Last visit was: Mon Apr 21, 2014 7:13 am
It is currently Mon Apr 21, 2014 7:13 am



 [ 564 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 12  Next
Obvious paid editors are obvious 
Author Message
Trustee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Posts: 5185
Location: Pennsylvania
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Unread post Obvious paid editors are obvious
Just a running thread to document editors who are (fairly) clearly paid to edit, either by a client or an employer.

I'll kick it off here with a format I think will be helpful going forward:

Space Rubbish (T-C-L)
Likely COI: Employee of Jennic, then acquired by NXP Semiconductors
Disclosure: None
Unity of focus: Appears to be about 90%
Ever warned on Talk page: No
Blocked: No

_________________
"...some sort of Bond villain..."


Last edited by Alison on Tue Apr 08, 2014 8:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post title changed, per request



Thu Apr 19, 2012 5:38 pm WWW
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:10 am
Posts: 1013
Location: New York, New York
Wikipedia User: Michaeldsuarez
Wikipedia Review Member: Michaeldsuarez
Unread post Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=89

AEAA (T-C-L)
COI: Hiltzik Strategies Director: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/aurore-ankarcrona/9/ab3/b06
COI: Revised the article of her employer: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Matthew_Hiltzik&action=history
COI: Likely contracted to revised the BLP's of celebrities.
Disclosure: Once during an upload: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=upload&page=File%3ARaul_-_Wikipedia.JPG
Unity of focus: 100% of her revisions are to BLP-related.
Ever warned: Yes.
Blocked:No.

Ceekay215 (T-C-L)
Likely COI: Possible Hiltzik Strategies employee, most likely contracted to revise BLP's of celebrities.
Disclosure: None.
Unity of focus: Celebrity BLP's and films.
Ever warned: Once by Mchaeldsuarez
Blocked: No.

Thisisbigmama (T-C-L)
Likely COI: Possible Hiltzik Strategies employee, most likely contracted to revise Alec Baldwin's article.
Disclosure: None.
Unity of focus: Single-purpose account.
Ever warned: Yes.
Blocked: No.

_________________
"Wikimedia Foundation '''cannot''' host materials that infringe copyrights or are not allowed by laws - let alone instructions about how to overthrow a government."


Thu Apr 19, 2012 6:30 pm WWW
Trustee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Posts: 5185
Location: Pennsylvania
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Unread post Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
Obornp (T-C-L)
Likely COI: Patrick Oborn, Founder of Telarus
Disclosure: User page identifies as Patrick Oborn, but Telarus barely mentioned
Unity of focus: Appears to be about 90% focused on the Telarus article, or adding commentary about Telarus to other companies' articles
Ever warned on Talk page: Mildly admonished for crufting up articles with obscure lists of "indirect channel partners"
Blocked: No

_________________
"...some sort of Bond villain..."


Tue Apr 24, 2012 4:13 pm WWW
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Posts: 1842
Location: Boise, Idaho
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Unread post Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
Will Greg be outing any of his own commercially-oriented socks as part of this stimulating series?

Inquiring minds want to know...

RfB


Tue Apr 24, 2012 7:27 pm
Global Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Posts: 7483
Location: yes
Wikipedia User: EricBarbour
Unread post Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
Randy from Boise wrote:
Will Greg be outing any of his own commercially-oriented socks as part of this stimulating series?

How about some of your socks, Tim? As long as we're comparing penises.....

_________________
ImageImageImage


Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:04 pm WWW
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:41 pm
Posts: 1014
Unread post Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
EricBarbour wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:
Will Greg be outing any of his own commercially-oriented socks as part of this stimulating series?

How about some of your socks, Tim? As long as we're comparing penises.....

If you guys have your penises out anyway, snap a pic for Commons. There can never be too many penises on Commons.


Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:29 pm
Trustee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Posts: 5185
Location: Pennsylvania
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Unread post Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
Randy from Boise wrote:
Will Greg be outing any of his own commercially-oriented socks as part of this stimulating series?

Inquiring minds want to know...

RfB

I would, except that mine aren't "obvious", so they don't fall into this category.

:evilgrin:

_________________
"...some sort of Bond villain..."


Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:29 pm WWW
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Posts: 1842
Location: Boise, Idaho
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Unread post Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
EricBarbour wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:
Will Greg be outing any of his own commercially-oriented socks as part of this stimulating series?

How about some of your socks, Tim? As long as we're comparing penises.....


While I'd be happy to compare penises, the only socks I use are on my feet.

tim


Tue Apr 24, 2012 11:07 pm
Trustee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Posts: 5185
Location: Pennsylvania
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Unread post Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
Auka (T-C-L) and 12.110.141.194 (T-C-L)
Likely COI: Employee of Affinnova, and IP address is Affinnova's
Disclosure: None
Unity of focus: Appears to be about 90% focused on either (failed) multi-year attempt to get an article about Affinnova published, or adding links to Affinnova's website, or the IDDEA (T-H-L) article, which is a proprietary Affinnova product
Ever warned on Talk page: Auka, repeatedly; IP address, never
Blocked: No

_________________
"...some sort of Bond villain..."


Wed Apr 25, 2012 7:51 pm WWW
Trustee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Posts: 5185
Location: Pennsylvania
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Unread post Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
Lennartsvanberg (T-C-L) and Caroline.meyer89 (T-C-L)
Likely COI: Lennartsvanberg probable associate of or is himself Henrik Ekelund (e-mail contact at Ekelund's BTS Group is/was lennart.svanberg(at)bts.se), and Caroline Meyer is a marketing associate at BTS.
Disclosure: None
Unity of focus: Appear to be 95% focused on Henrik Ekelund (T-H-L) and BTS Group (T-H-L)
Ever warned on Talk page: Lennartsvanberg, once, for link-spamming; Caroline.meyer89, never
Blocked: No

_________________
"...some sort of Bond villain..."


Wed Apr 25, 2012 8:03 pm WWW
Global Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Posts: 7483
Location: yes
Wikipedia User: EricBarbour
Unread post Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
The Ready Set (T-H-L) and Affarista91 (T-C-L), plus Itsswanny (T-C-L) and several others.

Read that article--it looks like a press release. There's already been one barely-noticed AFD for it.
It is routinely "vandalized" in ways not typical of ordinary vandals -- more like the subjects, and their family and friends, editing it.

_________________
ImageImageImage


Thu Apr 26, 2012 5:11 am WWW
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:41 pm
Posts: 1014
Unread post Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
Check out Geosoft (T-H-L), created by Connie L Crosby (T-C-L) (and edited by one of the company's principles). It would appear that this is Connie L Crosby's website.


Fri Apr 27, 2012 8:52 pm
Witchsmeller Pursuivant
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Posts: 5167
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant
Unread post Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
Saucy.

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

I did what I did. Come get some.
I like the cut of his jib.


Mon May 07, 2012 3:17 am
Trustee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Posts: 5185
Location: Pennsylvania
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Unread post Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
One paid editor is now keeping a public log of his timesheet.

_________________
"...some sort of Bond villain..."


Mon May 07, 2012 7:43 pm WWW
Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 3:48 pm
Posts: 27
Wikipedia User: Eclipsed
Wikipedia Review Member: Eclipsed
Unread post Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
thekohser wrote:
One paid editor is now keeping a public log of his timesheet.

:B' Helps me figure out just how much time I'm spending on Wikipedia


Mon May 07, 2012 8:33 pm
Global Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Posts: 7483
Location: yes
Wikipedia User: EricBarbour
Unread post Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
Eclipsed wrote:
:B' Helps me figure out just how much time I'm spending on Wikipedia

Obviously you're extremely polite and cooperative on WP, but it's still a literal miracle that no one has abusively blocked you.
I figure it's just a matter of time. There are a few admins who would "make sport" of you, regardless of "policy".

_________________
ImageImageImage


Tue May 08, 2012 3:25 am WWW
Trustee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Posts: 5185
Location: Pennsylvania
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Unread post Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
MissyYoung (T-C-L)
Likely COI: Melissa Young is the Executive VP of Sales Engineering at the SuperNAP, a data center facility built by Switch Communications
Disclosure: None
Unity of focus: 100%
Ever warned on Talk page: No
Blocked: No

My favorite content she added to Wikipedia, no citations, of course:
Quote:
Most data centers today are faced with severe issues resulting from improper management and control of equipment-generated heat. Switch offers the most forward looking designs for space and power in the industry.


That's been sitting in the Switch Communications (T-H-L) article since June 2008, viewed approximately 600 times per month, of late.

_________________
"...some sort of Bond villain..."


Sat Jul 21, 2012 3:30 pm WWW
Critic

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 11:39 am
Posts: 186
Wikipedia User: ErrantX
Unread post Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
Good catch; addressed. Keep 'em coming :)


Mon Jul 23, 2012 9:56 am
Trustee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Posts: 5185
Location: Pennsylvania
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Unread post Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
ErrantX wrote:
Good catch; addressed. Keep 'em coming :)

It only took you about a half-hour to clean up the mess! Good job. How about the others that have been pointed out in this thread?

_________________
"...some sort of Bond villain..."


Mon Jul 23, 2012 11:30 am WWW
Trustee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Posts: 5185
Location: Pennsylvania
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Unread post Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
Jax 0677 (T-C-L)
Likely COI: User says he is "an engineer in the vehicle industry". He crafted over 90% of the article CDI Corporation (T-H-L), an engineering firm.
Disclosure: He mentions his industry affiliation on his User page.
Unity of focus: < 5% -- this guy is a true Wikipedian, covering the waterfront.
Ever warned on Talk page: Once, a speedy deletion notice
Blocked: No

What I find interesting about this item is the content of the article about CDI Corporation that was added by Jax 0677. There is a wall of text about the history of the company, which in the very last line is "sourced" to a FundingUniverse.com page about the history of CDI. While the Wikipedia content isn't copied verbatim from Funding Universe, it's very clear that only simple "rewording" is what transpired here. (By the by, Funding Universe indicates that it obtained its content about CDI from International Directory of Company Histories, Vol. 54. St. James Press, 2003.)

Some examples of the word transformations:

Funding Universe:
Quote:
In 1972 Garrison began to diversify his business by acquiring--for about $1.3 million in stock--a headhunting firm called Management Recruiters International (MRI). Unprofitable at the time of its purchase, MRI picked up steam and was soon adding offices from coast to coast, the bulk of them franchised.

Wikipedia:
Quote:
In 1972, the company purchased Management Recruiters International (MRI) for $1.3 million. Though the company was fledgling at the time of purchase, once it was acquired, offices began appearing all over the United States, most of them being franchises.



Funding Universe:
Quote:
In 1961 Garrison--who, along with his family, controlled about 45 percent of the company stock--and two colleagues bought out the languishing CDI and set about spreading the gospel of technical services. Their timing could not have been better. With a war brewing in Vietnam and the arms race roaring, government defense expenditures would soon reach levels unmatched since World War II.

Wikipedia:
Quote:
By 1961, Garrison and his family owned almost 45% of CDI Corporation. He and two colleagues bought out the remainder of CDI's shares of stock and set about to revive the fledgling company. With the Vietnam War and its subsequent arms race abounding, U.S. defense spending was set to reach record levels.




Funding Universe:
Quote:
The business of technical services was vulnerable to recession, as CDI learned in the severe downturns of 1974-75 and 1982-83, and even in the best of times was a business of paper-thin margins: 1984 revenue of $300 million yielded a paltry $7.1 million net, for example, a ratio of about 2.5 percent.

Wikipedia:
Quote:
During the recessions of 1974-1975 and 1982–1983, CDI learned that the technical services business was highly vulnerable to recession. At other times, the profit margins were quite slim, sometimes as low as 2.5%.

_________________
"...some sort of Bond villain..."


Mon Jul 23, 2012 12:59 pm WWW
Trustee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Posts: 5185
Location: Pennsylvania
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Unread post Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
Just a brief comic aside... If you're familiar with this campaign of TV commercials:

video: show



Here's the real-life Wikipedia version:

Expert: "We need info about Chicago Bridge & Iron Company, quick!"

Wikipedian: "Well, I know they have a grass roots nuclear contract in the USA."

Expert: "A 'grass roots nuclear contract'? What the hell does that even mean? Are you some sort of expert on CB&I or on nuclear power?"

Wikipedian: "No, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express on June 18, 2008."

:D

_________________
"...some sort of Bond villain..."


Tue Jul 24, 2012 6:20 pm WWW
Global Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Posts: 7483
Location: yes
Wikipedia User: EricBarbour
Unread post Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
thekohser wrote:
Expert: "We need info about Chicago Bridge & Iron Company, quick!"

Wikipedian: "Well, I know they have a grass roots nuclear contract in the USA."

Jae-sus, what a crap article. You really know how to find 'em, Greg.

_________________
ImageImageImage


Tue Jul 24, 2012 10:27 pm WWW
Trustee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Posts: 5185
Location: Pennsylvania
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Unread post Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
EricBarbour wrote:
You really know how to find 'em, Greg.

Thing is, I'm not even scratching around for them! For example, the only reason I looked up CDI was that I found out my brother-in-law's brother works for them, across the street from me in Philly. The only reason I looked up Chicago Bridge & Iron was because a friend was talking about it as a stock tip.

You can pretty much throw any Wikipedia article in front of me, and I'll find something wrong with it. If it's an article about a business, I'll also be likely to find some conflict of interest somewhere in its history.

_________________
"...some sort of Bond villain..."


Wed Jul 25, 2012 3:51 am WWW
Global Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Posts: 7483
Location: yes
Wikipedia User: EricBarbour
Unread post Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
thekohser wrote:
If it's an article about a business, I'll also be likely to find some conflict of interest somewhere in its history.

That's a quote that needs to circulate in international media: "Wikipedia's coverage of the business world is poor and contains many conflicts of interest".
But of course, Joe Six-Pack and Randy The Bungholer From Boise will find that "boring" and "not interesting". How does one make Wikipedia's abuse
(or glorification) of corporations "sexy"?

_________________
ImageImageImage


Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:17 am WWW
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:54 pm
Posts: 4606
Location: San Diego
Wikipedia User: Stanistani
Wikipedia Review Member: Zoloft
Actual Name: William Burns
Unread post Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
EricBarbour wrote:
thekohser wrote:
If it's an article about a business, I'll also be likely to find some conflict of interest somewhere in its history.

That's a quote that needs to circulate in international media: "Wikipedia's coverage of the business world is poor and contains many conflicts of interest".
But of course, Joe Six-Pack and Randy The Bungholer From Boise will find that "boring" and "not interesting". How does one make Wikipedia's abuse
(or glorification) of corporations "sexy"?

Find a family business that's struggled with defamation from Wikipedia. There's bound to be one out there. Talk to the family. Present them to a media outlet.

_________________
♪♫ Isn't it enough to know I ruined a pony making a gift for you? ♫♪


Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:30 am
Habitué
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2012 1:51 am
Posts: 1625
Wikipedia User: TungstenCarbide
Wikipedia Review Member: TungstenCarbide
Unread post Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
EricBarbour wrote:
thekohser wrote:
Expert: "We need info about Chicago Bridge & Iron Company, quick!"

Wikipedian: "Well, I know they have a grass roots nuclear contract in the USA."

Jae-sus, what a crap article. You really know how to find 'em, Greg.

Jesus, I could do better than that, and I can barely string two sentences together. Maybe I should start editing for money.


Wed Jul 25, 2012 5:17 am
Critic

Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 5:14 pm
Posts: 246
Unread post Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
NoLieMRI (T-C-L)
Likely COI: See No Lie MRI (T-H-L)
Disclosure: Does the username count as a disclosure?
Unity of focus: Edits solely on the articles for No Lie MRI and Lie detection (T-H-L)
Ever warned: No
Blocked: No

_________________
Quote:
"Unimportant. We shall conquer them when it suits us. And if we do not, what difference would it make? We can shut them out of existence. Oceania is the world."


Sun Jul 29, 2012 5:52 pm WWW
Trustee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Posts: 5185
Location: Pennsylvania
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Unread post Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
Speaking of articles written by their own User names, this has always been a very useful reference page.

_________________
"...some sort of Bond villain..."


Sun Jul 29, 2012 11:53 pm WWW
Global Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Posts: 7483
Location: yes
Wikipedia User: EricBarbour
Unread post Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
thekohser wrote:
Speaking of articles written by their own User names, this has always been a very useful reference page.

The nerds have been grinding thru it, but after 2 1/2 years, there's still a few hundred unattended violations.
And it's still hilarious that Karl Pilkington is at the bottom of the list.
He was an obscure UK comedian, but has been on HBO since January 2010.

Other than the stuff listed here and on WR, Cla68's joke offer to edit for pay, and this crap,
has anyone run across suspicions of administrators doing paid editing work?

_________________
ImageImageImage


Mon Jul 30, 2012 12:37 am WWW
Garrulous
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 3:27 am
Posts: 958
Unread post Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
EricBarbour wrote:
has anyone run across suspicions of administrators doing paid editing work?


Don't know about current ones, but one got desysoped for doing it a couple of years ago.


Mon Jul 30, 2012 4:09 pm
Garrulous
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:15 am
Posts: 601
Unread post Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
thekohser wrote:
Speaking of articles written by their own User names, this has always been a very useful reference page.

There's also this alphabetical list of Wikipedians with articles.


Tue Jul 31, 2012 1:54 am
Trustee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Posts: 5185
Location: Pennsylvania
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Unread post Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
Tippi Hadron wrote:
There's also this alphabetical list of Wikipedians with articles.

It is humorous that Mark Cuban would be counted as a "Wikipedian" on that list, considering his one day's worth of attention to Wikipedia, all related to his own biography, back in 2006.

Even worse, the Clarion Alley Mural Project apparently has a "Wikipedian" account with a User name that is against the rules of Wikipedia: CAMPSF (T-C-L). They've made all of ONE EDIT to Wikipedia, so that makes them a Wikipedian, it seems.

That entire list should be razed, and if they want to do it right, try again from scratch, but with some definition of what constitutes a "Wikipedian".

Oh, and why isn't Rachel Marsden on that list?

_________________
"...some sort of Bond villain..."


Tue Jul 31, 2012 2:29 am WWW
Global Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Posts: 7483
Location: yes
Wikipedia User: EricBarbour
Unread post Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
thekohser wrote:
Tippi Hadron wrote:
There's also this alphabetical list of Wikipedians with articles.

It is humorous that Mark Cuban would be counted as a "Wikipedian" on that list, considering his one day's worth of attention to Wikipedia, all related to his own biography, back in 2006.
Even worse, the Clarion Alley Mural Project apparently has a "Wikipedian" account with a User name that is against the rules of Wikipedia: CAMPSF (T-C-L). They've made all of ONE EDIT to Wikipedia, so that makes them a Wikipedian, it seems.
That entire list should be razed, and if they want to do it right, try again from scratch, but with some definition of what constitutes a "Wikipedian".
Oh, and why isn't Rachel Marsden on that list?

That list is utter crap. At least they put a disclaimer on it.

You'll never see a full or even a better list, as it would embarrass them greatly, of course.

_________________
ImageImageImage


Tue Jul 31, 2012 3:28 am WWW
Member Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 9:49 pm
Posts: 271
Wikipedia User: Arniep
Wikipedia Review Member: jorge
Unread post Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
Tippi Hadron wrote:
There's also this alphabetical list of Wikipedians with articles.

:blink: I can't see that great and highly notable Wikipedian User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (T-H-L) on the list. Whyever not?


Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:54 pm
Global Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Posts: 7483
Location: yes
Wikipedia User: EricBarbour
Unread post Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
Willbeheard wrote:
Tippi Hadron wrote:
There's also this alphabetical list of Wikipedians with articles.

:blink: I can't see that great and highly notable Wikipedian User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (T-H-L) on the list. Whyever not?

:D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... avid_Mertz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... tz/Archive
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... ination%29

Quote:
Keep. Questionable motivation for AFD by nominator, possible WP:WIKIHOUNDING. See also ANI thread. As far as this article itself, I am seeing a good deal of source coverage in books, news articles, web searches, and scholarly articles. Cirt (talk) 20:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Comment. To whst extent have you actually looked at the results turned up by your searches to verify that they're about the subject? For instance, in the Google scholar search, the David Mertz of this article doesn't show up until somewhere around the middle of the second page of search results, with a book cited 16 times and a voting paper cited 13 times; these are anemic numbers for WP:PROF. The first-page results are all somebody else with the same name. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep Per Cirt. LotLE×talk 20:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Keep. This is exactly the type of bullying by deletionists that is driving content writers away from Wikipedia. The Wikipedia organization needs to do something NOW to put an end to this. I reviewed the policy on why something should be deleted, and also the policy on using yourself as a source, and this article violates neither policy. As such, it should be kept, and NOT deleted. (BTW, more and more lawsuits are being filed against cyber-bullying, and based on LotLE's comment I would classify JBsupreme's reaction as such. Wikipedia needs to get their deletionists under control before the flurry of lawsuits begins.) NefariousPhD (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment Nefarious, you might want to modify your comments. I believe that threatening legal action is one way to get yourself instantly banned on Wikipedia. --MelanieN (talk) 01:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)MelanieN

Keep per Cirt, and please consider review the nominator's AfD pattern. I do not comment on the current case of possible hounding, but this, and this other nom, among others, make me wonder of the nom judgement in proposing articles for deletion. --Cyclopiatalk 21:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
KeepLooks OK to me. Peridon (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, the usual idiocy.....

But that's okay, if you search for "David Mertz", you'll find that he's spammed his own writings into a number of articles about
software development. He was smart, he used his own references to insure his continued existence in the database.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =317124047
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... d=20738708
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... d=54116594
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... d=14079901

_________________
ImageImageImage


Tue Jul 31, 2012 10:26 pm WWW
Global Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Posts: 7483
Location: yes
Wikipedia User: EricBarbour
Unread post Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
Anyone looked at our old frenemy R. Foster Winans (T-H-L) lately?

Because he, using his old (admitted) username Rfwinans, which he admitted using to manicure his own biography,
later created and provided the photo for Ji Chaozhu in May 2008, two months before Ji's memoirs were published by Random House.

Why has Winans not been blocked?

_________________
ImageImageImage


Tue Jul 31, 2012 11:01 pm WWW
Global Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:09 am
Posts: 2451
Wikipedia User: Herschelkrustofsky
Wikipedia Review Member: Herschelkrustofsky
Unread post Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
Image

_________________
In any cause that concerns the progress of mankind, put your faith in the nonconformist! - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.


Tue Aug 14, 2012 2:23 am
Trustee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Posts: 5185
Location: Pennsylvania
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Unread post Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
Vegaspackfan (T-C-L)
Likely COI: Employee of the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority, event ad agency R&R Partners, or one of the partnered Las Vegas resorts
Disclosure: None
Unity of focus: 100%
Ever warned on Talk page: Yes
Blocked: No

This one is mildly amusing in that PMDrive1061 (T-C-L) initially caught Vegaspackfan as an obvious marketing shill, but politely asked that the Las Vegas Uncork'd (T-H-L) article be properly referenced for reconsideration. Well, Vegaspackfan did re-do it, and PMDrive1061 buttered Vegas up and encouraged him to keep contributing to Wikipedia. Hah hah, Vegas was already out of there, never to return, now that his advertisement made it through.

Last year, PMDrive1061 also quit the project.

So, the final score?

Paid content 1
Productive editors -2

_________________
"...some sort of Bond villain..."


Mon Aug 27, 2012 7:00 pm WWW
Trustee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Posts: 5185
Location: Pennsylvania
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Unread post Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
Ikegami0123 (T-C-L)
Likely COI: Affiliated in some way with Ayusa International
Disclosure: None
Unity of focus: 100%
Ever warned on Talk page: Yes
Blocked: No

_________________
"...some sort of Bond villain..."


Wed Aug 29, 2012 6:08 pm WWW
Global Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Posts: 7483
Location: yes
Wikipedia User: EricBarbour
Unread post Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
These are great, Greg, but how about an estimate of how many paid editors there are?

Just take a sample of 100 random users, look at their contribs, and say what percentage are obvious.
Put that out in a press release, and I suspect more than a few journalists would notice.....the WMF
certainly would.

_________________
ImageImageImage


Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:30 pm WWW
Critic

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 11:39 am
Posts: 186
Wikipedia User: ErrantX
Unread post Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
EricBarbour wrote:
These are great, Greg, but how about an estimate of how many paid editors there are?

Just take a sample of 100 random users, look at their contribs, and say what percentage are obvious.
Put that out in a press release, and I suspect more than a few journalists would notice.....the WMF
certainly would.


Given the size of the editor pool, 100 editors would not be a sufficient sample to draw any meaningful conclusions.

I'm not opposed to the idea - it's a good one. But you'd need to sample a much larger pool or your results would be, rightfully, rejected by any sensible commentator.


Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:50 pm
Online
Trustee

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:30 am
Posts: 982
Location: EN61bw
Unread post Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
ErrantX wrote:
EricBarbour wrote:
Given the size of the editor pool, 100 editors would not be a sufficient sample to draw any meaningful conclusions.

I'm not opposed to the idea - it's a good one. But you'd need to sample a much larger pool or your results would be, rightfully, rejected by any sensible commentator.
Really? That's not consistent with what I remember about sampling theory. Not in the slightest, in fact.


Wed Aug 29, 2012 8:18 pm WWW
Critic

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 11:39 am
Posts: 186
Wikipedia User: ErrantX
Unread post Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
Kelly Martin wrote:
ErrantX wrote:
EricBarbour wrote:
Given the size of the editor pool, 100 editors would not be a sufficient sample to draw any meaningful conclusions.

I'm not opposed to the idea - it's a good one. But you'd need to sample a much larger pool or your results would be, rightfully, rejected by any sensible commentator.
Really? That's not consistent with what I remember about sampling theory. Not in the slightest, in fact.


With 100 samples - on the current editor population - the confidence interval (for 95% certainty) would be 10%. Which is massive.

1000+ begins to put you in reasonable margins of error.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_size

EDIT: the important point is the word "random", this reduces confidence in the sample at a small size because there is no mechanism to guarantee you are getting a representative sample of the dataset. Think of it this way; if you randomly call 100 people, at one person per minute (~2hrs work) starting at 10am on a weekday.... you are going to have a very narrow sample of people (people at home, awake in the morning). If you randomly call 1000 people (~16 hours work) your sample will be much more representative of the population. (this isn't a perfect example, but it demonstrates how random samples can be heavily biased)


Wed Aug 29, 2012 8:29 pm
Contributor

Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012 2:24 pm
Posts: 13
Unread post Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
Well if they are getting paid good for them. Better than doing it for free.


Wed Aug 29, 2012 8:33 pm
Garrulous
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 5:42 pm
Posts: 517
Unread post Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
EricBarbour wrote:
These are great, Greg, but how about an estimate of how many paid editors there are?

Just take a sample of 100 random users, look at their contribs, and say what percentage are obvious.
Put that out in a press release, and I suspect more than a few journalists would notice.....the WMF
certainly would.

This sounds like fun. Are we talking active editors? How many are there? Here's a useful table for choosing a sample size: http://www.research-advisors.com/tools/SampleSize.htm; one hundred probably is too small, but it's on the right order of magnitude depending on what the pararmeters are. Do you have a way to generate a random sample easily? I'm sorry if that's obvious. Is there a plain text list of all (active) editors somewhere?


Wed Aug 29, 2012 8:36 pm
Critic

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 11:39 am
Posts: 186
Wikipedia User: ErrantX
Unread post Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
Sweet Revenge wrote:
EricBarbour wrote:
These are great, Greg, but how about an estimate of how many paid editors there are?

Just take a sample of 100 random users, look at their contribs, and say what percentage are obvious.
Put that out in a press release, and I suspect more than a few journalists would notice.....the WMF
certainly would.

This sounds like fun. Are we talking active editors? How many are there? Here's a useful table for choosing a sample size: http://www.research-advisors.com/tools/SampleSize.htm; one hundred probably is too small, but it's on the right order of magnitude depending on what the pararmeters are. Do you have a way to generate a random sample easily? I'm sorry if that's obvious. Is there a plain text list of all (active) editors somewhere?


Restricting the sample to "active" users [which Wikipedia defines as someone editing within the last 30 days] will probably bias the sample (because COI editors, as we see, are often one-shot contributors). The active editor pool is 30,000 - of which 6,000 are new editors. http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/SummaryEN.htm

We could test this but I'd suggest doing a stratified (or even a quota) sample of about 800-1000 editors.

The current total editor crop is 750,000. So a random sample of 5,000500 would give a good confidence level.

Perhaps we could crowd source the investigation?

EDIT: 5,000 -> 500 (sorry all, it's a late night ;))


Last edited by ErrantX on Wed Aug 29, 2012 9:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Wed Aug 29, 2012 8:45 pm
Garrulous
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 5:42 pm
Posts: 517
Unread post Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
ErrantX wrote:
Sweet Revenge wrote:
EricBarbour wrote:
These are great, Greg, but how about an estimate of how many paid editors there are?

Just take a sample of 100 random users, look at their contribs, and say what percentage are obvious.
Put that out in a press release, and I suspect more than a few journalists would notice.....the WMF
certainly would.

This sounds like fun. Are we talking active editors? How many are there? Here's a useful table for choosing a sample size: http://www.research-advisors.com/tools/SampleSize.htm; one hundred probably is too small, but it's on the right order of magnitude depending on what the pararmeters are. Do you have a way to generate a random sample easily? I'm sorry if that's obvious. Is there a plain text list of all (active) editors somewhere?


Restricting the sample to "active" users [which Wikipedia defines as someone editing within the last 30 days] will probably bias the sample (because COI editors, as we see, are often one-shot contributors). The active editor pool is 30,000 - of which 6,000 are new editors. http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/SummaryEN.htm

We could test this but I'd suggest doing a stratified (or even a quota) sample of about 800-1000 editors.

The current total editor crop is 750,000. So a random sample of 5,000 would give a good confidence level.

Perhaps we could crowd source the investigation?


You're right about the active editor thing. I think 800 would be enough. That would give us the standard 95% confidence with 3.5% margin of error. Crowdsourcing is a must here. It'd be easy enough for one person to check 50 users, so with only 32 people involved each editor could be checked by two people.


Wed Aug 29, 2012 8:57 pm
Online
Trustee

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:30 am
Posts: 982
Location: EN61bw
Unread post Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
ErrantX wrote:
The current total editor crop is 750,000. So a random sample of 5,000 would give a good confidence level.
One of the things I distinctly remember from stat method is that the confidence interval of a random sample is, in most cases, independent of the population size. (And before posting this I found three scholarly references that state the same thing.) So where are you getting this from?


Wed Aug 29, 2012 8:59 pm WWW
Critic

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 11:39 am
Posts: 186
Wikipedia User: ErrantX
Unread post Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
Kelly Martin wrote:
ErrantX wrote:
The current total editor crop is 750,000. So a random sample of 5,000 would give a good confidence level.
One of the things I distinctly remember from stat method is that the confidence interval of a random sample is, in most cases, independent of the population size. (And before posting this I found three scholarly references that state the same thing.) So where are you getting this from?


Yes, I've not expressed my point well.

Confidence level is not meaningfully affected by population size once it is above a certain level. (hence my initial comment; the editor pool would have to be ~150 for a sample of 100 to have a guaranteed 3% confidence interval)

What I was more aiming at is that a sample of 100 is inadequate for any reasonable level of confidence.

(EDIT: I see what you were pointing out... I obviously meant 500, sorry)


Last edited by ErrantX on Wed Aug 29, 2012 9:20 pm, edited 2 times in total.



Wed Aug 29, 2012 9:10 pm
Trustee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Posts: 5185
Location: Pennsylvania
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Unread post Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious
ErrantX wrote:
(this isn't a perfect example, but it demonstrates how random samples can be heavily biased)

It's rather imperfect, in that you're conflating issues having to do with contact rates with randomness. I see your point, of course, but... remember you could have one person making those outbound calls, or you could have 100 in a call center. The randomness doesn't increase with the amount of time you take to place all of the contact calls. :dizzy:

_________________
"...some sort of Bond villain..."


Wed Aug 29, 2012 9:11 pm WWW
 [ 564 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 12  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CCBot [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware for PTF.