http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...e_on_Craigslist

As if User:Wikipedia Review invented paid editing (or maybe capitalism?)...It's funny, but also sad, that they describe it this way. Not only that, but it's hypocritical. Imagine one of these threads on AN/I and how long they would last:

• MONGO like xenophobia and trolling
• SlimVirgin like bullying
• Editor wearing David Gerard like makeup while editing
• Editor with Jimbo Wales like sex drive

On and on and on... Maybe Greg doesn't mind, but I don't think it's right to describe it this way, especially given the fact that he's banned from there and cannot respond to the thread in question. "Banned means banned" but we (WP) can still make a fool of you, I guess...

All I ask is that they send me some traffic! Come on, I'm not editing for pay any more, so what would be the harm of a little linky-dinky-doo, maybe to:

http://wikipediareview.com/Wikipedia Review#History_of_the_site

...you know, to educate those who don't know what Wikipedia Review 1.0 was. After all, that was way back in the summer and fall of '06!

Who'll gimme that link?

Greg

I'll get my sock army in formation tomorrow and add some links.

JzG is going to have to work some overtime tomorrow, getting all of these wrong-thinkers back into the wiki-fold.



Kurt's going to get himself blocked for talkin' that way (and I don't mean the f- word).

Greg

This is a problem with an encyclopedia judged by teenagers who have never worked before.

This guy just made a statement that rendered every journal, every newsarticle, every research paper, every thesis, irrelevant. Because if you get paid, it ain't worth nothn'.

Oh yesss.

You know people who will pay you to write a journal article or thesis? Can I have their number?

I was paid hundreds of pounds by my local authority to go to University (back in the days when we had student grants as opposed to student fees in Britain). So yes, my theses were for money. They're worthless. I'll have to hand my degree back.

The taxpayers of the State of Nebraska funded my undergraduate education.

The ratepayers of the Bell System funded my graduate education.

I've been trying (with limited success) to give it all back by volunteering as a science educator, online and elsewhere.

I didn't say that I agreed with the theory - I stand by it as an accurate representation of what Raul654 claims to believe about this.

I don't support banning these kinds of editors (I think they should merely be watched closely), but I think this is a really poor comparison. A reporter doesn't get paid to write about the organization that pays him, he gets paid to report the news. If Person A pays Person B to write something about Person A, there is a reasonable expectation that the resulting work will be somewhat slanted in favor of Person A.

And if they have to report about a company that is even vaguely related to their own company, they'll disclose this. Which is pretty much the opposite of what this guy's doing.

A frequently cited case in point is that NBC and MSNBC journalists will occasionally report on General Electric, Microsoft, and Vivendi... or that NPR's "Marketplace" will often report on General Electric, a sponsor of the show. As Random832 rightly notes -- they simply disclose the potential conflict of interest, and the reporter's professional reputation is expected to take precedence.

Nobody has a serious beef with this model in the journalism field, and it's what Wikipedia Review purported to do. But guys like Mark Pellegrini (who didn't even accurately know what the Reward Board was until a couple of weeks ago), Guy Chapman, and Calton Bollick successfully poisoned the well. They still think "the community consensus" was substantially against paid editing -- but there is ample proof against that claim.

I know Wikipedia's not a democracy, but I'd still like to see an Admin Noticeboard "vote" on the concept of disclosed, monitored, paid editing. Without Guy Chapman snowballing it closed, of course.

Greg

The Economist magazine always notes if anyone they write about has ever worked for or been associated with them, especially in the book reviews.

no but I know a wigmaker who could make you look closer to your age, Matt