http://www.online-writing-jobs.com/jobbank...ink-127070.html

"I am currently seeking someone to complete a Wikipedia article on one of my clients, an accredited music producer, manager, musician, and actor.
We have already gathered all the proper references, external links, and internal links to other Wiki articles.
We have also already composed a rough draft of what the article should say. ... (cont'd at Craigs List Writing Gigs)"

---

Any takers? Looks like this listing got flagged for TOS violation and won't be up much longer.

I could have helped with that. But, the Wikipediots swooped in and got it "flagged". What Craigslist term of service did that request violate? It's just more Yahoo! Answers-style hypocrisy.

Why would they do that?

Wikipedia explicitly states that paid writing is A-OK.

I wonder what would happen if someone posted on CL: Dedicated Wikipedia editor in matters of human sexuality looking for youthful companion to share editing, conversation and fun?

It seems next to impossible for them to stamp this out, it is such a pervasive business need.






(WebCite)

Word on the street says that two (2) prospective paid editors have responded already to that ad. Not that I would know, but that's what a little bird tweeted in my ear.

I might even have considered it myself had I seen the request and there's money involved. About time wikipedia got real about paid editing.

I honestly don't see why Wikipedia would care if an editor is paid off-site by an unrelated company to write an article as long as the article itself meets their notability and style guidelines. Plus I'd think that a freelance writer could write a damn better article than the average 13 year old who contributes to articles on Pokemon, D&D, and crap like that. This just seems downright cultish.

I agree with this, except it would be foolhardy to expect the admins (regardless of age) to apply "notability" and "neutrality"—and indeed overall "quality"—standards fairly except in a blind experiment.

Articles I have edited in exchange for payment, then disclosed -- 100% deleted.

Articles I have edited in exchange for payment, but never disclosed -- 100% intact.

Do the math.

Yes indeed. I can understand the concern that a paid writer might compose false or misleading articles in the cause of remuneration, but that's really just a consequence of Wikipedia's core problem, which is that there's no informed and systematic oversight of the content. Countless editors compose false or misleading articles either inadvertently - or deliberately, but for free - so the payment seems largely to be a red herring.

Do you know whether anyone ever got in contact with this plaintiffs' attorney?

Okay then. This reinforces my theory that everyone wins if you can keep your mouth shut.

You know what? I forgot that one of my paid articles did get deleted about a year after it was published on Wikipedia. But that was because the subject enterprise never fully launched (kind of like Truth in Numbers), and so with the business stalled, a "PROD" went unchallenged, and the article was deleted. The client never contacted me about that, as it was a bust on his end, too.

Sorry, Charlotte.

Did anyone tell them that WP articles never gain a status of 'completeness'?