3 ms·
I enjoyed the article for the interesting story and its description of how PR manipulation of Wikipedia works, but its speculation on how the problem is getting
by alecdbrooks 13y ago
I enjoyed the article for the interesting story and its description of how PR manipulation of Wikipedia works, but its speculation on how the problem is getting worse was entirely unsubstantiated.
It's plausible enough that efforts by Wiki PR and similar firms are growing, but the article didn't offer any evidence or attribute claims like "In a few years, a significant percentage of Wikipedia’s content could be spam." Given that Wiki PR seems to have had little success getting articles reinstated, it may be that the problem will be held at bay now that Wikipedia contributors have been alerted.
- th3iedkid 13y agoone evidence was from a contributor who quit.Being volunteers not everyone likes to be only cleaning someone's mess.Besides scale of Wikipedia might grow quite big for the 10,000 odd admins to manage and who know how seepage might happen!Also Wiki-PR was one, who knows how many more are left!
- alecdbrooks 13y ago>Also Wiki-PR was one, who knows how many more are left! That's exactly my point. From the article, we don't know if there are enough companies doing this to pose a serious threat to Wikipedia, yet it suggests there is.