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: Wikimediaemail@example.com >> > > 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: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.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: Wikimediaemail@example.com >> 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: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>