35
edits
Changes
MyWikiBiz, Author Your Legacy — Monday November 25, 2024
Jump to navigationJump to searchDirectory:Akahele/Wikipedia always improving (view source)
Revision as of 20:13, 25 October 2010
, 20:13, 25 October 2010Standard format, om nom nom nom.
Observe how Wikipedia has been "improving" lately on the subject:
Observe how Wikipedia has been "improving" lately on the subject:
*The word "guise" should be [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marketing_research&diff=prev&oldid=306760661 spelled "guse"].
*Just a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marketing_research&diff=next&oldid=306760661 bit of XMNS], you know.
*No, we'd [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marketing_research&diff=next&oldid=307314261 rather not] have XMNS.
*People need to know what [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marketing_research&diff=next&oldid=307314286 Rhett Richards is licking].
*No, we'd [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marketing_research&diff=next&oldid=308030700 rather not] know.
*Marketing research is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marketing_research&diff=next&oldid=308030789 worth a cheer]!
*The word "guise" should be spelled "guise", but the word "l.market" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marketing_research&diff=next&oldid=308819392 should be spelled "lmarket"].
And we're still cheering for marketing research!
And we're still cheering for marketing research!
==Comments==
==Comments==
6 Responses to “Wikipedia always improving”
;Nihiltres
:While I do respect well-done criticism, if you look at the overall difference since your last oddly-summarized edit, there isn’t much to worry about—the worst is the random cheer, and a few typo-fixing errors or bugs. As you’ve pointed out, most of the nonsense was removed relatively quickly. Besides, all it takes is one contributor to do significant cleanup. No one ever said that Wikipedia’s improvement process was monotonic.
:I fixed much of the nonstandard syntax and cleaned the article a little, but it still needs a lot of cleanup, to clarify the structure and make it more descriptive than instructive, as an encyclopedia article should be. Perhaps, as you seem to be an expert on the subject, we could collaborate?
;Gregory Kohs
Nihiltres
:I wouldn’t want to put a whole lot of effort into it, because without flagged revisions, my hard work would likely get degraded and/or ruined over time. Besides, I hold a considerable amount of (my former) employee stock ownership plan shares in a still-active marketing research company, so wouldn’t that be one of those Conflict of Interest deal-breakers?
While I do respect well-done criticism, if you look at the overall difference since your last oddly-summarized edit, there isn’t much to worry about—the worst is the random cheer, and a few typo-fixing errors or bugs. As you’ve pointed out, most of the nonsense was removed relatively quickly. Besides, all it takes is one contributor to do significant cleanup. No one ever said that Wikipedia’s improvement process was monotonic.
;Nihiltres
:It’s not a conflict-of-interest deal-breaker as long as you aren’t, say, highlighting that marketing research company.
I fixed much of the nonstandard syntax and cleaned the article a little, but it still needs a lot of cleanup, to clarify the structure and make it more descriptive than instructive, as an encyclopedia article should be. Perhaps, as you seem to be an expert on the subject, we could collaborate?
;Anthony DiPierro
:Is there a simple process to report that Rhett Richards edit and have it removed from public view? I seem to remember some sort of extension being added to mediawiki that allows this.
Gregory Kohs
;Whoever it Is
I wouldn’t want to put a whole lot of effort into it, because without flagged revisions, my hard work would likely get degraded and/or ruined over time. Besides, I hold a considerable amount of (my former) employee stock ownership plan shares in a still-active marketing research company, so wouldn’t that be one of those Conflict of Interest deal-breakers?
:Interesting to see how quickly, since being permanently banned (again) from Wikipedia, and then stomping off from Wikipedia Review in a huff, your posts here have descended from the level of mildly interesting (and with at least some claim to some form of high-ground-based criticism) into plain, old-fashioned snarking.
:Still. At least this article doesn’t come jam-packed, as most of your contributions to either WP or WR do, with links to MWB crow-barred into each and every even tangentially-related subject.
Nihiltres
;Gregory Kohs
It’s not a conflict-of-interest deal-breaker as long as you aren’t, say, highlighting that marketing research company.
:Thanks for visiting and participating in this blog, Whoever it Is. For our readers’ sake, I should correct the multiple errors in your comment.
:1. I am not permanently banned from Wikipedia.
Anthony DiPierro
:2. I wish WikipediaReview.com all the best in restoring a level of criticism that gains wider respect. I’m on very good terms with the large majority of moderators and members on the site, so understandably no stomping or huffing took place. I have reassessed my online priorities, to be sure.
Is there a simple process to report that Rhett Richards edit and have it removed from public view? I seem to remember some sort of extension being added to mediawiki that allows this.
:3. The MWB you refer to is MyWikiBiz, a site where virtually anyone who is willing to create quality content can earn money from their efforts. The site has seen steady growth in traffic since its inception as a wiki directory. I’m happy you have noticed some of my innovative shoestring marketing efforts.
:4. We note that you don’t identify yourself in your comment, offer no contact points such as valid e-mail address, name, or location. I do provide those points of reference, out of respect to people who so engage others on the up-and-up. I encourage our readers to decide for themselves who here retains claim to high-ground-based criticism, and who sadly does not.
Whoever it Is
Interesting to see how quickly, since being permanently banned (again) from Wikipedia, and then stomping off from Wikipedia Review in a huff, your posts here have descended from the level of mildly interesting (and with at least some claim to some form of high-ground-based criticism) into plain, old-fashioned snarking.
Still. At least this article doesn’t come jam-packed, as most of your contributions to either WP or WR do, with links to MWB crow-barred into each and every even tangentially-related subject.
Gregory Kohs
Thanks for visiting and participating in this blog, Whoever it Is. For our readers’ sake, I should correct the multiple errors in your comment.
1. I am not permanently banned from Wikipedia.
2. I wish WikipediaReview.com all the best in restoring a level of criticism that gains wider respect. I’m on very good terms with the large majority of moderators and members on the site, so understandably no stomping or huffing took place. I have reassessed my online priorities, to be sure.
3. The MWB you refer to is MyWikiBiz, a site where virtually anyone who is willing to create quality content can earn money from their efforts. The site has seen steady growth in traffic since its inception as a wiki directory. I’m happy you have noticed some of my innovative shoestring marketing efforts.
4. We note that you don’t identify yourself in your comment, offer no contact points such as valid e-mail address, name, or location. I do provide those points of reference, out of respect to people who so engage others on the up-and-up. I encourage our readers to decide for themselves who here retains claim to high-ground-based criticism, and who sadly does not.
