http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/08/wikipedia-editors-for-pay/393926/
The Covert World of People Trying to Edit Wikipedia—for Pay
On January 11, 2013, James Heilman, an emergency-room physician and one of
Wikipedia’s most prolific medical editors, was standing watch over the
Ummm... common sense says that if someone says what their birth name is,
about 50 years after they were born, when decades of documentation --
including interviews -- says something different, that someone is making
up the new info.
Either Demi Moore was incorrect in 1996, or she is incorrect
Um, People Magazine got their information from an interview with Demi
Moore.
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
The question isn't so much what her name currently it, but what it was
on the day she was born. On the other hand, treating IMDB and People
Magazine as
Also, you can't FOIA birth certificates.
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
The question isn't so much what her name currently it, but what it was
on the day she was born. On the other hand, treating IMDB and People
Magazine as reliable sources is laughable. Where
Another little tidbit for the common sense grist: While her mother was
still alive, Demi Moore stated her birth name was Demetria. Virginia Guynes
died in 1998.
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
Um, People Magazine got their information from an interview
I've cleaned it up.
... and, it's been reverted back into its crufty revisionism. Good job,
Tenebrae.
On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 4:20 PM, Steve Summit s...@eskimo.com wrote:
Ken Arromdee wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Demi_Moore
Summary: Demi Moore, in a tweet but verified as being
Long Dong Silver is genuinely famous.
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 10:35 PM, George Herbert
george.herb...@gmail.comwrote:
Fred? Could you please explain why you suppressed the revisions?
None of the criteria seems to apply.
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 7:33 PM, Steve Summit s...@eskimo.com wrote:
This is a mistaken understanding of what unbalanced means with respect to
Wikipedia.
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.netwrote:
Again - I am not Cirt, and I find the article reasonably balanced.
Having an article that associates someone with human waste be
You are ascribing motive to Cirt's activities. Assume Good Faith.
This is starting to feel like something that should be dealt with by
interested parties engaging with each other, rather than researching on
wiki-en.
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 6:34 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
---
Huh?
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.netwrote:
Yes, let's replace our elite judgment for that of everyone else.
You've got one word right, our. You are responsible for this.
Fred
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
There's also this:
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/5/9/4/9/p259493_index.html
*Natality in the Private, Public, and Political Spheres: When Santorum
Becomes
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 11:47 AM, George Herbert
george.herb...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 5:54 AM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
On 23/05/2011 13:35, Fred Bauder wrote:
This seems to combine malice and political purpose. Really it is stuff
that
I agree. Let's remove all content on Wikipedia about the Internet.
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
I'm skeptical that we should have an article.
The reason: Wikipedia is on the Internet. If Wikipedia has an article
about something whose promoter
The real problem is that people are perfectly willing to lie about
themselves. I never slept with that woman. I don't fund the Tea Party.
I'm not a hypocrite. etc. etc.
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 10:27 PM, Sarah slimvir...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 05:38, Scott MacDonald
Did he say he was working for Koch's PR firm?
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
'Being really good at it' is subversion when they aren't actually really
good at it, they just disregard the rules. I wont speak for George, but
yes,
doing it in
the Wikipedia, and then other places like
Wikipedia Review and eventually in the press. The more people that
look at the bias, the less sustainable the position of the conspiracy
becomes.
On 15/03/2011, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011, The Cunctator wrote:
Oh, certainly
Of course, if an interested minority party has effectively infinite money,
they can start to tip the scales.
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.comwrote:
On 14/03/2011, David Goodman dgge...@gmail.com wrote:
It is possible to provide arguments against the
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 5:17 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011, David Goodman wrote:
It is possible to provide arguments against the reliability of any
source whatever. (And in the other direction, it is possible to take
most sources and selectively quote them
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 6:13 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011, The Cunctator wrote:
The Koch brothers are mostly unknown. ...
... It is Ken's assertion that there are many
people highly motivated to write misrepresentations and
unbalanced articles, though
It was a temporary experiment that was transparently neither
temporary nor an experiment. I think I got chewed out for pointing
that out at the time. I sometimes wonder what Wikipedia could have
become if it truly stayed experimental, instead of aspiring to the
lesser goal of a better Encarta.
Actually, we do know, because Citizendium is just a retread of Nupedia,
which wasn't going anywhere.
On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 6:24 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
On 17 April 2010 03:15, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
In March 2010, about 90 people made even a single
By all measures, en.wiki has been in decline for years as an active project.
It's just the typical death by bureaucracy that most projects like this
undergo.
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 4:45 PM, Kwan Ting Chan k...@ktchan.info wrote:
WereSpielChequers wrote:
What are the likely results of a
Yes, trying to force people to do big edits is a bad idea.
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 8:19 AM, WereSpielChequers
werespielchequ...@googlemail.com wrote:
I'm afraid I have to disagree with David Goodman's final paragraph
calling for an end to minor improvements to articles. I have done many
JustFixIt.
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 6:18 AM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote:
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 11:17 AM, Carcharoth
carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
And no-one has yet created a redirect?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Corell
PS. I forgot. Bob Corell gets a
can produce something similar to the mini-biographies
already out there, such as the four that The Cunctator found, which
are either institutional bios, or conference bios, but we can't go
beyond that until other sources do, which is generally towards the end
of someone's career, or at the point
Sheesh. I was on a press conference call today with one of the deleted
people as a speaker.
*Robert Corell* is the Director of the Global Change Program at The H. John
Heinz III Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment and is a Senior
Policy Fellow at the Policy Program of the American
At the same time,
*Always leave something undone.
**Give the author a chance.*
*Build the web.*
*Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.*
and
*If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing,
rather than deletion.*
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 12:05 PM, Cool Hand
Jimbo has never been an active editor.
The BLPs aren't being deleted for being shoddy, they're being deleted for
not having references.
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 1:33 PM, Cool Hand Luke
failure.to.communic...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com
Why don't we just delete Wikipedia? Then we won't have any of these
problems.
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 11:20 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/1/21 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
That bit's not ideal, I'd think they should be listed first. Perhaps a
{{BLP-prod}}, where someone
Clearly this is just a plot by scientists to take money from oil companies
(well, only some of them, because Shell and BP support action) and give it
to investment bankers in order to build bird-killing windmills.
This plot was hatched back in the 1960s, when MIT climatologist Ed Lorenz
Because it reminds people that the true responsibility to be a good
Wikipedian lies with themselves, and not official police or arbiters.
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 2:28 PM, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
Tony Sidaway tonysida...@gmail.com wrote:
That's intrinsic to ignoring all rules. If
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 2:59 PM, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/10/4 stevertigo stv...@gmail.com:
Then do we even need WP:Civility, if we have IAR?
David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
That's actually a subclass of [[m:Don't be a dick]].
Well your heirarchical classification
hooray for godwin!
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 6:48 PM, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
stevertigo wrote:
Are you're really just saying that IAR allows only the *good*
dicks to act like dicks?
FT2 wrote:
No. I'm saying IAR ensures that /if/ an admin wishes to act
against a genuinely
And still people can't spell my username! cuncTator.
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 3:20 PM, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
Show the door to trolls, vandals, and wiki-anarchists, who, if
permitted, would waste your time and create a poisonous atmosphere
here
Ah, the good old days.
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 8:40 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/3/09, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
'''Show the door to trolls, vandals, and wiki-anarchists, who, if
permitted, would waste your time and create a poisonous atmosphere
here.''' -
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.comwrote:
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 6:20 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
If you want to know how Flagged Revisions feels from an unprivileged
position, go to Wikinews and fix typos. I just did this on
Your edits have been submitted for review.
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 4:45 PM, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
PPCD:
stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
- and unfogiveable only entered
+and unforgiveable only entered
- but from a practical need to focus on people that can write
Seriously?? Are you arguing this kind of article shouldn't be in Wikipedia?
Sheesh.
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 8:21 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Point them at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bo_%28dog%29
- d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
Yeah, the article is kind of premised on a lie. But hopefully it will
encourage more people to contribute photos.
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 7:29 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/19 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/arts/20funny.html
One error on
The premise that the only photos on Wikipedia are absolutely awful. E.g.
exaggerating how bad the photos of Janney, Bonds, and Beckham are.
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 3:21 PM, Steve Summit s...@eskimo.com wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
Yeah, the article is kind of premised on a lie
Wikipedia would be so much better off if we just didn't let people edit the
content.
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 7:42 PM, Andrew Turvey andrewrtur...@googlemail.com
wrote:
Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
From: Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net
Andrew Turvey wrote:
Per the
Depends what event he appears at. But yes, I would expect the deletionists
to go nuts with this.
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Oskar Sigvardsson
oskarsigvards...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 12:38 AM, Judson Dunn cohes...@sleepyhead.org
wrote:
For your comedy pleasure :)
This isn't actually accurate. Wikipedia may have reached the point where
most people find it includes most of the stuff *that has been traditionally
found in encylopedias* they carry around in their heads.
Wikipedia is not paper.
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 3:50 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
Funny how it supposedly closes tomorrow but it's already done and archived.
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 5:44 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Proposed trial:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Flagged_revisions/Trial
The voting page:
I think James's point is that wikilawyers have lost all perspective.
On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Wilhelm Schnotz wilh...@nixeagle.orgwrote:
Hah,
I am not defending top or bottom posting here, but merely explaining
why it happens. Several services and programs are programmed by
default
Long live deletionism!
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke wikipe...@zog.orgwrote:
2009/1/13 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke wikipe...@zog.org
wrote:
snip
Anyone any idea where I could find the original AfD?
Ah well, Wikipedia was fun while it lasted.
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 8:34 AM, White Cat
wikipedia.kawaii.n...@gmail.comwrote:
Which does not connect with the content of my post...
So what?
How Google determines what should rank higher is not the point of my post.
If you read throughly, I
Content and participation in Wikipedia is already in decline. This would
hasten the process.
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Wilhelm Schnotz wilh...@nixeagle.orgwrote:
I would assume such a system would just create a non-published
namespace that articles would sit in... And software changes
...@gmail.com wrote:
Apple!?
--
Alvaro
On 14-01-2009, at 11:29, The Cunctator cuncta...@gmail.com wrote:
No, just profoundly sad that Wikipedia is in what seems to be an
inexorable
decline. But idea-based projects generally have about seven years of
innovation before they lose steam
There is the problem that Derrida mostly wrote deliberately inscrutable
nonsense.
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 6:45 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote:
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 9:29 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008, Carcharoth wrote:
Can't see the word
This looks like a genuinely positive experiment that could lead to very good
results.
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 6:32 PM, Thomas Larsen larsen.thoma...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
Thanks for clarifying.
This is an excellent experiment. With Wikipedia's open edit process I am
confident that the plan
I had to revert a deletion of an article about a guy who was involved in the
Jack Abramoff scandal. It's pretty sad.
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 6:52 AM, Martijn Hoekstra
[EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 12:38 PM, Michael Bimmler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 12:34
52 matches
Mail list logo
