Check out Moreschi removing fair use content so that the Veropedia parser can harvest the page, and as of the most recent diff, it's still not been restored (almost 24 hours later!) .

I wonder what 'ASAP' means in Moreschi-land.

did he fix that here?

I'm not that tech-saavy to follow all of this, but surely there's no need to invoke Jesus Christ in an edit summary????

Nope, all he did was fix a typo. No restoring of the content he removed.

Okay, for us tech-idiots, what is he doing here? Is this to make it easier for a veropedia bot to get a copy of this article?

If that's the case, then doesn't WP's content then suffer to make VP's job easier?

Veropedia doesn't allow Fair Use, links to JSTOR, or pop culture sections in articles. The parser won't accept JSTOR links or links that are dead. I've been removing the problematic areas before upload to Veropedia and then restoring them once the article is uploaded. I personally think a link to JSTOR is better than no link at all, even if you only get the first page of an abstract.

Yes, but WP DOES, so couldn't it be argued that Veropedia is hurting WP content?

I suppose anything could be argued as hurting Wikipedia's content. I don't think a quick removal-and-restore will harm anything. I like the JSTOR links because even the first page can often provide verification. I don't see the harm in a single FU image, and I think a pop culture section is quite appropriate for some articles. But obviously some people do not want any of these things on Wikipedia at all: they are contentious on WP, so VP decided to remove the conflict on the VP version by just not having them. It was supposed to reduce conflict over them.

Forgot to mention: one of the nice things about the parser is that it will tell you when there are dead links in an article, links to disambiguation pages and redirects, or when there are run-on sentences. You fix them in the WP version, save, and then re-try. The parser itself is a sweet tool for fixing problems on the WP version. It doesn't fix everything, but it catches many things that tools like AWB, etc, won't catch.

Tell Cyde to get off his fat lazy ass and fix the damn parser so you don't have to remove and then add back content from the wikipedia article.

Other than that, how do you like working hard for Danny's money?

It would make more sense to program any necessary removals into the parser rather than change stuff on Wikipedia to suit it. Or else remove it manually on Veropedia when doing final preparation.

Cyde? It was my understanding that Eagle101 did most of the coding. I could be wrong, though: I didn't pay much attention to who created the parser.

As far as "working hard for Danny's money" goes... All the work (inline citations, formatting, etc) goes into the WP version. The VP version is just a parsed version of the article.

Yes, except the parser also catches things that shouldn't be in the WP version: missed citation needed tags, grammar, overly long sentences, dead links, etc. I dunno; I think the VP and the VP parser have been good things for WP: the parser catches bad stuff, and the site provides a stable version of a WP article, without vandalism. VP also provides some motivation to clean up articles. If you know there are 20 articles with {{fact}} tags on them, but a few just have one {{fact}} tag each and that's all that is really keeping them from being uploaded, it's not hard to clean them up (cite or remove the unsupported text) and upload to VP.

Of course, it's up to the uploader to make sure there really isn't vandalism or blatant POV in the article. Like any other system, it could be gamed. But since Flagged Revisions may never happen on en.wiki anyway...

It's strange. When my team temporarily created some content in Wikipedia so that I could get some screen shots of a fictitious "Farsight Hotel" for Wikipedia Review explanatory marketing purposes, I made sure we reverted in less than two minutes.

Moreschi let his abuse of Wikipedia linger for hours, until someone else had to come along and revert him. Veropedia gets praise. Wikipedia Review was pummeled for even its two-minute "Farsight Hotel" manipulation.

Sounds fair.

Greg

Apples. Oranges.

Don't get me wrong, Greg: I don't think you've been treated fairly on WP. Not by a long shot. And I hate that your real name is still being dragged in the mud on WP.

But creating an entirely fictitious article is not the same thing as removing a portion of an article for upload. I don't know why that portion was left removed, but Veropedia isn't really to blame for that error, just as it's been pointed out on ore than one occasion that a WR member posting personal info about a WP member on WR isn't the fault of WR. People always confuse the forum or wiki for the members or editors.

It looks like Veropedia and Wikipedia do not get along very well yet both could potentially gain from each other.

I don't really understand the antagonism except some do not like the idea of their edits going over to a for-profit site (as Outriggr was angered by, from what I've seen).

But honestly, what can WP do about it except shun the Veropedians which will cause serious fractures in the Community?

Well, that's the problem, isn't it? Wikipedia is more dedicated to preserving the Community than actually being fair.

I know. Don't mind me. I'm just stirring things up.

It strikes me as creepy that an outside, for-profit entity would alter Wikipedia to the detriment of the average reader, for anything more than a minute or two, and it would be not only tolerated, but lauded for the "ends" that it may or may not accomplish.

Who is to say that, had I been similarly tolerated, there may have been an outpouring of wonderful articles about unwikified-but-notable businesses?

So, maybe it's more like... Apples. Quinces.

Greg

As an aside, that is the ugliest formatting I've ever seen on an FA.

Much more like days: Moreschi's original edit was on December 4th, and the content wasn't added back until December 8th, after this discussion started.

An unfair community is not a sustainable community.

Now that you mention it: what is up with the formatting on that one? Quotes halfway embedded in the text, infoboxes stuck on both sides of the composition section, a lopsided discography section...