Jimmy Wales and "paid advocacy editing"

[thekohser]

I might comment on this a bit more later, but I just saw that Jimmy Wales is a douchebag. He is complete scum. I feel sorry for anyone close to him.

[Randy from Boise]

I might comment on this a bit more later, but I just saw that Jimmy Wales is a douchebag. He is complete scum. I feel sorry for anyone close to him.

He really pisses you off, we all know...

How about the backstory? How did you first bump into him and how did things get so bitter?

tim

[thekohser]

How about the backstory? How did you first bump into him and how did things get so bitter?

tim

That's already been showcased on another forum. I tried for days and weeks to be very polite and gracious with Jimbo, to get some clarification of the discrepancies between what he told me to do with MyWikiBiz, and what "the community" seemed to be developing as a new policy. He responded with curt, condescending, threatening tone. It all went downhill from there.

Remember, Wales apologized eventually for how harshly he handled our first engagements.

Now he wants to forget all that and stand by his being a complete dickhead. Whatever. He still thinks I'm "banned" on Wikipedia. Let him think that.

[enwikibadscience]

He responded with curt, condescending, threatening tone.

He still thinks I'm "banned" on Wikipedia. Let him think that.

The typical editor tone on en.Wikipedia; yet they keep doing surveys and studies to figure out why they can't keep editors.

One of the idiotts (sic) at DYK or GAC thinks I'm banned.

Curt, condescending, threatening idiots.

The question isn't how they keep losing editors, but, rather, how they have any at all.

[Triptych]

I might comment on this a bit more later, but I just saw that Jimmy Wales is a douchebag. He is complete scum. I feel sorry for anyone close to him.

It bears quoting, immediately below.

I have not changed my opinion from 2006, but it has been misunderstood and misrepresented here. I made the comment "absolutely unacceptable, sorry" as a specific response to a specific proposal from a specific user - one which has been borne out over the years by community consensus continuing to ban the editor in question. To interpret a private comment from email as a general policy pronouncement is deeply mistaken.

"Community consensus continuing to ban the editor" in the absence of periodic review is like asserting that the dead stay buried year after year by the will of the villagers. It's not like they're capable of going anywhere, even if, looking back, they were loved or valued or proved right after all. "Consensus" is the most horribly abused word at Wikipedia, it is so abused that Social Services should send out an abuse counselor and take it into protective custody. Jimbo is indeed full of it and self-servedly distorting language. But that is the hallmark of the administrative class. I used to think, not having read enough of him, that Jimbo was some wise executive figure at Wikipedia, but he's got neither the fortitude nor the disposition for it, nor even the willingness really to apply intellect to address decisions and comments in a rule-based or logic-based way. But he's no executive, he's more of a Wikipedia mascot. With the throat beard and wild eyes, he even resembles some sort of furry mascot.

I find Jimbo's speech pompous "to interpret a private comment from email as a general policy pronouncement is deeply mistaken." He's annoying, and suitable only to hang out with his twelve little arbitrators, unwilling and probably incapable of taking a bold stand ("founder bit?" really?), and more and more gets pushed around at his own talkpage by the likes of Charmlet, Fram, and Tarc.

[thekohser]

Here we go! Jimbo has now been called into a problematic article, where a paid editor (hiding under a new User account) is trying to follow the "Bright Line Rule". The article in question is Ramtha's School of Enlightenment (T-H-L), which should make for some comic relief. Not surprisingly, the Bright Line Rule practitioner attempted to engage on the Talk page way back on August 2, 2013. Not getting any help from "the community" that Jimbo assures is responsive and helpful, the guy tried again on October 2, with a detailed list of things he'd like to see rewritten.

He got some traction for a couple of weeks, but then the assistance just petered out. So, he turns to Jimbo for help, and Jimbo's response? Something to the effect of, "I will give a tiny bit of attention to this for a couple of minutes, but I sure hope that one or two of my minions will help you with this piece of crap article topic that I really don't want to get involved with, and for God's sake, let's hope this goes away, because it just points out how painfully slow and unhelpful is the Bright Line Rule process for normal businesses, if even a crazy religious cult can't garner sufficient attention."

[EricBarbour]

I find Jimbo's speech pompous

He must have caught a Pomposity Virus from Newyorkbrad.

[Vigilant]

I find Jimbo's speech pompous

He must have caught a Pomposity Virus from Newyorkbrad.

It's going around over there.

[thekohser]

Jimbo's Bright Line Rule successfully helps yet another COI editor! Thank you, Jimbo, for your 90 minutes of time.

Next!

[thekohser]

Wow, Jimbo's critics don't even give him the day off on Thanksgiving Friday. Here is yet another case of a Wikimedia Foundation sponsor disobeying the Bright Line Rule, repeatedly. Poor Jimmy Wales -- nobody is listening to your very, very important (and simple!) mandates about editing Wikipedia. Boo hoo.

(I'll also add that Europeana (T-H-L) is a bunch of content almost entirely referenced to self-published Europeana sources. Can anyone find an independent third-party source that covers Europeana in detail? Well, if they can, they haven't utilized it in the Wikipedia article.)

Heads up, "Deleted by Jimbo" thread -- this one is probably headed your way, soon!



Extra for experts: This is one angry Dutchman.

Watch this video, if you want to hear a Wikipediot clone. (Also, check out the comments.) Looks like we have another non-profit, tax-supported boondoggle.

[thekohser]

Holy smokes, it looks like every Wikimedia Foundation blog post features another allied business, product, or organization that has been editing Wikipedia with a conflict of interest.

Case in point... LilyPond (T-H-L).

[thekohser]

I wonder what this was all about?

[EricBarbour]

Do you realize there's now close to THREE TIMES as much censorship of Jimbotalk this year as there was in 2012?

[thekohser]

Paid editing? Basically just as bad as child pornography.

[Midsize Jake]

Basically just as bad as child pornography.

I guess if we wanted to be charitable, we might say this was an attempt at "subtle irony"...?

This person, Mr. Coretheapple (T-C-L), has a decent-enough point in that by all rights this is indeed a problem that affects the WMF's reputation and not the reputations of users (who essentially have no reputations per se), but I'm also on record as saying the average reader doesn't make (or even know of) the distinction between the two. Also, there's a reason why Wikipedians don't like to publicly admit that they're Wikipedians outside of the WP context, and he's only making that reason more valid by drawing an implied comparison with child pornography.

Perhaps more importantly, the WMF isn't going to get into the "trenches" to stop paid editors, even if they do add explicit language to their ToS to try to prohibit them from doing it (and possibly make a legal case for prosecuting people who try). The WMF is going to have The (Unpaid) Faithful do their work for them like they always do, so saying "it's the WMF's problem" is like saying it's the government's problem when the country is attacked. If it's a problem at all, then it's everyone's problem, regardless of whose responsibility it is to deal with it.

IMO it would be a much more interesting (and useful?) discussion to speculate on what would happen if they made such a change and were then sued for having done it, particularly if the complainant had really deep pockets.

But either way, I'm sure The Faithful wouldn't mind taking on yet another hard-rule responsibility if the Foundation changes the ToS. They would naturally see it as another weapon to use against other users, and hey, more weapons = more game-points = more fun!

[thekohser]

I wonder if it would be interesting if I could produce an e-mail from Erik Moeller to me in August 2006, where Erik said:

it's a tricky situation. Jimmy is all about appearance -- I don't
think he really cares strongly about the real conflict of interest
issue, but he doesn't want articles in Wikipedia that show up with
"MyWikiBiz" as the user who created them. Next thing he knows,
there'll be a media editorial about it, and he really doesn't want
that. I think you should use
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP%3AAFC
for now.

[HRIP7]

I wonder if it would be interesting if I could produce an e-mail from Erik Moeller to me in August 2006, where Erik said:

it's a tricky situation. Jimmy is all about appearance

Well, he got that right.

[thekohser]

This person, Mr. Coretheapple (T-C-L), has a decent-enough point in that by all rights this is indeed a problem that affects the WMF's reputation and not the reputations of users (who essentially have no reputations per se)

One of the funniest things I've seen on Wikipedia in a long time, involves Coretheapple. You have to start here, then just go through each of the next 50 or 60 diffs, one by one, to see the comedy unveil itself.

[Midsize Jake]

One of the funniest things I've seen on Wikipedia in a long time, involves Coretheapple. You have to start here, then just go through each of the next 50 or 60 diffs, one by one, to see the comedy unveil itself.

Backtracking is fun! Particularly given that Wikipedia makes it so easy to do...

And FWIW, I'd probably semi-agree with Gene93k (T-C-L) in that the article should just be merged to Reliance Communications (T-H-L), if not left alone.

[EricBarbour]

One of the funniest things I've seen on Wikipedia in a long time, involves Coretheapple. You have to start here, then just go through each of the next 50 or 60 diffs, one by one, to see the comedy unveil itself.

Dammit, stop finding these things. I have to write him up now.....

[thekohser]

Jimmy Wales is painfully stretching this whole "Wikipedia would be wonderful if we could just get rid of the paid advocacy editors" schtick.

The only way to get more quality is to engage more kind and thoughtful minds. The way to do that is to welcome them, and to protect them from various kinds of trouble makers, including paid advocates (who have a vested interest in minimizing participation).

Sorry, Dimmy, but what are you getting on about? Do you really believe that Wikipedia lacks kind and thoughtful editors because they've been discouraged or driven away by professional content writers who try to slip in and get out as quickly and quietly as possible?

[Midsize Jake]

Sorry, Dimmy, but what are you getting on about? Do you really believe that Wikipedia lacks kind and thoughtful editors because they've been discouraged or driven away by professional content writers who try to slip in and get out as quickly and quietly as possible?

It's bad enough that he's so delusional as to think "the only way to get more quality is to engage more kind and thoughtful minds." Uh, no, not only is that not the only way, it would actually be pretty far down on the list of possible ways.

That said, is it possible that there's a measurable number of professional content writers posting things on Wikipedia who are belligerent and abusive, particularly towards new Wikipedia registrants? I doubt it - I suspect Jimbo is lumping ideologues, political extremists, and self-promoters in with "paid advocates." In fact, I suspect Jimbo has deluded himself into thinking that all, or nearly all, people who behave badly on Wikipedia are "paid advocates" at this point, regardless of their background or raison d'etre - even though it's transparently obvious that this isn't true. Fighting an unwinnable battle that never ends will do that to you, I'm afraid.

[Poetlister]

While sensible paid advocates will of course try to keep under the radar, I expect there are one or two who resort to bullying and aggressive wikilawyering. But they are only a drop in the bucket.

[HRIP7]

Jimmy Wales is painfully stretching this whole "Wikipedia would be wonderful if we could just get rid of the paid advocacy editors" schtick.

The only way to get more quality is to engage more kind and thoughtful minds. The way to do that is to welcome them, and to protect them from various kinds of trouble makers, including paid advocates (who have a vested interest in minimizing participation).

Sorry, Dimmy, but what are you getting on about? Do you really believe that Wikipedia lacks kind and thoughtful editors because they've been discouraged or driven away by professional content writers who try to slip in and get out as quickly and quietly as possible?

You could probably make some sort of argument that the antics of Wiki-PR for example and all the work required to try and fix their articles were corrosive to Wikipedian morale. That particular case led to at least one bureaucrat's resignation, and I wouldn't be surprised if a few other people had lost enthusiasm for Wikipedia for similar reasons. Fixing obviously promotional content is very dull work.

[dogbiscuit]

Jimmy Wales is painfully stretching this whole "Wikipedia would be wonderful if we could just get rid of the paid advocacy editors" schtick.

The only way to get more quality is to engage more kind and thoughtful minds. The way to do that is to welcome them, and to protect them from various kinds of trouble makers, including paid advocates (who have a vested interest in minimizing participation).

Sorry, Dimmy, but what are you getting on about? Do you really believe that Wikipedia lacks kind and thoughtful editors because they've been discouraged or driven away by professional content writers who try to slip in and get out as quickly and quietly as possible?

You could probably make some sort of argument that the antics of Wiki-PR for example and all the work required to try and fix their articles were corrosive to Wikipedian morale. That particular case led to at least one bureaucrat's resignation, and I wouldn't be surprised if a few other people had lost enthusiasm for Wikipedia for similar reasons. Fixing obviously promotional content is very dull work.

What percentage of Wikipedia relates to companies or their products? What amount of non-product related articles get contaminated by product placement? What amount of biographies (living or otherwise) are subject to paid PR?

Jimbo's problem is partly of his own making. He is creating an image of Wikipedia being infested with destructive paid goons, whereas Wikipedia's problem is more that there are massive unpopulated swathes of wasteland. If he over-eggs this pudding then real amateur enthusiasts will be driven away, not because they have been in contact with paid advocates, but because Jimbo says that they are endangering the project and they believe it and get their freetard knickers in a twist over it. After all Wikipedia is a faith, and if the leader suggests that the church is tainted with non-believers, then the believers will be less inclined to go to church.

Anyhow, we know Jimbo's real problem is not "advocacy" it is "paid" - he never gets the same enthusiasm for the real problem characters on Wikipedia, the ones who are determined to alter and damage the knowledge presented to the world for their own personal reasons.

[thekohser]

What percentage of Wikipedia relates to companies or their products? What amount of non-product related articles get contaminated by product placement? What amount of biographies (living or otherwise) are subject to paid PR?

Depending what you count as an article that is about a "company" or a "product" (e.g., is an article about the Tennessee Titans (T-H-L) related to a "company" or not?), it's somewhere between 4% and 12% of all Wikipedia articles. I don't have an answer to your second question. I'd say that the living biographies are subject to much more paid PR than the dead-person biographies.

More detailed data on company and product article origins on Wikipedia can be found here. Probably 30% to 50% of Wikipedia articles about businesses have either been created by or most heavily edited by someone who has a conflict of interest or single-purpose in writing about the subject.

[Kelly Martin]

Depending what you count as an article that is about a "company" or a "product" (e.g., is an article about the Tennessee Titans (T-H-L) related to a "company" or not?), it's somewhere between 4% and 12% of all Wikipedia articles.

Surely it's much higher, given all the content that there is about individual television shows, music, books, comic books, video games, and other such content, almost all of which is commercial content and thus counts as a "product".

[NotNormal]

Jimmy Wales is painfully stretching this whole "Wikipedia would be wonderful if we could just get rid of the paid advocacy editors" schtick.

I'm sure you've heard me rant about this before, but if he wants to get rid of paid advocacy, adding additional terms of use is not going to do it. Get rid of the bureaucracy and paid advocacy would wind down to a slow crawl. Most of my clients come to me after being chewed up and spit out for trying to edit the site. Not for SPAM, not for poor writing, but simply trying to edit a site that has so many rules they cannot understand them; and, instead of someone befriending them, they end up with a warning or banishment as a result of their effort. More money for me, more headaches for Jimbo.

Any by the way, Greg is being very gracious with his usage of terms for Jimbo. He's an ass, plain and simple. If only he would embrace the whole community and not just those who fall at their knees to worship him.

Also, Jim (he hates that I hear) is losing the battle with paid advocacy editing. He acts like Nasser during the six day war, telling the press how they send cease and desist letters, ban editors, change terms of use. He's losing, but somehow has convinced himself and the media that he is in total control of the situation...........Forget it. I think I'm gonna throw up now!

[Vigilant]

Jimmy Wales is painfully stretching this whole "Wikipedia would be wonderful if we could just get rid of the paid advocacy editors" schtick.

I'm sure you've heard me rant about this before, but if he wants to get rid of paid advocacy, adding additional terms of use is not going to do it. Get rid of the bureaucracy and paid advocacy would wind down to a slow crawl. Most of my clients come to me after being chewed up and spit out for trying to edit the site. Not for SPAM, not for poor writing, but simply trying to edit a site that has so many rules they cannot understand them; and, instead of someone befriending them, they end up with a warning or banishment as a result of their effort. More money for me, more headaches for Jimbo.

Any by the way, Greg is being very gracious with his usage of terms for Jimbo. He's an ass, plain and simple. If only he would embrace the whole community and not just those who fall at their knees to worship him.

Also, Jim (he hates that I hear) is losing the battle with paid advocacy editing. He acts like Nasser during the six day war, telling the press how they send cease and desist letters, ban editors, change terms of use. He's losing, but somehow has convinced himself and the media that he is in total control of the situation...........Forget it. I think I'm gonna throw up now!

The battle with paid editors was lost a long, long time ago.
It's as futile as trying to hold back the sea.

Every cult needs its bogeymen to hold the faithful to the wheel.

[Capsot]

Hi everyone,
I was just reading the thread and saw what Greg was saying about Europeana some time ago... Here is a link kind of criticizing Europeana. Sorry it's in French, if you need some help in translating just tell me.
Have a nice day, afternoon/evening or night,
Claudi/Capsot

[sparkzilla]

I'm sure you've heard me rant about this before, but if he wants to get rid of paid advocacy, adding additional terms of use is not going to do it. Get rid of the bureaucracy and paid advocacy would wind down to a slow crawl.

It's completely stupid to stop motivated editors from working on pages, and can only lead to a further degradation in the site's quality. But the problem is not with the bureaucracy.

The problem would be solved by creating a proper editorial approval system that assesses edits based solely on their content. It simply should not matter who makes the edit. However, Wiki-style "anyone can edit" software simply is not made that way. Instead of dealing with the problem at the data level, they deal with it at the user level. It's easier to blame the people using the software than the software itself. The thinking is: Our software is perfect why aren't you living up to it? This kind of digital utopianism infects the whole of Wikipedia.

As an example of a different approach, I am moving to fully-anonymous assessment of edits on my site: At the time of assessment editors will not know who created the edits, and writers will not know who approved the edits. Edits are solely assessed on their merits. This means it is practically impossible for someone to bully or pressure another editor. It also means that COI and PR edits are welcome, as they are treated like any other edit. I also pay everyone for their contributions, even if they are already being paid to post.

[thekohser]

I also pay everyone for their contributions, even if they are already being paid to post.

Is your budget for compensating content contributors smaller than your actual revenues? Otherwise, you are just giving away free money, which anyone can pretty much do and look like what you're doing is "popular".

[thekohser]

...saw what Greg was saying about Europeana some time ago...

This run-down of Europeana owning its content on Wikipedia was truly a classic facial-disgracial on Jimbo.

[sparkzilla]

Is your budget for compensating content contributors smaller than your actual revenues? Otherwise, you are just giving away free money, which anyone can pretty much do and look like what you're doing is "popular".

Over time the cost of content creation is less than the revenues, otherwise we would not be doing the project. Right now we are paying out real cash to create content but the site is still growing so revenues are low. In case you are wondering, the money comes from investors. As time goes on we will reach a break even point where the revenues exceed the cost. I expect to spend many millions of dollars in payments to writers (there are 650,000 biographies on Wikipedia, to do them all (which won't be necessary) to a decent standard on Newslines would cost $65 million, which seems like a lot, but according to our calculations Wikipedia leaves over $200 million in annual profit on the table by not allowing advertising. So far, our model is going to plan. Once the next software upgrade is in place -- in a few weeks -- we will be able to process thousands of new posts/day.

[thekohser]

As time goes on we will reach a break even point where the revenues exceed the cost.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that your site never reaches that point. I hope that it does, but I expect that it won't.

[sparkzilla]

I'm glad to hear you hope we will succeed. There's a long way to go yet. In the meantime I hope my experience in trying to create an alternative way to create content will at least give some food for thought.

[Capsot]

Wow, excellent work Greg! It's incredible to see that such things are allowed to happen... and the lack of response when informed...
Have a nice day! Claudi/Capsot

[thekohser]

Wow, excellent work Greg! It's incredible to see that such things are allowed to happen... and the lack of response when informed...
Have a nice day! Claudi/Capsot

It's not so much a "lack of response" but an active cover-up to mask that COI editing has cheapened the "NPOV" principle.

[NotNormal]

Every cult needs its bogeymen to hold the faithful to the wheel.

That's too bad. At least Jimbo keeps Kraft in business (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kool-Aid).

[thekohser]

Jimmy Wales announced today that he favors the Wikimedia Foundation hiring an employee who would be charged with "combatting* all kinds of spam", including any done by vendors, donors, employees, and affiliates of the WMF. He doesn't think the new hire should be a former paid editor, though.

...I see no reason to think that former paid editors have the right skills for this...

Looks like Smallbones will finally get a job.


* Note Sir Jimbo using the British spelling of the word.

[Randy from Boise]

Every cult needs its bogeymen to hold the faithful to the wheel.

That's too bad. At least Jimbo keeps Kraft in business (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kool-Aid).

I believe that Rev. Jones actually preferred Flavor Aid (T-H-L) , a product of Jel Sert (T-H-L).

RfB

[thekohser]

I believe that Rev. Jones actually preferred Flavor Aid (T-H-L) , a product of Jel Sert (T-H-L).

RfB

According to this citation-less "fact" on Wikipedia, "Film of Jonestown many months before the Massacre show stocks of both Flavor-Aid and its leading competitor within the commune's storehouses, so it is quite possible that both drinks were used as carriers for the poison."

Note the capital "M" in "Massacre", for eMphasis.

[Poetlister]

Note Sir Jimbo using the British spelling of the word.

I second that approval. It's right to praise Jimbo when he does something good.

[thekohser]

Note Sir Jimbo using the British spelling of the word.

I second that approval. It's right to praise Jimbo when he does something good.

Yes, it is right to give Him thanks and praise.

[Silent Editor]

Jimmy Wales announced today that he favors the Wikimedia Foundation hiring an employee who would be charged with "combatting* all kinds of spam", including any done by vendors, donors, employees, and affiliates of the WMF. He doesn't think the new hire should be a former paid editor, though.

...I see no reason to think that former paid editors have the right skills for this...

Looks like Smallbones will finally get a job.


* Note Sir Jimbo using the British spelling of the word.

Or misspelling the American one...

[EricBarbour]

Jimmy Wales announced today that he favors the Wikimedia Foundation hiring an employee who would be charged with "combatting* all kinds of spam", including any done by vendors, donors, employees, and affiliates of the WMF. He doesn't think the new hire should be a former paid editor, though.

Any bets on whether this will actually, you know, happen?

[thekohser]

Sometimes I wonder if Jimbo is just built-in stupid, or whether it's an act that he puts on to amuse himself.

What is really needed is a check button under the edit summary with THIS IS A COI EDIT (linked to the policy page), right next to THIS IS A MINOR EDIT. If clicked, this would tag the summary as a COI edit so that the change could be reviewed by an unconnected editor. No need to deface the article for all time with a flag. [[User:Carrite|Carrite]] ([[User talk:Carrite|talk]]) 17:22, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

::I would support that, as long as checking the box results in an immediate revert and ban on further editing in article space.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 21:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

[Randy from Boise]

Jimbo has really went off on this (recently solved, or so I thought) issue in the thread cited here.

It would be nice if he had such extreme and activist views about the cancerous growth of the WMF bureaucracy and the obsessive need for obnoxious fundraising to support said bureaucrats.

RfB