Thread: Wikipedia bans IPs of Church of Scientology

Wikipedia excommunicates Church of Scientology | Technically Incorrect - CNET News

I think this is a good move because as shady a source wiki already is to many people, its good that they will crack down on abuse of their systems and of the information itself. I had no idea they even had a staff to deal with that sort of stuff. From the way some made it sound, it was an information source run completely by random whoevers.

I'm uncomfortable with censorship in general, but in this particular case, I have to agree with the Wikipedia editors.

Some companies have a person on their payroll whos only task is to make sure they are represented favorably on wiki. I don't recall any action against that kind of "sockpuppiting."

Originally Posted by Fishmint

Some companies have a person on their payroll whos only task is to make sure they are represented favorably on wiki. I don't recall any action against that kind of "sockpuppiting."

I can't imagine that any company would have a person on the payroll dedicated to that sole task. After all, Wikipedia is just one site. If it was my only job, I could check the site in the morning, make sure everything is kosher, and kick back and post rants on political forums while on company time.

I'm guessing the work is given to a tech-savvy guy in marketing or PR.

Originally Posted by Fishmint

Some companies have a person on their payroll whos only task is to make sure they are represented favorably on wiki. I don't recall any action against that kind of "sockpuppiting."

That's because nobody would bother to tell you every time someone at wikipedia clamps down on somebody for violating community guidelines. My old company's wikipedia article was removed after our IT manager pointed out to wiki's editors that it was essentially advertising written by the company.

Originally Posted by Djinn

I can't imagine that any company would have a person on the payroll dedicated to that sole task. After all, Wikipedia is just one site. If it was my only job, I could check the site in the morning, make sure everything is kosher, and kick back and post rants on political forums while on company time.

I'm guessing the work is given to a tech-savvy guy in marketing or PR.

Thats a terrible marketing strategy when you can easily make your facts clear once and for all on your own website, which will then be linked to wiki. So, I wouldn't say a tech savvy guy would do this job. Perhaps a information savvy typist @ minimum wage would suffice.

Originally Posted by johnflesh

Wikipedia excommunicates Church of Scientology | Technically Incorrect - CNET News

I think this is a good move because as shady a source wiki already is to many people, its good that they will crack down on abuse of their systems and of the information itself. I had no idea they even had a staff to deal with that sort of stuff. From the way some made it sound, it was an information source run completely by random whoevers.

I really doubt that would stop them from making edits.

And yeah, they do have a small staff (most do so as volunteer work) which primarily check sources and make sure info is accurate. Which also sucks cause they continuously remove the page on me. Shitty that you have to have credibility to have a page on yourself.