EthicalWiki

Michaeldsuarez · Unread post by **Michaeldsuarez** » Tue Jul 24, 2012 5:31 pm

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-07-23/Op-ed

What are your thoughts on "EthicalWiki"?

Also in this week's Signpost:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-07-23/Paid_editing

Edit: It seems as if the people running "Did you know..." don't do a very good job of checking articles for notability and quality:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Did_you_know_nominations/EthicalWiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Recent_additions/2012/July#22_July_2012

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#EthicalWiki (permalink)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/EthicalWiki

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Tue Jul 24, 2012 6:39 pm

Michaeldsuarez wrote:What are your thoughts on "EthicalWiki"?

My thought is that it's pretty freakin' hilarious that the guy (David King) who founded EthicalWiki and has an annoying habit of sounding like he's the biggest know-it-all on how to "ethically" engage on Wikipedia... WROTE AND PUBLISHED HIS OWN ARTICLE ABOUT HIS COMPANY, which goes against most Wikipedia guidelines and policies on conflict-of-interest editing.

What a tool.

Oh, and it's also funny that while the 'pediots discuss whether or not the article can stay, one thing they'll make sure of is to remove any journalistic reference to my writing on Examiner.com! So, at least that's one constant on Wikipedia.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Tue Jul 24, 2012 7:11 pm

thekohser wrote:
Michaeldsuarez wrote:What are your thoughts on "EthicalWiki"?
My thought is that it's pretty freakin' hilarious that the guy (David King) who founded EthicalWiki and has an annoying habit of sounding like he's the biggest know-it-all on how to "ethically" engage on Wikipedia... WROTE AND PUBLISHED HIS OWN ARTICLE ABOUT HIS COMPANY, which goes against most Wikipedia guidelines and policies on conflict-of-interest editing.

What a tool.

Oh, and it's also funny that while the 'pediots discuss whether or not the article can stay, one thing they'll make sure of is to remove any journalistic reference to my writing on Examiner.com! So, at least that's one constant on Wikipedia.

About a year or a little longer ago I tried to run up a link to an Examiner.com piece in a WP piece and found out that it was on some sort of black list of sites. Not sure why, but the software wouldn't let me leave a live link in the footnotes...

RfB

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Tue Jul 24, 2012 7:39 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:About a year or a little longer ago I tried to run up a link to an Examiner.com piece in a WP piece and found out that it was on some sort of black list of sites. Not sure why, but the software wouldn't let me leave a live link in the footnotes...

RfB

You're really "not sure why"? How long have you been on Wikipedia?

Let me help you with an answer.

One Wikipedia loophole is to leave the "http://" out of the link. It won't form a hyperlink, but you can publish non-active links to Examiner that way.

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Tue Jul 24, 2012 8:15 pm

thekohser wrote:
Randy from Boise wrote:About a year or a little longer ago I tried to run up a link to an Examiner.com piece in a WP piece and found out that it was on some sort of black list of sites. Not sure why, but the software wouldn't let me leave a live link in the footnotes...

RfB
You're really "not sure why"? How long have you been on Wikipedia?

Let me help you with an answer.

One Wikipedia loophole is to leave the "http://" out of the link. It won't form a hyperlink, but you can publish non-active links to Examiner that way.

That's some funny stuff right there. It implies that Wikipedia blacklists all sites that have no reputation for editorial control. Paging Mr. Wales, Mr. Wales to the white courtesy phone...

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Tue Jul 24, 2012 8:33 pm

Oh, and ethical wiki dyk got to the main page thanks to that loveable lunk Randy "Pumpkinsky" Everett (nee "Rlevse"). He's one of my favorites as an example of the hamster wheel that is "editor conduct" interventions (as opposed to, you know, making underlying changes that would actually improve things).

Michaeldsuarez · Unread post by **Michaeldsuarez** » Tue Jul 24, 2012 8:55 pm

Randy from Boise wrote:About a year or a little longer ago I tried to run up a link to an Examiner.com piece in a WP piece and found out that it was on some sort of black list of sites. Not sure why, but the software wouldn't let me leave a live link in the footnotes...

RfB

examiner.com has been blacklisted since October 2009:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2009_Nobel_Peace_Prize&diff=320100460&oldid=320064027

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&diff=320105605&oldid=320062488

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/October_2009#Examiner.com

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist&diff=322349641&oldid=322293221

Michaeldsuarez · Unread post by **Michaeldsuarez** » Sun Jul 29, 2012 1:33 pm

The AfD discussion apparently caused an user to retire:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWoz2&diff=504619901&oldid=504506231

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/EthicalWiki&diff=504727094&oldid=503993908

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Mon Jul 30, 2012 12:00 am

Michaeldsuarez wrote:The AfD discussion apparently caused an user to retire...

I wonder if Woz2 is one of King's secret paid editors, for when they can't get traction for a client using the "ethical" approach?

David King · Unread post by **David King** » Sat Jan 04, 2014 6:37 pm

While I am aware that a lot of people see Wikipediocracy as a forum for griping by blocked editors, I was surprised to see a banned user and potential competitor saying false and misleading things to smear my reputation. Casual readers may read this string under the false assumption that the comments are made by a credible editor in good-standing, rather than a competitor notorious for trolling.

Though I will say the firm was still under-developed a year ago when this string was started. Now-a-days most of our client articles are brought up to the "Good Article" standard and I've gotten a lot of positive feedback from the community.

-David King, EthicalWiki

dogbiscuit · Unread post by **dogbiscuit** » Sat Jan 04, 2014 7:15 pm

David King wrote:While I am aware that a lot of people see Wikipediocracy as a forum for griping by blocked editors, I was surprised to see a banned user and potential competitor saying false and misleading things to smear my reputation. Casual readers may read this string under the false assumption that the comments are made by a credible editor in good-standing, rather than a competitor notorious for trolling.

Though I will say the firm was still under-developed a year ago when this string was started. Now-a-days most of our client articles are brought up to the "Good Article" standard and I've gotten a lot of positive feedback from the community.

-David King, EthicalWiki

David, firstly welcome.

Having known Greg through this site and its predecessor for several years I know a couple of things:

Being banned by Wikipedia is not considered a stain on someone character nor is it an indicator of their reliability. Greg is not only honest but can justify his statements and will admit to error on the occasions where he finds he has made a mistake.

One man's trolling is another man's means of bringing facts that are hidden about the corruption within Wikipedia, led by Jimbo, to light.

So I think you need to justify your suggestion that you have not edited articles about your own interests and that Greg is commenting on you with the aim of damaging a competitor. With regard to the latter, I very much doubt that Greg is interested in competing, which generally makes me form the impression that you have inflated sense of people's interest in you.

You are welcome to make your case here, but do not assume that people will take your word over Greg's on your say so, you need to provide some convincing evidence.

David King · Unread post by **David King** » Sat Jan 04, 2014 7:53 pm

The burden of proof lies with the accuser. The bolder the claim the higher the standard of poof that is needed.

He "wonders" if Woz2, who has 8,000+ edits, is some kind of covertly sponsored co-conspirator in a paid editing scam. On what basis is his "curiosity" piqued? What possible "proof" could anyone provide one way or another? And how is it that a baseless conspiracy theory with no evidence requires evidence against it?

-David

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Sat Jan 04, 2014 8:02 pm

David King wrote:The burden of proof lies with the accuser. The bolder the claim the higher the standard of poof that is needed.

He "wonders" if Woz2, who has 8,000+ edits, is some kind of covertly sponsored co-conspirator in a paid editing scam. On what basis is his "curiosity" piqued? What possible "proof" could anyone provide one way or another? And how is it that a baseless conspiracy theory with no evidence requires evidence against it?

-David

I see that in David's America, we citizens are no longer allowed to wonder aloud. I guess my hunch was wrong here, and thankfully for the good of Wikipedia, the "retirement" of Woz2 only lasted 4 months. Sorry, Mr. King. You still wrote your company's own Wikipedia article, all while saying you're "ethical". Run that past Jimbo, and let us know what he says.

Regardless, here's my "standard of poof", for you, Mr. King.

Unread post by **tarantino** » Sat Jan 04, 2014 8:07 pm

Woz2 (T-C-L) says he's Colin Warwick on his user page. Colin is a product marketing manager at Agilent Technologies. A small percentage of his edits would be considered conflict of interest editing.

David King · Unread post by **David King** » Sat Jan 04, 2014 8:22 pm

It is not unethical to write a Wikipedia article on your own company, especially if done in user-space as was done here. There is also nothing wrong with Woz2 noticing the article in user space and putting it into article-space, even after I told him it was previously declined at AfC. It just so happens to have been a bad edit in that particular case, not due to any corruption on anybody's part, but because every editor makes mediocre edits now and then.

What is unethical is using Wikipedia for covert advertising and censorship, not disclosing a financial connection as required by the FTC's disclosure laws, or in the worst of cases, mis-representing a financial connection, violating Wikipedia's terms of use.

Of course that first one of not using Wikipedia for advertising or whitewashing is the most difficult, because it can be done to a mild extent accidentally and even while following Bright Line or Bright Line(ish) strategies. It is also open to interpretation and can only be evaluated in the context of a specific article. Many cos behave in an extremely unethical fashion, but don't necessarily know better.

-David

Bottled_Spider · Unread post by **Bottled_Spider** » Sat Jan 04, 2014 8:26 pm

David King wrote:...... the higher the standard of poof that is needed.

Dear-oh-dear.....

So you're CorporateM (T-C-L)? Must say I love the "I contribute to Wikipedia relatively equally in both a volunteer and a marketing role" thing. Relatively, of course.

Unread post by **Midsize Jake** » Sat Jan 04, 2014 8:32 pm

David King wrote:The bolder the claim the higher the standard of poof that is needed.

You need a standard of poof?

Personally, I probably would have assumed that Woz2 was acting independently, but it does look a little fishy. So why no flat-out denial? Do you think it's beneath you? Maybe it is... or maybe you don't even know?

David King · Unread post by **David King** » Sat Jan 04, 2014 8:36 pm

I have no financial connection with Woz2. Yes, it is a bit odd that I would have to "deny" it, when there is no reason to assume it in the first place...

-David

Bottled_Spider · Unread post by **Bottled_Spider** » Sat Jan 04, 2014 8:42 pm

David King wrote:I have no financial connection with Woz2. Yes, it is a bit odd that I would have to "deny" it, when there is no reason to assume it in the first place...

Well, there is a reason for the average, interested bystander to assume it. The question is whether or not it's true. To be honest you don't seem to be absolutely sure yourself. Hey, I'm just sayin'.

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Sat Jan 04, 2014 9:02 pm

Welcome to the forum David.

I don't believe our members questioning your business model will much bother your competitive standing.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Sat Jan 04, 2014 9:08 pm

Zoloft wrote:I don't believe our members questioning your business model will much bother your competitive standing.

Yes, David has walked the ultimate tightrope, and survived.

When you've got clueless Wikipedians defending your paid editing from other paid editors, you're golden.
Plus helping to get rid of your critics.

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Sat Jan 04, 2014 9:23 pm

David King wrote:I have no financial connection with Woz2. Yes, it is a bit odd that I would have to "deny" it, when there is no reason to assume it in the first place...

-David

Well, you did have public discussions with him about the ins and outs of paid editing, as far back as March 2012. And here's Colin sniffing about on your blog in July 2012. One could be forgiven to have perhaps assumed that maybe a "reciprocal back scratching" relationship developed from that point.

Unread post by **tarantino** » Sat Jan 04, 2014 9:30 pm

Midsize Jake wrote: You need a standard of poof? :huh:

No pooftahs!

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Sat Jan 04, 2014 10:02 pm

David, I am curious -- is there some particular (non-financial, of course) connection between you, Colin Warwick (Woz2), and Brian Halligan and HubSpot?

Also, it does appear that Woz2 is simply a habitual article-space-enabler of paid content, so I was probably off-base on my musing that maybe he had a financial interest in helping get EthicalWiki into the article space. He's just an unpaid "buddy" of the paid editing guys, is that more it?

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Fri Feb 07, 2014 7:06 pm

It's kind of weird how CorporateM kind of buzzed right on out of here, once the direct questions came his way.

Mancunium · Unread post by **Mancunium** » Fri Feb 07, 2014 7:50 pm

thekohser wrote:It's kind of weird how CorporateM kind of buzzed right on out of here, once the direct questions came his way.

It's kind of weird that he didn't respond to this thread: link

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Fri Feb 07, 2014 11:49 pm

thekohser wrote:It's kind of weird how CorporateM kind of buzzed right on out of here, once the direct questions came his way.

It's the "Wikipedia Way". Get caught doing something, run and hide until it blows over.

Don't be afraid, David! We don't hate you, we just want to understand you......

thekohser · Unread post by **thekohser** » Mon Nov 17, 2014 11:40 am

David King seems to be scheming to find new ways to muscle out his competition among paid editors. Perhaps his next article work can be on Tortious interference (T-H-L), or "intentionally intermeddling with the business affairs of others".

Here he is...

== List of banned users ==

I just now discovered that the list of banned users page has been deleted. The reasons sound very reasonable and compelling. However, I wanted to tell someone if they are considering hiring a Wikipedia service (I do some such contributing), to check the vendor against the list and avoid using paid editing vendors that are banned by the community. I was wondering if you know of any way this could still be done? Is there a category or a list or any record anywhere I can link to of banned paid editing services? I guess the list would probably not be very long as typically accounts are blocked and admins don't know what vendor they are from. [[User:CorporateM|CorporateM]] ([[User_talk:CorporateM|Talk]]) 16:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course, he is referring to the list of banned users that we discussed here.

Does anyone really think that this Wikipedia article-for-creation was written out of the goodness of David's heart? Of course not -- he disclosed that it wasn't. But when his buddy John Broughton (author of Wikipedia: The Missing Manual) copies it into Wikipedia -- poof! -- the disclosure statement disappears, and the reader has no foggy idea that this is a paid editing article (unless they click on the Talk page and scan down to the fourth camouflaged box of comments). What percentage of readers even click through to the Talk page? 3.4% in this case.

Sidereal · Unread post by **Sidereal** » Mon Nov 17, 2014 5:31 pm

This just looks like a way to monetise business people's ignorance of things which really aren't that hard to learn or do yourself if you put the appropriate amount of resources into it and define clear objectives. A.k.a 'consultancy'. The only possible value this company could offer is entirely unethical - teaching businesses how to spot and ultimately counter all the underhand ways individual Wikipedian's get around their own policies, in ways that themselves are entirely within policy.

Wikipediocracy

EthicalWiki

EthicalWiki

Re: EthicalWiki

Re: EthicalWiki

Re: EthicalWiki

Re: EthicalWiki

Re: EthicalWiki

Re: EthicalWiki

Re: EthicalWiki

Re: EthicalWiki

Re: EthicalWiki

Re: EthicalWiki

Re: EthicalWiki

Re: EthicalWiki

Re: EthicalWiki

Re: EthicalWiki

Re: EthicalWiki

Re: EthicalWiki

Re: EthicalWiki

Re: EthicalWiki

Re: EthicalWiki

Re: EthicalWiki

Re: EthicalWiki

Re: EthicalWiki

Re: EthicalWiki

Re: EthicalWiki

Re: EthicalWiki

Re: EthicalWiki

Re: EthicalWiki

Re: EthicalWiki