EthicalWiki
-
- Habitué
- Posts: 1764
- kołdry
- Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:10 am
- Wikipedia User: Michaeldsuarez
- Wikipedia Review Member: Michaeldsuarez
- Location: New York, New York
EthicalWiki
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
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
-
- 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: 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.Michaeldsuarez wrote:What are your thoughts on "EthicalWiki"?
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.
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."
-
- Been Around Forever
- Posts: 12253
- 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: EthicalWiki
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...thekohser wrote: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.Michaeldsuarez wrote:What are your thoughts on "EthicalWiki"?
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.
RfB
-
- 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: EthicalWiki
You're really "not sure why"? How long have you been on Wikipedia?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
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.
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."
-
- Habitué
- Posts: 3155
- Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 11:58 pm
- Wikipedia User: Dan Murphy
- Wikipedia Review Member: DanMurphy
Re: EthicalWiki
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...thekohser wrote:You're really "not sure why"? How long have you been on Wikipedia?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
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.
-
- Habitué
- Posts: 3155
- Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 11:58 pm
- Wikipedia User: Dan Murphy
- Wikipedia Review Member: DanMurphy
Re: EthicalWiki
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).
-
- Habitué
- Posts: 1764
- Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:10 am
- Wikipedia User: Michaeldsuarez
- Wikipedia Review Member: Michaeldsuarez
- Location: New York, New York
Re: EthicalWiki
examiner.com has been blacklisted since October 2009: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
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
-
- Habitué
- Posts: 1764
- Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:10 am
- Wikipedia User: Michaeldsuarez
- Wikipedia Review Member: Michaeldsuarez
- Location: New York, New York
Re: EthicalWiki
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
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
-
- 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: EthicalWiki
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?Michaeldsuarez wrote:The AfD discussion apparently caused an user to retire...
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."
-
- Member
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 12:33 am
Re: EthicalWiki
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
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
-
- Retired
- Posts: 2723
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
- Wikipedia User: tiucsibgod
Re: EthicalWiki
David, firstly welcome.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
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.
Time for a new signature.
-
- Member
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 12:33 am
Re: EthicalWiki
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
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
-
- 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: EthicalWiki
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.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
Regardless, here's my "standard of poof", for you, Mr. King.
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."
-
- Habitué
- Posts: 4800
- Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:19 pm
Re: EthicalWiki
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.
-
- Member
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 12:33 am
Re: EthicalWiki
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
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
-
- Critic
- Posts: 127
- Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2013 3:33 pm
- Wikipedia User: None
- Wikipedia Review Member: Bottled_Spider
- Location: Pictland
Re: EthicalWiki
Dear-oh-dear.....David King wrote:...... the higher the standard of poof that is needed.
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.
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9966
- Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:10 pm
- Wikipedia Review Member: Somey
Re: EthicalWiki
You need a standard of poof?David King wrote:The bolder the claim the higher the standard of poof that is needed.
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?
-
- Member
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 12:33 am
Re: EthicalWiki
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
-David
-
- Critic
- Posts: 127
- Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2013 3:33 pm
- Wikipedia User: None
- Wikipedia Review Member: Bottled_Spider
- Location: Pictland
Re: EthicalWiki
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'.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...
-
- Trustee
- Posts: 14094
- 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: EthicalWiki
Welcome to the forum David.
I don't believe our members questioning your business model will much bother your competitive standing.
I don't believe our members questioning your business model will much bother your competitive standing.
My avatar is sometimes indicative of my mood:
- Actual mug ◄
- Uncle Cornpone
- Zoloft bouncy pill-thing
-
- Posts: 10891
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
- Location: hell
Re: EthicalWiki
Yes, David has walked the ultimate tightrope, and survived.Zoloft wrote:I don't believe our members questioning your business model will much bother your competitive standing.
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.
-
- 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: EthicalWiki
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.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
Last edited by thekohser on Sat Jan 04, 2014 9:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."
-
- Habitué
- Posts: 4800
- Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:19 pm
Re: EthicalWiki
No pooftahs!Midsize Jake wrote: You need a standard of poof? :huh:
-
- 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: EthicalWiki
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?
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?
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."
-
- 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: EthicalWiki
It's kind of weird how CorporateM kind of buzzed right on out of here, once the direct questions came his way.
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."
-
- Habitué
- Posts: 4105
- Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 8:47 pm
- Location: location, location
Re: EthicalWiki
It's kind of weird that he didn't respond to this thread: linkthekohser wrote:It's kind of weird how CorporateM kind of buzzed right on out of here, once the direct questions came his way.
former Living Person
-
- Posts: 10891
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:32 pm
- Location: hell
Re: EthicalWiki
It's the "Wikipedia Way". Get caught doing something, run and hide until it blows over.thekohser wrote:It's kind of weird how CorporateM kind of buzzed right on out of here, once the direct questions came his way.
Don't be afraid, David! We don't hate you, we just want to understand you......
-
- 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: EthicalWiki
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...
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.
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.
"...making nonsensical connections and culminating in feigned surprise, since 2006..."
-
- Critic
- Posts: 177
- Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2014 7:50 pm
Re: EthicalWiki
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.