentially have no reputations per se)
Backtracking is fun! Particularly given that Wikipedia makes it so easy to do...thekohser wrote:One of the funniest things I've seen on Wikipedia in a long time, involves Coretheapple. You have to start here, then just go through each of the next 50 or 60 diffs, one by one, to see the comedy unveil itself.
Dammit, stop finding these things. I have to write him up now.....thekohser wrote:One of the funniest things I've seen on Wikipedia in a long time, involves Coretheapple. You have to start here, then just go through each of the next 50 or 60 diffs, one by one, to see the comedy unveil itself.
Sorry, Dimmy, but what are you getting on about? Do you really believe that Wikipedia lacks kind and thoughtful editors because they've been discouraged or driven away by professional content writers who try to slip in and get out as quickly and quietly as possible?Der Jimbo wrote:The only way to get more quality is to engage more kind and thoughtful minds. The way to do that is to welcome them, and to protect them from various kinds of trouble makers, including paid advocates (who have a vested interest in minimizing participation).
It's bad enough that he's so delusional as to think "the only way to get more quality is to engage more kind and thoughtful minds." Uh, no, not only is that not the only way, it would actually be pretty far down on the list of possible ways.thekohser wrote:Sorry, Dimmy, but what are you getting on about? Do you really believe that Wikipedia lacks kind and thoughtful editors because they've been discouraged or driven away by professional content writers who try to slip in and get out as quickly and quietly as possible?
You could probably make some sort of argument that the antics of Wiki-PR for example and all the work required to try and fix their articles were corrosive to Wikipedian morale. That particular case led to at least one bureaucrat's resignation, and I wouldn't be surprised if a few other people had lost enthusiasm for Wikipedia for similar reasons. Fixing obviously promotional content is very dull work.thekohser wrote:Jimmy Wales is painfully stretching this whole "Wikipedia would be wonderful if we could just get rid of the paid advocacy editors" schtick.Sorry, Dimmy, but what are you getting on about? Do you really believe that Wikipedia lacks kind and thoughtful editors because they've been discouraged or driven away by professional content writers who try to slip in and get out as quickly and quietly as possible?Der Jimbo wrote:The only way to get more quality is to engage more kind and thoughtful minds. The way to do that is to welcome them, and to protect them from various kinds of trouble makers, including paid advocates (who have a vested interest in minimizing participation).
What percentage of Wikipedia relates to companies or their products? What amount of non-product related articles get contaminated by product placement? What amount of biographies (living or otherwise) are subject to paid PR?HRIP7 wrote:You could probably make some sort of argument that the antics of Wiki-PR for example and all the work required to try and fix their articles were corrosive to Wikipedian morale. That particular case led to at least one bureaucrat's resignation, and I wouldn't be surprised if a few other people had lost enthusiasm for Wikipedia for similar reasons. Fixing obviously promotional content is very dull work.thekohser wrote:Jimmy Wales is painfully stretching this whole "Wikipedia would be wonderful if we could just get rid of the paid advocacy editors" schtick.Sorry, Dimmy, but what are you getting on about? Do you really believe that Wikipedia lacks kind and thoughtful editors because they've been discouraged or driven away by professional content writers who try to slip in and get out as quickly and quietly as possible?Der Jimbo wrote:The only way to get more quality is to engage more kind and thoughtful minds. The way to do that is to welcome them, and to protect them from various kinds of trouble makers, including paid advocates (who have a vested interest in minimizing participation).
Depending what you count as an article that is about a "company" or a "product" (e.g., is an article about the Tennessee Titans (T-H-L) related to a "company" or not?), it's somewhere between 4% and 12% of all Wikipedia articles. I don't have an answer to your second question. I'd say that the living biographies are subject to much more paid PR than the dead-person biographies.dogbiscuit wrote:What percentage of Wikipedia relates to companies or their products? What amount of non-product related articles get contaminated by product placement? What amount of biographies (living or otherwise) are subject to paid PR?
Surely it's much higher, given all the content that there is about individual television shows, music, books, comic books, video games, and other such content, almost all of which is commercial content and thus counts as a "product".thekohser wrote:Depending what you count as an article that is about a "company" or a "product" (e.g., is an article about the Tennessee Titans (T-H-L) related to a "company" or not?), it's somewhere between 4% and 12% of all Wikipedia articles.
I'm sure you've heard me rant about this before, but if he wants to get rid of paid advocacy, adding additional terms of use is not going to do it. Get rid of the bureaucracy and paid advocacy would wind down to a slow crawl. Most of my clients come to me after being chewed up and spit out for trying to edit the site. Not for SPAM, not for poor writing, but simply trying to edit a site that has so many rules they cannot understand them; and, instead of someone befriending them, they end up with a warning or banishment as a result of their effort. More money for me, more headaches for Jimbo.Jimmy Wales is painfully stretching this whole "Wikipedia would be wonderful if we could just get rid of the paid advocacy editors" schtick.
The battle with paid editors was lost a long, long time ago.NotNormal wrote:I'm sure you've heard me rant about this before, but if he wants to get rid of paid advocacy, adding additional terms of use is not going to do it. Get rid of the bureaucracy and paid advocacy would wind down to a slow crawl. Most of my clients come to me after being chewed up and spit out for trying to edit the site. Not for SPAM, not for poor writing, but simply trying to edit a site that has so many rules they cannot understand them; and, instead of someone befriending them, they end up with a warning or banishment as a result of their effort. More money for me, more headaches for Jimbo.Jimmy Wales is painfully stretching this whole "Wikipedia would be wonderful if we could just get rid of the paid advocacy editors" schtick.
Any by the way, Greg is being very gracious with his usage of terms for Jimbo. He's an ass, plain and simple. If only he would embrace the whole community and not just those who fall at their knees to worship him.
Also, Jim (he hates that I hear) is losing the battle with paid advocacy editing. He acts like Nasser during the six day war, telling the press how they send cease and desist letters, ban editors, change terms of use. He's losing, but somehow has convinced himself and the media that he is in total control of the situation...........Forget it. I think I'm gonna throw up now!
It's completely stupid to stop motivated editors from working on pages, and can only lead to a further degradation in the site's quality. But the problem is not with the bureaucracy.I'm sure you've heard me rant about this before, but if he wants to get rid of paid advocacy, adding additional terms of use is not going to do it. Get rid of the bureaucracy and paid advocacy would wind down to a slow crawl.
Is your budget for compensating content contributors smaller than your actual revenues? Otherwise, you are just giving away free money, which anyone can pretty much do and look like what you're doing is "popular".sparkzilla wrote:I also pay everyone for their contributions, even if they are already being paid to post.
This run-down of Europeana owning its content on Wikipedia was truly a classic facial-disgracial on Jimbo.Capsot wrote:...saw what Greg was saying about Europeana some time ago...
Over time the cost of content creation is less than the revenues, otherwise we would not be doing the project. Right now we are paying out real cash to create content but the site is still growing so revenues are low. In case you are wondering, the money comes from investors. As time goes on we will reach a break even point where the revenues exceed the cost. I expect to spend many millions of dollars in payments to writers (there are 650,000 biographies on Wikipedia, to do them all (which won't be necessary) to a decent standard on Newslines would cost $65 million, which seems like a lot, but according to our calculations Wikipedia leaves over $200 million in annual profit on the table by not allowing advertising. So far, our model is going to plan. Once the next software upgrade is in place -- in a few weeks -- we will be able to process thousands of new posts/day.thekohser wrote:Is your budget for compensating content contributors smaller than your actual revenues? Otherwise, you are just giving away free money, which anyone can pretty much do and look like what you're doing is "popular".
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that your site never reaches that point. I hope that it does, but I expect that it won't.sparkzilla wrote:As time goes on we will reach a break even point where the revenues exceed the cost.
It's not so much a "lack of response" but an active cover-up to mask that COI editing has cheapened the "NPOV" principle.Capsot wrote:Wow, excellent work Greg! It's incredible to see that such things are allowed to happen... and the lack of response when informed...
Have a nice day! Claudi/Capsot
That's too bad. At least Jimbo keeps Kraft in business (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kool-Aid).Every cult needs its bogeymen to hold the faithful to the wheel.
Looks like Smallbones will finally get a job....I see no reason to think that former paid editors have the right skills for this...
I believe that Rev. Jones actually preferred Flavor Aid (T-H-L) , a product of Jel Sert (T-H-L).NotNormal wrote:That's too bad. At least Jimbo keeps Kraft in business (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kool-Aid).Every cult needs its bogeymen to hold the faithful to the wheel.
According to this citation-less "fact" on Wikipedia, "Film of Jonestown many months before the Massacre show stocks of both Flavor-Aid and its leading competitor within the commune's storehouses, so it is quite possible that both drinks were used as carriers for the poison."
I second that approval. It's right to praise Jimbo when he does something good.thekohser wrote:Note Sir Jimbo using the British spelling of the word.
Yes, it is right to give Him thanks and praise.Poetlister wrote:I second that approval. It's right to praise Jimbo when he does something good.thekohser wrote:Note Sir Jimbo using the British spelling of the word.
Or misspelling the American one...thekohser wrote:Jimmy Wales announced today that he favors the Wikimedia Foundation hiring an employee who would be charged with "combatting* all kinds of spam", including any done by vendors, donors, employees, and affiliates of the WMF. He doesn't think the new hire should be a former paid editor, though.
Looks like Smallbones will finally get a job....I see no reason to think that former paid editors have the right skills for this...
* Note Sir Jimbo using the British spelling of the word.
Any bets on whether this will actually, you know, happen?thekohser wrote:Jimmy Wales announced today that he favors the Wikimedia Foundation hiring an employee who would be charged with "combatting* all kinds of spam", including any done by vendors, donors, employees, and affiliates of the WMF. He doesn't think the new hire should be a former paid editor, though.
What is really needed is a check button under the edit summary with THIS IS A COI EDIT (linked to the policy page), right next to THIS IS A MINOR EDIT. If clicked, this would tag the summary as a COI edit so that the change could be reviewed by an unconnected editor. No need to deface the article for all time with a flag. [[User:Carrite|Carrite]] ([[User talk:Carrite|talk]]) 17:22, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
::I would support that, as long as checking the box results in an immediate revert and ban on further editing in article space.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 21:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)