Wired has an AP article today about companies paying for Wikipedia articles. From the article:
When a blogger revealed this week that Microsoft Corp. wanted to pay him to fix purported inaccuracies in technical articles on Wikipedia, the software company endured online slams and a rebuke from the Web encyclopedia's founder for behaving unethically.
The initial controversy was about this incident, but the bulk of the article deals with MyWikiBiz, a company that exists to write wikipedia entries for businesses, a practice that Wikipedia founder James Wales was extremely unhappy about.
While I can completely understand the reason for not allowing a company to request specific changes to their article (a clear violation of Wikipedia's neutrality goals), I can not help but feel that Wikipedia is hobbling itself by not allowing a company like MyWikiBiz to have other companies commission neutral articles.
The only way to be featured on Wikipedia is to have an article that the editors feel is an exemplary piece of work - neutrality being one of the most important aspects of this consideration. Therefore, an intelligent business will not want a paid writer to put up thinly veiled advertising content, but to write a genuine, factual, and unbiased article. If anything I feel that this might result in higher quality content than usual as the people writing the articles will be quickly gain experience in sticking to Wikipedia's standards.
Google keeps a strict line between its paid content (advertising) and non-paid content (search results), but it still places both kinds of content on the same page. Perhaps accounts for paid Wikipedia writers should tag all of their articles so that readers are aware that the content was solicited and editors can pay extra attention to make sure that neutrality is not compromised, but putting a blanket ban on such articles is almost certainly turning away some perfectly acceptable content in areas that have so far been thinly covered by Wikipedians.


hvdgofpi raxfq yskxr jeoqvptw vpjtkbmzl apdmvlbq stxhmekb
Posted by: nsleimrfu ecjmfpy | February 26, 2009 at 06:09 AM
admbz jzebmw tdzlwbxk jfkbxdq iwecpsngr jcfzyvdxq qzrcpti
Posted by: wozj newc | March 26, 2009 at 02:29 AM