Response to Peter Southwood's question.

Are the investigators acting in bad faith? Does a mob know it is a mob, or is 
it that the people in it have lost the capacity for self-critical and analytic 
thought? On the one Orangemoody article I've been able to review so far, Bosch 
Sensortec (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosch_Sensortec), I found it to be a 
solidly-sourced, neutrally-toned, and informative "stub." It's currently being 
derided by Orangemoody investigators as promotional copy-and-paste of an 
alleged company press release (which has not been pointed to) and further 
claimed without visible evidence to have been contracted out by Orangemoody to 
a low-wage author through Elance.

The answer is that I don't know; in order to examine it further I'd like to 
view the deleted articles to see for myself whether they were actually 
promotional and unsourced obvious advocacy articles. Or if, like Bosch 
Sensortec, they tended actually to be pretty good. Unfortunately the 
Orangemoody investigation's team has decided they must remain unavailable to 
the public, allegedly to protect the article subjects from repeat alleged 
victimization. 
  
Trillium Corsage

03.09.2015, 07:55, "Peter Southwood" <email clipped>:

> Do you really think they may be acting in bad faith?
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org 
> [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Trillium Corsage
> Sent: Wednesday, 02 September 2015 10:58 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Wikipedia rocked by 'rogue editors' blackmail 
> scam targeting small businesses and celebrities"
>
> The Orangemoody network seems to have been providing a service: bring the 
> apparently self-submitted but failed drafts of articles of persons, 
> organizations, and businesses up to compliance with Wikipedia standards and 
> get them live, then accept a previously negotiated fee. After some months of 
> safeguarding those articles for free, they would offer to continue doing so 
> at a monthly rate. I'm not seeing the harm.
>
> Oh, I'd like to check if the articles were actually unduly promotional and 
> POV and so forth, unfortunately the erstwhile investigators have deleted them 
> so no-one except administrators may see. Which comes in handy for the 
> investigators, because it means everybody must go by their characterizations 
> of the articles.
>
> I heard a murmur that Orangemoody would actually request deletion of its own 
> articles if the subject failed to agree to the monthly fee, but Risker said 
> this vaguely as if there were only a couple or few examples of this.
>
> As well, though the IP addresses have not been disclosed, one of the accused 
> Orangemoody accounts belongs to a Bangladeshi editor of three or more years. 
> Raising the question of whether geolocation to Bangladesh and other nearby 
> poor countries was a clue to the investigators to connect the Orangemoody 
> accounts. Which on confirmation would raise the further question of whether 
> the entire case was almost exclusively comparatively well-off westerners 
> destroying the business and livelihood of impoverished Bangladeshis and other 
> easterners just trying to put food on the table for their kids.
>
>  Trillium Corsage
>
> 02.09.2015, 21:53, "Matt Campbell" <email clipped>:
>>  Glad to hear it.

<text clipped for brevity>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to