Shill is getting to be such a tough job.
The graphic is gorgeous. It’s so full of emptiness!
The hyperlink “the list of articles edited” has a malformed anchor tag:
href-“https:…”
But props to editors who use hand-written HTML.
Your link “Here’s the list of articles edited” is malformed, should be:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Orangemoody/Articles
There’s perfectly legitimate uses for socks, though. And I’m not talking about feet. Also, paid editing can be compliant with Wikipedia’s guidelines, when it’s fully disclosed.
Could you please elaborate? I’m not sure whether to nod my head or shout at you. 
Bitcoin scams check, I’m surprised that Scientology hasn’t gotten hit harder by these shill editors.
I guess they just use their own slave-labor and pay them in beans & rice.
Wikipedia’s guidelines do not forbid using multiple accounts for editing, unless you use them e.g. to cheat in polls, disrupt discussions, or other disruptive behaviour. Although it is usually frowned upon not to disclose such use. (edit: by Wikipedia’s definition, ‘sock puppettry’ implies “improper use”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry’ - I’m not a native speaker of English and know the term as an anglicism with a more neutral note).
Similarly, there is no explicit rule against paid editing. Some users have been paid by scientific institutes for research where the grant included improving the relevant Wikipedia articles. Sometimes the PR department of a corporation will be tasked with improving the Wikipedia article on the company or its products. But there are rules for this, which usually include disclosure on the account’s user page, and of course all the other guidelines on contents, citation, neutral point of view etc. have to be followed.
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use#4._Refraining_from_Certain_Activities
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/FAQ_on_paid_contributions_without_disclosure
I don’t think this is “paid editing”, as you call it. It’s documentation required under an employment contract. I agree that it’s well within the spirit of the rules.
This is much thornier. And you forgot the scare quotes around “improving”.
Thanks for replying.
Many get it wrong, but I’ve seen it done right. There’s a grey area, too. I got bored on the job once and took half an hour of paid work to update the article on my employer, like update the number of employees, some copy editing, and adding a new line of products. I did not disclose this and was technically in violation of guidelines, but still feel I made a factual improvement, without scare quotes. There may of course be a problem with Neutral Point of View that one is not even aware of, so it should be avoided.
I assume that FOX is always hiring…
No point of view is truly neutral. That’s what the other editors are for to spot and correct.
But there is that “close enough” area we should strive for.
I think that’s the end boss from Bubble Tanks.
If you think wikipedia is reliable without reviewing the citations, at least in disputed pages read the last line in this thumbnail!
Now I love and love to edit wikipedia but that page breaks my faith.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
