Can someone link to a particularly egregious example of an untrue/non-POV/non-verifiable Sussman edit, or an in-bad-faith comment? So far the ones I see are basically reasonable.
That's like saying "Did the judge who took a bribe say anything unreasonable in their ruling?" or like saying "Did the academic study that was paid for a big corporation without disclosing make any logical leaps?"
Any paid, undisclosed influence is wrong, period. And almost certainly against TOS.
In fact, it's much more like the attorney is paid, which is considered fine in courts. Indeed, having contributors who are potentially biased, but who each argue their point and agree to a method of conflict resolution, is considered one of the most powerful methods of seeking truth. It's also used in academics, where each researcher bring their own biases to the table.
> Any paid, undisclosed influence is wrong, period.
I guess you didn't read the article? The paid influence was disclosed.
In theory (though tbf not in reality) everyone has the right to an attorney. AFAIK there is no corresponding right to a paid Wikipedia editor.
>> Any paid, undisclosed influence is wrong, period.
>I guess you didn't read the article? The paid influence was disclosed.
“But the plans were on display…” “On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.” “That’s the display department.” “With a flashlight.” “Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.” “So had the stairs.” “But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?” “Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”
Wikipedia articles with significant edits from paid PR hacks need a big red warning sticker.
In other words, HuffPo is pretending that there's such a thing as being neutral, which is ironic considering how bad they are at it.
The point of my comment is that you can't divide the world up into biased and unbiased, label the biased part astroturfing (or whatever), prohibit it, and then expect a nice unbiased outcome. Rather, everyone is biased in their own ways and to varying degrees. The good outcome come from the truth-tracking aspects of the process, not from have unbiased inputs.
I understand that, but I'm arguing that the bias from financial incentives are just one form of bias. (That's why I said "or whatever".) I mean that it's not useful to divide the world up into no/negligible bias and bad/paid bias, regardless of what you call it.
> ...and undisclosed. That's a textbook definition of both astroturfing and acting in bad faith.
In fact, as stated in the article, the payments were disclosed. Do you have other reasons to think he's acting in bad faith, or just your mistaken belief that the payments were undisclosed?