Re: Paid Editing on WP is permissible

[ericbarbour]

Twenty-five years into the great Wiki-Babble experiment and I still routinely see corporate articles that were clearly paid-edited and not declared (and lacking in references). Free advertising. Paid for indirectly by the fools who donate to the WMF.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barco_(manufacturer)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:C ... Carlos0253
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:C ... ons/Writie

[ericbarbour]

Yet another one

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilmour_S ... chnologies

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:C ... atMeleeMan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:C ... ons/Mtan62

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:C ... radcamburn

That is "conveniently failing to mention" their failed launch today.....
https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/05/t ... ts-launch/

[ericbarbour]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audrey_Hobert

Never heard of her. The vast bulk of this article (created 2 weeks ago) was written by two "apparently different" people in the UK.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Launchballer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Meena

Would not shock me if this was Audrey herself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1290942693

[ericbarbour]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Araw
VERY obscure experimental musician.

Major contributor: Roosterjack, who has edited almost nothing else on en-wiki. And all last year.

The only other major contributor, Michig, has a contribution history that makes me wonder if he used to be an Oracle employee. He claims to be a winner of an Erasmus Prize, which is rich, since there have been very few winners of it--including the "Wikipedia community" in 2015. Thus you could make the comical claim that millions of Wp editors deserve a share of the prize, including abusive vandals like Grawp and Willy On Wheels.

[Strelnikov]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audrey_Hobert

Never heard of her. The vast bulk of this article (created 2 weeks ago) was written by two "apparently different" people in the UK.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Launchballer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Meena

Would not shock me if this was Audrey herself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1290942693

The goobers who edit Wikipedia probably think Audrey Hobert is notable because she wrote for a Loud House sequel series (whoop-de-doo) that was live action and that her father was a TV writer. The whole stub BLP looks like the creation of bona fides by an music agent so that Hobert could get gigs at music festivals because she doesn't have an album yet, and she is probably facing criticism from the crowds for being a "studio plant" (unlike in the glory days of the singer-songwriter, writing for other people before you are established is some sort of crime to the Spotify crowd.) Yes, doing what even Lou Reed did in 1964 is a fakery of the highest order.

[ericbarbour]

Yes, doing what even Lou Reed did in 1964 is a fakery of the highest order.

Ha ha, good point. Lou was doing a lot of stupid things in '64, the "golden age" of the Brill Building garbage song factory and its endless stream of "one hit wonders". It is no surprise at all that he was already a heroin addict and a year later, started the Velvet Underground.

The "Beachnuts" is not mentioned in the Lou Reed article, but this is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5r998weOUiM
Not the work of a "genius", if you go by the lyrics
https://genius.com/The-primitives-nyc-t ... ich-lyrics

Both Reed's article and the VU article show loads of past vandalism and OWNership. Malik Shabazz and Rothorpe (remember him?) have both edited all VU-related content heavily. Fanboys.

That is the "reward" Reed gets for being "one of the most influential musicians of his generation" etc. etc.

[Strelnikov]

Yes, doing what even Lou Reed did in 1964 is a fakery of the highest order.

Ha ha, good point. Lou was doing a lot of stupid things in '64, the "golden age" of the Brill Building garbage song factory and its endless stream of "one hit wonders". It is no surprise at all that he was already a heroin addict and a year later, started the Velvet Underground.

The "Beachnuts" is not mentioned in the Lou Reed article, but this is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5r998weOUiM
Not the work of a "genius", if you go by the lyrics
https://genius.com/The-primitives-nyc-t ... ich-lyrics

Both Reed's article and the VU article show loads of past vandalism and OWNership. Malik Shabazz and Rothorpe (remember him?) have both edited all VU-related content heavily. Fanboys.

That is the "reward" Reed gets for being "one of the most influential musicians of his generation" etc. etc.

I was being sarcastic with my "fakery of the highest order" comment -- Lou Reed in his Pickwick Records period was doing the exact same thing Neil Diamond did at the same time (and Diamond was a veteran of the Brill Building by the time his first singer-songwriter records* came out in the late 1960s), but you won't read the same awed fanboyism in the Wikipedia articles on Diamond's career. It's all pathetic attempts to sound like Lester Bangs or Robert Cristgau by the Wikipedia crowd.


* Like Billy Joel with Attila, Diamond had a proto-career as Neil and Jack with high school friend Jack Packer. The duo lasted all of 1962, and Diamond tried to go solo in 1963, wound up songwriting. Billy Joel at least made Attila an album, all Diamond could do until 1966 was create singles. (Attila was the forgotten Billy Joel psychedelic rock band he ran with Jon Smalls that annoyed people for being too loud when they played in NYC clubs, 1969-1970.)

[ericbarbour]

I was being sarcastic with my "fakery of the highest order" comment -- Lou Reed in his Pickwick Records period was doing the exact same thing Neil Diamond did at the same time (and Diamond was a veteran of the Brill Building by the time his first singer-songwriter records* came out in the late 1960s), but you won't read the same awed fanboyism in the Wikipedia articles on Diamond's career. It's all pathetic attempts to sound like Lester Bangs or Robert Cristgau by the Wikipedia crowd.

Well put. I have NEVER seen any "good music writing" on any WMF site, not even Wikibooks. The thing attracts spazzy nerd mobs and not Lester Bangs wannabes. That would be nice, but since they are carrying this "cult of the amateur" to an absurd degree, anyone with actual talent or something to say will be chased off. They always did it before.

Meanwhile, the "sexy female singer disease" continues to produce embarrassing reams of crap, without a dime of paid-editing cash being spent by the singers or their associated corporations. I've complained about this before and it bears mentioning again.

So we get ludicrous crap like "Cultural depictions of Madonna", including an unreadable 220k byte article about her "cultural impact". In the running for Most Wiki-Whored Singer are Beyonce, Lady Gaga, and whatever the hell this is.

No wonder budding rock critics are avoiding WP. Look at all that purified cringe.

[Strelnikov]

Meanwhile, the "sexy female singer disease" continues to produce embarrassing reams of crap, without a dime of paid-editing cash being spent by the singers or their associated corporations. I've complained about this before and it bears mentioning again.

So we get ludicrous crap like "Cultural depictions of Madonna", including an unreadable 220k byte article about her "cultural impact". In the running for Most Wiki-Whored Singer are Beyonce, Lady Gaga, and whatever the hell this is.

I mean just look at the tag on that article, the Admins know it's a piece of flaming dogshit in the grand tradition of "Ding Dong Ditch", but they can't get rid of it because they will never hear the end of it from editors BoyTheKingCanDance and LoverReps, because they started the article.

Check out this tag. 2025-07-18 at 9.25.59 PM.png (149.9 KiB) Viewed 474 times

[Bbb23sucks]

How many times do you need to click 'random article' before you see obvious spam? Three apparently.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christien_Rioux

Try it yourself and see how long it takes.