Jimbo asks Bradv if he encouraged paid editing

[Bbb23sucks]

According to a journalist who lurk on here, there is a second Holocaust scandal.

It looks like a major scandal to me - to be hitting the media perhaps

Statement by Jimbo Wales
I will post a full statement here tomorrow morning - I just wanted to pop a note here now to make sure people know I am aware of this and not ignoring it.

In the meantime, let me be clear: I regret and have apologised for the tone of my question to BradV. "If you believe an editor has an undisclosed COI and is editing in violation of this guideline, raise the issue in a civil manner on the editor's talk page" says WP:COICOIN. I was upset by the large number in question and wasn't nearly as civil as I should have been - but the right thing to do is ask people, per policy.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it is similar because the rules are totally arbitrary - there is no real process or internal controls it is a lunatic free for all
--The issue is whether or not the founder can do whatever he wants to do regardless of process
--In the Holocaust scandal - a group of editors can do whatever they want to do using the faux process
--He who prevails on setting reality wields the biggest stick! (in either case)

I think Wikipedia is going to be pounded from here on in.. In a shark attack you lose a leg or get killed; in a piranha attack you get nipped away relentlessly. Wikipedia is under piranha attack.

(PS the value of Chat GPT is not in content -- it can organize your content if you present it with your overview - as far as parroting the work of ohters there are indicators that just as Wikipedia harvested Britannica Chat GPT will start out by harvesting Wikipedia)

The rules don't exist to actually keep things civil or organized, they exist to keep the "noobs" in-line while they write the minimal content they are allow to do before getting harassed and blocked by the admins.

[badmachine]

According to a journalist who lurk on here, there is a second Holocaust scandal.

WHAT???

On top of all, she had uncovered hard evidence that one of the parties involved in the second Holocaust scandal is likely a chomo. The demise of Wikipedia is within realistic reach.

sad but unsurprising. they dont call them wikipedos for nothin

[wexter]

They are afraid.... very afraid...
---which on the surface is ironic because nobody external to Wikipedia really cares unless it generates click bait from bad press (revenue)
---which is justified because there is lots to lose
---Jimbo is just a goofball playing Yoda

--Internally the site is toxic
--Internally the people are totally defensive (afraid) and extremely sensitive to analysis
--Externally the information presented is mostly wrong and irredeemable
--Internally it is a social network (perhaps the most vile)
--Externally it is a site that provides a revenue stream via search PR and advertising
------Other messages can be sold on the platform propaganda, narrative framing, gender framing, etc
--Externally it has a fading monopoly on content aggregation, frankly there is less quality content to aggregate in secondary sources
--The technology is dated, The idea does not work well (neither element is unique to Wikipedia)

It will boil down to money
--they need to be afraid of Google's next steps, over five or so years

Wikipedia is done; it is a done deal, nobody realizes it yet as it just became apparent
--Proprietary will win out over "open source"
--The AOL'ing of Wikipedia is in process
--I pronounce Wikipedia "suffering" as it will refuse to die like many a bad idea.

[ericbarbour]

omg theres a proposed case at aarbcom

Pathetic. Typical. And old news.

Do I really need to post the book notes about WikiExperts? It seems I must.

I think Wikipedia is going to be pounded from here on in.. In a shark attack you lose a leg or get killed; in a piranha attack you get nipped away relentlessly. Wikipedia is under piranha attack.

It has ALWAYS been "under attack". From lots of sides.

---Jimbo is just a goofball playing Yoda

No he's not. Please don't "cuteify" him and don't fall for his hokey public image. He's a pure, amoral, lying, manipulating sleaze. And I guarantee he's frantically talking to/manipulating his hardcore supporters to try to mitigate this "scandal".

[ericbarbour]

WikiExperts

A firm that has heavily, openly advertised that it can create and maintain Wikipedia articles, starting with their "Special Introductory Offer" of $295 for 5 hours of work on an article, plus monthly fees for "maintenance", at a "reasonable cost" of only $95/hour. Started in 2010, this firm is operated by Alex Konanykhin, who had his own self-congratulatory Wikipedia article created. [59] WikiExperts was banned from editing Wikipedia for all eternity in October 2013 -- unsuccessfully.

As posted on Wikipediocracy, starting 1 September 2013:

"SoundsOfNature came to life on 12 November 2012, and its first edit was to KMGiGroup, a holding company owned by husband-and-wife team Alex Konanykhin and Silvina Moschini."
"It then started making edits to WikiExperts.us, a paid Wikipedia-editing company owned by Alex Konanykhin and Silvina Moschini, and to TransparentBusiness, a company which tracks the computer use of employees, and which is owned by Alex Konanykhin and Silvina Moschini."
"Then it started editing the BLP of Silvina Moschini and the article on Intuic, "a social media company founded by entrepreneur and media contributor Silvina Moschini"."
"Next SoundsOfNature started working on the Alex Konanykhin BLP. The edit comments on the editing of this BLP look like nervous explanations of its work, as if responding to a cranky employer's memos."
"Almost all its recent work consists of sandbox edits of articles in development: it is obvious (to me) that the subjects of these as yet unpublished articles are clients of WikiExperts.us."
"It found the time, on 4 June 2013, to make ten edits to MyWikiBiz and nine edits to the BLP of Gregory Kohs."

When the Wiki-PR sock army was uncovered in October 2013 (see below), Konanykhin showed up on the CREWE Facebook page to defend them. From the Signpost: "Alex Konanykhin of WikiExperts.us rejects not only Jimmy Wales' zero-tolerance "bright-line rule", but does not reveal his relationships with clients on Wikipedia because "that would expose our clients to being unfairly targeted by anti-commerce jihadists." In recent days, he has been an unabashed defender of his firm's editing activities in the CREWE group."

April 2014: [60] "I see that wikipedians recently investigated Jeremy112233, and the evidence strongly suggests that he is the COO of WikiExperts. On October 17, 2013, the firm, its employees, and any related firms were banned from editing Wikipedia. James Cummins (author) is presumably his autobiography. He's denied all of this though."

The original Wikipediocracy thread from 2014.
https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewto ... 973#p88973

Go look thru the history of Mossack Fonseca. Created for them in 2013 by Jeremy112233. It's OLD news.

And furthermore, FUCK YOU HARRY, YOU FAT TURDBUCKET. You don't get to criticize Jimbo, because in some ways YOU ARE WORSE THAN HIM. You, little man, also have a long history of "poorly-considered actions".

There seems to be a school of thought forming that this is a one-off incident and that nothing needs to be done because there's no reason to think it will happen again. This is not the case. Jimbo has a history of poorly considered actions. They are infrequent, but he edits (aside from his talk page) infrequently and uses his advanced permissions even less frequently. We would not tolerate any other admin with a cycle of appearing after long lapses in activity to make an ill-considered action then returning to inactivity (which has many parallels with Dbachmann, who was desysopped last week). This incident should be examined as part of a pattern, otherwise we'll be having this conversation again in a few months or a few years. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

[Bbb23sucks]

--Proprietary will win out over "open source"

Wikipedia is not "open source", the content may be under a free license, but "open source" requires open collaboration. NOTHING about Wikipedia's "collaboration" process is open, it is entirely exploitive and manipulative. People join to help and are kicked out when they have outlived their usefulness. They just want human robots who write (biased) content without questioning anything about the system. That‘s why Jimbo wants AI to write it, AI will not question admins or WMF.

[wexter]

1) Wales - He's a pure, amoral, lying, manipulating sleaze. 2) And I guarantee he's frantically talking to/manipulating his hardcore supporters to try to mitigate this "scandal".

It found the time, on 4 June 2013, to make ten edits to MyWikiBiz and nine edits to the BLP of Gregory Kohs

1) As long as Mywikibiz was mentioned: https://mywikibiz.com/Criticism_of_Jimmy_Wales

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=2382&p=23044&hilit ... hls#p23044

Ah, Greg. He's still angry at me about.....something. ...
Greg did one important thing: in 2013 he performed an analysis of 100 business-related articles and found that about half of them showed signs of paid editing. It's RAMPANT on English Wikipedia and they are still doing very goddamned little to curb it. Greg made some very trenchant comments about people like William Beutler, who has done a lot of paid editing and also drilled his way into the twisted little Wiki-Society, so they won't go around banning his sock accounts.

2) Yes of course - the "arbitration request" speaks to your point - they are fawning over "the founder"

[ericbarbour]

they are fawning over "the founder"

SOME of them are--the older guard, people HE installed 20 years ago. Most of the patrollers and deletionists (and some total raving loose nuts like Amanda Passley) would prefer to purge him so their authority is unchallenged.

You can post her deadname if you like. I don't give a fuck anymore.

[Ognistysztorm]

According to a journalist who lurk on here, there is a second Holocaust scandal.

It looks like a major scandal to me - to be hitting the media perhaps

Statement by Jimbo Wales
I will post a full statement here tomorrow morning - I just wanted to pop a note here now to make sure people know I am aware of this and not ignoring it.

In the meantime, let me be clear: I regret and have apologised for the tone of my question to BradV. "If you believe an editor has an undisclosed COI and is editing in violation of this guideline, raise the issue in a civil manner on the editor's talk page" says WP:COICOIN. I was upset by the large number in question and wasn't nearly as civil as I should have been - but the right thing to do is ask people, per policy.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it is similar because the rules are totally arbitrary - there is no real process or internal controls it is a lunatic free for all toxic mosh pit - the Jimbo issue shows that the fruit of the tree is poisoned. (Fruit = Wikipedia, Poison started with Jimbo's Porn Site Bomis)

--The issue is whether or not the founder can do whatever he wants to do regardless of process
--In the Holocaust scandal - a group of editors can do whatever they want to do using the faux process
--He who prevails on setting reality wields the biggest stick! (in either case)

I think Wikipedia is going to be pounded from here on in.. In a shark attack you lose a leg or get killed; in a piranha attack you get nipped away relentlessly. Wikipedia is under piranha attack.

(PS the value of Chat GPT is not in content -- it can organize your content if you present it with your overview - as far as parroting the work of ohters there are indicators that just as Wikipedia harvested Britannica Chat GPT will start out by harvesting Wikipedia)

Wikipedia is in an unlucky streak recently. The hacking articles defilement by CCP, Elon Musk's comments, jailing of Saudi editors and WMF's ensuing weak response, brief scandal of Native American history distortion, and now the Holocaust scandal.

Not so quick yet in terms of "hitting the media" - she mentioned about that Wikipedia will sue her and the newspaper into oblivion just to clutch the pearls. But through a shower thought there is a little hack which bypass that.

Start get into fiction writing and compose a crimefic story featuring the darkest crevices of the "encyclopedia". The villain doesn't have to be name dropped as "Wikipedia" - make up any name you want.

My suggested plot is how a girl got suckered into thinking the "fictional" encyclopedia is her caling where she can contribute to knowledge for all mankind, but as time goes she gradually learned that it is not as an "innocent" institution as it used to be. The climax of the story is when she got banned for frivolous reasons, only to be doxxed for secretly editing again (socking!) and ends up being the kidnapping victim of a crazed "admin".

Writers, once you complete the fictional story, feel free to self-publish on Wattpad and Amazon and try your best in getting it to be made into a Hollywood movie. You get large $$ out of it while having the luxury that "any coincidences to real life events and institutions are purely coincidental," and attempts by Wikipedia to sue the hell out of you will likely fail on First Amendment grounds.

[Bbb23sucks]

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special ... les@enwiki

He has even been booted from the WMF wiki