So for every article we have 960 active editors? I assume you wrote that
wrong.
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 6:50 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 November 2010 18:33, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 November 2010 23:09, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
Am I
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 12:25:12AM +, FT2 wrote:
I drafted this. It still seems the best approach in terms of keeping good
editing and reducing problematic editing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FT2/Commercial_and_paid_editing
Hmm, your current rules fail the Duck test.(I also apply
In my experience, it is simply not correct that people who may be paid
to edit, even for a nonprofit organization, are unlikely to have a
bias. (Of course, so do the unpaid. COI does not require money , but
money always produces COI.)
I've seen too many cases of such people adding inappropriate
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 04:37:40PM -0500, David Goodman wrote:
In my experience, it is simply not correct that people who may be paid
to edit, even for a nonprofit organization, are unlikely to have a
bias. (Of course, so do the unpaid. COI does not require money , but
money always produces
Any one signed up yet?
http://www.ereleases.com/pr/visibility-wikipedia-easier-43135
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 18 November 2010 11:30, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
Any one signed up yet?
http://www.ereleases.com/pr/visibility-wikipedia-easier-43135
Founder:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Konanykhin
I don't see what could possibly go wrong with this idea.
- d.
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 14:09, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 November 2010 11:30, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
Any one signed up yet?
http://www.ereleases.com/pr/visibility-wikipedia-easier-43135
I could find anything wrong in their code of ethics
On 18 November 2010 11:30, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
Any one signed up yet?
http://www.ereleases.com/pr/visibility-wikipedia-easier-43135
Well, fools and their money are easily parted, I suppose.
http://wikipediaexperts.com/codeofethics.html sounds very nice - an
improvement on most
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 14:09, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 November 2010 11:30, Â wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
Any one signed up yet?
http://www.ereleases.com/pr/visibility-wikipedia-easier-43135
I could find anything wrong in their code of ethics
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 17:42, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 14:09, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 November 2010 11:30, Â wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
Any one signed up yet?
On 18 November 2010 10:42, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 14:09, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 November 2010 11:30, Â wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
Any one signed up yet?
It looks to me like they just get paid to get volunteers to work. Nice
scheme. So it's not technically paid editing :)
WikipediaExperts is a fast-growing network of experts which includes many
Wikipedia editors. When a new assignment arrives we send it to the editor
whose profile is the best
On 18 November 2010 15:57, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 November 2010 10:42, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 14:09, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 November 2010 11:30, Â wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
Any one signed
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 5:27 AM, Keegan Peterzell keegan.w...@gmail.com wrote:
It looks to me like they just get paid to get volunteers to work. Nice
scheme. So it's not technically paid editing :)
That sounds similar to the role of a few WMF staff...
--
John Vandenberg
On 18 November 2010 21:28, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 5:27 AM, Keegan Peterzell keegan.w...@gmail.com
wrote:
It looks to me like they just get paid to get volunteers to work. Nice
scheme. So it's not technically paid editing :)
That sounds similar to
It looks to me like they just get paid to get volunteers to work. Nice
scheme. So it's not technically paid editing :)
WikipediaExperts is a fast-growing network of experts which includes
many
Wikipedia editors. When a new assignment arrives we send it to the editor
whose profile is the
On 18 November 2010 21:28, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 5:27 AM, Keegan Peterzell
keegan.w...@gmail.com wrote:
It looks to me like they just get paid to get volunteers to work.
 Nice
scheme. Â So it's not technically paid editing :)
That sounds similar
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 9:32 AM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net
wrote:
On 18 November 2010 21:28, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 5:27 AM, Keegan Peterzell
keegan.w...@gmail.com wrote:
It looks to me like they just get paid to get volunteers to work.
Â
On 11/18/2010 12:30 PM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
Any one signed up yet?
http://www.ereleases.com/pr/visibility-wikipedia-easier-43135
I'm not able to find it now but there was an article form marketing/PR
professionals to fellow marketeers describing why not to do exactly this
what
On 18 November 2010 22:40, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
If it is that easy, maybe it should be a feature available as a courtesy
to anyone or any organization that has an article about them.
And to everyone else, too :-)
On 18 Nov 2010, at 15:42, Fred Bauder wrote:
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 14:09, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 November 2010 11:30, Â wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
Any one signed up yet?
http://www.ereleases.com/pr/visibility-wikipedia-easier-43135
I could find anything
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 9:53 AM, masti mast...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/18/2010 12:30 PM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
Any one signed up yet?
http://www.ereleases.com/pr/visibility-wikipedia-easier-43135
I'm not able to find it now but there was an article form marketing/PR
professionals
I've signed up, for the heck of it - I wonder how big of a scam it is.
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 4:01 PM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 9:53 AM, masti mast...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/18/2010 12:30 PM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
Any one signed up yet?
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 2:42 AM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 14:09, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 November 2010 11:30, Â wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
Any one signed up yet?
On 18 November 2010 22:37, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
Someone on another list discussing this suggested the WMF marketing
monitoring the article about you as a service ...
Which list is this?
Comcom. Idle chitchat, not a serious suggestion. (I certainly hope.)
It would be
On 18 November 2010 23:09, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
Am I 'paid editing' when I write articles during 9-5 ? Is that bad?
The problem with paid editing is when it violates content guidelines,
such as NPOV.
Someone paid to improve the area of linguistics in general? (This has
On 18 November 2010 18:33, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 November 2010 23:09, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
Am I 'paid editing' when I write articles during 9-5 ? Is that bad?
The problem with paid editing is when it violates content guidelines,
such as NPOV.
-- Forwarded message --
From: wjhon...@aol.com
Date: 18 November 2010 18:51
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Paid editing comes of age
To: risker...@gmail.com
In a message dated 11/18/2010 3:50:30 PM Pacific Standard Time,
risker...@gmail.com writes:
We are extraordinarily
Most current paid editing gets deleted at Speedy, simply because the
organization has no serious claim to being notable. People who
deliberately write paid articles on topics they know hopeless are
unethical; if they write them without knowing, they are incompetent.
But this sort of thing is not
I drafted this. It still seems the best approach in terms of keeping good
editing and reducing problematic editing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FT2/Commercial_and_paid_editing
FT2
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 12:05 AM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.comwrote:
Most current paid editing gets
-- Forwarded message --
From: wjhon...@aol.com
Date: 18 November 2010 18:51
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Paid editing comes of age
To: risker...@gmail.com
In a message dated 11/18/2010 3:50:30 PM Pacific Standard Time,
risker...@gmail.com writes:
We are extraordinarily
31 matches
Mail list logo
