[WikiEN-l] Examples of pro/paid content at Wikimedia?

[David Goodman]

Actually, many of them edit in a slightly less clumsy but still very
unsatisfactory way, and if not noticed at first may never be improved
afterwards if the group is not prominent. We  have 10s of thousands of
such articles.  I tend to leave them alone, because there are so many
worse.


David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG



On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 8:46 AM, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at fairpoint.net> wrote:
>> 2009/9/11 FT2 <ft2.wiki at gmail.com>:
>>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Joseph Reagle <reagle at mit.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>> So, on this note, what are some examples of content that was produced
>>>> for
>>>> pay at the Wikimedia Foundation? I can think of some archival
>>>> material, such
>>>> as the use of some material form the 11th edition of Britannica and
>>>> images
>>>> now in Commons.
>>
>>> One difference whether the content was added by someone uninvolved in
>>> the
>>> "paid text", who reviewed it and without any reward to themselves felt
>>> "this
>>> is good material to include"..... or by someone who stood to gain
>>> (directly
>>> or indirectly) by having the writing added to Wikipedia.
>>
>>
>> I uunderstand there have been a few cases of organisations sponsoring
>> paid content creation for Wikipedia. The key being neutrality.
>>
>>
>> - d.
>
> Personnel from the public relations departments of many organizations
> edit on Wikipedia. Those that engage in clumsy editing are blocked. Those
> who operate under the radar in a skillful way are free to edit.
> Optimally, they should identify themselves and their affiliation known,
> but we have no way of reliably identifying such accounts, unless, of
> course, they edit in a clumsy biased way.
>
> Fred
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>