Talk:Wiki-PR Wikipedia editing scandal

Malfunctioning link

Hi, the external audio box in the Investigation and company reaction section is not working for me, I think it's a dead link. Can the link be archived and revived or should it simply be removed? Justiyaya 09:12, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Why doesn't Wikipedia do this to catch paid editors

Pay for editing from a PR firm online with money donated to the Wikimedia foundation. After that, you get the account information on who made that material, then you ban them for being a paid editor, or would this be entrapment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.76.150.31 (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 5 January 2025

Wiki-PR Wikipedia editing scandal → Wiki-PR – Per WP:CONCISE and WP:COMMONNAME, see failed previous discussion at Talk:Wiki-PR Wikipedia editing scandal/Archive 2#Requested move. Absolutiva (talk) 23:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose I see no reason at all to change this to being about the org, not the scandal. The org does not deserve further publicity and needs nothing more from us 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 00:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  My opposition from the prior discussion still stands:

  My basis for opposition remains that Wiki-PR as a corporation has no inherent notability, thought it may be WP:NOTEWORTHY. To be fair I am equally unsure that an article about its editing of Wikipedia is more than noteworthy either, and believe the article has been created to satisfy navel gazing and self righteous indignation following the use of Wikipedia, probably within the rules, to create a load of articles which people have not taken the trouble to edit into a better shape if possible or to delete if not. This article is a salve for our own inadequacies. I am clear that the only item here to have anything close to notability is an their editing of Wikipedia, though, frankly, we are at a borderline WP:NOTNEWS. This is yesterday's seven day wonder and it was a pretty slow news week anyway. Since the event is the thing reported upon, and since Wiki-PR is a flea bite organisation, Wiki-PR is not notable, just its actions. We are having broadly the same argument held often in Murder of Non-notable-person vs Non-notable-person articles. Foo is not notable, but, just sometimes, their murder is. Almost always that resolves to Murder of... with some exceptions.

  If Wiki-PR ever becomes notable then my thinking will change.

  After the issue of the Cease and Desist letter by the WMF, something that I think is producing the Streisand effect, I see that this issue will run and run and gain significant and prurient media coverage. However it does not change my assertion that the corporation itself is a fleabite and not notable. It simply changed my thinking from a simple oppose to a strong oppose. I cannot conceive of the corporation itself being inherently notable. It is as significant, article-wise, as if I had been paid to create a load of poor articles, had succeeded for a while and been issued with a C & D letter. I would never be notable, but my actions would probably be recordable as such. Events may change my mind over the name of this article in the futire, but I have yet to be persuaded that an article on the corporation itself is correct. History shows that I proposed a merge to another article. My opinion has not changed on that, but consensus was, then, against such a merge. If the merge were proposed today by another editor I would support it. We are doing quite enough self righteous navel gazing indignation over this.

  🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 00:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose Only notable for their attempt to corrupt this encyclopaedia. That corruption should be front-and-centre. SFC9394 (talk) 11:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)