Another Wikipedia Admin Caught Making PR Edits

Do not go after Wikipedia because of one or two shitty people. We need it as a country. I would argue that the world needs it. Make it better and support it while calling out the shitty stuff, don't take it down.

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.
- Agreed. Especially in times like these - having a free and open source of information is incredibly important.
Why do US citizens think everyone on the internet is from their country ?
- What part of their comment assumes that everyone else is from their country? I only see them referring to themselves and their own country.
  If I said "we need public transit as a city" am I assuming that everyone lives in my city or am I simply talking about my own city? I don't see why this is any different and it seems very nitpicky.
- While, surely, OP was speaking English - given the world state why did you immediately jump to the conclusion that the country being referred to was the US? Yes - the statement wasn't broad enough to perhaps include you but it wasn't narrow or hateful in its intent. People (broad statement, including you) need to maybe find some chill and perhaps look for common ground rather than constantly being pedantic cunts. There were a variety of ways to approach that statement without being a twat... so kudos for just going for it - most people would have more tact.
- Why are non-americans so fucking pretentious on the Internet?
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?
- I was going off the comments in this thread at the time. The right wants wikipedia to go away.
- To answer your question, It is safe to assume most people read the title and the abstract but don't actually read the article
What the world needs, what you need as a country, is for people to be a bit more discerning and conscious about the reliability of what they read online, and that includes not treating Wikipedia like holy scripture in the way that far too many people do.

forgive me for being suspect about a random anti wikipedia website at a time when the right wing is spending billions to discredit and shut down wikipedia.

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/
- Ah yes, I'd love people online to be positive I'm a woman and not just probably one! That would make me feel extremely safe! I am being extremely sarcastic!
I like how you think ...
- This is what the rich choose to do instead of compete in a free market
Are you saying the article is false?
And do you think the right wing doesn't spend any money to edit Wikipedia?

After finishing the PhD, I got emails from people saying that for money they would manage a Wikipedia article for me. They said they had people in high places to make that my article communicates the right message.

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
- I'm guessing how that goes is you pay them, they do actually make you a page, it gets quickly deleted for not meeting Wikipedia's standards, and then they go "sorry no refunds". Step 0 to getting a Wikipedia page about yourself is to be notable enough for one, which >99.9% of people are not.
- I'm surprised and not surprised I guess that there's a business offering to write Wikipedia articles like this. I suppose it's naivety to think that Wikipedia articles are written with good intentions.
- For some reason they didn't reach out to me after I received my doctorate in Geopsychology at Abide University...
- If the information on the page is accurate, what exactly is the issue here?

What does the PR acronym stand for ?

Roman people
pull request
parliamentary report
press release
prize ring
proportional representation
Puerto Rico
Permanent Resident
Progress Report
Pressure Regulator
Park Ridge
Pattern Recognition
PageRank
Planning and Responsibility
Performance Review
Performance Rating
Problem Report
Papa Roach
Personal Record
Peer Review
⁝
- People roman ?
  Yeah I read it Pull request first time lmao
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_relations
- Thanks !

Tried to add that the (two) famous classic swedish films "sälskaps resan 1 & 2" were copies of the french Les Bronzés, and remove the "is on DVD for exceptionnally cheap".

Got reverted after like 1 minute.

Tried a bunch of times, complaints to no avail.

Some years later I tried again but you could no longer make changes IIRC.

Just checked, info still missing.

Edit: to all the doubtfully people, here is one reversed edit I aparently did in 2023: https://sv.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=S%C3%A4llskapsresan&diff=prev&oldid=53585812 If someone lnows how to search for reversed edits ...

Edit: mer info på svenska: här

Edit: Some say the specialized "swedish" jokes in the film was stolen from a Finnish film mamed Callemoss.

It only takes a single incident like this for people to completely loose trust in Wikipedia, granted Wikipedia was already put to an insanely unreasonable standard.

- Not really, but I am sick and tired of Wikipedia haters constantly using every tiny mistake to prove "Wikipedia cant be trusted". Granted they still use the age old lie of "anyone can edit it" and "nobody moderates it".

They should recruit more Reddit mods.

Pretty sure wikipedia is almost entirely a compendium of PR posts.