Wikipedia Edits (guess I shouldn't be surprised)

Watermark said:
"Umm ya it is called the marketing department dummy."

I stopped reading after that.

Look, stupid. I could imagine, maybe, the vice president of marketing walking into wikipedia one day after haphazardly typing in his companies article, and glossing over all the bad stuff. I just really can't imagine any company taking time out of their day to tell all their employees to edit something on Wikipedia. It would also be re-edited over in about 30 minutes.

And judging from the low amount of articles it's been done to (The people who wrote this put a lot of effort into finding just these few examples), you could probably assume that it's not very common practice, in any case. The vast majority of fallacious edits come from idiots like you who write stupid opinions into articles.
Click to expand...

That isn't true. Just look at all the marketing stuff and advertising that gets removed. I know of one company for a fact that removed stuff that they felt was negative. A company nowhere in that list. You are dumb and naive. I am in the marketing/pr business and I know this happens and will get worse. Granted the info is usually removed pretty fast. the mods at wikipedia are good.
 
Blackflag said:
That isn't true. Just look at all the marketing stuff and advertising that gets removed. I know of one company for a fact that removed stuff that they felt was negative. A company nowhere in that list. You are dumb and naive. I am in the marketing/pr business and I know this happens and will get worse. Granted the info is usually removed pretty fast. the mods at wikipedia are good.
Click to expand...
The vast majority of edits are by companies. They do it on purpose and with a purpose.
 
Blackflag said:
That isn't true. Just look at all the marketing stuff and advertising that gets removed. I know of one company for a fact that removed stuff that they felt was negative. A company nowhere in that list. You are dumb and naive. I am in the marketing/pr business and I know this happens and will get worse. Granted the info is usually removed pretty fast. the mods at wikipedia are good.
Click to expand...

*sigh*

OK Blackflag. I just don't believe organized fixing of wikipedia for marketing purposes is widespread.
 
Damocles said:
The vast majority of edits are by companies. They do it on purpose and with a purpose.
Click to expand...

You mean by company computers. A lot of people access the internet through work.

The Canadian defense department found that 5000 people had made edits to wikipedia on their computers. Their response? They banned wiki-editing. Which is what I'm trying to say - most of this just isn't very organized.
 
Watermark said:
You mean by company computers. A lot of people access the internet through work.

The Canadian defense department found that 5000 people had made edits to wikipedia on their computers. Their response? They banned wiki-editing. Which is what I'm trying to say - most of this just isn't very organized.
Click to expand...
No, you moron. Companies do it to their own page to promote better public relations. You do know that they write their own pages usually? Others add to them, they try to return them where they were before.

Seriously, companies do it as part of their advertising, they therefore try to keep it positive.
 
Damocles said:
No, you moron. Companies do it to their own page to promote better public relations. You do know that they write their own pages usually? Others add to them, they try to return them where they were before.

Seriously, companies do it as part of their advertising, they therefore try to keep it positive.
Click to expand...

Of course they do!
 
I wasn't even saying they weren't! Why do you guys have to look for reasons to insult someone just to get your stupidity wackoff for the day?
 
Watermark said:
I wasn't even saying they weren't! Why do you guys have to look for reasons to insult someone just to get your stupidity wackoff for the day?
Click to expand...
No, you keep saying that the companies themselves don't actually tell people to do this. They do. They told them to write the original page, then they attempt to keep all negatives from it. It would probably be somebody's job to watch the Wiki page and attempt to remove negatives.
 
Damocles said:
No, you keep saying that the companies themselves don't actually tell people to do this. They do. They told them to write the original page, then they attempt to keep all negatives from it. It would probably be somebody's job to watch the Wiki page and attempt to remove negatives.
Click to expand...

I never said they didn't, did I? I was just implying it wasn't the primary source of fallacious wikipedia edits - the vast majority are unorganized.

Then again, you go to the article on Windows Vista, or Perverted Justice, and you just have to roll your eyes at how crystal clean they're able to keep it.
 
cawacko said:
That's not the site we're talking about. We were talking about Wikipedia. What the hell does Rush's personal home page have to do with Wikipediea? It has absolutely nothing to do with it. Damn man.
Click to expand...

I thought you said site, I was referring to that instead of a wiki entry.
 
Blackflag said:
Well these are old edits. Wikipedia tracks the IP of the editor and the program just finds out who they belong to so it can go back and see who edited something a year ago.
Click to expand...

well wont do much good when someone is using a proxy somewhere else to surf
 
if this program is just trackng ip address's, i wouldnt take it as fact that they are the one actuly making the changes. there are alot of people out there that could easily write a lil program (virus) and setup a pc at some company or orginization and just use it as a proxy server. while the person with infected pc wouldnt have a clue.
 
this program wouldnt hold its weight in a court...

its just the nature of the net, its kinda fun to see what it says but, i dont think it hold much water
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top