Shady wikipedia editing business(to our detriment)

Page 2 of 4 [ 60 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Zwerfbeertje
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 6 Sep 2007
Age: 123
Gender: Male
Posts: 362

11 Sep 2007, 11:00 am

tortoise wrote:
....Recently I made 18 edits in two days. That is at double or triple the rate of the SG edits.


No-no, she made 40000 edits in 20 months, that's almost 70 per day, on average.

Quote:
How about this simple explanation. Perhaps SG has a child with ASD and another mental disorder. Perhaps this particular drug helped her son and she wishes to let others know that this drug really helped her son.


That would have been the worst possible reason. In that imaginary case she should have realized that a testimonial can never be considered a neutral, scientific base for doing that. Let alone argue about citing and quoting and maintaining their precious NPOV. As a Wiki-editor you should know that.

Personally I think she got a bit carried away with writing a Featured Article.



mechanima
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Nov 2005
Age: 66
Gender: Female
Posts: 524

11 Sep 2007, 2:16 pm

Zwerfbeertje wrote:
No-no, she made 40000 edits in 20 months, that's almost 70 per day, on average.


I make that more than 11 hours per diem (not including research) and MORE than a little bit scary.

M



alex
Developer
Developer

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jun 2004
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,214
Location: Beverly Hills, CA

11 Sep 2007, 2:27 pm

as I said before, the only way to stop her from ruining the article is to revert her edits that include stuff that isn't cited.


_________________
I'm Alex Plank, the founder of Wrong Planet. Follow me (Alex Plank) on Blue Sky: https://bsky.app/profile/alexplank.bsky.social


mechanima
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Nov 2005
Age: 66
Gender: Female
Posts: 524

11 Sep 2007, 3:06 pm

I would take it further and say that the only way to stop anyone from ruining the article or presenting a biased point of view of AS, or discriminating against editors with declared AS (which is also happening), is to ensure that there are plenty of unbiased, objective editors to GET IN THERE and hammer out an honest reasoned consensus for a fair and realistic article in accord with Wikipedia policy and guidelines who are also prepared to go through the dispute resolution process, if necessary, toward that end.

M



tortoise
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 31 Oct 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 117

11 Sep 2007, 9:25 pm

mechanima wrote:
This is just a suggestion, but I think you will find that if you ever decide to treat editors with AS with equal weight, and the same respect, that you give to any NT editors, instead of dismissing them as though any NT opinion, especially yours, self evidently trumped anything they might have to say, they might start to feel you were more impartial?

I get the impression that you believe I was talking about the AS article and have dealt with AS editors...furthermore personal judgements are made. Check your assumptions, you are way out on a limb.

mechanima wrote:
I also doubt very much if any part of Wikipedia regards "National Institutions such as NIMH" that are frequently loaded with agenda and political bias and without an iota of fact checking or editorial control as "reliable sources".

I couldn't disagree with you more whole heartedly about Wikipedian policy or the NIMH bashing. Your viewpoint is clearly not mainstream and typical of ideas that one would hear from the fringe antipsychiatry movement and/or scientology. Do we really need to communicate further? Our viewpoints are on polar opposite sides.


_________________
"The test of tolerance comes when we are in a majority; the test of courage comes when we are in a minority". - Ralph W. Sockman


mechanima
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Nov 2005
Age: 66
Gender: Female
Posts: 524

11 Sep 2007, 9:46 pm

tortoise wrote:
Check your assumptions, you are way out on a limb.


I doubt it.

I also doubt that considering Michael Fitzgerald, Simon Baron Cohen, and their ilk, preferable and more in accord with Wikipedia Policy, than the New York Times and NIMH, as I do, is even faintly indicative of "the fringe antipsychiatry movement and/or scientology".

M



tortoise
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 31 Oct 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 117

11 Sep 2007, 9:59 pm

Fedaykin wrote:

So.. During the time from 11:47 2nd sep to 5:08 5th sep, 65.5 hours in all, this account spent something like 37-38 hours editing Wikipedia, something I can't see any single person doing, especially not since it's mainly during weekdays and it's in the US.

Since the work schedule practically proves that it's not just a private person, and the account has been used for pharmaceutical product placement, I can't help but to believe that these companies are funding edits such as these.

It appears that wikipedia editing business is a business today, editors that learn all the formalities surrounding the system and who get involved in the wiki politics become propaganda resources, something companies wanting to sell a product or a view can utilize. I feel Wikipedia shouldn't pretend to be an impartial encyclopaedia, but merely a primer on topics that might not reflect the truth. People shouldn't take it quite that seriously when there might be ulterior motives involved or controversial topics are covered. The service is lovely for quickly browsing topics though of course.


Looking at her last 400 edits I get roughly 25 edits per day. Looking at her history, the majority of the edits are not about Aspergers. She tends to work in blocks of time typically for 3 or 4 hours. Some days she takes off. Granted, spending 3 or 4 hours a day on one thing like Wikipedia is not healthy but think how many people waste 3 or 4 hours a day on video games. Again, the conspiracy theories about her working for big pharma and the rush to judgement on her character is not becoming. This whole thread simply reeks of bashing to create bias and lead others unwittingly to action.


_________________
"The test of tolerance comes when we are in a majority; the test of courage comes when we are in a minority". - Ralph W. Sockman


mechanima
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Nov 2005
Age: 66
Gender: Female
Posts: 524

11 Sep 2007, 10:24 pm

tortoise wrote:
Looking at her last 400 edits I get roughly 25 edits per day. Looking at her history, the majority of the edits are not about Aspergers.


Looking at her last 500 edits I get 43 edits per diem, even before taking into account the fact that she was "travelling" and hardly edited at all between 6th Sept and today.

tortoise wrote:
Again, the conspiracy theories about her working for big pharma and the rush to judgement on her character is not becoming. This whole thread simply reeks of bashing to create bias and lead others unwittingly to action.


I think the conspiracy theories are idiotic myself, however the claim most likely to "create bias and lead others unwittingly to action" was the one that suggested she was a parent trying to promote Risperidol because it worked for her AS child...which was so unfairly prejudicial to SandyGeorgia it made me wince.

That claim was made by "Tortoise", who needs to realise that we Aspies are not so much green as just cabbage-like. :wink:

M



tortoise
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 31 Oct 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 117

11 Sep 2007, 11:14 pm

Using your figures or mine the numbers originally given and extrapolated upon, were false and misleading...nor was there any context given into the numbers which created further bias.

Mechanima, you can attempt to paint me on the other side of the fence here but the issue is very simple. Why is there so much misleading bashing on this thread? Must I be an Aspie to raise this issue? Does what I say have any less value for an Aspie reader?


_________________
"The test of tolerance comes when we are in a majority; the test of courage comes when we are in a minority". - Ralph W. Sockman


mechanima
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Nov 2005
Age: 66
Gender: Female
Posts: 524

11 Sep 2007, 11:59 pm

tortoise wrote:
Using your figures or mine the numbers originally given and extrapolated upon, were false and misleading...nor was there any context given into the numbers which created further bias.?


No they were not...if you exclude the travel period, when she hardly appeared at all, she made more than 375 edits in 4.5 days, in the course of her last 500 edits, that is over 80 edits per diem, more than originally claimed. I believe the original poster misinterpreted that facts, but certainly did not misrepresent them.

It is rather hard to explain why someone would spend over 80 hours a week editing Wikipedia for the past 20 months.

tortoise wrote:
Mechanima, you can attempt to paint me on the other side of the fence here but the issue is very simple. Why is there so much misleading bashing on this thread? ?


I have no idea why you are doing it.

tortoise wrote:
Must I be an Aspie to raise this issue? ?


Of course not.

tortoise wrote:
Does what I say have any less value for an Aspie reader?


Yes, because all you seem to be doing thus far, is to manipulate facts, something Aspies tend to place little value upon whoever does it.

M



Fedaykin
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 21 May 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 314
Location: Sundsvall, Sweden

12 Sep 2007, 1:03 am

tortoise wrote:
Looking at her last 400 edits I get roughly 25 edits per day.


Look at her very own page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SandyGeorgia - 21'000 edits up to 3rd of February 2007, 40'000 at 23rd of August. That's an average of 95 / day.

Quote:
Looking at her history, the majority of the edits are not about Aspergers. She tends to work in blocks of time typically for 3 or 4 hours. Some days she takes off. Granted, spending 3 or 4 hours a day on one thing like Wikipedia is not healthy but think how many people waste 3 or 4 hours a day on video games.


In the log I covered, she had one 10.5 hour session and another 8.5 hour one. She's worked a lot on the Asperger's page and the Tourette's one, both of which suggest antipsychotics might be used as a treatment. I don't know just who added that stuff to the Tourette's page, but if it was her there too, I would say it's quite incriminating.

Quote:
Again, the conspiracy theories about her working for big pharma and the rush to judgement on her character is not becoming. This whole thread simply reeks of bashing to create bias and lead others unwittingly to action.


Why is it such a strange thought that someone spending this much time editing has made it a business like a PR agency? I guess the reason you're reacting this way is because it hurts Wiki's esteem if people realize many of the more active editors might be professionals in the real sense, establishing themselves there to be able to service companies and interest groups by presenting their views there.

If you're in any way representative of most Wiki editors, I won't take Wiki too seriously. In spite of being presented with a very clear log, you first pretend it doesn't say what it says, then you gradually correct yourself. Have you accepted now that this SG editor averages 100 edits / day and spends a lot more time doing editing work than an average work week? It's quite insulting when you pretend that her sessions are only 2-3 hours. I sense an esprit de corps(doesn't seem to be any English word for it) in Wiki, in that you're supposed to pretend editors aren't doing something they really are. Wikipedians want to be an elitist clique that object to having newcomers edit stuff even if these people know the subject very well and are neutral.

It's good to have guidelines for achieving neutrality, but Wiki will never be able to hold forces of nature at bay, people editing for profit will have more time and energy at their hands than people editing for idealistic reasons. Wiki can't avoid becoming just like regular mass media in that sense and shouldn't pretend it's been able to deal with this matter. Perhaps adding a disclaimer to the front page would be a good idea, saying the material on the site is a fair primer on the subjects but shouldn't be considered anything resembling the impeccable truth.



ShadesOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,983
Location: California

12 Sep 2007, 1:12 am

the article looks completely different from the original. and a good chunk seems to be missing.



Zwerfbeertje
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 6 Sep 2007
Age: 123
Gender: Male
Posts: 362

12 Sep 2007, 2:29 am

Turtoise, you're the one who's doing the bashing:

Quote:
This whole thread simply reeks of bashing to create bias and lead others unwittingly to action.


Concerns about the article were raised in it's talk page, not just here, there's no need to claim this whole thing is all 'bashing SG'.

Btw, SG hasn't edited the page for a few days.



mechanima
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Nov 2005
Age: 66
Gender: Female
Posts: 524

12 Sep 2007, 5:18 am

Fedaykin wrote:
In spite of being presented with a very clear log, you first pretend it doesn't say what it says, then you gradually correct yourself. Have you accepted now that this SG editor averages 100 edits / day and spends a lot more time doing editing work than an average work week? It's quite insulting when you pretend that her sessions are only 2-3 hours.


It's also quite insulting to suggest (as he did earlier earlier) that there is anything even slightly "normal" about SG's editing pattern. WHATEVER the motivation, it CANNOT possibly be normal to spend over 14 hours a day, 7 days a week, editing Wikipedia.

Fedaykin wrote:
I sense an esprit de corps(doesn't seem to be any English word for it) in Wiki, in that you're supposed to pretend editors aren't doing something they really are.


That is actually very true and owes it's origins to the concept of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CIVIL . In essence you are supposed to focus on the content NOT the personalities of other editors and NEVER bring issues from outside Wikipedia onto the talk pages. It's an awkward and unnatural protocol, but it WORKS, until somebody figures out how to "game" it to their advantage, which is a big part of what has happened to the AS article.

Incidentally, Jimbo Wales, who founded Wikipedia, has to be one of the most genuine people I ever came across. So genuine that, barring really exceptional circumstances, he holds himself bound by consensus and whatever rules bind others.

Fedaykin wrote:
Wikipedians want to be an elitist clique that object to having newcomers edit stuff even if these people know the subject very well and are neutral.


That does happen sometimes, but, to be honest, more often the system works only to keep out the lunatic fringe and self appointed internet experts. It usually works well. But there is always an exception and I think this is it. No doubt in my mind that whatever the motive, one editor is "gaming" the system to retain exclusive personal control of articles they work on. It is only a tribute to that system that it takes at least 14 hours a day, every day, of solid, hard work to accomplish that.

Fedaykin wrote:
Perhaps adding a disclaimer to the front page would be a good idea, saying the material on the site is a fair primer on the subjects but shouldn't be considered anything resembling the impeccable truth.


I think there is one?

M



tortoise
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 31 Oct 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 117

12 Sep 2007, 5:46 am

Fedaykin wrote:
Look at her very own page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SandyGeorgia - 21'000 edits up to 3rd of February 2007, 40'000 at 23rd of August. That's an average of 95 / day.


Using her own page it states: "one year on Wiki; 21,000 edits". Divide by 365 and you get 57.5 edits per day.

Fedaykin wrote:
In the log I covered, she had one 10.5 hour session and another 8.5 hour one. She's worked a lot on the Asperger's page and the Tourette's one, both of which suggest antipsychotics might be used as a treatment. I don't know just who added that stuff to the Tourette's page, but if it was her there too, I would say it's quite incriminating.


Reporting the days that she most used wikipedia does what? We now know that on certain days she uses wikipedia more. On other days she doesn't use it at all. There are days where she uses Wikipedia briefly also. All that one can say from this is that her use is inconsistent.

Fedaykin wrote:
Why is it such a strange thought that someone spending this much time editing has made it a business like a PR agency? I guess the reason you're reacting this way is because it hurts Wiki's esteem if people realize many of the more active editors might be professionals in the real sense, establishing themselves there to be able to service companies and interest groups by presenting their views there.


You haven't at all established how much average time she spends on Wikipedia. Is there a minority of people on this earth who may spend 3 or 4 hour sessions doing something that appears unproductive and occasionally spend 8 or even 10 hours a day doing that? I'll use my earlier example, how many people play video games in this time range? Does anyone accuse them of working for big pharma?

Fedaykin wrote:
If you're in any way representative of most Wiki editors, I won't take Wiki too seriously. In spite of being presented with a very clear log, you first pretend it doesn't say what it says, then you gradually correct yourself. Have you accepted now that this SG editor averages 100 edits / day and spends a lot more time doing editing work than an average work week? It's quite insulting when you pretend that her sessions are only 2-3 hours. I sense an esprit de corps(doesn't seem to be any English word for it) in Wiki, in that you're supposed to pretend editors aren't doing something they really are. Wikipedians want to be an elitist clique that object to having newcomers edit stuff even if these people know the subject very well and are neutral.


All I have simply done is question the assumptions of this thread. As more information is given to me the figures become more exact but in all cases the originally figures given are false. No I don't agree that SG does a 100 edits a day and spends 14 hours a day, 7 days a week doing this. Funny but by simply questioning figures and showing them to be false, I am accused of insulting people and pretending that I don't know better. Get a grip folks, the correct thing to do in this case is simply to admit the error and move on.


_________________
"The test of tolerance comes when we are in a majority; the test of courage comes when we are in a minority". - Ralph W. Sockman


tortoise
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 31 Oct 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 117

12 Sep 2007, 5:53 am

Zwerfbeertje wrote:
Turtoise, you're the one who's doing the bashing:

Quote:
This whole thread simply reeks of bashing to create bias and lead others unwittingly to action.


Concerns about the article were raised in it's talk page, not just here, there's no need to claim this whole thing is all 'bashing SG'.

Btw, SG hasn't edited the page for a few days.


It's okay to raise concerns. It's not okay to twist figures as the basis of a false accusation that demeans others. That is called libel...or more simply bashing.


_________________
"The test of tolerance comes when we are in a majority; the test of courage comes when we are in a minority". - Ralph W. Sockman