http://www.24-7pressrelease.com/view_press_release.php?rID=16892
"Yet, Wikipedia lists only an estimated 12,000 of these notable entities. At least 30,000 noteworthy companies and non-profits are completely absent from the Wikipedia revolution!
As of July 2006, there is a new firm that will remedy this problem. MyWikiBiz.com authors Wikipedia articles for companies and organizations that presently lack exposure on the world's largest encyclopedia."
On 8/8/06, Mathias Schindler mathias.schindler@gmail.com wrote:
As of July 2006, there is a new firm that will remedy this problem. MyWikiBiz.com authors Wikipedia articles for companies and organizations that presently lack exposure on the world's largest encyclopedia."
Would it be possible to get in touch with them and arrange for them to tell us which pages they've created? Overall, it sounds good for us.
Remember, a moderately biased article about a topic which meets our inclusion guidelines - if it is biased *towards* the topic - is much better than no topic at all.
Steve
On 08/08/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Would it be possible to get in touch with them and arrange for them to tell us which pages they've created? Overall, it sounds good for us. Remember, a moderately biased article about a topic which meets our inclusion guidelines - if it is biased *towards* the topic - is much better than no topic at all.
Yes. Alison found their advertising pitch odious, but the proof will be in the articles. And if editors know these articles are being written, you can be sure they will be NPOVed out the wazoo. (As well as nominated for deletion whether they should be or not, but anyway.)
Hey, it's someone writing GFDL material. We don't lose by at least considering it.
- d.
On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 11:20:58 +0200, "Steve Bennett" stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Remember, a moderately biased article about a topic which meets our inclusion guidelines - if it is biased *towards* the topic - is much better than no topic at all.
As long as it's only moderately biased, for sure. A copy & paste of the company's press release is more of an issue. I wonder which we'll get?
Guy (JzG)
On 08/08/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
As long as it's only moderately biased, for sure. A copy & paste of the company's press release is more of an issue. I wonder which we'll get?
If they want to GFDL their press releases, that's up to them, and articles in that style are more likely to catch the attention of new article patrollers and AFD nominators.
If they're not as displeased as S*ll*g was by the results of NPOV applied to a press release article, that's fine ;-)
I see no evidence of a disaster here as yet. If MyWikiBiz really want to maintain that "zero deletions," it'll be in the interests of their business to keep their content good.
- d.
On 8/8/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
As long as it's only moderately biased, for sure. A copy & paste of the company's press release is more of an issue. I wonder which we'll get?
It's still not much of an issue. Nothing much really *bad* happens when we have an article that says "J&F Enterprises is a fantastic business based in California that fights global poverty and reduces greenhouse emissions while producing the best donuts in the world". Sooner or later someone will stumble upon it, whack {{NPOV}} and {{fact}} all over it, and it will be fixed. And no one is going to sue us in the meantime, and the average reader can *see* that it's not neutral.
In the scale of things that can go wrong with our articles, positive bias is not that important. Certainly well behind defamation, copyright infringements, hoaxes (deliberate misinformation) and incorrect medical advice, for instance.
Steve
On Aug 8, 2006, at 3:20 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
Would it be possible to get in touch with them and arrange for them to tell us which pages they've created? Overall, it sounds good for us.
Remember, a moderately biased article about a topic which meets our inclusion guidelines - if it is biased *towards* the topic - is much better than no topic at all.
Steve
http://mywikibiz.com/contactus.html
Fred
On 8/8/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
On Aug 8, 2006, at 3:20 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
Would it be possible to get in touch with them and arrange for them to tell us which pages they've created? Overall, it sounds good for us.
Remember, a moderately biased article about a topic which meets our inclusion guidelines - if it is biased *towards* the topic - is much better than no topic at all.
Steve
Their main page refers to an article "Farsight Hotel" which happens to be deleted. The talk page is deleted too, but seems to be in a Reminder Page of some editor.
Is this related to mywikibiz in any way?
Mathias
The article was created, and then blanked and listed for deletion by User:Thekohser ("{{nonsense}} There is no such hotel. This article was intended for Sandbox. My apologies."), presumably so they could make the demonstration screenshots on their website (it is indeed the same article).
Ed (ed_g2s)
Mathias Schindler wrote:
On 8/8/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
On Aug 8, 2006, at 3:20 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
Would it be possible to get in touch with them and arrange for them to tell us which pages they've created? Overall, it sounds good for us.
Remember, a moderately biased article about a topic which meets our inclusion guidelines - if it is biased *towards* the topic - is much better than no topic at all.
Steve
Their main page refers to an article "Farsight Hotel" which happens to be deleted. The talk page is deleted too, but seems to be in a Reminder Page of some editor.
Is this related to mywikibiz in any way?
Mathias _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Aug 8, 2006, at 7:38 AM, Mathias Schindler wrote:
On 8/8/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
On Aug 8, 2006, at 3:20 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
Would it be possible to get in touch with them and arrange for them to tell us which pages they've created? Overall, it sounds good for us.
Remember, a moderately biased article about a topic which meets our inclusion guidelines - if it is biased *towards* the topic - is much better than no topic at all.
Steve
Their main page refers to an article "Farsight Hotel" which happens to be deleted. The talk page is deleted too, but seems to be in a Reminder Page of some editor.
Is this related to mywikibiz in any way?
Mathias
The creator and editor of that article, Thekohser, does make some business related edits, but also edits a wide variety of articles.
Fred
On 08/08/06, Mathias Schindler mathias.schindler@gmail.com wrote:
Their main page refers to an article "Farsight Hotel" which happens to be deleted. The talk page is deleted too, but seems to be in a Reminder Page of some editor.
Is this related to mywikibiz in any way?
The page was created by "Thekohser", and deleted on his request - "There is no such hotel. This article was intended for Sandbox. My apologies." - which is fair enough, we've all accidentally created something in the wrong namespace. I assume it was only ever intended as a fictional mockup.
"Thekohser" is Gregory Kohs, who is a reasonably active editor and seems to have clue a'plenty. He is also the founder of, guess who... http://mywikibiz.com/aboutus.html
The edits for the company seem to be, nicely and transparently, done under User:MyWikiBiz. Look through the contributions - there's nothing hideously bad there.
Paid-for editing is going to happen. We have it being done publicly, cleanly, with standards and with clue. Not sure we've got much to worry about.
On 8/8/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
The page was created by "Thekohser", and deleted on his request - "There is no such hotel. This article was intended for Sandbox. My apologies." - which is fair enough, we've all accidentally created something in the wrong namespace. I assume it was only ever intended as a fictional mockup.
"Thekohser" is Gregory Kohs, who is a reasonably active editor and seems to have clue a'plenty. He is also the founder of, guess who... http://mywikibiz.com/aboutus.html
The edits for the company seem to be, nicely and transparently, done under User:MyWikiBiz. Look through the contributions - there's nothing hideously bad there.
Paid-for editing is going to happen. We have it being done publicly, cleanly, with standards and with clue. Not sure we've got much to worry about.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Paid for editing has already happened. 'tis a done deal. We have bounties, a reward board, the Encyclopedia Project, wikimoney etc. not to mention whatever isn't publicly recorded on Wikipedia or that I simply don't know about off hand, in addition to MyWikiBiz.
Frankly, we should embrace this. Is not the Linux kernel much the better for the contributions by programmers whose companies have paid them to contribute? Is not Red Hat a pillar of the Free software community for sponsoring the development of so many things? Why not us?
~maru
maru dubshinki wrote:
On 8/8/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
The page was created by "Thekohser", and deleted on his request - "There is no such hotel. This article was intended for Sandbox. My apologies." - which is fair enough, we've all accidentally created something in the wrong namespace. I assume it was only ever intended as a fictional mockup.
"Thekohser" is Gregory Kohs, who is a reasonably active editor and seems to have clue a'plenty. He is also the founder of, guess who... http://mywikibiz.com/aboutus.html
The edits for the company seem to be, nicely and transparently, done under User:MyWikiBiz. Look through the contributions - there's nothing hideously bad there.
Paid-for editing is going to happen. We have it being done publicly, cleanly, with standards and with clue. Not sure we've got much to worry about.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Paid for editing has already happened. 'tis a done deal. We have bounties, a reward board, the Encyclopedia Project, wikimoney etc. not to mention whatever isn't publicly recorded on Wikipedia or that I simply don't know about off hand, in addition to MyWikiBiz.
Frankly, we should embrace this. Is not the Linux kernel much the better for the contributions by programmers whose companies have paid them to contribute? Is not Red Hat a pillar of the Free software community for sponsoring the development of so many things? Why not us?
~maru
Please note also: http://mywikibiz.com/eligibility.html wherein it is clearly explained that your company must be notable and what that entails. Seems transparent and legitimate to me. -kc-
On 08/08/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
I've just added a comment on that form:
I'm a Wikipedia editor and admin. I like that you're contributing GFDL content, and if you really have a zero-deletion record you're doing well ;-) You may want to read the commentary on the wikien-l mailing list and possibly participate - http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-August/thread.html#51824 - thanks! - David
- d.