Wikimedia Employee Fired Over Paid Editing

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Rumors of stuff like this have been floating around forever about Wikipedia. So, when someone is actually caught doing it, there really isn't any choice but to let them go.

I'm writing to let you know that Sarah Stierch is no longer an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation. The Wikimedia Foundation has recently learned that Sarah has been editing Wikipedia on behalf of paying clients, as recently as a few weeks ago. She did that even though it is widely known that paid editing is frowned upon by many in the editing community and by the Wikimedia Foundation.
Click to expand...
 
Probably paid by one of those online reputation improvement firms.
 
A real shocker. Wikipedia is pretty good for information that the editors don't care about but when it comes to anything else, it's pretty obvious the Wikipedia mods have an agenda and aren't shy about abusing their power.

I think Jimmy Wales needs to do a shitload of house cleaning before I'll take his fund raising banners off adblock.
 
"frowned upon" WTF

Sounds like a term they use when they really don't care unless they get caught.
 
Why did they even make an announcement? Are people really asking "OMG where's Sarah Stierch to fix this page!"

It'd be interesting if they showed what pages she's recently edited to see which companies were the ones who paid her.
 
Why does it matter if you have someone on the inside doing paid editing when anyone at any time can edit a page anyway? (provided it isn't locked)
 
sfsuphysics said:
Why did they even make an announcement? Are people really asking "OMG where's Sarah Stierch to fix this page!"

It'd be interesting if they showed what pages she's recently edited to see which companies were the ones who paid her.
Click to expand...

If you can figure out her account name, you can look at her edit history rather easily.
 
NeghVar said:
Probably paid by one of those online reputation improvement firms.
Click to expand...
Which exist only for plausible deniability of the parent company... they do so much of that nonsense. They tell XYZ nameless organization to do something, then if it bites them in the butt, they claim outrage and cancel the contract pleading ignorance.
 
Zarathustra[H];1040535139 said:
If you can figure out her account name, you can look at her edit history rather easily.
Click to expand...

Yeah but that would require more effort that I really care to put forth right now :)
 
Zarathustra[H];1040535139 said:
If you can figure out her account name, you can look at her edit history rather easily.
Click to expand...

I think someone should do this to publicly 'shame' the companies that took the time to try to re-write Wikipedia in their favor. There's something inherently wrong it seems about re-writing or putting falsehoods into a public information source designed to be an open and accurate encyclopedia/educational resource.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top