95 Wikipedia flaws

Jimmy Wales joins "ethical" phone corp

The Peoples Operator that no one trusts gets honest face Jimmy Wales to front the company

. Well maybe, cos, it's failing cos no one trusts them, so they had to get an honest face to front the company. The main man is after all implicated in Labour Party and Funding Scandals.

.....Gareth was totally soft on Jimmy Wales

should have asked

1. How many customers got now ?

2. How much donated to charities so far ?

3. How much tax you paid ?

(the fact they are not upfront about these shows even more they can't be trusted)

4. True ? "Wikipedia's article about The People's Operator was largely written by a paid marketing guy hired by The People's Operator."

5. They only got you in cos they are failing cos no one trusts them when they can just take a cheaper company and do what they want with the money saved ?

6. Are TPO founders ethical ? Can we trust ?

- True ? TPO founders not spotless reputation ? Cash for peerages..Andrew Rosenfeld

- do it and it's multimillionaire backers use any tax avoidance measures ?

7. Bet They spend a lot on marketing cos they are starting up all those viral marketers have to get paid.

8. What about those unaccountable activists who have hijacked parts of Wikipedia like climate ?

classic from a commenter last yeare

"At those sorts of calls, text and data prices I think this network must be for millionaires who have a guilty conscious.

November 19th 2012 at 11:51am"

..makes sense.. seems giving to charityvis a lot about buying cvonscience, that's why I don't like it. Why not just pat tax and let an accountable government do stuff ?

Scenario : XYZ start an company promising to at end of year donate 25% of profits after costs to charity. And saying they are more expensive but they will donate 10% of your payment to charity

- People say "why should I trust you to donate, when I can donate directly myself ?

All business is charity.

Jimmy claims that 10% would have gone otherwise into the hands of unproductive advertising people. And he instead puts it into the wages jobs in charity. but does all that 10% go to charity, no part of it is guilt money it would have gone in my pocket if I had gone to a cheaper company. He argues advertising money is wasted, but ethical corps waste money compared to bottom line corps.

I'drather shop at a non-ethical supermarket than the ethical COOP cos overall the result is better for society is I don't go with the COP

If I buy programming services off Janey a woman in Ghana she gets cash, but then Jimmy says I should buy off him cos he will 10% of his profits to people like Janey Yeh well of course people like Janey need money cos she doesn't have a job.

I don't support charity except those that hold governments to account, cos all too often charities are even more corrupt than businesses or government, they are too vulnerable to hijack from within by people with their own agenda and are not democratically accountable like politicians, but at the same time consider themselves above the law and courts

Em is "Jimmy Wales fronts a corp giving 10% to charity" a tech story ?

 it's not new idea.. always been such business

 it's a tech celebrity story, which Jimmy is riding for free publicity It tells me nothing new about a social revolution cos he offers no evidence.

 It is however a useful vehicle for asking Jimmy about corruption in Wikipedia 

 Hey what about Wikipedia spin by unaccountable activists ?

 Gareth mentioned the recent problem highighted in the Guardian about commercial spin in Wikipedia paid articles and PR firms writing articles. This is serious, but at least the law can be aspplied to them. What Gareth didn't mention is a far bigger problem of activists policing Wikipedia to their own political agenda cos they consider themselves above the law in 2009 one UK was banned for 6 months after adjusting climate articles 5000 times, he was then reinstated after 6 months. But today activists are there all the time inserting spin. When Haiyan happened they were their trying to hype it as a climate change event , but no real scientific evidence can be offered. 

 "Jimmy I save 10% on advertising"

 me "no I'll go with what's cheapest"

 JW "what, you don't trust me ?"

 Me "Jimmy give me the 10% off then I can give it direct to charity. what you don't trust me ?"

 No, from experience I don't trust "ethical businesses" 

 I bank with the COOP they got infiltrated by green activists who made it into UKs largest lender to windfarms, donated money to anti-fracking propaganda campaigns and activists, and allowed the bank to bankrupt itself.. andvtheir supermarket is bad aswell with activists ethics rather than mine.

2 Wikipedia ideas for Jimmy

Since the BBC is now the UKs universal socialised media fund, why don't we take some BBC revenue and give it to Wikipedia ?

(providing Wikipedia can show it can keep content honest and properly police unaccountable unsue-able activists who hijack parts ot it)

2. Yes Wikip is neutral point of view, but companies/celebs could have a basic info standard template on their own website which starts off

 a Wikip page with correct start info like foundation date, structure, address etc.

it seems ethical structures can be used as a tax dodge

Wikipedia driven by activists

- companies should be accountatble to the law politicians to democracy activists are both unelected and think they can break laws cos they work "for a greater cause"

_ William Connelly - famous Climate reviser - changed thousands of article, banned for 6 months, let back in.. skeptics were banned permanently
- page mentions his banning
- 2012 update
- On WUWT1
case on Wikipedia

I



THANKS If you find some useful info here then click to easily/safely send me a Paypal TIP

1 2834 5 6 7 9 10

a Stew Green opinion
Out of the box thinking
- from someone who was never in the box in the first place
moved from the USEFUL BLOG to the REALITY CHECK BLOG

<-- BACK HOME REALITY CHECK INDEX * USEFUL BLOG INDEX
note/comments
NEXT -->