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

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

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...

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).

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

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

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?