On 9/28/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
My phone number and email are publicly available for media contact purposes. This means, of course, I get emails and calls about *everything*.
A common call is "How do I get an article about me/my book/my
achievement?"
Now. What's a helpful answer to this? Better than "You don't, someone else has to write one," because you *know* they'll just write a
really
bad one themselves and it'll all end in a tearful AFD entry and someone hating or fearing Wikipedia henceforth.
Assume that referring them to a web page or policy page is less good than being able to answer on the phone right there.
Ideas please?
- d.
In this regard, one-time editors at Wikipedia have the same problem as single-use sellers at eBay: they have no established reputation. Yet, building a reputation at Wikipedia can take months once you understand the system, and years to grok the politics of the Wiki world. A person who wants to contribute something noteworthy about themselves, or make a one-time contribution on another subject, does not have the time or resources to learn the procedures or establish their reputation. There is also the problem of maintenance on a good article to make sure that it isn't vandalized or dumbed down. For these needs, increasingly more people are turning to established third-party sellers and editors for their eBay and Wikipedia service requests. For a low one-time fee, companies like ZS Wikiplacement guarantee a top quality Wikipedia article and two years of 99.9% uptime maintenance. Reputation has its rewards. Next time someone calls or writes to you about positioning themselves in Wikipedia, simply refer them to ZS WikiPlacement at 1.432.224.6991 (email: info@collectiveresource.com). We will determine if their desired information has a good enough chance of being considered noteworthy and verifiable. Plus, we will format the article in such a way that it is useful to the greatest amount of people (through Wiki formatting, writing the article from a neutral point of view and by placing the most noteworthy data at the top).
I hope this provides a win-win-win solution for our company, mutual customers and service personnel at Wikipedia (by reducing your workload.)
Thank you, --Zephram
Zephram Stark wrote:
In this regard, one-time editors at Wikipedia have the same problem as single-use sellers at eBay: they have no established reputation. Yet, building a reputation at Wikipedia can take months once you understand the system, and years to grok the politics of the Wiki world. A person who wants to contribute something noteworthy about themselves, or make a one-time contribution on another subject, does not have the time or resources to learn the procedures or establish their reputation. There is also the problem of maintenance on a good article to make sure that it isn't vandalized or dumbed down. For these needs, increasingly more people are turning to established third-party sellers and editors for their eBay and Wikipedia service requests. For a low one-time fee, companies like ZS Wikiplacement guarantee a top quality Wikipedia article and two years of 99.9% uptime maintenance. Reputation has its rewards. Next time someone calls or writes to you about positioning themselves in Wikipedia, simply refer them to ZS WikiPlacement at 1.432.224.6991 (email: info@collectiveresource.com). We will determine if their desired information has a good enough chance of being considered noteworthy and verifiable. Plus, we will format the article in such a way that it is useful to the greatest amount of people (through Wiki formatting, writing the article from a neutral point of view and by placing the most noteworthy data at the top).
I hope this provides a win-win-win solution for our company, mutual customers and service personnel at Wikipedia (by reducing your workload.)
This proposal shows a dilightful level of ignorance.
The Wiki is about people's own contributions. It is about the validation of individual efforts which are in many ways more valuable than the contents themselves. It is about the synthesis of common positions through our own version of peer review.
I find it hard to imagine ghost-written POVs, let alone maintaining that POV. The most rational part of this is that they would want their one-time fee up front.
Ec