Editors-for-hire on Wikipedia

[HRIP7]

Emma Jacobs, Financial Times, Editors-for-hire on Wikipedia

The article is behind a paywall. Features comments from Katherine Maher, Mike Wood of LegalMorning, Dariusz Jemielniak and others and a mention of the Roth and Stierch affairs.

[thekohser]

The writer's quote on the tweeted image doesn't really make sense. A mixed metaphor, at best.

[DanMurphy]

The writer's quote on the tweeted image doesn't really make sense. A mixed metaphor, at best.

I'd say it's simply idiotic and thoughtless.

[Jim]

The writer's quote on the tweeted image doesn't really make sense. A mixed metaphor, at best.

I'd say it's simply idiotic and thoughtless.

It makes no sense at all. Whether an editor is paid to contribute content is utterly unrelated to whether a reader has to pay to read it.
Ironically, I can't read the article to see if it's better than the "Twitline" without setting up a subscription. There's a trial offer, but meh, credit cards etc...

[DanMurphy]

The writer's quote on the tweeted image doesn't really make sense. A mixed metaphor, at best.

I'd say it's simply idiotic and thoughtless.

It makes no sense at all. Whether an editor is paid to contribute content is utterly unrelated to whether a reader has to pay to read it.
Ironically, I can't read the article to see if it's better than the "Twitline" without setting up a subscription. There's a trial offer, but meh, credit cards etc...

I have an office subscription to the FT. But having read that pull-quote, the thought of laboring to find where I saved the password and then painstakingly cutting and pasting it into the field there is just too much.

[Randy from Boise]

It's utterly hilarious that these deep, deep thoughts about the relationship of free vs. unfree content on the internet are paywalled.

RfB

[thekohser]

I have a screen shot of the complete article. I don't think anyone was missing a great deal. These sorts of stories kind of write themselves; and of course, there's rarely a mention of how the Wikimedia Foundation has been hypocritical in how it's failed to tend to most paid editing or COI editing incidents that might reflect poorly on the Foundation.

E-mail me if you want a peek at the screen shot.

[Zoloft]

I have a subscription and read the article.

It's not very well researched.

The pull quote in complete form:

The free versus paid dispute goes to the heart of the debate about whether content on the internet should be open to all, without charge. Jimmy Wales, the online encyclopedia’s co-founder, has said it is his mission to “distribute a free encyclopedia to every single person on the planet in their own language”.

Twaddle.

Her contact info: emma.jacobs@ft.com

Perhaps we should politely reach out to her and give her a bit more on paid editing.

[Zoloft]

I have a PDF of the article. I of course will not publish it, but I am keeping it as a record.

[EricBarbour]

Someone posted it on their blog:

http://nicosiamoneynews.com/2015/02/26/ ... wikipedia/

Looks okay to me, although we'd all like to see more details and examples, of course. Just be glad the FT is running something other than "Jimbo Magic".

[mac]

Features comments from Katherine Maher, Mike Wood of LegalMorning, Dariusz Jemielniak and others and a mention of the Roth and Stierch affairs.

Someone posted it on their blog:

http://nicosiamoneynews.com/2015/02/26/ ... wikipedia/

Looks okay to me, although we'd all like to see more details and examples, of course. Just be glad the FT is running something other than "Jimbo Magic".

Wikipedia’s beauty is that it is free, according to Katherine Maher, chief communications officer at Wikimedia. “Paid editing disrupts the values. Wikipedia is a volunteer collaborative community. If it was paid it would be a different site.

Oh, that Katherine Maher:

[Zoloft]

Features comments from Katherine Maher, Mike Wood of LegalMorning, Dariusz Jemielniak and others and a mention of the Roth and Stierch affairs.

Someone posted it on their blog:

http://nicosiamoneynews.com/2015/02/26/ ... wikipedia/

Looks okay to me, although we'd all like to see more details and examples, of course. Just be glad the FT is running something other than "Jimbo Magic".

Wikipedia’s beauty is that it is free, according to Katherine Maher, chief communications officer at Wikimedia. “Paid editing disrupts the values. Wikipedia is a volunteer collaborative community. If it was paid it would be a different site.

Oh, that Katherine Maher:

Also and especially this Maher: linkviewtopic.php?f=14&t=4295[/link]

[HRIP7]

I thought that quote missed the mark, too. There's one other error – the article says that "In 2013, an investigation by the Wikimedia Foundation discovered hundreds of users were involved in so-called "black hat" practices, in other words, promoting clients." (I've pointed out to Ms Jacobs on Twitter that this was an investigation by volunteers and that the WMF does not involve itself in such cases, leaving it to the community, and sent her the link to the related Daily Dot article. She acknowledged the input.) The rest of the article was fine, I thought.