Tag Archives: Wikipedia

Wiki Hounding

Wiki Hounding. Wiki Hounding is a behaviour where contributions to a wiki service by at least one person are reverted by at least one other person for reasons unconnected with the topic. It can also involve repeated criticisms of someone who contributes to a wiki platform, which can be seen as a form of cyber-bullying and in some cases cyber-stalking.

Wiki Hounding occurs a lot on Wikipedia.

JzG (Troll)

JzG, also known as guy, is an Internet troll and troll-caller associated with the skeptic movements.

TROLL: JzG, also known as guy, is an Internet troll and troll-caller associated with the skeptic movements. Courtesy: The Anonymous Movement

JzG. JzG, also known as Guy, is a notorious troll associated with the Wikipedia, Kiwi Farms and Lolcow websites.

Known to be one of the 800 most active English Wikipedians of all time, JzG is active in sabotaging brands through Wikipedia, including getting pages about Facebook deleted.

JzG is known to be a Banhammer, removing accounts from newbies on the 8Chan website and established users on Wikipedia. JzG will block people whom he thinks are having an enjoyable time on platforms where he is control. He is known as a deletionist as opposed to an inclusionist.

JzG has had his page deleted from Wikipedia a number of times and even has a notice on his Wikipedia page advising admins what to do if there is an adverse reaction to his actions.

JzG is a supporter of the skeptic movement, including identifying with other trolls in the movement like Dr Andrew Lewis and Mrs Melanie Byng. According to the Association for Skeptical Investigation’s article on JzG:

A powerful figure, Guy has used his position openly to denigrate those who have disagreed with Wikipedia-published skeptically-biased editing of articles. Guy argues that the “skeptical point of view” is synonymous with Wikipedia’s stated “Neutral Point of View”, and therefore that any editor who does not align with it is violating one of the “five pillars” of Wikipedia by default.

Dennis Leonard Brown

Brown, Dennis Leonard. Dennis Brown is a 50+ year old small business owner of a non-notable company and prolific troll-caller on Wikipedia.

Dennis Leonard Brown registered his first Wikipedia account in 2006 and have over 50,000 edits across all Wikimedia projects. He became an administrator for Wikipedia in April 2012.

Dennis Brown’s specialisms include American culture, automobiles, food, military topic or geography. He is known to dabble in areas outside his expertise.

Dennis L Brown is a professional troll-caller on Wikipedia, delving into what he calls “behavioural issues” on administrator boards. He also concerns himself with deleting articles, although admits he has not created many. Justifying his troll-calling tenancies, Dennis Brown says, “I’m a bit gnomeish and prefer to fix or add rather than create.

D.L. Brown describes himself as “inclusionist nor deletionist,” which is a tell-tale sign for a Wikipedian who deletes what they disagree with or have negative emotions against and includes those they agree with or have positive emotions towards.

Non-trolling profession

Dennis Leonard Brown designs and sells ultraviolet tubes for a number of industries. Perhaps in contravention of Wikipedia’s Conflict of Interest policies Dennis Brown will sometimes edit articles on these topics because he considers himself an expert and has something to offer, even if his interest in the topic could be considered pecuniary in nature. Dennis Leonard Brown denies this however, saying “I have never and will never edit in a way that financially benefits me, nor compromises the neutrality and/or accuracy of Wikipedia.

Contact details

You can contact Dennis L Brown at 128 Deer Haven Lane in Lexington, North Carolina, 27292, USA.

Wikipedia – The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit

Wikipedia is the frequently used website from all over the world and it is easy to access but the same time it is not easy as it sounds. In the Wikipedia backlinks are mainly used for the purpose of the SEO (search engine optimisation) service in the online.

Think that if you get the links from different article is not the easy but using the Wikipedia you  may get the effective link building technique it is possible only at the time of your process it makes the link building process perfectly otherwise not. Offering the information for the people what text they exactly want is the main principle of the Wikipedia.

In this function is perform not for profit making process in the Wikipedia service it is one of the non profit organisation in the internet because it provides every information in the website is totally free of cost to the web users. The main goal of the wiki links is to provide the accurate as well as the bigotry information to the people for this reason in the wiki links offer the unbiased information of your search.

In the Wikipedia links is the important source for many of the search engines so that it may easily win the millions mind in the world. If you need any of the information in the wiki links that may provide the instant result of your search as well as and your function in the Wikipedia is entirely safe and the secure program in the internet.

Wikipedia offer many of the service to the people in the internet and some of the features offered in the internet is considered as the unique function f the Wikipedia. Some of the features offered in the wiki uniquely is it provides the information or text is completely reliable details. Through that you may increase your secure function in the internet not only that it never provides the broken links in the site. It sometimes provides the broken links by cause of you which means if you put any citations in your edit text then only the Wikipedia links offer the broken links of the site.

If you need not the broken links mean you just edit or change and the replacing function in the Wikipedia backlinks is entirely free of cost in the website. It provides the information in the website instantly it never makes you to wait for getting the text or information in the search engine. In your search you have the option to add the text or content not the links by cause of the Wikipedia is always treated the links as the secondary one in their search. related search in the internet.

Further information

Using the benefits of the Wikipedia in the website to get the valuable things for you research studies and this wikipedia backlinks is treated as the visual tool for the studies in the online. By cause of it always provides the information something new to the people for their entire study

Reputation – Wikipedia Definition Incomplete

Reputation, or the lack thereof, can make or break a business in today’s marketplace.

Your reputation, whether it’s good or bad, will be spread by word of mouth. But not only by word of mouth, but by “word or reviews” online!

More potential patients, clients and customers are going online and searching for a business’s reviews to find out what others have been saying about their experience with that business.

These reviews will play a huge part in the development of your reputation and companies that specialize in reputation are there to help make sure that you are getting the exposure and positive feedback you need to boost your business.

Unfortunately, many business owners don’t have a real understanding about how quickly their reputation can be damaged and almost “wipe out” an otherwise great reputation!

Why is it so important to build a solid reputation as a business that delivers the best service to its customers and clients? Simply put, your reputation is the new “word of mouth” to the entire world. This is especially true for local businesses.

The problem is, there are 3 facets to reputation that business owners must not confuse.

Many companies advertise their services for reputation and only provide “one” facet, leaving a business believing they have all the benefits they need to either protect or benefit their business, when in reality, they have only 1/3 of the benefits they really need!

First off, many of these so-called “reputation” providers only sell reputation “management.”

What exactly is rep management? Wikipedia says, “Reputation management is the influencing and/or control of a business’s reputation. Reputation management companies have made it primarily an issue of search results.

They claim they can remove your bad reviews. (This is a flagrant lie.) Or that they will “push them down” where they won’t be seen anymore. (That is closer to the truth.)

Then there is reputation monitoring. That simply means that the company will keep an eye on your reviews and alert you as to the reviews coming in about your company. They may send you an email or a text, or even a monthly report. (At least this allows you to respond to a bad review when your business receives one.)

Then lastly, there is reputation “marketing.” This is the ONLY facet of reputation services provided that will ever make your business profitable.

You will always get more new patients, clients and customers when they know that you have a long history of doing a great job. They will have confidence and trust in your company to do the same for them.

Just having a couple good reviews online isn’t enough though. And “managing and monitoring” your reputation won’t get you anymore reviews. The ONLY facet of reputation is “reputation marketing.”

In order to make your business the “market leader” and catapult ahead of the competition, acquire a 5 star reputation.

Don’t just encourage your patients, clients and customers to leave a review for you, but ASK them to leave a review. Over 89% of people surveyed said they would if someone had asked them to.

You need a process that’s easy and simple for people to leave a review. Never make it difficult for them.

In this age of digital marketing, you’ll never go wrong with ensuring that your customers have a fast and easy user experience, right down to the last click.

After you get the 5 star reviews, sharing them is the next step. Not only manage and monitor your reputation, but also to “market” your reputation. That’s the way you make money!

You MUST “share and promote” your 5 star reputation with the rest of the world.

Your reputation won’t do you much good if other people don’t see it.

Whether you need help creating a great reputation, sharing your reputation with more potential patients, clients or customers, Reputation Market Builder is the most complete platform to help you be the “market leader” in your industry.

Let your reputation set you apart from the competition by making sure that your patients, clients and customers can easily leave a review for you and share those reviews to a wider audience.

Our team of specialists consistently deliver outstanding results for our clients. As a full service digital marketing agency we combine creative ideas with vast experience in search technologies to deliver measurable results for our clients.

Further information

Steve Berchtold is the owner of Florida SEO Hub and Internet Marketing Service 1, an Internet Marketing, Reputation Marketing, SEO, Web Design and Social Marketing company in Southwest Florida. Florida SEO Hub a consulting and fulfillment service company, leveraging recognized internet marketing expertise to professionals and businesses.

Should a Republican Be Allowed to Edit a Democrat’s Wikipedia Page?

A dispute between the Republican research firm America Rising and a Wikipedia editor named “Jehochman” has triggered a debate about editing Wikipedia pages during political campaigns.

Jonathan Hochman, founder of an Internet marketing and technology firm in Cheshire, Conn., is the man behind Jehochman. In his spare time, Hochman monitors potential conflicts of interest and controversial edits on the free encyclopedia. “We take pains to make sure any additions made to a page are based in fact,” says @AmericaRising president.

After Buzzfeed published an article containing screenshots of edits made by an America Rising employee to pages of Democratic candidates, Hochman responded by blocking the user, who goes by the name “Sprinkler Court.”

On Sept. 15, for example, Sprinkler Court updated the page of Michelle Nunn, the Democratic U.S. Senate nominee from Georgia. Nunn forged a relationship with the Bush family during her tenure as chief executive of the Points of Light Foundation; Sprinkler Court wrote that former President George H.W. Bush chose not to endorse her. In another example from April, Sprinkler Court added a video of Rep. Bruce Braley, D-Iowa, “making disparaging comments about Chuck Grassley” to Braley’s page.

Tim Miller, president of America Rising, said the objections made by Jehochman and other Wikipedia administrators were “very general and emotional rather than providing objections to specific edits that were made by anybody at America Rising.

We take pains to make sure any additions made to a page are based in fact, relevant and meet all the standards and have citations from reputable sources,” Miller told The Daily Signal.

Following the Rules

During consultations with “long-time respected Wikipedia editors” earlier this year, Miller said he and other employees of America Rising were advised to disclose their affiliation with the PAC upon making edits that could be deemed in favor of their political interest.

Sprinkler Court followed that advice, declaring on his user page that

“I am making contributions to articles and topics where I may have a conflict of interest or vested interest. I work for a Republican research firm called America Rising LLC in Arlington, Virginia.”

Despite the transparency, Hochman said Wikipedia is a “demilitarized zone during these elections” and “not a place for any political consultants to make edits to these politicians.

I would argue they’re the wrong person to be making that edit,” said Hochman. “Maybe he was being very careful and making edits that were factual, but if that was allowed to go on it ends up being a test of limits.”

Sparking a Debate

Other administrators disagree, however, citing Hochman’s unilateral ban as “silly” and a decision in need of “a stronger consensus.”

I’m highly uncomfortable with a single admin making a block of this nature, especially when it’s an admin who runs a marketing firm, and especially when your original block message simply isn’t true. Paid editing isn’t forbidden; paid editing without disclosure is forbidden. From what I can see of Sprinkler’s edits, he pretty clearly complies with our disclosure requirements,” wrote Wikipedia administrator Kevin Gorman on Sprinkler Court’s user page.

According to Miller, the edits made were made in the public interest in “the spirit of Wikipedia’s creation.

In large part, what we added was very obvious, relevant, fact-based information about political figures in the the public eye,” said Miller.

Although Hochman has a history of contributions to the Democratic National Committee, he insisted his decision to block Sprinkler Court from further editing was “a completely nonpartisan action.”

This is equal opportunity on all sides. We are definitely not trying to favor one side of the political spectrum over the other,” said Hochman.

Wikipedia administrator Chris Troutman expressed a different take on the situation. “I become very concerned when admins begin asserting authority beyond their remit,” Troutman wrote Tuesday. “I think this harassment of Sprinkler Court is unfortunate, although not surprising.

More information

Based on a press release from The Heritage Foundation.

How to lose your students in 30 seconds? Six Ways.

How to lose your students in 30 seconds? How about:

  1. I’ve not prepared anything. Let’s Google it together.
  2. PowerPoint slides per minute > 1 OR minutes per slide > 3
  3. Let’s (with no warning) get <random student> give the lecture/tutorial today, as presentation skills are TRANSFERRABLE skills. Alternatively, setting regular student presentations so you never have to lecture yourself.
  4. What does Wikipedia say?
  5. Sure, cut and paste off the Internet is fine in your essay. How do you think I prepared this course?
  6. Here’s some reading. I’ll be back in half an hour.

Further information

Doctor Mike Reddy is a lecturer at the University of Wales, Newport.

Wikipedia: For Real or Unbelievable?

First of all, do you know who writes the articles on Wikipedia? Anyone! The authors are regular members of the public, people like you and me. As a result, info on Wiki can be easily edited, and may not always be accurate.

We’re big fans of free information, which is why we post plenty of updates on the QNet blog to keep you in the know! But sometimes you have to take what you read on the Internet with a pinch of salt, especially if you’re getting the news from sources like Wikipedia.

The fact is, Wikipedia itself warns readers that Wikipedia is not regarded as a reliable source. If you’re doing research for a paper or article, take note that Wikipedia is also not considered a credible source for academic use. That’s why “citation of Wikipedia in research papers is considered unacceptable”.

Wikipedia’s neutral point-of-view (NPOV) policy also states that “editing from a NPOV representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.” This makes editing entries difficult for a company representative or anyone who isn’t neutral to the business.

For example, QNet’s Wikipedia entry was written by the general public, and not by us. It may contain comments that are positive or negative, or even worse, not entirely true.

So the next time you think you’ve read the ultimate truth online, be careful. If you want to be safe, make sure the news comes from an official QNet sourceHealth Fitness Articles, like this QNet blog!

Further information

An international direct selling brand that utilities the network and multi level marketing (mlm) combined with e-commerce for more info: http://blog.qnet.net/2012/01/wikipedia-for-real-or-unbelievable/

What Are the Pros and Cons of Having a Company Wikipedia Page?

Pros of being listed on Wikipedia:

The greatest benefit of Wikipedia pages is that they generally show up in the top results of major search engines, providing more exposure and potential credibility for an organization when searched. This can help build trust and legitimacy among those using the search engines to find information about a certain company. Because they appear almost always near the top of the search results, Wikipedia pages also push down other listings and can help reduce the amount of unwanted results such as negative news articles or reviews, if they exist.

It’s arguable whether or not you get any search engine optimization benefits from a listing on Wikipedia due to the links being NOFOLLOW (the search engines don’t follow them). Some studies have shown, though, that websites have seen traffic increases from listings in Wikipedia. It’s hard to believe that search engines wouldn’t take into account backlinks from Wikipedia due to some of their stringent posting standards.

CONs of being listed on Wikipedia:

There are also risks to consider in the creation of a Wikipedia page. Wikipedia pages are not controlled by the organization the page describes and the page can be updated by anyone. This allows negative content to be placed on the page, whether or not it is true or accurate. Anyone remember what happened to Sinbad? Even if unverified content is eventually removed from the main page, it will still reside under the View History tab or on other websites that may have referenced the material when it was live.

Per Wikipedia standards, neither a business, nor organizations or consultants working for that business, are eligible to make any corrections to that business’ page due to conflicts of interest. Though corrections cannot be made directly to a company page, companies or their representatives can recommend page updates and corrections to Wikipedia. Persons making recommendations must have an active Wikipedia account and should be active in the talk page for that Wikipedia article. And even then, the changes may not be made.

This ongoing maintenance of a company page requires constant monitoring to detect any incorrect or negative changes, which can be somewhat time-consuming. One solution is to use the watch function provided by Wikipedia. To use this system, monitors can log into their Wikipedia accounts to be alerted to any changes made. Change alerts can also be subscribed to via email updates or an RSS feed.

Perhaps the greatest negative to having a Wikipedia page lies somewhere in the future. When a company executive is charged with a DUI, or your kitchen is found to be in violation of health codes, or a disgruntled ex-employee decides to post a compromising photo from a company holiday party – be assured it will end up on Wikipedia… right there at the top of any Google search.

Further information

Scott works for Lovell Communications Inc., a Nashville PR firm with national marketing and public relations clients. Lovell specializes in public relations, crisis communications and healthcare marketing services.

Trolling on Wikipedia

Trolling according to some Wikipedians is any deliberate and intentional attempt to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia for its editors, administrators, developers, and other people who work to create content for and help run Wikipedia.

Trolling is a violation of the implicit rules of Internet social spaces and is often done to inflame or invite conflict. It necessarily involves a value judgment made by one user about the value of another’s contribution. (Because of this it is considered not to be any more useful than the judgment ‘I don’t agree with you’ by many users, who prefer to focus on behaviors instead of on presumed intent). Not to be confused with large warty monsters thought to dwell under bridges, in caves, etc.

Trolling is not necessarily the same as vandalism (although vandalism may be used to troll). A vandal may just enjoy defacing a webpage, insulting random users, or spreading some personal views in an inappropriate way. A troll deliberately exploits tendencies of human nature or of an online community to upset people.

There are many types of disruptive users that are not trolls. Reversion warriors, POV warriors, cranks, impolite users, and vocal critics of Wikipedia structures and processes are not necessarily trolls.

The basic mindset of a troll is that they are far more interested in how others react to their edits than in the usual concerns of Wikipedians: accuracy, veracity, comprehensiveness, and overall quality. If a troll gets no response to their spurious edits, then they can hardly be considered a troll at all.

All of these types of trolling below identify behaviors that some Trollers do engage in. It does not follow from this that all, most, or any given person engaged in these behaviors is a Troller. It also does not follow that a person who has not engaged in these behaviors is not a troll. An important part of the definition of “trolling” is that it is always something someone else is doing.

Edit warring
The archetypal example of trolling is the deliberately inflammatory edit or post — saying something controversial specifically to cause a flame war. Inflammatory edits usually come from users who have a minority or controversial opinion and who sincerely believe that this view is inadequately represented by Wikipedia, and therefore will seek reasonable ways to properly represent their views; trolls, however, will generally not seek consensus but will instead insist on a position without any regard for compromise.

Not all edit war trolls will choose subject matter that is obviously controversial. The defining characteristic of a troll in this case is not the content of the edit, but the behavior in discussing the edit, and the refusal to consider evidence and citations or to accept consensus or compromise.
People who passionately believe in what they are writing also sometimes behave in a way that may make them appear to be a troll. Many non-trolls refuse to compromise, and, at times, compromise may not even be the best solution.

Uploading inappropriate content
Some articles are created and some pictures are uploaded with the sole purpose of offending the readers or other Wikipedians. In such cases as copies from w:shock sites, this is more appropriately treated as vandalism. However, if an article with clearly inappropriate content is aggressively defended pretending that it is a genuinely encyclopedic article, this may qualify as trolling.

Misuse of process
Deliberate misuse of processes is a favourite troll game. Examples include continual nomination of articles for w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion that are obviously encyclopedic, nomination of stubs for w:Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, baseless listing of users at w:Wikipedia:Requests for comment, nomination of users who obviously do not fulfill the minimum requirements at w:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, “correction” of things that are already in conformance with the w:Wikipedia:Manual of style, and giving repeated vandalism warnings to innocent users. When we say that something is “obvious” or “baseless”, we mean that anyone acting in good faith would agree with that characterization. Beware that sometimes, something may seem obvious to you but quite non-obvious to others. Characterizing someone as a troll who simply disagrees with you can cause disputes which can be very damaging both to Wikipedia and to your own credibility.
Usually, even if the behavior clearly breaks policy, this is just someone unaware of policy. Look at the user’s response to being pointed towards the relevant policy. If they accept the policy, or seek to change the policy at the appropriate location, they might not be a troll. If they declare the policy “wrong” (but make no effort to amend it) or simply ignore it, it’s possible they are a troll. Remember that “policy” on Wikipedia is not a black and white issue. It is sometimes very difficult for a new Wikipedian to understand the complicated system of authority which Wikipedia uses, and these systems are not really detailed anywhere (or even set, to some extent). If a user challenges that an alleged policy really is a policy, perhaps it’s best to utilize the help of other users. Encourage the newcomer to use the village pump, and point them to the IRC channel, where experienced users may be able to help get the newcomer acquainted with the system.

Pestering
Such people are best avoided, as they can become VERY offensive if confronted!

Another form of trolling can occur in the form of continual questions with obvious or easy-to-find answers. Of course, sometimes what is obvious to one person is obscure to another. If a user seems to be asking stupid questions, try to give them the resources to help themselves. You can also send them to the help desk. If they persist, politely explain that you would love to help but you are rather busy. If they continue asking the question even after you have clearly answered it, or begin complaining that you will not help them, there is a chance of them being trolls. Or they could just be lazy or confused. Of all the kinds of trolling, this is the most important kind not to get bent out of shape about. Remember: Wikipedia is a source of knowledge. Be friendly about providing knowledge to people. That said, in extreme cases, this can be a method of trolling, and it is not inappropriate to ask someone to leave you alone once you have made a reasonable attempt to answer their questions.

Misplaced criticism
Some trolls are critical of the project, its policies, its users, its administration, or its goals. Often, this criticism comes in the form of accusations of cabals, ilks, or campaigns that are typically invested in a particular POV, invested in maligning a specific user, and other similar claims. Often, racist trolls, when confronted, will accuse Wikipedia of Marxism or political correctness. Criticism of the project, made constructively, is welcome from contributors when shared in an appropriate place. It is unwelcome when cross posted to a wide variety of places (c.f. MeatBall:ForestFire), or clearly inappropriate locations, such as article pages and established policy pages. This is very similar to posting any controversial issue — if it is done to improve things and foster discussion, it can be a great benefit. If it’s done with malice and in bad faith, it can be a problem. Of course, a new user who gets treated roughly can easily interpret that as Cabalism, especially if there seems to be no appropriate forum for these complaints. What criticism is ‘constructive’ is very much in the eye of the beholder.

Creative trolling
The nature of trolling is to be disruptive, and one of the most disruptive things that can be done is to find new ways to cause trouble that are not quite against the rules. No matter how great your definition of trolling may be, a dedicated troll will find something you have not thought of yet.

This, then, is something of a catch-all category — if a user is being continually disruptive, and no amount of politeness, consensus, mediation, or anything else is reining them in, they are trolling. When a user, in a conflict of any sort, insists on the letter of a rule while grossly violating its spirit, this is often a sign of trolling.

In these borderline cases, however, it is more important than ever to try to assume good faith, and to seek consensus not only in your opposition to whatever you think is being trolled about but on the issue of whether or not someone is a troll. A good start when you are faced with creative trolling is to come to this page and propose an amendment to the types of trolling section. If people agree that it is trolling, then you can go back to the conflict with this on your side. Failing specific additions to this page, however, the arbitration committee should be the only ones to ban users for “creative” trolling.