Obvious paid editors are obvious

Discussion of financial interests of Wikimedia and companies who contribute, or simply spend money on a Wikipedia presence.
User avatar
Poetlister
Genius
Posts: 25599
kołdry
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
Nom de plume: Poetlister
Location: London, living in a similar way

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by Poetlister » Mon Jan 26, 2015 8:19 pm

thekohser wrote:Bite also provided Jimbo with his personal assistant, Sierra Lovelace (Warner), who is now with Google.
You forgot to provide a photo of her. There's one on plus.google.com.
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche

User avatar
thekohser
Majordomo
Posts: 13410
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Location: United States

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by thekohser » Mon Jan 26, 2015 8:42 pm

Poetlister wrote:
thekohser wrote:Bite also provided Jimbo with his personal assistant, Sierra Lovelace (Warner), who is now with Google.
You forgot to provide a photo of her. There's one on plus.google.com.
I thought we decided that such documentation would be prurient, lurid, unseemly, stalkerish, distasteful, reprehensible, creepy, and shooting ourselves in the foot? What point is served if the reader is made more aware (visually) that Jimbo's personal assistants have sometimes been quite young, highly attractive females? Isn't it simply enough to inform the reader of professional qualifications, and nothing more? You don't feel that you'd be better informed with photos of Lovelace from the Delta Gamma "Anchor Splash" event from her college days, right? I certainly wouldn't enable that sort of thing!
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."

User avatar
eagle
Eagle
Posts: 1254
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 12:26 pm

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by eagle » Wed Jan 28, 2015 2:12 pm

Poetlister wrote:Actually, some of the worst COI editors are those writing about their old schools, but nobody seems to mind them.
Just take a glance at The WikiProject Universities talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =644487617) ElKevbo (T-C-L) has been fighting over-reaching COI for almost a decade.

NYUTAX (T-C-L) added material from the New York University School of Law (T-H-L) website to describe their LLM in Taxation program. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... on=history)

Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy (T-C-L) added an external link to that NYU Law School center. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... d=79044855) and created the article Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy (T-H-L)

Behack (T-C-L)'s primary focus has been Columbia Law School (T-H-L)

The list could go on forever.

User avatar
Randy from Boise
Been Around Forever
Posts: 12267
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Nom de plume: T. Chandler
Location: Boise, Idaho

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by Randy from Boise » Wed Jan 28, 2015 7:12 pm

eagle wrote:
Behack (T-C-L)'s primary focus has been Columbia Law School (T-H-L)

The list could go on forever.
Really?!?

That's the best you got? A handful of edits since 2007, only two this decade — mixing in other random topics?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:C ... ons/Behack


RfB

User avatar
thekohser
Majordomo
Posts: 13410
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Location: United States

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by thekohser » Wed Jan 28, 2015 8:02 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:Really?!?

That's the best you got?
I didn't see any claim by Eagle that that was the best he had, but you're free to imagine your own personal strawmen all you want, Randy.
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."

User avatar
Poetlister
Genius
Posts: 25599
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
Nom de plume: Poetlister
Location: London, living in a similar way

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by Poetlister » Wed Jan 28, 2015 10:11 pm

eagle wrote:Just take a glance at The WikiProject Universities talk page
I was thinking of schools (i.e. up to 18 year sold) rather than universities. Is there a WikiProject Schools?
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche

User avatar
Vigilant
Sonny, I've got a whole theme park full of red delights for you.
Posts: 31866
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:16 pm
Wikipedia User: Vigilant
Wikipedia Review Member: Vigilant

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by Vigilant » Wed Jan 28, 2015 10:19 pm

Poetlister wrote:
eagle wrote:Just take a glance at The WikiProject Universities talk page
I was thinking of schools (i.e. up to 18 year sold) rather than universities. Is there a WikiProject Schools?
If there is, Demiurge1000 is probably the headmaster...
Hello, John. John, hello. You're the one soul I would come up here to collect myself.

User avatar
JCM
Gregarious
Posts: 882
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2014 6:44 pm
Wikipedia User: John Carter
Location: Mars (duh)

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by JCM » Wed Jan 28, 2015 10:35 pm

Poetlister wrote:
eagle wrote:Just take a glance at The WikiProject Universities talk page
I was thinking of schools (i.e. up to 18 year sold) rather than universities. Is there a WikiProject Schools?
Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools (T-H-L) is actually kind of huge, and I think most of the members are pretty much navel-gazers out to create the articles on every school they ever attended, with particular attention to themselves and anything they may have ever done there, or, some legitimate editors who in the beginning wanted to make sure that the articles didn't become too much of puff pieces. Unfortunately, most schools would meet general notability guidelines, and as indicated there is a real problem of editors wanting to built memorials to themselves and their friends and family in them.

User avatar
Randy from Boise
Been Around Forever
Posts: 12267
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:32 am
Wikipedia User: Carrite
Wikipedia Review Member: Timbo
Actual Name: Tim Davenport
Nom de plume: T. Chandler
Location: Boise, Idaho

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by Randy from Boise » Wed Jan 28, 2015 10:45 pm

JCM wrote:
Poetlister wrote:
eagle wrote:Just take a glance at The WikiProject Universities talk page
I was thinking of schools (i.e. up to 18 year sold) rather than universities. Is there a WikiProject Schools?
Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools (T-H-L) is actually kind of huge, and I think most of the members are pretty much navel-gazers out to create the articles on every school they ever attended, with particular attention to themselves and anything they may have ever done there, or, some legitimate editors who in the beginning wanted to make sure that the articles didn't become too much of puff pieces. Unfortunately, most schools would meet general notability guidelines, and as indicated there is a real problem of editors wanting to built memorials to themselves and their friends and family in them.
There are actually some pretty exacting rules of thumb about schools.

* High schools are presumed notable if their existence can be demonstrated. (Akin to populated places, mountains, rivers, highways, etc.)
* Elementary and junior high schools are presumed non-notable unless their particular and special importance can be successfully argued. These are redirected to the school district of which they are a part.

Just counting sources for GNG doesn't cut it in the case of schools — it's a special low bar for secondary schools and a special high bar for elementary schools that has evolved at Articles for Deletion, not formally defined in the guidelines.

RfB

User avatar
JCM
Gregarious
Posts: 882
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2014 6:44 pm
Wikipedia User: John Carter
Location: Mars (duh)

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by JCM » Wed Jan 28, 2015 11:00 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:
JCM wrote:
Poetlister wrote:
eagle wrote:Just take a glance at The WikiProject Universities talk page
I was thinking of schools (i.e. up to 18 year sold) rather than universities. Is there a WikiProject Schools?
Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools (T-H-L) is actually kind of huge, and I think most of the members are pretty much navel-gazers out to create the articles on every school they ever attended, with particular attention to themselves and anything they may have ever done there, or, some legitimate editors who in the beginning wanted to make sure that the articles didn't become too much of puff pieces. Unfortunately, most schools would meet general notability guidelines, and as indicated there is a real problem of editors wanting to built memorials to themselves and their friends and family in them.
There are actually some pretty exacting rules of thumb about schools.

* High schools are presumed notable if their existence can be demonstrated. (Akin to populated places, mountains, rivers, highways, etc.)
* Elementary and junior high schools are presumed non-notable unless their particular and special importance can be successfully argued. These are redirected to the school district of which they are a part.

Just counting sources for GNG doesn't cut it in the case of schools — it's a special low bar for secondary schools and a special high bar for elementary schools that has evolved at Articles for Deletion, not formally defined in the guidelines.

RfB
I think those rules were probably primarily developed by that project itself and the more reasonable editors there who didn't want to see other editors trace their entire academic career path in whole series of articles. The guidelines they've developed make sense, In that regard, it may have actually made itself one of the more useful and productive projects out there. If only the groups dealing with Pseudoscience and some of the babble associated with it were to be as effective.

User avatar
Johnny Au
Habitué
Posts: 2620
Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2014 5:05 pm
Wikipedia User: Johnny Au
Actual Name: Johnny Au
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by Johnny Au » Thu Jan 29, 2015 1:22 am

Even Springfield Elementary School does not have its own Wikipedia article, despite it being much more notable (albeit one that is fictional) than the vast majority of real world high schools.

User avatar
The Joy
Habitué
Posts: 2606
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:20 am
Wikipedia Review Member: The Joy

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by The Joy » Sun Feb 01, 2015 4:07 am

Poetlister wrote:
eagle wrote:Just take a glance at The WikiProject Universities talk page
I was thinking of schools (i.e. up to 18 year sold) rather than universities. Is there a WikiProject Schools?
I wish I had written down my "experiment," but a few months ago, I randomly checked several university Wikipedia pages. Some had substantial edits by certain accounts that had an obvious COI (i.e. university marketing heads etc.). A few even used their real names! You may have to dig deep into the article history to find them, though.
"In the long run, volunteers are the most expensive workers you'll ever have." -Red Green

"Is it your thesis that my avatar in this MMPONWMG was mugged?" -Moulton

User avatar
Zoloft
Trustee
Posts: 14113
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:54 pm
Wikipedia User: Stanistani
Wikipedia Review Member: Zoloft
Actual Name: William Burns
Nom de plume: William Burns
Location: San Diego

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by Zoloft » Sun Feb 01, 2015 4:20 am

The Joy wrote:
Poetlister wrote:
eagle wrote:Just take a glance at The WikiProject Universities talk page
I was thinking of schools (i.e. up to 18 year sold) rather than universities. Is there a WikiProject Schools?
I wish I had written down my "experiment," but a few months ago, I randomly checked several university Wikipedia pages. Some had substantial edits by certain accounts that had an obvious COI (i.e. university marketing heads etc.). A few even used their real names! You may have to dig deep into the article history to find them, though.
Just remember, if I punch a guy in the face it's assault and battery; if I punch him several times, it's aggravated assault; if I come up with a theory about what punching him will do, punch him a number of times, write down the time and effects in a notebook, and make a chart - it's science. We want science.

My avatar is sometimes indicative of my mood:
  • Actual mug ◄
  • Uncle Cornpone
  • Zoloft bouncy pill-thing


User avatar
eagle
Eagle
Posts: 1254
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 12:26 pm

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by eagle » Sun Feb 01, 2015 8:05 pm

Zoloft wrote:Just remember, if I punch a guy in the face it's assault and battery; if I punch him several times, it's aggravated assault; if I come up with a theory about what punching him will do, punch him a number of times, write down the time and effects in a notebook, and make a chart - it's science. We want science.
There are lies, damn lies and Wikipedia articles.

If I unknowingly violate policy that is a bannable offense. If an unnamed friend of some Arbs creates the appearance of a disruptive SOCK that is permissible humor. linkviewtopic.php?f=14&t=5860[/link] If some people attempt to trick Jimbo into shutting down Wikiversity, that is a "breaching experiment."linkhttp://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikivers ... ikiversity[/link]

Progression of three items in increasing magnitude can become an acceptable literary form.

User avatar
SB_Johnny
Habitué
Posts: 4640
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 1:26 am
Wikipedia User: SB_Johnny
Wikipedia Review Member: SB_Johnny

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by SB_Johnny » Mon Feb 02, 2015 12:06 am

eagle wrote:There are lies, damn lies and Wikipedia articles.
Yes.

There are lies, damn lies and Wikipedia articles.
This is not a signature.

EricBarbour
 
Posts: 10891
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Location: hell

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by EricBarbour » Thu Feb 05, 2015 8:17 am

Ncomputing (T-H-L), thanks to Akcbsb (T-C-L), Cvoisine (T-C-L), Ngphuc2k (T-C-L), Vinmasald (T-C-L) and probably several others.

It fails to mention that Ncomputing is going down the drain......
http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_ ... le-is-sale

User avatar
Notvelty
Retired
Posts: 1780
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:51 am
Location: Basement

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by Notvelty » Sat Feb 07, 2015 2:26 am

SB_Johnny wrote:
eagle wrote:There are lies, damn lies and Wikipedia articles.
Yes.

There are lies, damn lies and Wikipedia articles.

Yes, Minister.
-----------
Notvelty

User avatar
thekohser
Majordomo
Posts: 13410
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Location: United States

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by thekohser » Mon Feb 09, 2015 1:27 pm

I've been sitting on this one for years.

Venndiagram8 (T-C-L)

She's a NYC-based social media strategist and content generator. I won't give her real name here, out of respect for concerns that Wikipediocracy is unnecessarily a "doxxing" site. But, I'll make this claim... If at least several of her major article contributions to Wikipedia were not in exchange for payment and undisclosed, I'll make a $50 donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. And the most recent big one, POBA - Where the Arts Live (T-H-L), was done without any disclosure of a conflict of interest, so what are we to conclude? That she just popped into Wikipedia after a month off, to create a fancy article from scratch? WP:AGF tells us that is what we should assume.

But I have evidence that says otherwise.

This is the problem with Wikipedia's Terms of Use regarding disclosure of paid editing. Anyone can get away with disobeying it, deny that they ever knew about the policy, and anyone who "outs" them looks like a bad guy, which I admit, that is how I look right now.
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."

User avatar
Notvelty
Retired
Posts: 1780
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:51 am
Location: Basement

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by Notvelty » Tue Feb 10, 2015 12:06 am

thekohser wrote:I've been sitting on this one for years.

Venndiagram8 (T-C-L)

She's a NYC-based social media strategist and content generator. I won't give her real name here, out of respect for concerns that Wikipediocracy is unnecessarily a "doxxing" site. But, I'll make this claim... If at least several of her major article contributions to Wikipedia were not in exchange for payment and undisclosed, I'll make a $50 donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. And the most recent big one, POBA - Where the Arts Live (T-H-L), was done without any disclosure of a conflict of interest, so what are we to conclude? That she just popped into Wikipedia after a month off, to create a fancy article from scratch? WP:AGF tells us that is what we should assume.

But I have evidence that says otherwise.

This is the problem with Wikipedia's Terms of Use regarding disclosure of paid editing. Anyone can get away with disobeying it, deny that they ever knew about the policy, and anyone who "outs" them looks like a bad guy, which I admit, that is how I look right now.
Is interesting that she didn't just come up with a new name, rather than renaming another social media account.
-----------
Notvelty

User avatar
HRIP7
Denizen
Posts: 6953
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 2:05 am
Wikipedia User: Jayen466
Wikipedia Review Member: HRIP7
Actual Name: Andreas Kolbe
Location: UK

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by HRIP7 » Wed Feb 11, 2015 11:19 am

Wikipedia user TUNdiscounts (T-C-L) creates the Wikipedia article The University Network (TUN) (T-H-L) at Articles for creation, where it is accepted and transferred into article space by Graeme Bartlett (T-C-L). I can see no disclosure in TUNdiscounts' edit history – not on their user page (non-existent), nor in an edit summary, nor in a talk page comment.

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use have really made a difference, haven't they?

User avatar
thekohser
Majordomo
Posts: 13410
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Location: United States

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by thekohser » Wed Feb 11, 2015 11:50 am

HRIP7 wrote:Wikipedia user TUNdiscounts (T-C-L) creates the Wikipedia article The University Network (TUN) (T-H-L) at Articles for creation, where it is accepted and transferred into article space by Graeme Bartlett (T-C-L). I can see no disclosure in TUNdiscounts' edit history – not on their user page (non-existent), nor in an edit summary, nor in a talk page comment.

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use have really made a difference, haven't they?
And that corporate User name! Is Orangemike taking a nap, or something?
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."

User avatar
Jim
Blue Meanie
Posts: 4955
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 10:33 am
Wikipedia User: Begoon
Wikipedia Review Member: Jim
Location: NSW

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by Jim » Wed Feb 11, 2015 1:09 pm

thekohser wrote:Orangemike taking a nap
See? I told you it was possible to post an image without posting an image.

But here's one anyway:
Image

User avatar
Johnny Au
Habitué
Posts: 2620
Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2014 5:05 pm
Wikipedia User: Johnny Au
Actual Name: Johnny Au
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by Johnny Au » Wed Feb 11, 2015 4:39 pm

HRIP7 wrote:Wikipedia user TUNdiscounts (T-C-L) creates the Wikipedia article The University Network (TUN) (T-H-L) at Articles for creation, where it is accepted and transferred into article space by Graeme Bartlett (T-C-L). I can see no disclosure in TUNdiscounts' edit history – not on their user page (non-existent), nor in an edit summary, nor in a talk page comment.

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use have really made a difference, haven't they?
The article is up for deletion.

EricBarbour
 
Posts: 10891
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Location: hell

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by EricBarbour » Wed Feb 18, 2015 2:44 am

From a friend:

> MacKeeper is worse than a dose of clap. It follows you around the Internet appearing without warning. Note the comments on MacUpdate:
> http://www.macupdate.com/app/mac/33710/mackeeper

If it's so evil, why does Macupdate keep it on their servers?

And why don't these "customers" look at the wonderful, magical Wikipedia?
MacKeeper (T-H-L)

Created in 2012 by QuentinAdam (T-C-L), who is almost certainly a paid editor for ZeoBit.

Later edited by Jeremiah2012 (T-C-L), almost certainly another paid editor for ZeoBit.
People added material about MacKeeper's malware tendencies, and he kept removing it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =513854652

Thence edited by Labattblueboy (T-C-L), who fought with Jeremiah2012 over any statements of a negative nature. By 2013 MacKeeper's true nature was unavoidable. Jeremiah gave up in mid-2013, and Labattblueboy was left "in charge" of the article. And it became more and more negative. Occasional "questionable accounts" popped up thru 2014 and attempted to remove the "Reviews", Labattblueboy reverted them. Occasionally someone would add more negative statements to the article, yet Labattblueboy would usually revert them as well, claiming "not reliable sources" (they usually linked to a discussion on the Apple forum which warned people away from MacKeeper).

They call that WP:OWN, I think.

User avatar
thekohser
Majordomo
Posts: 13410
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Location: United States

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by thekohser » Wed Feb 18, 2015 9:58 pm

Obrienmedia301 (T-C-L)
Likely COI: Probably Patrick O'Brien, owner of O'Brien Media and Digital Director for FOX 11 KTTV-TV in Los Angeles. He used to live in the 301 area code, about the time the Wikipedia account was created.
Disclosure: None
Unity of focus: Appears to be about 90% related to KTTV programming
Ever warned on Talk page: A couple of image rights warnings
Blocked: No

Reason I discovered this guy, who seems like a nice fellow, is that he uploaded a professional photo of Maria Sansone (T-H-L), which replaced a photo that Jimbo had personally removed (without explanation) from her biography way back when.
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."

User avatar
tarantino
Habitué
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:19 pm

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by tarantino » Fri Feb 20, 2015 2:41 am

Ddosguru (T-C-L)
He is Jeffrey Lyon, DDoS mitigation guru.
Image
Disclosure: None
Unity of focus: Around 95%
Ever warned: No

He created the article about the company he founded, Black Lotus (company) (T-H-L), and "Removes promotional content" from a competing company's article, Cloudflare.

Information forwarded to me by a friend.

User avatar
thekohser
Majordomo
Posts: 13410
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Location: United States

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by thekohser » Fri Feb 20, 2015 4:07 am

tarantino wrote:He created the article about the company he founded, Black Lotus (company) (T-H-L)
It's major competitors include Prolexic and Verisign.
He's a great writer.
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."

User avatar
thekohser
Majordomo
Posts: 13410
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Location: United States

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by thekohser » Sat Feb 21, 2015 11:18 pm

thekohser wrote:
EricBarbour wrote:Bleacher Report (T-H-L)
Looks like it was written by software, doesn't it? Rigidly formatted, mechanistic, question-and-answer.
That being said, the section on Public relations is not kind to the enterprise.

Interesting that Vivek Wadhwa was cited as one of Bleacher Report's worst critics. I wonder if he is related to Kul Wadhwa, head of mobile services at the WMF. They both list San Francisco as their locales, and they are linked to each other on Google+. It looks like Vivek could be Kul's older brother.
Jimbo's working to help out Vivek Wadhwa now, by removing huge chunks of criticism of Wadhwa, under the rationale that "it hardly seems worth mentioning".

Somebody cue Barbra Streisand.
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."

User avatar
tarantino
Habitué
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:19 pm

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by tarantino » Sun Feb 22, 2015 1:58 am

thekohser wrote: Jimbo's working to help out Vivek Wadhwa now, by removing huge chunks of criticism of Wadhwa, under the rationale that "it hardly seems worth mentioning".

Somebody cue Barbra Streisand.
New user Vaqab (T-C-L), who's made 115 edits in a little more than one day since their account was created, has made nine edits to that bio. They also created Amelia Greenhall (T-H-L) with their second edit. Half of that bio is about Greenhall's criticism of Wadhwa.

EricBarbour
 
Posts: 10891
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
Location: hell

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by EricBarbour » Mon Feb 23, 2015 5:24 am

tarantino wrote:New user Vaqab (T-C-L), who's made 115 edits in a little more than one day since their account was created, has made nine edits to that bio. They also created Amelia Greenhall (T-H-L) with their second edit. Half of that bio is about Greenhall's criticism of Wadhwa.
Which Mr. Cole removed shortly after you posted it.

Hex
Retired
Posts: 4130
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:40 pm
Wikipedia User: Scott
Location: London

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by Hex » Thu Feb 26, 2015 11:15 am

RichFaces (T-H-L), about some enterprise software doohickey made by JBoss (company) (T-H-L), part of Red Hat, Inc. (T-H-L). Created in June 2008 by MikeVSorokin (T-C-L). Could he be a JBoss developer, by any chance, do we guess? Why yes, we guessed correctly.
Someone on the JBoss Developer RichFaces bug tracker wrote: It'll be good to write some overview article on Wikipedia, richfaces.ru and etc. about RF
No warnings about conflicts of interest on his user talk page, just automated notifications about the images he uploaded to accompany the article not having the correct copyright tags.

I didn't look very far into the history of the JBoss article, beyond noticing a large addition of text from
66.187.233.207 (T-C-L). It should surprise nobody to learn that that IP belongs to Red Hat, Inc..
My question, to this esteemed Wiki community, is this: Do you think that a Wiki could successfully generate a useful encyclopedia? -- JimboWales
Yes, but in the end it wouldn't be an encyclopedia. It would be a wiki. -- WardCunningham (Jan 2001)

User avatar
thekohser
Majordomo
Posts: 13410
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Location: United States

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by thekohser » Thu Feb 26, 2015 1:22 pm

Hex wrote:RichFaces (T-H-L), about some enterprise software doohickey...
From Wikipedia's RichFaces article:
Ajax filter - In order get all benefits of RichFaces, a developer should register a filter in the web.xml file of the application. The filter recognizes multiple request types.
Also from Wikipedia:
Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not an instruction manual, guidebook, or textbook. Wikipedia articles should not read like:

Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places and things, an article should not read like a "how-to" style owner's manual, advice column (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestion box. This includes tutorials, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes. Describing to the reader how people or things use or do something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use or do something is not.[4]
I'm glad we cleared that up.
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."

User avatar
thekohser
Majordomo
Posts: 13410
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Location: United States

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by thekohser » Thu Feb 26, 2015 1:35 pm

This user doesn't look suspicious at all.
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."

User avatar
NotNormal
Critic
Posts: 129
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 3:57 am
Wikipedia User: morning277
Actual Name: Mike Wood
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by NotNormal » Thu Feb 26, 2015 4:04 pm

Looks like Ms. Garner is lying in wait to help out Jimbo with his whitewashing of Wadhwa - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =648399192. Not a substantial contribution, but enough to tip her hand.
Mike Wood a.k.a morning277 a.k.a whatever in the hell Wikipedia editors want to call me today.

User avatar
eppur si muove
Habitué
Posts: 1997
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 1:28 pm

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by eppur si muove » Thu Feb 26, 2015 4:57 pm

thekohser wrote:Also from Wikipedia:
Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not an instruction manual, guidebook, or textbook. Wikipedia articles should not read like:

Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places and things, an article should not read like a "how-to" style owner's manual, advice column (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestion box. This includes tutorials, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes. Describing to the reader how people or things use or do something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use or do something is not.[4]
I'm glad we cleared that up.
Well, if we're quoting Wikipedia
Larousse Gastronomique (pronounced: [la.ʁus ɡas.tʁɔ.nɔ.mik]) is an encyclopedia of gastronomy. The majority of the book is about French cuisine, and contains recipes for French dishes and cooking techniques. The first edition included few non-French dishes and ingredients; later editions include many more.
I hope we're now clear about Wikipedia's stance on whether encyclopaedias contain recipes.

User avatar
The Adversary
Habitué
Posts: 2466
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 9:01 am
Location: Troll country

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by The Adversary » Fri Feb 27, 2015 8:32 pm

Completely unrelated (Assume Good Faith!):

Linkedin profile of Bianca Violante: "Social Media and Corporate Communications at DaVita,"

Biavio (T-C-L): " Hi there. biavio is Bianca Violante, a Maryland-born gal who attended college in West Virginia and moved to Colorado in 2010. biavio is Bianca's handle on many of her social media accounts, including Twitter and Instagram."

Wikipedia article: DaVita (T-H-L) (tagged since nov, 2013: "This article appears to be written like an advertisement")

Main contributor: Biavio (T-C-L) (The "DaVita"-article is the only one she has edited.)

User avatar
thekohser
Majordomo
Posts: 13410
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Location: United States

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by thekohser » Fri Feb 27, 2015 8:36 pm

The Adversary wrote:Stuff about Bianca...
If you start harassing editors like Bianca, how do you ever expect the WMF to overcome that gender gap problem? In other words, why do you hate Sue Gardner so much?

:rotfl:
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."

User avatar
The Adversary
Habitué
Posts: 2466
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 9:01 am
Location: Troll country

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by The Adversary » Fri Feb 27, 2015 8:39 pm

thekohser wrote:
The Adversary wrote:Stuff about Bianca...
If you start harassing editors like Bianca, how do you ever expect the WMF to overcome that gender gap problem? In other words, why do you hate Sue Gardner so much?

:rotfl:
Why do you hate Jimbo so much, he´s a man, isn´t he? Don´t you feel any solidarity??

I looked into the above due to this thread: I wanted to see if one editor mentioned there, Rosiestep (T-C-L), had a COI.
She didn´t. (She also works for DaVita). But looking into DaVita-history, I found Bianca. :dry:

User avatar
Zoloft
Trustee
Posts: 14113
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:54 pm
Wikipedia User: Stanistani
Wikipedia Review Member: Zoloft
Actual Name: William Burns
Nom de plume: William Burns
Location: San Diego

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by Zoloft » Sat Feb 28, 2015 4:59 am

The Adversary wrote:
thekohser wrote:
The Adversary wrote:Stuff about Bianca...
If you start harassing editors like Bianca, how do you ever expect the WMF to overcome that gender gap problem? In other words, why do you hate Sue Gardner so much?

:rotfl:
Why do you hate Jimbo so much, he´s a man, isn´t he? Don´t you feel any solidarity??

I looked into the above due to this thread: I wanted to see if one editor mentioned there, Rosiestep (T-C-L), had a COI.
She didn´t. (She also works for DaVita). But looking into DaVita-history, I found Bianca. :dry:
Turning over rocks, you never quite know what you'll find.

My avatar is sometimes indicative of my mood:
  • Actual mug ◄
  • Uncle Cornpone
  • Zoloft bouncy pill-thing


User avatar
thekohser
Majordomo
Posts: 13410
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Location: United States

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by thekohser » Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:43 pm

In the news for the past few days, Comcast is thinking about a deal with VisibleWorld (T-H-L). If you've never heard of VisibleWorld, then Wikipedia is where you'd go to find out more, right?

Article created in 2006 by Rmain (T-C-L). If that's not an employee of a PR firm, I will eat my hat. He's basically only ever edited Wikipedia at length about VisibleWorld, various brands of hand sanitizer, Frais Luxury Products, Home Shopping Network host Vonabell Sherman, and Fred Hollows Reserve.

Then there's heavy SPA editor, Joemcgurkwiki (T-C-L), active in August 2011 -- that's when Joe McGurk was a VP at Rubenstein Public Relations, which was VisibleWorld's PR firm at the time.

And just last October 2014 (months after the "Terms of Use" prohibition on undisclosed paid editing), we saw RebeccaRVW (T-C-L) working on VisibleWorld. Yes, you may assume that the "VW" doesn't stand for Volkswagen, if that happens to be Rebecca Rozakis. But don't worry, Rozakis doesn't work for VisibleWorld any more -- she works for Kaltura. Remember them, old timers?
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."

User avatar
thekohser
Majordomo
Posts: 13410
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Location: United States

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by thekohser » Tue Mar 03, 2015 1:52 pm

About to have a conversation with a consulting firm, whose Wikipedia articles about the company and about its CEO seem to have been written by an employee or a PR contractor.
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."

User avatar
thekohser
Majordomo
Posts: 13410
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Location: United States

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by thekohser » Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:00 pm

One organization currently waging a policy assault against my employer is Free Press (organization) (T-H-L). Of course I am therefore biased, so dismiss this if you wish. But, anyone could count the obvious paid editors and/or single-purpose accounts at work on their Wikipedia article.

70.21.127.178 (T-C-L) - IP address near the organization headquarters
Youshouldask (T-C-L) - Not sure, but is probably CTSI employee Marly Hazen McQuillen who attended a Free Press conference shortly before contributing to Wikipedia's article about it (and her undergraduate school, and her employer). She copy-pasted a substantial portion of copyrighted material from Save The Internet to Wikipedia.
Petercarey (T-C-L) - SPA
173.52.79.24 (T-C-L) - SPA
Hshapirofp (T-C-L) - SPA, note "fp" in user name
Psaxfp (T-C-L) - SPA, note "fp" in user name
24.5.230.26 (T-C-L) - SPA
WilsonComm (T-C-L) - Mentored by Neelix (T-C-L) (David Mark Purdy) through the Public Policy Initiative, funded by our friends at the Stanton Foundation.
Mcclel71 (T-C-L) - Another Public Policy Initiative editor
Banksbr2 (T-C-L) - Another Public Policy Initiative editor
Celinejesse (T-C-L) - SPA
Hcshapiro (T-C-L) - SPA, not to be confused with Hshapirofp
Esmerelda14 (T-C-L) - SPA
RobynZee (T-C-L) - SPA
Matilda16 (T-C-L) - SPA
Coriander12 (T-C-L) - SPA
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."

User avatar
thekohser
Majordomo
Posts: 13410
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Location: United States

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by thekohser » Fri Mar 13, 2015 5:45 pm

If you have a really difficult subject like Network Functions Virtualization (T-H-L), would you want an expert writing it, or someone like Fram or David Gerard or me writing it?

Personally, I'd want an expert. So, it's a good thing that SPA Ckolias (T-C-L) (Christos Kolis) launched the Wikipedia article. And it's being helped along by SPAs Ggaron (T-C-L) (CEO of ASOCS (T-H-L)), Thewiggler235 (T-C-L), and Sardella26 (T-C-L) (technology marketing pro, Alan Sardella).

Anyone who says that these experts should stay away from that article, just because their careers may be enhanced by expanding content about NFV, is quite foolish, if you ask me. (I'm looking at you, Jimbo.)
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."

User avatar
Poetlister
Genius
Posts: 25599
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
Nom de plume: Poetlister
Location: London, living in a similar way

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by Poetlister » Sat Mar 14, 2015 9:01 am

According to his talk page, Ggaron tried and failed to create an article "Accelerated System On Chip Solutions - ASOCS Ltd."; a blatant attempt at COI editing has been foiled and Wikipedia has not been damaged. Hurrah!
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche

User avatar
thekohser
Majordomo
Posts: 13410
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Location: United States

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by thekohser » Sat Mar 14, 2015 12:46 pm

Poetlister wrote:According to his talk page, Ggaron tried and failed to create an article "Accelerated System On Chip Solutions - ASOCS Ltd."; a blatant attempt at COI editing has been foiled and Wikipedia has not been damaged. Hurrah!
Well, sure... that was May 2013. Then in June 2013, he (probably) hired a paid editor to create ASOCS (T-H-L) instead. I mean, if you look at Wikpoint (T-C-L)'s contributions, he pretty much fiddles here and there, then goes super-intense on GetTaxi (T-H-L), Moshe Revach (T-H-L), and ASOCS (T-H-L), with months of down time in between!
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."

User avatar
Poetlister
Genius
Posts: 25599
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:15 pm
Nom de plume: Poetlister
Location: London, living in a similar way

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by Poetlister » Sun Mar 15, 2015 11:46 am

If he was paid for Moshe Revach (T-H-L), it's a very sloppy job. All he needed to do was lift the article from the Hebrew Wikipedia. I'd say he's just an intermittent enthusiast.
"The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly" - Nietzsche

User avatar
thekohser
Majordomo
Posts: 13410
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Location: United States

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by thekohser » Sun Mar 15, 2015 12:23 pm

Poetlister wrote:...it's a very sloppy job.
Have you ever seen the Freelancer and eLance profiles of some paid Wikipedia editors?
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."

User avatar
DanMurphy
Habitué
Posts: 3155
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 11:58 pm
Wikipedia User: Dan Murphy
Wikipedia Review Member: DanMurphy

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by DanMurphy » Tue Mar 17, 2015 12:48 pm

Came across a guy today (Austin Texas-based Republican campaign operative working for Netanyahu on the Israeli election).

Vincent Harris (political strategist) (T-H-L)‎. Reads like a bio from his website and that's because that's what it is.

Righty 2012 (T-C-L) started it in 2011. Righty has only edited this article.
Was polished a bit by LibandJustice (T-C-L) who was blocked in 2014 for being a shared account of Blakemore & Associates, another conservative political consultancy group in Texas

Latest edit was by ATXdigital (T-C-L), adding an "own work" picture of Harris at his office. The account's second of two edits total to Wikipedia.

Other recent polishers include VictoryStatus2014 (T-H-L) (all edits to the Harris article but for this one requesting help with plagiarism in a draft article on Blakemore & Associates' founder) and WinningIn2016! (T-C-L) (only edit to the article). Etc...

The article is very positive and I'm sure it is useful for Mr. Harris' business. It has 25 "references." It does not mention Harris' comments on Wikipedia this January.
Wiki errors can linger, GOP digital campaign guru Vincent Harris said, because politicians and their staffers are “fix-shy.” Folks in and around D.C. are “cautious to a fault,” said Harris, whose Austin-based firm was poached in November by Paul’s operation after he came to prominence by helping Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, win his dark-horse Senate primary in 2012. Politicians tend to want staffers, when they spot Wikipedia errors, to “get it fixed now. The issue, of course, is that changes have to be made by someone with credentials in the community and who isn't simply a mouthpiece for the specific individual or brand. So it's very tricky, but very important. Wikipedia is commonly a top 10 referrer of traffic to my client sites.”

... There are workarounds that can escape prying watchdog eyes. “I personally have accounts that we manage that are active in the [Wikipedia] community that we make changes with,” Harris said. Such stealth ways “are used a lot.”
So stealthy!

Hex
Retired
Posts: 4130
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:40 pm
Wikipedia User: Scott
Location: London

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by Hex » Tue Mar 24, 2015 10:39 pm

Speaking of yoga, ever heard of Professor DeRose (T-H-L)? No, me neither. He invented something called the "DeRose Method". Don't expect to find out what that actually is, because the title redirects back to this article. But it does, helpfully, link directly to the Amazon page for an ebook about it, by the esteemed "Professor" himself. How handy!

The "DeRose Method" is actually called SwáSthya Yôga (T-H-L). Both articles were heavily edited by 86.139.208.231 (T-C-L), aka DeRose London (T-C-L) and, briefly, Derosemethod (T-C-L). In 2010 someone put it up for deletion. The result was DeRose disciples turning up to defend the article on their master - see Talk:Master DeRose (T-H-L) and Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion/Master DeRose (T-H-L).
My question, to this esteemed Wiki community, is this: Do you think that a Wiki could successfully generate a useful encyclopedia? -- JimboWales
Yes, but in the end it wouldn't be an encyclopedia. It would be a wiki. -- WardCunningham (Jan 2001)

User avatar
thekohser
Majordomo
Posts: 13410
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:07 pm
Wikipedia User: Thekohser
Wikipedia Review Member: thekohser
Actual Name: Gregory Kohs
Location: United States

Re: Obvious paid editors are obvious

Unread post by thekohser » Thu Mar 26, 2015 4:12 pm

KMJAzar (T-C-L)
Likely COI: At the time article about Nominum (T-H-L) was published, Karim Azar was Marketing Communications Manager at Nominum.
Disclosure: None
Unity of focus: 100%
Ever warned on Talk page: No
Blocked: No
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."