Technology

Do go for the shitty admins with no mercy though. We don't need Wiki to slowly rot from the inside.

We need it as a country.

We need it as a world.

Why do US citizens think everyone on the internet is from their country ?

The article is about protecting the integrity of Wikipedia from admins with ulterior motives. Regardless of the correctness of the article, "going after Wikipedia to take it down" does not describe the topic in the slightest. Why does this have so many upvotes? Are any of you even reading the linked article?

The issue that the article raises is legitimate, but actually looking through their archives is baffling, they're really just hellbent on shitting on WP. One of their most read articles says Wikipedia should attract more female editors by reducing the anonymity on the site and making it more like a social media platform. What the hell? https://wikipediocracy.com/why-women-have-no-time-for-wikipedia/

I like how you think ...

Dear ...,

Have you ever wondered of having a Wikipedia page for yourself or your company? We can help you get a Wikipedia page for yourself or your brand. 

Why have a Wikipedia page?

Google loves Wikipedia and as such ranks it high in search results. Wikipedia is
also the first place people go when they Google your name. By leveraging
Wikipedia, you can help control your Online Profile and present yourself to the
world. Usually Wikipedia only accepts pages on celebrities and famous companies,
if you are looking to get one for yourself, we can help you with that. Having a page
for yourself in Wikipedia, brings you more credibility and makes you more
famous. 

We have been editing on Wikipedia for 9+ years and We've created tons of pages
for companies, people, brands, products, and of course for academic purposes as
well.

We own multiple accounts on Wikipedia with page curation and new page
reviewer rights, so we can create and moderate pages with almost zero risk of
another mod taking it down. 

There are few Wikipedia editors who are willing to create a page for money, and
most of them are scared to offer this service directly, so they do it through their
trusted sellers who mark up the price to $1500 - $2500 per page. 

Because you're buying directly from an experienced Wikipedia editor and mod,
you'll get your page a lot cheaper, faster and with more reliability. 

Let me know if you are interested.

Regards

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_relations

What does the article mean “Juniper Networks, despite being a “Good Article”, is also mostly PR”?

It's all part of their various horseshit attempt at making something which is pretty simple an innocuous into something that it isn't.

Within the last few days, it looks like someone raised the issue on this guy's page, the arbitration committee is getting in touch with him, and he's saying he'll get back to them. Presumably there's a minor conflict of interest and they'll look over the article and make sure he didn't do anything slanty to them and then tell him to stay away from COI-like articles in the future.

There's absolutely nothing sinister here, and they are stringing together a bunch of misleading stuff (like "mostly PR") to make a mountain out of a molehill to discredit Wikipedia. I've noticed a bunch of people doing this, presumably there is some organized campaign which actually is sinister in the way they're implying WP is, that is trying to make people think badly of them.

Both things are technically true: the article is primarily made up of content literally written by the company or people contracted by them for PR purposes, and it is a Good Article (Wikipedia jargon for having passed a review of certain quality standards around writing, coverage and sourcing, but not the higher standard required to be classed as a Featured Article).

How much of a problem this is probably depends on the subject. Does Juniper Networks have any bad practices which the article omits because the people who researched it (i.e. Juniper Networks) didn't think they needed to go in the article? You'd basically need an independent observer to research anything that potentially should be in the article but isn't there, but how many people that aren't getting paid are invested in researching a corporate networking business?

There's absolutely merit to Wikipedia having articles that are written by people paid to write them by their subjects, because a lot of it would otherwise be missing from Wikipedia entirely. But it's also good to know that many articles are not necessarily written by impartial authors.

I just checked the articles for "Sällskapsresan" and "French Fried Vacation". The only edit that was reverted (or at least the only edit whose author would've been notified by the revert) changed "Norwegian" to "German" on the former page. I also didn't find "is on DVD for exceptionally cheap" anywhere. None of these articles are protected (i.e. "locked") either. Which article did this happen on?

Ah, of course, I was looking at the English Wikipedia article. Still, the Swedish article mentions Les Bronzés, no?