P.S. The paragraph ending "instead of backsliding, and" should have been
followed by "proposing cuts to the payroll tax."

On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 12:54 PM James Salsman <jsals...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Is it better to think of the problem as paid editing or organized advocacy
> for persuasion at the expense of accuracy regarding all costs and benefits?
>
> Burger King is a commercial enterprise which makes money by mass
> production of beef products, which require more water and produce more
> greenhouse gas per calorie at retail marked-up prices than more frugal and
> healthy alternatives, but their Wikipedia-focused PR budget is tiny
> compared to producers of other products which similarly do not have a good
> cost-benefit ratio in terms of money or productive years of life.
>
> Some of the strongest such abusers of organized advocacy don't spend a lot
> of money on Wikipedia editors, but they do promote a narrative that
> anti-science types are suppressing information about them because of
> Luddite unreasonableness, which causes the many editors who want to defend
> science and their poorly-perceived conceptions of modernity to come to
> their defense. But, like Burger King, they often sell products which cost
> more than their benefits.
>
> Examples beyond beef include: fossil fuels, nuclear power, neonicotinoid
> pesticides, and tax cuts for the wealthy. Luckily, lab grown beef is likely
> to soon provide suitable replacements for those who want to eat beef
> without the environmental, ethical, and some of the health externalities.
> But will it go the way of the texturized vegetable protein of the 1970s? I
> recently discussed the solution to the fossil fuels problem on this list.
> (Sorry I got the name of the King of Saudi Arabia with whom FDR met wrong,
> but I highly recommend the "history teachers edit" of the BBC "Bitter Lake"
> documentary on YouTube for those who don't want to watch the whole thing.)
> Nuclear simply can't compete in the marketplace against renewables.
> Advocacy organizations are telling the story about the true costs of
> various pesticides, and those are making their way into MEDRS sources.
>
> But I have no idea if Wikipedia is strong enough to overcome the
> self-organizing advocacy for greater income inequality, which is a very
> serious health issue as per unopposed MEDRS sources, but the fake news
> narrative is being pushed:
>
>
> http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/04/trump-budget-director-wants-high-inequality-not-low-deficit.html
>
>
> https://www.gc.cuny.edu/CUNY_GC/media/CUNY-Graduate-Center/PDF/Centers/LIS/Milanovic/papers/Econ_letters.pdf
>
> http://talknicer.com/ehip.pdf (full MEDRS-grade, with no substantial
> opposition in other secondary sources.)
>
> My opinion is that when issues like these impact the Mission, including
> the extent that we can effectively educate, the Foundation should get
> involved and do everything they can to set things right. But are these
> appropriate issues for Legal, or Communications?
>
> Would it help if the Communications team did a blog series on solutions
> from the last U.S. presidential election prior to 9/11, when Buchanan was
> Trump's opponent on the far right, taxes were set to be increased on the
> rich by deficit hawks including Trump, and single payer was Trump's
> preferred health care plan? Trump has recently signaled a return to his
> 1999 roots, by demoting Bannon, demanding a superior health care plan
> instead of backsliding, and
>
> Yes, these are political issues, but they are about issues which directly
> impact the ability to execute the mission, and are only incidentally about
> particular candidates. But they are also extremely crucial to restoring our
> a civil society from the distopia of the use of state power against the
> rights of individuals, and the abuse of the encyclopedia with organized
> advocacy for persuasion over accuracy, in persuit of extralegal profits.
>
> On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 11:36 AM Risker <risker...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm just a bit agog at the idea that this article became "advertising"
>> when
>> Burger King made the connection using Google Home.  Since its very first
>> edit, it has been an advertisement for this product.  It may not have been
>> intended that way, but that is the reality.  Now it's almost 4200 words
>> long - probably the longest writing on this single product anywhere
>> outside
>> of the Burger King home offices - and we're pretending that it isn't an
>> ad.
>>
>> I know it is terribly disillusioning, but an awful lot of our articles are
>> advertisements. There have always been LOTS of paid editors on English
>> Wikipedia. It has never meant that the editor was editing primarily in a
>> promotional manner - in many cases they were facilitating the ability for
>> others to include promotional materials, and I've spotted what in
>> retrospect were obvious paid edits going back to 2001. There are people
>> who
>> I've identified as likely paid editors who were instrumental in our early
>> discussions about notability.  There were people who "worked with"
>> external
>> organizations to get access to their commercial repositories of images and
>> information - with huge financial benefits to the owners of those
>> repositories; sometimes this was innocent, with the editors trying to gain
>> access to hard-to-find material, but the end result was the same.
>>
>> The article is an advertisement. It was one from its first edit (which
>> included product prices) and it is one today.  It's good copy, but it's
>> still an ad.  I'll guarantee this isn't the first or last time that a paid
>> editor made significant changes to the article.  And it's just like
>> thousands and thousands of other articles that turn consumer products into
>> "encyclopedic content".  A 300-word discussion of Burger King's most
>> notable product would be appropriate in the main article, or even in a
>> daughter article about Burger King's products.  But as it stands, we have
>> literally hundreds of thousands of words about various Burger King
>> products: lists, articles about individual products, summaries,
>> advertising
>> campaigns, etc.  These are all advertisements. Don't blame Burger King for
>> leveraging exactly what we're doing ourselves.
>>
>> Risker/Anne
>>
>> On 14 April 2017 at 12:39, Gabriel Thullen <gabr...@thullen.com> wrote:
>>
>> > This advertising campaign is particularly interesting, it appears that
>> this
>> > is the first time we can talk about an exploit (as is said in computer
>> > security). It has been done once so it can be done again.
>> >
>> > What worries me here is that an advertising campaign like this one,
>> mixing
>> > TV advertising and content editing on Wikipedia is not a last minute
>> thing,
>> > done on the spur of the moment. IMHA, the agency responsible for these
>> ads
>> > must have experienced wikipedians working for them. These guys know how
>> the
>> > community usually reacts. There is a lot of money involved and they know
>> > that they will have to get it right the first time the ads are aired.
>> >
>> > This looks like a bait and trick, and we were all fooled by it (by we, I
>> > mean the wikipedia community of editors). The bait was the minor
>> > grammatical errors in the new introductory sentence. An experienced
>> editor
>> > got tricked into correcting these missing spaces and such, and the text
>> > itself gets a "stamp of approval", and the edit done by a new account
>> will
>> > no longer show up as the last modification done to the article.
>> >
>> > These paid edits were made on April 4, the article started to be
>> vandalized
>> > one week later, on April 11. But it looks like the campaign did not
>> create
>> > the expected buzz because Google reacted quickly (just under 3 hours)
>> and
>> > Google Home stopped reading out the Whopper article at the end of the
>> > advert.
>> >
>> > The damage has been done. Theverge.com claims to have done such a
>> > modification on Wikipedia, to quote them "as did we, in a test
>> yesterday".
>> > We will probably see more of this.
>> >
>> > Gabe
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 5:39 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak <dar...@alk.edu.pl>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 5:23 AM, Gnangarra <gnanga...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > but they didnt spam, nor did they introduce any false hoods, or
>> > remove
>> > > > > controversial content, they just put a description of the Whopper
>> for
>> > > the
>> > > > > opening sentence.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > I agree with James on this one. They "described" their product in a
>> very
>> > > flattering way, unnecessarily introducing marketing jargon ("known as
>> > > America's favorite", "00% beef with no preservatives", "no fillers",
>> > "daily
>> > > sliced" etc.). It is spam and in the future, near rather than far, we
>> > need
>> > > to start seriously thinking how we can combat such content
>> > > attacks/hijacking. There are some similarities to our work with
>> > > anti-harassment, but I hope we'll be able to develop a more dedicated
>> > > approach to this problem, that the Burger King manifestation is only a
>> > > single example of.
>> > >
>> > > dj
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>> ,
>> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>> > >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: 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