Jump to content

Wiki spam: Difference between revisions

4 bytes removed ,  9 September 2004
m
de-linking
(Consumerium's special concerns - being skewed by commercial promoters and spin doctors)
m (de-linking)
Line 25: Line 25:
::::So-called "[[spam]]" is a symptom of having no clear process to deal with the [[funded troll]].  Most [[wiki spam]] is actually subtle and consists of inappropriate references to commercial products or services including raising questions or issues about them that put one type of service in a competitive advantage to another.   
::::So-called "[[spam]]" is a symptom of having no clear process to deal with the [[funded troll]].  Most [[wiki spam]] is actually subtle and consists of inappropriate references to commercial products or services including raising questions or issues about them that put one type of service in a competitive advantage to another.   


:::::''side note'' - Obviously [[Consumerium buying signal]] is doing this honestly and openly.  But much [[Wikimedia corruption]] consists of an over-tolerance for specific corporate interests, e.g. [[Bomis]], that advance their own interests over the [[GFDL corpus]] as a whole by sponsoring [[sysop vandalism]].
:::::''side note'' - Obviously [[Consumerium buying signal]] is doing this honestly and openly.  But much [[Wikimedia corruption]] consists of an over-tolerance for specific corporate interests, e.g. Bomis, that advance their own interests over the [[GFDL corpus]] as a whole by sponsoring [[sysop vandalism]].


::::Tolerating unlimited [funded troll]]s is to permit the [[systemic bias]] of "whoever has money to pay them" into the [[community point of view]].  But to react by censoring them has of course the opposite effect to that intended: if I wish to promote [[Coca-Cola]] then I simply insert spam for [[Pepsi]] and the reactive stupidity of the [[sysop power structure]] will end up favouring my actual sponsor.  So the right reaction is one process that doesn't care who is funded and who is not, and simply determines that:
::::Tolerating unlimited [funded troll]]s is to permit the [[systemic bias]] of "whoever has money to pay them" into the [[community point of view]].  But to react by censoring them has of course the opposite effect to that intended: if I wish to promote [[Coca-Cola]] then I simply insert spam for [[Pepsi]] and the reactive stupidity of the [[sysop power structure]] will end up favouring my actual sponsor.  So the right reaction is one process that doesn't care who is funded and who is not, and simply determines that:
9,842

edits

We use only those cookies necessary for the functioning of the website.