3 ms·

> That's like saying "Did the judge who took a bribe say anything unreasonable in their ruling? In fact, it's much more like the attorney is paid, which is con

> That's like saying "Did the judge who took a bribe say anything unreasonable in their ruling? In fact, it's much more like the attorney is paid, which is considered fine in courts. Indeed, having contributors who are potentially biased, but who each argue their point and agree to a method of conflict resolution, is considered one of the most powerful methods of seeking truth. It's also used in academics, where each researcher bring their own biases to the table. > Any paid, undisclosed influence is wrong, period. I guess you didn't read the article? The paid influence was disclosed.

viivaux 8y ago
>In fact, it's much more like the attorney is paid, which is considered fine in courts. In theory (though tbf not in reality) everyone has the right to an attorney. AFAIK there is no corresponding right to a paid Wikipedia editor. >> Any paid, undisclosed influence is wrong, period. >I guess you didn't read the article? The paid influence was disclosed. “But the plans were on display…” “On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.” “That’s the display department.” “With a flashlight.” “Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.” “So had the stairs.” “But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?” “Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.” Wikipedia articles with significant edits from paid PR hacks need a big red warning sticker.