<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_13_1824225</id>
	<title>Should Wikipedians Edit Stories For Pay?</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1244904300000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Reservoirhill" rel="nofollow">Hugh Pickens</a> writes <i>"The Register reports that a longtime Wikipedia admin has been <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/12/wikipedia\_cash\_for\_spam/">caught offering to edit the online encyclopedia in exchange for cash</a>. Someone noticed a post to an online job marketplace where he was advertising his services: 'Besides technical writing, I also am an accomplished senior Wikipedia administrator with several featured articles to my name,' <a href="http://www.elance.com/experts/nicholas\_a">read the post</a>, which has since been changed. 'If you need a good profile on Wikipedia, I can help you out there too through my rich experience.' Wikipedia promptly opened a discussion page to try to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests\_for\_comment/Paid\_Editing">reach consensus on the community view of 'paid editing.'</a> So far opinion seems to be divided between those who say it's ok as long as full disclosure is made and 'edits are compliant with WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:BLP, WP:N,' and others who believe that paid editing automatically creates a conflict of interest. Back in 2006, Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales shot down a company known as MyWikiBiz, which promised that you could '<a href="http://www.mywikibiz.com/Main\_Page">author your legacy on the Internet.</a>' The company subsequently had to reinvent itself with no reference to Wikipedia. 'It is not ok with me that anyone ever set up a service selling their services as a Wikipedia editor, administrator, bureaucrat, etc., I will personally block any cases that I am shown,' wrote Wales."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hugh Pickens writes " The Register reports that a longtime Wikipedia admin has been caught offering to edit the online encyclopedia in exchange for cash .
Someone noticed a post to an online job marketplace where he was advertising his services : 'Besides technical writing , I also am an accomplished senior Wikipedia administrator with several featured articles to my name, ' read the post , which has since been changed .
'If you need a good profile on Wikipedia , I can help you out there too through my rich experience .
' Wikipedia promptly opened a discussion page to try to reach consensus on the community view of 'paid editing .
' So far opinion seems to be divided between those who say it 's ok as long as full disclosure is made and 'edits are compliant with WP : NPOV , WP : RS , WP : BLP , WP : N, ' and others who believe that paid editing automatically creates a conflict of interest .
Back in 2006 , Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales shot down a company known as MyWikiBiz , which promised that you could 'author your legacy on the Internet .
' The company subsequently had to reinvent itself with no reference to Wikipedia .
'It is not ok with me that anyone ever set up a service selling their services as a Wikipedia editor , administrator , bureaucrat , etc. , I will personally block any cases that I am shown, ' wrote Wales .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hugh Pickens writes "The Register reports that a longtime Wikipedia admin has been caught offering to edit the online encyclopedia in exchange for cash.
Someone noticed a post to an online job marketplace where he was advertising his services: 'Besides technical writing, I also am an accomplished senior Wikipedia administrator with several featured articles to my name,' read the post, which has since been changed.
'If you need a good profile on Wikipedia, I can help you out there too through my rich experience.
' Wikipedia promptly opened a discussion page to try to reach consensus on the community view of 'paid editing.
' So far opinion seems to be divided between those who say it's ok as long as full disclosure is made and 'edits are compliant with WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:BLP, WP:N,' and others who believe that paid editing automatically creates a conflict of interest.
Back in 2006, Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales shot down a company known as MyWikiBiz, which promised that you could 'author your legacy on the Internet.
' The company subsequently had to reinvent itself with no reference to Wikipedia.
'It is not ok with me that anyone ever set up a service selling their services as a Wikipedia editor, administrator, bureaucrat, etc., I will personally block any cases that I am shown,' wrote Wales.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28327895</id>
	<title>Re:I've spent $300 on this already</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245008220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>furry?  I'm sorry but that's some creepy deluded shit....if the articles don't convey that, they aren't neutral.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>furry ?
I 'm sorry but that 's some creepy deluded shit....if the articles do n't convey that , they are n't neutral .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>furry?
I'm sorry but that's some creepy deluded shit....if the articles don't convey that, they aren't neutral.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324515</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28329149</id>
	<title>No.. but it won't be stopped</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244973360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>" Should Wikipedians Edit Stories For Pay?"<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; No they shouldn't.  But people shouldn't spam, phone spam, or junk-mail spam either, and yet these all happen.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; I don't think anyone will stop people editing wikipedia for pay, whether wikipedia wants it or not.  If they keep making biased edits, they'll be outed and banned for this anyway, and if they aren't, well, if they get paid all the better.  I think it's very likely a conflict of interest for wikipedia admins to be paid for edits though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Should Wikipedians Edit Stories For Pay ?
"           No they should n't .
But people should n't spam , phone spam , or junk-mail spam either , and yet these all happen .
          I do n't think anyone will stop people editing wikipedia for pay , whether wikipedia wants it or not .
If they keep making biased edits , they 'll be outed and banned for this anyway , and if they are n't , well , if they get paid all the better .
I think it 's very likely a conflict of interest for wikipedia admins to be paid for edits though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>" Should Wikipedians Edit Stories For Pay?
"
          No they shouldn't.
But people shouldn't spam, phone spam, or junk-mail spam either, and yet these all happen.
          I don't think anyone will stop people editing wikipedia for pay, whether wikipedia wants it or not.
If they keep making biased edits, they'll be outed and banned for this anyway, and if they aren't, well, if they get paid all the better.
I think it's very likely a conflict of interest for wikipedia admins to be paid for edits though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324207</id>
	<title>No</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244908080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just like Wikipedia discourages people to make edits of a person's own article for themselves, this should also be discouraged.  Once you receive money for edits you've made, you're no longer an uninterested third party and have a biased voice. There's no way to enforce this so Wikipedia will have to just continue accepting/rejecting edits based inherently on the edit and what bias it itself may hold.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just like Wikipedia discourages people to make edits of a person 's own article for themselves , this should also be discouraged .
Once you receive money for edits you 've made , you 're no longer an uninterested third party and have a biased voice .
There 's no way to enforce this so Wikipedia will have to just continue accepting/rejecting edits based inherently on the edit and what bias it itself may hold .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just like Wikipedia discourages people to make edits of a person's own article for themselves, this should also be discouraged.
Once you receive money for edits you've made, you're no longer an uninterested third party and have a biased voice.
There's no way to enforce this so Wikipedia will have to just continue accepting/rejecting edits based inherently on the edit and what bias it itself may hold.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324905</id>
	<title>I dont see the problem...if...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244919840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they're just being paid to write a good article, I don't see what the problem is.  Featured articles are generally well written, so all he may be advertising is his skilled use of the english language.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they 're just being paid to write a good article , I do n't see what the problem is .
Featured articles are generally well written , so all he may be advertising is his skilled use of the english language .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they're just being paid to write a good article, I don't see what the problem is.
Featured articles are generally well written, so all he may be advertising is his skilled use of the english language.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324475</id>
	<title>Lock me up!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244912220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Gee, I've used the Wikipedia reward board to pay for things.  Lock me up.
<p>
Also, professionals are being allowed to edit articles in their own field in ways which support their views.
</p><p>
So it's OK to ask for people to edit for pay, but it's not OK to ask to be paid to edit.<br>
And it's OK to be paid while you edit, but it's not OK to be paid to edit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gee , I 've used the Wikipedia reward board to pay for things .
Lock me up .
Also , professionals are being allowed to edit articles in their own field in ways which support their views .
So it 's OK to ask for people to edit for pay , but it 's not OK to ask to be paid to edit .
And it 's OK to be paid while you edit , but it 's not OK to be paid to edit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gee, I've used the Wikipedia reward board to pay for things.
Lock me up.
Also, professionals are being allowed to edit articles in their own field in ways which support their views.
So it's OK to ask for people to edit for pay, but it's not OK to ask to be paid to edit.
And it's OK to be paid while you edit, but it's not OK to be paid to edit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28325779</id>
	<title>Paid or not, it's irrelevant</title>
	<author>loufoque</author>
	<datestamp>1244983620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whether the actual person is paid or not is irrelevant. The same reviewing process should take place.</p><p>Also, I don't see anything wrong with paying someone to write articles for me. Writing articles is certainly time-consuming work that I'd rather have someone else do than myself, so that I can focus on my job.<br>An example is if I'm part of some community around a newly created programming language X, and we need to create a good wikipedia page to advertise, demonstrate, etc. our language. The community is busy working on the runtime, what we're actually good at, so hiring someone to do that page for us seems like a good idea.</p><p>As long at it is only products, technologies, or something like and not controversial historic stuff there is no such thing as bias anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whether the actual person is paid or not is irrelevant .
The same reviewing process should take place.Also , I do n't see anything wrong with paying someone to write articles for me .
Writing articles is certainly time-consuming work that I 'd rather have someone else do than myself , so that I can focus on my job.An example is if I 'm part of some community around a newly created programming language X , and we need to create a good wikipedia page to advertise , demonstrate , etc .
our language .
The community is busy working on the runtime , what we 're actually good at , so hiring someone to do that page for us seems like a good idea.As long at it is only products , technologies , or something like and not controversial historic stuff there is no such thing as bias anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whether the actual person is paid or not is irrelevant.
The same reviewing process should take place.Also, I don't see anything wrong with paying someone to write articles for me.
Writing articles is certainly time-consuming work that I'd rather have someone else do than myself, so that I can focus on my job.An example is if I'm part of some community around a newly created programming language X, and we need to create a good wikipedia page to advertise, demonstrate, etc.
our language.
The community is busy working on the runtime, what we're actually good at, so hiring someone to do that page for us seems like a good idea.As long at it is only products, technologies, or something like and not controversial historic stuff there is no such thing as bias anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28325133</id>
	<title>yeah and if that article has any critical content</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245010680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you would still have donated.. right? sure. sure.</p><p>NPOV doesnt mean a lack of critical content, it means viewpoints can be mentioned but not one to the exclusivity of others.</p><p>but in general 'fans' of something dont want any critical viewpoints even mentioned. they dont understand NPOV.</p><p>so, whatever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you would still have donated.. right ? sure .
sure.NPOV doesnt mean a lack of critical content , it means viewpoints can be mentioned but not one to the exclusivity of others.but in general 'fans ' of something dont want any critical viewpoints even mentioned .
they dont understand NPOV.so , whatever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you would still have donated.. right? sure.
sure.NPOV doesnt mean a lack of critical content, it means viewpoints can be mentioned but not one to the exclusivity of others.but in general 'fans' of something dont want any critical viewpoints even mentioned.
they dont understand NPOV.so, whatever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324515</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324987</id>
	<title>sure.. look what pay has done for congress</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244921460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>we now have the best, most NPOV legislative body in the world... all thanks to lobbyists.</p><p>after all, if nobody is willing to pay for an article, then it probably is not important enough to be written, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>we now have the best , most NPOV legislative body in the world... all thanks to lobbyists.after all , if nobody is willing to pay for an article , then it probably is not important enough to be written , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we now have the best, most NPOV legislative body in the world... all thanks to lobbyists.after all, if nobody is willing to pay for an article, then it probably is not important enough to be written, right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324543</id>
	<title>yuo faiL iT!?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244913120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>about who can rant There are if You don't so there are people SLING you can I ever did. It BSD fanatics? I've hearb you. Also, if would take about 2 for membership.</htmltext>
<tokenext>about who can rant There are if You do n't so there are people SLING you can I ever did .
It BSD fanatics ?
I 've hearb you .
Also , if would take about 2 for membership .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>about who can rant There are if You don't so there are people SLING you can I ever did.
It BSD fanatics?
I've hearb you.
Also, if would take about 2 for membership.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28325191</id>
	<title>The only good solution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245012060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only good solution is to allow people to get paid to create articles, but to make sure that the admins are as unbiased as possible.  The admins should also be somewhat smart, and should be confined to their areas of expertise (I've seen a few quantum physics articles with flags on them that look fine to me - start the quantum jokes now), if admins were confined to their areas of expertise, and they clued each other in to vandalism when they saw it outside of their area, then it would work well.  To try to keep the admins should be paid by the Wikipedia foundation, and users should be able to complain about biased or stupid admins.</p><p>The trick is to find people who are smart, unbiased, and willing to work for free/cheap.  I leave that as an exercise to Jimmy Wales and fellow Slashdotters.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only good solution is to allow people to get paid to create articles , but to make sure that the admins are as unbiased as possible .
The admins should also be somewhat smart , and should be confined to their areas of expertise ( I 've seen a few quantum physics articles with flags on them that look fine to me - start the quantum jokes now ) , if admins were confined to their areas of expertise , and they clued each other in to vandalism when they saw it outside of their area , then it would work well .
To try to keep the admins should be paid by the Wikipedia foundation , and users should be able to complain about biased or stupid admins.The trick is to find people who are smart , unbiased , and willing to work for free/cheap .
I leave that as an exercise to Jimmy Wales and fellow Slashdotters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only good solution is to allow people to get paid to create articles, but to make sure that the admins are as unbiased as possible.
The admins should also be somewhat smart, and should be confined to their areas of expertise (I've seen a few quantum physics articles with flags on them that look fine to me - start the quantum jokes now), if admins were confined to their areas of expertise, and they clued each other in to vandalism when they saw it outside of their area, then it would work well.
To try to keep the admins should be paid by the Wikipedia foundation, and users should be able to complain about biased or stupid admins.The trick is to find people who are smart, unbiased, and willing to work for free/cheap.
I leave that as an exercise to Jimmy Wales and fellow Slashdotters.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324391</id>
	<title>Well...</title>
	<author>Darkness404</author>
	<datestamp>1244910780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think there are two types of paid editors, one as an image improver, the other as writing good articles. For example, an "image improver" would be one who goes to a company's page and changes earning reports to make the company seem profitable. Or someone who carefully edits information on the latest politician involved in a scandal. Those type of things should be expressly banned. On the other hand there are some who can focus on writing good articles. For example, an author of, say a band might hire someone to add in more things about the band, particularly if they aren't that well-known yet, things that are verifiable yet add things to the article such as home towns, personal info, discography, etc. Things that if written correctly would not be objectionable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think there are two types of paid editors , one as an image improver , the other as writing good articles .
For example , an " image improver " would be one who goes to a company 's page and changes earning reports to make the company seem profitable .
Or someone who carefully edits information on the latest politician involved in a scandal .
Those type of things should be expressly banned .
On the other hand there are some who can focus on writing good articles .
For example , an author of , say a band might hire someone to add in more things about the band , particularly if they are n't that well-known yet , things that are verifiable yet add things to the article such as home towns , personal info , discography , etc .
Things that if written correctly would not be objectionable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think there are two types of paid editors, one as an image improver, the other as writing good articles.
For example, an "image improver" would be one who goes to a company's page and changes earning reports to make the company seem profitable.
Or someone who carefully edits information on the latest politician involved in a scandal.
Those type of things should be expressly banned.
On the other hand there are some who can focus on writing good articles.
For example, an author of, say a band might hire someone to add in more things about the band, particularly if they aren't that well-known yet, things that are verifiable yet add things to the article such as home towns, personal info, discography, etc.
Things that if written correctly would not be objectionable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28326847</id>
	<title>How Could You Do It?</title>
	<author>Bob9113</author>
	<datestamp>1244998560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like the idea of Wikipedia contributors getting paid, and I like the idea of the money coming from those who want articles about specific topics created or enriched.</p><p>The only downside is the risk of bias. How can you remove that risk?</p><p>Quick thought: Anyone can put money, and a target topic, into a kitty. The most funded topics get paid research done on them. The researchers are not told who put the money in the fund. So they don't know if they payer was a supporter or critic.</p><p>If someone has an unbiased desire for a more rich Wikipedia, this approach works just fine. If they want a particular spin, there's no data channel for their preference to be communicated.</p><p>Just a quick rough thought - how could you make it work better?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like the idea of Wikipedia contributors getting paid , and I like the idea of the money coming from those who want articles about specific topics created or enriched.The only downside is the risk of bias .
How can you remove that risk ? Quick thought : Anyone can put money , and a target topic , into a kitty .
The most funded topics get paid research done on them .
The researchers are not told who put the money in the fund .
So they do n't know if they payer was a supporter or critic.If someone has an unbiased desire for a more rich Wikipedia , this approach works just fine .
If they want a particular spin , there 's no data channel for their preference to be communicated.Just a quick rough thought - how could you make it work better ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like the idea of Wikipedia contributors getting paid, and I like the idea of the money coming from those who want articles about specific topics created or enriched.The only downside is the risk of bias.
How can you remove that risk?Quick thought: Anyone can put money, and a target topic, into a kitty.
The most funded topics get paid research done on them.
The researchers are not told who put the money in the fund.
So they don't know if they payer was a supporter or critic.If someone has an unbiased desire for a more rich Wikipedia, this approach works just fine.
If they want a particular spin, there's no data channel for their preference to be communicated.Just a quick rough thought - how could you make it work better?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28325511</id>
	<title>Re:How much</title>
	<author>Hope Thelps</author>
	<datestamp>1244976660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Same with Wikipedia, the market (Wikipedia) is opposed to paid editing of articles.</p></div><p>That doesn't appear to be true. There has been a majority in favor of allowing paid editing since a fairly early stage in the process (and no it doesn't seem to consist of paid shills but I suppose it's hard to tell for certain). It's running at about 60\% suporting the idea that whether someone's paid is irrelevant as long as content is neutral, verificable etc. and 40\% against.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Same with Wikipedia , the market ( Wikipedia ) is opposed to paid editing of articles.That does n't appear to be true .
There has been a majority in favor of allowing paid editing since a fairly early stage in the process ( and no it does n't seem to consist of paid shills but I suppose it 's hard to tell for certain ) .
It 's running at about 60 \ % suporting the idea that whether someone 's paid is irrelevant as long as content is neutral , verificable etc .
and 40 \ % against .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same with Wikipedia, the market (Wikipedia) is opposed to paid editing of articles.That doesn't appear to be true.
There has been a majority in favor of allowing paid editing since a fairly early stage in the process (and no it doesn't seem to consist of paid shills but I suppose it's hard to tell for certain).
It's running at about 60\% suporting the idea that whether someone's paid is irrelevant as long as content is neutral, verificable etc.
and 40\% against.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324459</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28325863</id>
	<title>You see nothing wrong in this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244985600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You see nothing wrong in this because you are too obtuse to understand the difference between the mechanism and the outcome.</p><p>Just because in your case the results were beneficial (let's assume) it does not mean that they are likely to be so in all cases. Paying people will get more done, more quickly, but it will also, in many instances, provide a powerful incentive to place honesty on the back burner. You can be sure that the most money will be offered and the work most effective in seeding the articles with edits which favour large corporations and rich individuals... admittedly, while at the same time, some do gooders are helping to pay for quality improvements.</p><p>While editing is open to all and sundry, the system at least approaches something democratic, but when you bring money into the picture, influence becomes proportionate to the wealth of the individual.</p><p>Nobody should be paid for editing Wikipedia.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You see nothing wrong in this because you are too obtuse to understand the difference between the mechanism and the outcome.Just because in your case the results were beneficial ( let 's assume ) it does not mean that they are likely to be so in all cases .
Paying people will get more done , more quickly , but it will also , in many instances , provide a powerful incentive to place honesty on the back burner .
You can be sure that the most money will be offered and the work most effective in seeding the articles with edits which favour large corporations and rich individuals... admittedly , while at the same time , some do gooders are helping to pay for quality improvements.While editing is open to all and sundry , the system at least approaches something democratic , but when you bring money into the picture , influence becomes proportionate to the wealth of the individual.Nobody should be paid for editing Wikipedia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You see nothing wrong in this because you are too obtuse to understand the difference between the mechanism and the outcome.Just because in your case the results were beneficial (let's assume) it does not mean that they are likely to be so in all cases.
Paying people will get more done, more quickly, but it will also, in many instances, provide a powerful incentive to place honesty on the back burner.
You can be sure that the most money will be offered and the work most effective in seeding the articles with edits which favour large corporations and rich individuals... admittedly, while at the same time, some do gooders are helping to pay for quality improvements.While editing is open to all and sundry, the system at least approaches something democratic, but when you bring money into the picture, influence becomes proportionate to the wealth of the individual.Nobody should be paid for editing Wikipedia.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324515</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28331429</id>
	<title>Re:Wikipedia articles are owned by...</title>
	<author>SL Baur</author>
	<datestamp>1244996220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Just try and outlast, say, a bored housewife with an axe to grind and nothing better to do than grind it.</p></div><p>You just described my ex-wife, you insensitive clod!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just try and outlast , say , a bored housewife with an axe to grind and nothing better to do than grind it.You just described my ex-wife , you insensitive clod !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just try and outlast, say, a bored housewife with an axe to grind and nothing better to do than grind it.You just described my ex-wife, you insensitive clod!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28325149</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28325803</id>
	<title>Re:No</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1244984160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Traditional encyclopedias seemed to manage paying people pretty well.</p><p>I'm pretty sure that many people bring bias other than dollars to things (and often far more powerful), so I'm not sure how much impact it would really have on quality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Traditional encyclopedias seemed to manage paying people pretty well.I 'm pretty sure that many people bring bias other than dollars to things ( and often far more powerful ) , so I 'm not sure how much impact it would really have on quality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Traditional encyclopedias seemed to manage paying people pretty well.I'm pretty sure that many people bring bias other than dollars to things (and often far more powerful), so I'm not sure how much impact it would really have on quality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324207</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324309</id>
	<title>Paid editing is a really bad idea.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244909640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's an excellent analysis by user Ha! <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests\_for\_comment/Paid\_Editing#Statement\_by\_Ha.21" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests\_for\_comment/Paid\_Editing#Statement\_by\_Ha.21</a> [wikipedia.org] who shows that versions made for pay are generally PR puff pieces at best. He's expanded that to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ha!/paid\_editing\_adverts" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ha!/paid\_editing\_adverts</a> [wikipedia.org] which drives the point home even further. Allowing paid editing would be the death of anything resembling neutrality. There are serious problems with neutrality already, but this would kill it completely.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's an excellent analysis by user Ha !
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia : Requests \ _for \ _comment/Paid \ _Editing # Statement \ _by \ _Ha.21 [ wikipedia.org ] who shows that versions made for pay are generally PR puff pieces at best .
He 's expanded that to http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User : Ha ! /paid \ _editing \ _adverts [ wikipedia.org ] which drives the point home even further .
Allowing paid editing would be the death of anything resembling neutrality .
There are serious problems with neutrality already , but this would kill it completely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's an excellent analysis by user Ha!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests\_for\_comment/Paid\_Editing#Statement\_by\_Ha.21 [wikipedia.org] who shows that versions made for pay are generally PR puff pieces at best.
He's expanded that to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ha!/paid\_editing\_adverts [wikipedia.org] which drives the point home even further.
Allowing paid editing would be the death of anything resembling neutrality.
There are serious problems with neutrality already, but this would kill it completely.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28331043</id>
	<title>Re:No</title>
	<author>thekohser</author>
	<datestamp>1244992140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>See my response to this fallacy, below, John.  My post was rated up to "5", but then the Wikipediots came along and must have voted it back down again.  So, you'll have to search for it.  Look for the word "MyWikiBiz".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>See my response to this fallacy , below , John .
My post was rated up to " 5 " , but then the Wikipediots came along and must have voted it back down again .
So , you 'll have to search for it .
Look for the word " MyWikiBiz " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See my response to this fallacy, below, John.
My post was rated up to "5", but then the Wikipediots came along and must have voted it back down again.
So, you'll have to search for it.
Look for the word "MyWikiBiz".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324207</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324403</id>
	<title>Yes, but only if...</title>
	<author>SpitfireSMS</author>
	<datestamp>1244911020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Only if wikipeida were a paid-subscription site.<br>It doesnt make sense to me take ad revenue from the site to pay every jackass that changes "there" to "their"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Only if wikipeida were a paid-subscription site.It doesnt make sense to me take ad revenue from the site to pay every jackass that changes " there " to " their "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only if wikipeida were a paid-subscription site.It doesnt make sense to me take ad revenue from the site to pay every jackass that changes "there" to "their"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324515</id>
	<title>I've spent $300 on this already</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244912640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wikipedia has a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reward\_board" title="wikipedia.org">reward board</a> [wikipedia.org] where people can offer cash or other rewards for articles to be created or (usually) improved to a certain standard. There is also a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bounty\_board" title="wikipedia.org">bounty board</a> [wikipedia.org] to offer donations to the Wikimedia Foundation for similar tasks.

I have personally given $300 to individuals who have worked to raise <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reward\_board#Furry\_articles" title="wikipedia.org">furry articles</a> [wikipedia.org] to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good\_articles" title="wikipedia.org">good article status</a> [wikipedia.org]. I see nothing wrong with this. A good article must, by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Good\_article\_criteria" title="wikipedia.org">definition</a> [wikipedia.org], be neutral, and if it is not on a notable subject, it is very unlikely to achieve the status. Frankly, given the amount of skill and effort it takes to meet the requirements (I've done it myself, I know how tough it is), $50 an article is cheap.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wikipedia has a reward board [ wikipedia.org ] where people can offer cash or other rewards for articles to be created or ( usually ) improved to a certain standard .
There is also a bounty board [ wikipedia.org ] to offer donations to the Wikimedia Foundation for similar tasks .
I have personally given $ 300 to individuals who have worked to raise furry articles [ wikipedia.org ] to good article status [ wikipedia.org ] .
I see nothing wrong with this .
A good article must , by definition [ wikipedia.org ] , be neutral , and if it is not on a notable subject , it is very unlikely to achieve the status .
Frankly , given the amount of skill and effort it takes to meet the requirements ( I 've done it myself , I know how tough it is ) , $ 50 an article is cheap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wikipedia has a reward board [wikipedia.org] where people can offer cash or other rewards for articles to be created or (usually) improved to a certain standard.
There is also a bounty board [wikipedia.org] to offer donations to the Wikimedia Foundation for similar tasks.
I have personally given $300 to individuals who have worked to raise furry articles [wikipedia.org] to good article status [wikipedia.org].
I see nothing wrong with this.
A good article must, by definition [wikipedia.org], be neutral, and if it is not on a notable subject, it is very unlikely to achieve the status.
Frankly, given the amount of skill and effort it takes to meet the requirements (I've done it myself, I know how tough it is), $50 an article is cheap.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28326395</id>
	<title>Re:No</title>
	<author>MikeURL</author>
	<datestamp>1244992800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wikipedia has a SERIOUS "lunatics running the asylum" problem.  I'm not so sure that having paid loons is worse than loons with an unpaid POV to push.
<br> <br>
In short, it makes sense to avoid any wikipedia page that might tend to draw POV pushers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wikipedia has a SERIOUS " lunatics running the asylum " problem .
I 'm not so sure that having paid loons is worse than loons with an unpaid POV to push .
In short , it makes sense to avoid any wikipedia page that might tend to draw POV pushers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wikipedia has a SERIOUS "lunatics running the asylum" problem.
I'm not so sure that having paid loons is worse than loons with an unpaid POV to push.
In short, it makes sense to avoid any wikipedia page that might tend to draw POV pushers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324207</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324529</id>
	<title>Autocracy?</title>
	<author>SleepyHappyDoc</author>
	<datestamp>1244912760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I will personally block...".  Sounds pretty autocratic to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I will personally block... " .
Sounds pretty autocratic to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I will personally block...".
Sounds pretty autocratic to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28327305</id>
	<title>Re:And how much money does Jimbo make?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245002400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, Wikia is very successful, so your post makes no sense.  They are doing more than a half a billion pageviews a month, if you hadn't noticed, and editorship is up 10\% in the last month.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , Wikia is very successful , so your post makes no sense .
They are doing more than a half a billion pageviews a month , if you had n't noticed , and editorship is up 10 \ % in the last month .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, Wikia is very successful, so your post makes no sense.
They are doing more than a half a billion pageviews a month, if you hadn't noticed, and editorship is up 10\% in the last month.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324353</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28325107</id>
	<title>David Shankbone being paid by Israeli Governm</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245009960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is an interesting topic on how one "leading Wikipedia" David Shankbone Miller got paid by the Israeli government and given all sorts of professional advantages, such as introductions famous authors and Shimon Peres, in an attempt to curry favor with the Wikipedia camp.</p><p>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=24358</p><p>The big joke is what they got back were pictures of urinating goats and dimly lit gay clubs. Probably not the kid of PR Israel thought they were buying.</p><p>By all accounts, this guy had had more than one trip out to Israel paid for and yet there is no discussion of this kind of sponsorship. No one is accounting for it. He did stick this one photo up though<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Palestinian\_boy\_with\_toy\_guy\_in\_Nazareth\_by\_David\_Shankbone.jpg</p><p>and tried adding the title, "A recent study by Herzog&#195;(TM)s trauma centre found that 33 per cent of Israeli youth have been affected personally by terrorism, either by being at the scene of an attack or by knowing someone injured or killed by terrorists. Seventy per cent of those surveyed reported increased subjective fear or hopelessness."<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... a nice bit of bought "NPOV" and a good reason why it should not be allowed.</p><p>It would appear that this particular gun has backfired on his paymasters.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is an interesting topic on how one " leading Wikipedia " David Shankbone Miller got paid by the Israeli government and given all sorts of professional advantages , such as introductions famous authors and Shimon Peres , in an attempt to curry favor with the Wikipedia camp.http : //wikipediareview.com/index.php ? showtopic = 24358The big joke is what they got back were pictures of urinating goats and dimly lit gay clubs .
Probably not the kid of PR Israel thought they were buying.By all accounts , this guy had had more than one trip out to Israel paid for and yet there is no discussion of this kind of sponsorship .
No one is accounting for it .
He did stick this one photo up though ...http : //commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File : Palestinian \ _boy \ _with \ _toy \ _guy \ _in \ _Nazareth \ _by \ _David \ _Shankbone.jpgand tried adding the title , " A recent study by Herzog   ( TM ) s trauma centre found that 33 per cent of Israeli youth have been affected personally by terrorism , either by being at the scene of an attack or by knowing someone injured or killed by terrorists .
Seventy per cent of those surveyed reported increased subjective fear or hopelessness .
" ... a nice bit of bought " NPOV " and a good reason why it should not be allowed.It would appear that this particular gun has backfired on his paymasters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is an interesting topic on how one "leading Wikipedia" David Shankbone Miller got paid by the Israeli government and given all sorts of professional advantages, such as introductions famous authors and Shimon Peres, in an attempt to curry favor with the Wikipedia camp.http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=24358The big joke is what they got back were pictures of urinating goats and dimly lit gay clubs.
Probably not the kid of PR Israel thought they were buying.By all accounts, this guy had had more than one trip out to Israel paid for and yet there is no discussion of this kind of sponsorship.
No one is accounting for it.
He did stick this one photo up though ...http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Palestinian\_boy\_with\_toy\_guy\_in\_Nazareth\_by\_David\_Shankbone.jpgand tried adding the title, "A recent study by HerzogÃ(TM)s trauma centre found that 33 per cent of Israeli youth have been affected personally by terrorism, either by being at the scene of an attack or by knowing someone injured or killed by terrorists.
Seventy per cent of those surveyed reported increased subjective fear or hopelessness.
" ... a nice bit of bought "NPOV" and a good reason why it should not be allowed.It would appear that this particular gun has backfired on his paymasters.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324207</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28325557</id>
	<title>Users okay, admins not</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1244977440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't see a problem with users being paid to write. All mechanisms to deal with astroturfing, POV pushing and so on are already in place, and, frankly, there are quite enough people willing to do all those things already even without being paid. A few more paid shills won't make things substantially worse, and there may still be those who get paid and actually write good (as far as WP is concerned) articles.</p><p>Now admins are another matter. Adminship abuse is harder to point out and prove, and they have much more power, and can consequently deal that much more damage before rooted out. I'd say that being on someone's payroll specifically to deal with WP matters should immediately disqualify one from being an administrator, or applying for that position.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see a problem with users being paid to write .
All mechanisms to deal with astroturfing , POV pushing and so on are already in place , and , frankly , there are quite enough people willing to do all those things already even without being paid .
A few more paid shills wo n't make things substantially worse , and there may still be those who get paid and actually write good ( as far as WP is concerned ) articles.Now admins are another matter .
Adminship abuse is harder to point out and prove , and they have much more power , and can consequently deal that much more damage before rooted out .
I 'd say that being on someone 's payroll specifically to deal with WP matters should immediately disqualify one from being an administrator , or applying for that position .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see a problem with users being paid to write.
All mechanisms to deal with astroturfing, POV pushing and so on are already in place, and, frankly, there are quite enough people willing to do all those things already even without being paid.
A few more paid shills won't make things substantially worse, and there may still be those who get paid and actually write good (as far as WP is concerned) articles.Now admins are another matter.
Adminship abuse is harder to point out and prove, and they have much more power, and can consequently deal that much more damage before rooted out.
I'd say that being on someone's payroll specifically to deal with WP matters should immediately disqualify one from being an administrator, or applying for that position.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28326315</id>
	<title>Re:No</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1244991840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Just like Wikipedia discourages people to make edits of a person's own article for themselves, this should also be discouraged. Once you receive money for edits you've made, you're no longer an uninterested third party and have a biased voice.</p></div><p>The problem with this argument is that it is likely that anyone motivated enough to edit a Wikipedia article for anything other than grammar is probably an interested party with a biased voice. The idea that it's not appropriate for me to edit an entry on myself to correct factual errors is inherently offensive to me, and if I tried to correct an error in such a resource and I were rebuffed I might consider filing suit for libel. By the same extension (but only if you accept my logic) it should be perfectly fine to pay someone to correct factual errors about me; what's the difference between me doing it, and someone else doing it, except that money changes hands?</p><p>The only criteria for acceptance of an edit should be its validity, and not who makes it. Period, the end. That this is not true worries me, because it would seem to create a society of elites in charge of what information is accepted. (That's still better than one commercial organization deciding what does into an encyclopedia, and I don't necessarily have any good solutions except the already-extant reviewed articles.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just like Wikipedia discourages people to make edits of a person 's own article for themselves , this should also be discouraged .
Once you receive money for edits you 've made , you 're no longer an uninterested third party and have a biased voice.The problem with this argument is that it is likely that anyone motivated enough to edit a Wikipedia article for anything other than grammar is probably an interested party with a biased voice .
The idea that it 's not appropriate for me to edit an entry on myself to correct factual errors is inherently offensive to me , and if I tried to correct an error in such a resource and I were rebuffed I might consider filing suit for libel .
By the same extension ( but only if you accept my logic ) it should be perfectly fine to pay someone to correct factual errors about me ; what 's the difference between me doing it , and someone else doing it , except that money changes hands ? The only criteria for acceptance of an edit should be its validity , and not who makes it .
Period , the end .
That this is not true worries me , because it would seem to create a society of elites in charge of what information is accepted .
( That 's still better than one commercial organization deciding what does into an encyclopedia , and I do n't necessarily have any good solutions except the already-extant reviewed articles .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just like Wikipedia discourages people to make edits of a person's own article for themselves, this should also be discouraged.
Once you receive money for edits you've made, you're no longer an uninterested third party and have a biased voice.The problem with this argument is that it is likely that anyone motivated enough to edit a Wikipedia article for anything other than grammar is probably an interested party with a biased voice.
The idea that it's not appropriate for me to edit an entry on myself to correct factual errors is inherently offensive to me, and if I tried to correct an error in such a resource and I were rebuffed I might consider filing suit for libel.
By the same extension (but only if you accept my logic) it should be perfectly fine to pay someone to correct factual errors about me; what's the difference between me doing it, and someone else doing it, except that money changes hands?The only criteria for acceptance of an edit should be its validity, and not who makes it.
Period, the end.
That this is not true worries me, because it would seem to create a society of elites in charge of what information is accepted.
(That's still better than one commercial organization deciding what does into an encyclopedia, and I don't necessarily have any good solutions except the already-extant reviewed articles.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324207</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324715</id>
	<title>It's inevitable, so manage it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244915340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This already happens and inevitably will become more common as Wikipedia's profile rises.  WP might as well get out in front of it with policies that make it easier to police and verify.</p><p>Currently, PR firms who are hired by companies to raise their profile already add biased, poorly sourced puff pieces to Wikipedia.  They are promptly shredded by the community and deleted in nine cases out of ten.  They do, however, create a lot of work for Wikipedian volunteers, usually because the PR people in question know websites generally, but nothing about the rules and culture that govern Wikipedia.  They also do not generally disclose up front that they have a business relationship with the company they're writing the article about.</p><p>There's an argument to be made that there's an advantage to replacing these PR firms with people who are already clued in to Wikipedia's culture and guidelines.  They could communicate up front to a client what will and won't fly on WP, and the best way to add verifiable information about the company without running afoul of neutrality and verifiability guidelines.  If all these paid editors do on behalf of their employer is add content and provide sources, as long as their work is in accord with policy I don't see a reason to care that they are getting paid.</p><p>There are freelance wackos and fanboys that attempt to sabotage or whitewash pages about companies and other institutions as it is.  How are paid editors different?  At least you could require them to declare their influences.  Make stringent requirements about disclosure, and allow paid editors to edit and provide info in talk pages, but not to take any administrative actions on the pages they're paid to edit.  Any violation results in a topic ban for that account.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This already happens and inevitably will become more common as Wikipedia 's profile rises .
WP might as well get out in front of it with policies that make it easier to police and verify.Currently , PR firms who are hired by companies to raise their profile already add biased , poorly sourced puff pieces to Wikipedia .
They are promptly shredded by the community and deleted in nine cases out of ten .
They do , however , create a lot of work for Wikipedian volunteers , usually because the PR people in question know websites generally , but nothing about the rules and culture that govern Wikipedia .
They also do not generally disclose up front that they have a business relationship with the company they 're writing the article about.There 's an argument to be made that there 's an advantage to replacing these PR firms with people who are already clued in to Wikipedia 's culture and guidelines .
They could communicate up front to a client what will and wo n't fly on WP , and the best way to add verifiable information about the company without running afoul of neutrality and verifiability guidelines .
If all these paid editors do on behalf of their employer is add content and provide sources , as long as their work is in accord with policy I do n't see a reason to care that they are getting paid.There are freelance wackos and fanboys that attempt to sabotage or whitewash pages about companies and other institutions as it is .
How are paid editors different ?
At least you could require them to declare their influences .
Make stringent requirements about disclosure , and allow paid editors to edit and provide info in talk pages , but not to take any administrative actions on the pages they 're paid to edit .
Any violation results in a topic ban for that account .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This already happens and inevitably will become more common as Wikipedia's profile rises.
WP might as well get out in front of it with policies that make it easier to police and verify.Currently, PR firms who are hired by companies to raise their profile already add biased, poorly sourced puff pieces to Wikipedia.
They are promptly shredded by the community and deleted in nine cases out of ten.
They do, however, create a lot of work for Wikipedian volunteers, usually because the PR people in question know websites generally, but nothing about the rules and culture that govern Wikipedia.
They also do not generally disclose up front that they have a business relationship with the company they're writing the article about.There's an argument to be made that there's an advantage to replacing these PR firms with people who are already clued in to Wikipedia's culture and guidelines.
They could communicate up front to a client what will and won't fly on WP, and the best way to add verifiable information about the company without running afoul of neutrality and verifiability guidelines.
If all these paid editors do on behalf of their employer is add content and provide sources, as long as their work is in accord with policy I don't see a reason to care that they are getting paid.There are freelance wackos and fanboys that attempt to sabotage or whitewash pages about companies and other institutions as it is.
How are paid editors different?
At least you could require them to declare their influences.
Make stringent requirements about disclosure, and allow paid editors to edit and provide info in talk pages, but not to take any administrative actions on the pages they're paid to edit.
Any violation results in a topic ban for that account.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28329567</id>
	<title>Re:No</title>
	<author>harlows\_monkeys</author>
	<datestamp>1244977200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> Just like Wikipedia discourages people to make edits of a person's own article for themselves, this should also be discouraged</p></div></blockquote><p>This is widely ignored, though. I recall an episode of TWiT where Leo said he edited his own entry, and asked the rest of the panel if they edit theirs, and they all said they do. Leo's edits were to fix factual errors--dates wrong on when specific shows were broadcast, and things like that.</p><blockquote><div><p> Once you receive money for edits you've made, you're no longer an uninterested third party and have a biased voice</p></div> </blockquote><p>I don't think it is as clear cut as you make it sound. People editing controversial topics for free usually have a biased voice, too. A good case can be made that someone who had no opinion on a subject, and is only editing because someone paid him to do so, is less likely to be biased, depending on the details of the financial arrangement.</p><p>Sure, if the arrangement is "edit this page and if we like the changes, we will pay you", then sure, the edit is going to be biased toward the view the payer wants.</p><p>But what if the arrangement is "edit this page and make any changes you feel improve it, and we will pay you". What's the problem there? Presumably the person being offered the contract is some kind of expert in the subject, and so his professional reputation is on the line. That can be a powerful incentive to be fair in the edits--and if the edits aren't fair, they won't stick.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just like Wikipedia discourages people to make edits of a person 's own article for themselves , this should also be discouragedThis is widely ignored , though .
I recall an episode of TWiT where Leo said he edited his own entry , and asked the rest of the panel if they edit theirs , and they all said they do .
Leo 's edits were to fix factual errors--dates wrong on when specific shows were broadcast , and things like that .
Once you receive money for edits you 've made , you 're no longer an uninterested third party and have a biased voice I do n't think it is as clear cut as you make it sound .
People editing controversial topics for free usually have a biased voice , too .
A good case can be made that someone who had no opinion on a subject , and is only editing because someone paid him to do so , is less likely to be biased , depending on the details of the financial arrangement.Sure , if the arrangement is " edit this page and if we like the changes , we will pay you " , then sure , the edit is going to be biased toward the view the payer wants.But what if the arrangement is " edit this page and make any changes you feel improve it , and we will pay you " .
What 's the problem there ?
Presumably the person being offered the contract is some kind of expert in the subject , and so his professional reputation is on the line .
That can be a powerful incentive to be fair in the edits--and if the edits are n't fair , they wo n't stick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Just like Wikipedia discourages people to make edits of a person's own article for themselves, this should also be discouragedThis is widely ignored, though.
I recall an episode of TWiT where Leo said he edited his own entry, and asked the rest of the panel if they edit theirs, and they all said they do.
Leo's edits were to fix factual errors--dates wrong on when specific shows were broadcast, and things like that.
Once you receive money for edits you've made, you're no longer an uninterested third party and have a biased voice I don't think it is as clear cut as you make it sound.
People editing controversial topics for free usually have a biased voice, too.
A good case can be made that someone who had no opinion on a subject, and is only editing because someone paid him to do so, is less likely to be biased, depending on the details of the financial arrangement.Sure, if the arrangement is "edit this page and if we like the changes, we will pay you", then sure, the edit is going to be biased toward the view the payer wants.But what if the arrangement is "edit this page and make any changes you feel improve it, and we will pay you".
What's the problem there?
Presumably the person being offered the contract is some kind of expert in the subject, and so his professional reputation is on the line.
That can be a powerful incentive to be fair in the edits--and if the edits aren't fair, they won't stick.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324207</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324317</id>
	<title>Re:No</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1244909760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The facts still have to check out. It's just the slant of the article. Choice of words when describing stuff, etc.</p><p>But I've never found Wikipedia to be that unbiased, especially when it comes to topics that are still debated.</p><p>Ex: It may report a hardware device as vaporware, and state that the company creating it has a cult following that aggressively promote the devices, despite there being no evidence the device will ever exist.</p><p>Then once the device is released, it gets updated to a different slant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The facts still have to check out .
It 's just the slant of the article .
Choice of words when describing stuff , etc.But I 've never found Wikipedia to be that unbiased , especially when it comes to topics that are still debated.Ex : It may report a hardware device as vaporware , and state that the company creating it has a cult following that aggressively promote the devices , despite there being no evidence the device will ever exist.Then once the device is released , it gets updated to a different slant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The facts still have to check out.
It's just the slant of the article.
Choice of words when describing stuff, etc.But I've never found Wikipedia to be that unbiased, especially when it comes to topics that are still debated.Ex: It may report a hardware device as vaporware, and state that the company creating it has a cult following that aggressively promote the devices, despite there being no evidence the device will ever exist.Then once the device is released, it gets updated to a different slant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324207</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28346521</id>
	<title>Re:How much</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1245160620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What do you expect?</p><p>Who do you think edits Wikipedia? THOSE THAT HAVE NO LIFE!</p><p>If they knew anything about the subject, they would already be occupied with actually doing something in that area!</p><p>This, and the fact that there is never ONE SINGLE TRUTH(TM), (because we do no know truth but only our most secured theories), are the reasons that Wikipedia could never really work, except in some fairy-tale hippie land.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What do you expect ? Who do you think edits Wikipedia ?
THOSE THAT HAVE NO LIFE ! If they knew anything about the subject , they would already be occupied with actually doing something in that area ! This , and the fact that there is never ONE SINGLE TRUTH ( TM ) , ( because we do no know truth but only our most secured theories ) , are the reasons that Wikipedia could never really work , except in some fairy-tale hippie land .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do you expect?Who do you think edits Wikipedia?
THOSE THAT HAVE NO LIFE!If they knew anything about the subject, they would already be occupied with actually doing something in that area!This, and the fact that there is never ONE SINGLE TRUTH(TM), (because we do no know truth but only our most secured theories), are the reasons that Wikipedia could never really work, except in some fairy-tale hippie land.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324493</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324213</id>
	<title>Imagine . . . How you could protect yourself here.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244908140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Copyright.  Yeah.  That would work.  You could keep other people from diluting your work by using the protection afforded by copyright laws.  That would be great.  Thank goodness that we have copyright!  That way, people who want to protect the integrity of their work have the legal authority to do so!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Copyright .
Yeah. That would work .
You could keep other people from diluting your work by using the protection afforded by copyright laws .
That would be great .
Thank goodness that we have copyright !
That way , people who want to protect the integrity of their work have the legal authority to do so !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Copyright.
Yeah.  That would work.
You could keep other people from diluting your work by using the protection afforded by copyright laws.
That would be great.
Thank goodness that we have copyright!
That way, people who want to protect the integrity of their work have the legal authority to do so!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324957</id>
	<title>That would turn Wikipedia into a PR site</title>
	<author>Klistvud</author>
	<datestamp>1244920920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Which is not necessarily bad, as long as its users were savvy enough to grasp that. According to recent surveys, they are not (for instance, they seldom check out the article sources). Users generally forget that Wikipedia is quite biased as it is (the relative lengths of the articles are actually a type of bias, since greater lengths suggest greater "relevance"). Getting paid for editing articles would actually merely shift the bias from a "random" one to a more "one-sided" bias of "what you get is what you pay for". Is that desirable? Well, it certainly is to people and corporations that have money to spend. But to the rest of us?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which is not necessarily bad , as long as its users were savvy enough to grasp that .
According to recent surveys , they are not ( for instance , they seldom check out the article sources ) .
Users generally forget that Wikipedia is quite biased as it is ( the relative lengths of the articles are actually a type of bias , since greater lengths suggest greater " relevance " ) .
Getting paid for editing articles would actually merely shift the bias from a " random " one to a more " one-sided " bias of " what you get is what you pay for " .
Is that desirable ?
Well , it certainly is to people and corporations that have money to spend .
But to the rest of us ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which is not necessarily bad, as long as its users were savvy enough to grasp that.
According to recent surveys, they are not (for instance, they seldom check out the article sources).
Users generally forget that Wikipedia is quite biased as it is (the relative lengths of the articles are actually a type of bias, since greater lengths suggest greater "relevance").
Getting paid for editing articles would actually merely shift the bias from a "random" one to a more "one-sided" bias of "what you get is what you pay for".
Is that desirable?
Well, it certainly is to people and corporations that have money to spend.
But to the rest of us?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324559</id>
	<title>No Debate</title>
	<author>Gruff1002</author>
	<datestamp>1244913300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anytime someone is paid for something there is a slanted "opinion". Pay me enough I'll tell you anything you want to hear, I'll slam any person, or business if the price is right. This is entirely contradictory to the spirit of a wiki.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anytime someone is paid for something there is a slanted " opinion " .
Pay me enough I 'll tell you anything you want to hear , I 'll slam any person , or business if the price is right .
This is entirely contradictory to the spirit of a wiki .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anytime someone is paid for something there is a slanted "opinion".
Pay me enough I'll tell you anything you want to hear, I'll slam any person, or business if the price is right.
This is entirely contradictory to the spirit of a wiki.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28325185</id>
	<title>Re:No</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245011880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>what if they paid an actual expert? i'd take them posting over some high school kid any day of the week. wikipedia might actually be 1/2 useful then.</htmltext>
<tokenext>what if they paid an actual expert ?
i 'd take them posting over some high school kid any day of the week .
wikipedia might actually be 1/2 useful then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what if they paid an actual expert?
i'd take them posting over some high school kid any day of the week.
wikipedia might actually be 1/2 useful then.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324207</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324203</id>
	<title>How much</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244908020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>for positive arguments on the consensus reaching page? I need a well-written, convincing opinion advocating in favor of market forces.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>for positive arguments on the consensus reaching page ?
I need a well-written , convincing opinion advocating in favor of market forces .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>for positive arguments on the consensus reaching page?
I need a well-written, convincing opinion advocating in favor of market forces.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28326547</id>
	<title>So I pay someone loads to write an article...</title>
	<author>that IT girl</author>
	<datestamp>1244994720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... then someone with an agenda of their own just comes and edits straight over it?
<br> <br>
Unless I'm missing something here, that just seems like a waste.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... then someone with an agenda of their own just comes and edits straight over it ?
Unless I 'm missing something here , that just seems like a waste .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... then someone with an agenda of their own just comes and edits straight over it?
Unless I'm missing something here, that just seems like a waste.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28325775</id>
	<title>Re:Death</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244983500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My worries about Wikipedia were confirmed when I had a doctor use a Wikipedia entry to determine what type of medicine to prescribe for my condition. When I expressed my shock over this he politely informed me that "most doctors" use it to make decisions about medication. I can only imagine what kind of other professionals are using Wikipedia to make potentially life altering decisions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My worries about Wikipedia were confirmed when I had a doctor use a Wikipedia entry to determine what type of medicine to prescribe for my condition .
When I expressed my shock over this he politely informed me that " most doctors " use it to make decisions about medication .
I can only imagine what kind of other professionals are using Wikipedia to make potentially life altering decisions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My worries about Wikipedia were confirmed when I had a doctor use a Wikipedia entry to determine what type of medicine to prescribe for my condition.
When I expressed my shock over this he politely informed me that "most doctors" use it to make decisions about medication.
I can only imagine what kind of other professionals are using Wikipedia to make potentially life altering decisions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324263</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324991</id>
	<title>Re:Paid editing is a really bad idea.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244921520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Paid editing in inevitable.  If you think companies, celebrities, etc aren't having employees routinely edit articles relevant to them you're dreaming.  And wikipedia allows anonymous edits.  Therefore, it doesn't really matter if it is or isn't allowed.  The only question is whether the edits are good contributions or not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Paid editing in inevitable .
If you think companies , celebrities , etc are n't having employees routinely edit articles relevant to them you 're dreaming .
And wikipedia allows anonymous edits .
Therefore , it does n't really matter if it is or is n't allowed .
The only question is whether the edits are good contributions or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Paid editing in inevitable.
If you think companies, celebrities, etc aren't having employees routinely edit articles relevant to them you're dreaming.
And wikipedia allows anonymous edits.
Therefore, it doesn't really matter if it is or isn't allowed.
The only question is whether the edits are good contributions or not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324309</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324465</id>
	<title>The market should be self-correcting in this case</title>
	<author>eldepeche</author>
	<datestamp>1244911920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seems to me that if a paid writer edited a page and it conformed to community standards (notariety, neutral POV, sourced, etc.), there wouldn't be a problem. If the writing didn't conform, then it would get rejected by the community, and the writer would likely not get paid. (And if someone wants to pay somebody to make rejected edits to Wikipedia, that's called a fiscal stimulus.)
<br> <br>
There are plenty of ways to have a vested interest besides being directly paid, and Wikipedians have been very successful in finding and correcting egregiously self-serving edits. Why would writers getting paid break the current system?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems to me that if a paid writer edited a page and it conformed to community standards ( notariety , neutral POV , sourced , etc .
) , there would n't be a problem .
If the writing did n't conform , then it would get rejected by the community , and the writer would likely not get paid .
( And if someone wants to pay somebody to make rejected edits to Wikipedia , that 's called a fiscal stimulus .
) There are plenty of ways to have a vested interest besides being directly paid , and Wikipedians have been very successful in finding and correcting egregiously self-serving edits .
Why would writers getting paid break the current system ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems to me that if a paid writer edited a page and it conformed to community standards (notariety, neutral POV, sourced, etc.
), there wouldn't be a problem.
If the writing didn't conform, then it would get rejected by the community, and the writer would likely not get paid.
(And if someone wants to pay somebody to make rejected edits to Wikipedia, that's called a fiscal stimulus.
)
 
There are plenty of ways to have a vested interest besides being directly paid, and Wikipedians have been very successful in finding and correcting egregiously self-serving edits.
Why would writers getting paid break the current system?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324479</id>
	<title>Wouldn't this be counterproductive?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244912220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the goals they list under why they should have paid editors in the first place is keeping the accuracy of articles up and improving the site's reputation and image. Almost every college professor I've had warns their students against using Wikipedia at all due to accuracy problems.</p><p>Yet, wouldn't paid editors make the site appear even worse than it already is, especially once things like paid edit wars between various government officials and large corporations start appearing?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the goals they list under why they should have paid editors in the first place is keeping the accuracy of articles up and improving the site 's reputation and image .
Almost every college professor I 've had warns their students against using Wikipedia at all due to accuracy problems.Yet , would n't paid editors make the site appear even worse than it already is , especially once things like paid edit wars between various government officials and large corporations start appearing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the goals they list under why they should have paid editors in the first place is keeping the accuracy of articles up and improving the site's reputation and image.
Almost every college professor I've had warns their students against using Wikipedia at all due to accuracy problems.Yet, wouldn't paid editors make the site appear even worse than it already is, especially once things like paid edit wars between various government officials and large corporations start appearing?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28339595</id>
	<title>Motivation and effect.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245099240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't believe money is the right incentive, but the only way it could work is if you pay per hour, and not per edit/performance. Otherwise people will just make edits for the sake of making edits.</p><p>Also, you would have to be paying someone who has something to contribute. For example, pay a specialist to review (and edit where necessary) articles on Wikipedia within his expertise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't believe money is the right incentive , but the only way it could work is if you pay per hour , and not per edit/performance .
Otherwise people will just make edits for the sake of making edits.Also , you would have to be paying someone who has something to contribute .
For example , pay a specialist to review ( and edit where necessary ) articles on Wikipedia within his expertise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't believe money is the right incentive, but the only way it could work is if you pay per hour, and not per edit/performance.
Otherwise people will just make edits for the sake of making edits.Also, you would have to be paying someone who has something to contribute.
For example, pay a specialist to review (and edit where necessary) articles on Wikipedia within his expertise.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324771</id>
	<title>It depends...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244916480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>...I suppose on what is really being paid for.  Are you paying for someone to spin an article in your favor, or are you simply paying to make sure that the article is well done, well formatted, and grammatically correct.  I see no objections to the latter, honestly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...I suppose on what is really being paid for .
Are you paying for someone to spin an article in your favor , or are you simply paying to make sure that the article is well done , well formatted , and grammatically correct .
I see no objections to the latter , honestly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...I suppose on what is really being paid for.
Are you paying for someone to spin an article in your favor, or are you simply paying to make sure that the article is well done, well formatted, and grammatically correct.
I see no objections to the latter, honestly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324807</id>
	<title>How about paid copy-editors?</title>
	<author>Nekomusume</author>
	<datestamp>1244917080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's not shortage of pages that could use grammar/etc. repair.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's not shortage of pages that could use grammar/etc .
repair .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's not shortage of pages that could use grammar/etc.
repair.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324459</id>
	<title>Re:How much</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244911860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem is, you can't argue for market forces when the market is against it. Its like trying to market ham at a kosher deli, they aren't going to want it, and no matter how many times you want to "let the free market decide" they simply don't want it. Same with Wikipedia, the market (Wikipedia) is opposed to paid editing of articles.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is , you ca n't argue for market forces when the market is against it .
Its like trying to market ham at a kosher deli , they are n't going to want it , and no matter how many times you want to " let the free market decide " they simply do n't want it .
Same with Wikipedia , the market ( Wikipedia ) is opposed to paid editing of articles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is, you can't argue for market forces when the market is against it.
Its like trying to market ham at a kosher deli, they aren't going to want it, and no matter how many times you want to "let the free market decide" they simply don't want it.
Same with Wikipedia, the market (Wikipedia) is opposed to paid editing of articles.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324203</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324493</id>
	<title>Re:How much</title>
	<author>rs79</author>
	<datestamp>1244912340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can we pay the Wikipedia editors to stop editing articles? Having some moron keep changing verifiable factual information back to something that's flat out wrong over and over gets really tiresome after several years. IMO half those people shouldn't be allowed near the thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can we pay the Wikipedia editors to stop editing articles ?
Having some moron keep changing verifiable factual information back to something that 's flat out wrong over and over gets really tiresome after several years .
IMO half those people should n't be allowed near the thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can we pay the Wikipedia editors to stop editing articles?
Having some moron keep changing verifiable factual information back to something that's flat out wrong over and over gets really tiresome after several years.
IMO half those people shouldn't be allowed near the thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324203</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324215</id>
	<title>Because someone has to...</title>
	<author>FishWithAHammer</author>
	<datestamp>1244908140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://wikitruth.info/" title="wikitruth.info" rel="nofollow">TELL THE WIKITRUTH</a> [wikitruth.info]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>TELL THE WIKITRUTH [ wikitruth.info ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>TELL THE WIKITRUTH [wikitruth.info]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28325127</id>
	<title>The Paid Editing Debate dates back to Jan-2007</title>
	<author>betasam</author>
	<datestamp>1245010560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here's <a href="http://www.betanews.com/article/Microsoft-Offers-Money-to-Edit-Wikipedia/1169656641" title="betanews.com">a note</a> [betanews.com] about a man who claimed that he was being "paid" by Microsoft to edit Wikipedia articles. He also claimed to be a contributor for OOXML on Wikipedia. His contributions following this article were being dismissed as biased.
<br> <br>
There are two parts to this issue. They are (1) "Should Wikipedia offer to pay those who edit articles?" and (2) "Should any Wikipedia contributor get paid for contributing articles?" On (1), Wikipedia's stance is clear, they are not willing to pay anyone to edit articles. They would like to continue with their open model with little or no moderation. On (2) they are merely talking about the quality of the resultant article. They seriously do not have a mechanism to stop a 3rd party Wikimedia contributor from contributing for money or for the sake of love of the subject or for personal bias.
<br> <br>
IMHO, Wikipedia must avoid policing any and all editors unless they are on their own Payroll. Their open model has served as a simple mechanism to collect relevant information on a topic which may or may not necessarily be accurate. There have been enough debates that have concluded that Wikipedia cannot be quoted as a citation for serious scientific study due to lack of moderation and verification of sources.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's a note [ betanews.com ] about a man who claimed that he was being " paid " by Microsoft to edit Wikipedia articles .
He also claimed to be a contributor for OOXML on Wikipedia .
His contributions following this article were being dismissed as biased .
There are two parts to this issue .
They are ( 1 ) " Should Wikipedia offer to pay those who edit articles ?
" and ( 2 ) " Should any Wikipedia contributor get paid for contributing articles ?
" On ( 1 ) , Wikipedia 's stance is clear , they are not willing to pay anyone to edit articles .
They would like to continue with their open model with little or no moderation .
On ( 2 ) they are merely talking about the quality of the resultant article .
They seriously do not have a mechanism to stop a 3rd party Wikimedia contributor from contributing for money or for the sake of love of the subject or for personal bias .
IMHO , Wikipedia must avoid policing any and all editors unless they are on their own Payroll .
Their open model has served as a simple mechanism to collect relevant information on a topic which may or may not necessarily be accurate .
There have been enough debates that have concluded that Wikipedia can not be quoted as a citation for serious scientific study due to lack of moderation and verification of sources .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's a note [betanews.com] about a man who claimed that he was being "paid" by Microsoft to edit Wikipedia articles.
He also claimed to be a contributor for OOXML on Wikipedia.
His contributions following this article were being dismissed as biased.
There are two parts to this issue.
They are (1) "Should Wikipedia offer to pay those who edit articles?
" and (2) "Should any Wikipedia contributor get paid for contributing articles?
" On (1), Wikipedia's stance is clear, they are not willing to pay anyone to edit articles.
They would like to continue with their open model with little or no moderation.
On (2) they are merely talking about the quality of the resultant article.
They seriously do not have a mechanism to stop a 3rd party Wikimedia contributor from contributing for money or for the sake of love of the subject or for personal bias.
IMHO, Wikipedia must avoid policing any and all editors unless they are on their own Payroll.
Their open model has served as a simple mechanism to collect relevant information on a topic which may or may not necessarily be accurate.
There have been enough debates that have concluded that Wikipedia cannot be quoted as a citation for serious scientific study due to lack of moderation and verification of sources.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28325149</id>
	<title>Wikipedia articles are owned by...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245011220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...Those with the most time on their hands.</p><p>They always have been.</p><p>Just try and outlast, say, a bored housewife with an axe to grind and nothing better to do than grind it.</p><p>Or maybe the unemployed aspiring journalist who likes to insert references to himself and his work into half the existing Wikipedia entries.</p><p>And then there are the relentlessly self-promoting ego-monsters who believe Wikipedia was created solely for to allow them to finally reveal their greatness and grandeur to the world.</p><p>Or the high school kid hellbent on mindless vandalism to impress his little friends, as well as for the sheer pleasure of it.</p><p>Those are just a few obvious ones, but there are many others.</p><p>Wikipedia is a wonderful concept, but unfortunately it's an utter bitch in reality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...Those with the most time on their hands.They always have been.Just try and outlast , say , a bored housewife with an axe to grind and nothing better to do than grind it.Or maybe the unemployed aspiring journalist who likes to insert references to himself and his work into half the existing Wikipedia entries.And then there are the relentlessly self-promoting ego-monsters who believe Wikipedia was created solely for to allow them to finally reveal their greatness and grandeur to the world.Or the high school kid hellbent on mindless vandalism to impress his little friends , as well as for the sheer pleasure of it.Those are just a few obvious ones , but there are many others.Wikipedia is a wonderful concept , but unfortunately it 's an utter bitch in reality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...Those with the most time on their hands.They always have been.Just try and outlast, say, a bored housewife with an axe to grind and nothing better to do than grind it.Or maybe the unemployed aspiring journalist who likes to insert references to himself and his work into half the existing Wikipedia entries.And then there are the relentlessly self-promoting ego-monsters who believe Wikipedia was created solely for to allow them to finally reveal their greatness and grandeur to the world.Or the high school kid hellbent on mindless vandalism to impress his little friends, as well as for the sheer pleasure of it.Those are just a few obvious ones, but there are many others.Wikipedia is a wonderful concept, but unfortunately it's an utter bitch in reality.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324711</id>
	<title>And now, a word from MyWikiBiz</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244915340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I am under contract with a person or corporation to write an article about said person or corporation, I have very, very, very little interest in presenting an "advocacy" position on behalf of that entity. Rather, success is measured in durability within Wikipedia, so my highest priority is...</p><p>How do I write (and publish) this article in such a way that it passes WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, and all the other WP:things, while simultaneously NOT DRAWING THE ATTENTION of someone from the WikiHive intent on deleting paid promotional puff pieces?</p><p>Guess what? The articles that result are relatively bland, not puff pieces, quite encyclopedic, and (ever since I learned this technique) 100\% durable within Wikipedia -- with surprisingly little follow-up maintenance, and likewise lasting appreciation of my clients.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I am under contract with a person or corporation to write an article about said person or corporation , I have very , very , very little interest in presenting an " advocacy " position on behalf of that entity .
Rather , success is measured in durability within Wikipedia , so my highest priority is...How do I write ( and publish ) this article in such a way that it passes WP : NPOV , WP : V , WP : RS , and all the other WP : things , while simultaneously NOT DRAWING THE ATTENTION of someone from the WikiHive intent on deleting paid promotional puff pieces ? Guess what ?
The articles that result are relatively bland , not puff pieces , quite encyclopedic , and ( ever since I learned this technique ) 100 \ % durable within Wikipedia -- with surprisingly little follow-up maintenance , and likewise lasting appreciation of my clients .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I am under contract with a person or corporation to write an article about said person or corporation, I have very, very, very little interest in presenting an "advocacy" position on behalf of that entity.
Rather, success is measured in durability within Wikipedia, so my highest priority is...How do I write (and publish) this article in such a way that it passes WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, and all the other WP:things, while simultaneously NOT DRAWING THE ATTENTION of someone from the WikiHive intent on deleting paid promotional puff pieces?Guess what?
The articles that result are relatively bland, not puff pieces, quite encyclopedic, and (ever since I learned this technique) 100\% durable within Wikipedia -- with surprisingly little follow-up maintenance, and likewise lasting appreciation of my clients.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324313</id>
	<title>interesting topic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244909700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well at first I wanted to pick one side of this and argue against anyone that picked the other side, then I thought maybe it would be better if I just felt ambivalently as there are good points to be made on either side, I guess a third option would be to just not care either way, I feel this way a lot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well at first I wanted to pick one side of this and argue against anyone that picked the other side , then I thought maybe it would be better if I just felt ambivalently as there are good points to be made on either side , I guess a third option would be to just not care either way , I feel this way a lot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well at first I wanted to pick one side of this and argue against anyone that picked the other side, then I thought maybe it would be better if I just felt ambivalently as there are good points to be made on either side, I guess a third option would be to just not care either way, I feel this way a lot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28325075</id>
	<title>David Shankbone being paid by Israeli Government</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244923080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is an interesting topic on how one "leading Wikipedia" David Shankbone Miller got paid by the Israeli government and given all sorts of professional advantages, such as introductions famous authors and Shimon Peres, in an attempt to curry favor with the Wikipedia camp.</p><p>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=24358</p><p>The big joke is what they got back were pictures of pissing goats and dimly lit gay clubs. Probably not the kid of PR Israel thought they were buying.</p><p>By all accounts, this guy had had more than one trip out to Israel paid for and yet there is no discussion of this kind of sponsorship. No one is accounting for it. He did stick this one photo up though<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Palestinian\_boy\_with\_toy\_guy\_in\_Nazareth\_by\_David\_Shankbone.jpg</p><p>and tried adding the title, "A recent study by Herzog&#226;(TM)s trauma centre found that 33 per cent of Israeli youth have been affected personally by terrorism, either by being at the scene of an attack or by knowing someone injured or killed by terrorists. Seventy per cent of those surveyed reported increased subjective fear or hopelessness."<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... a nice bit of bought "NPOV" and a good reason why it should not be allowed.</p><p>It would appear that this particular gun has backfired on his paymasters.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is an interesting topic on how one " leading Wikipedia " David Shankbone Miller got paid by the Israeli government and given all sorts of professional advantages , such as introductions famous authors and Shimon Peres , in an attempt to curry favor with the Wikipedia camp.http : //wikipediareview.com/index.php ? showtopic = 24358The big joke is what they got back were pictures of pissing goats and dimly lit gay clubs .
Probably not the kid of PR Israel thought they were buying.By all accounts , this guy had had more than one trip out to Israel paid for and yet there is no discussion of this kind of sponsorship .
No one is accounting for it .
He did stick this one photo up though ...http : //commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File : Palestinian \ _boy \ _with \ _toy \ _guy \ _in \ _Nazareth \ _by \ _David \ _Shankbone.jpgand tried adding the title , " A recent study by Herzog   ( TM ) s trauma centre found that 33 per cent of Israeli youth have been affected personally by terrorism , either by being at the scene of an attack or by knowing someone injured or killed by terrorists .
Seventy per cent of those surveyed reported increased subjective fear or hopelessness .
" ... a nice bit of bought " NPOV " and a good reason why it should not be allowed.It would appear that this particular gun has backfired on his paymasters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is an interesting topic on how one "leading Wikipedia" David Shankbone Miller got paid by the Israeli government and given all sorts of professional advantages, such as introductions famous authors and Shimon Peres, in an attempt to curry favor with the Wikipedia camp.http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=24358The big joke is what they got back were pictures of pissing goats and dimly lit gay clubs.
Probably not the kid of PR Israel thought they were buying.By all accounts, this guy had had more than one trip out to Israel paid for and yet there is no discussion of this kind of sponsorship.
No one is accounting for it.
He did stick this one photo up though ...http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Palestinian\_boy\_with\_toy\_guy\_in\_Nazareth\_by\_David\_Shankbone.jpgand tried adding the title, "A recent study by Herzogâ(TM)s trauma centre found that 33 per cent of Israeli youth have been affected personally by terrorism, either by being at the scene of an attack or by knowing someone injured or killed by terrorists.
Seventy per cent of those surveyed reported increased subjective fear or hopelessness.
" ... a nice bit of bought "NPOV" and a good reason why it should not be allowed.It would appear that this particular gun has backfired on his paymasters.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324203</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324353</id>
	<title>And how much money does Jimbo make?</title>
	<author>timmarhy</author>
	<datestamp>1244910360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Jimbo is just pissed his Wikia spin off failed on him so he doesn't want anyone else trying?<p>
i'd be suprised if Jimbo doesn't make his living off wikipedia in some form, it's hyporitical of him to condem anyone else trying something similar.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Jimbo is just pissed his Wikia spin off failed on him so he does n't want anyone else trying ?
i 'd be suprised if Jimbo does n't make his living off wikipedia in some form , it 's hyporitical of him to condem anyone else trying something similar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jimbo is just pissed his Wikia spin off failed on him so he doesn't want anyone else trying?
i'd be suprised if Jimbo doesn't make his living off wikipedia in some form, it's hyporitical of him to condem anyone else trying something similar.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28332841</id>
	<title>Re:How much</title>
	<author>jawahar</author>
	<datestamp>1245056940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What is wrong if they get PAID as long as they are disclosing the TRUTH through Wikipedia?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What is wrong if they get PAID as long as they are disclosing the TRUTH through Wikipedia ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is wrong if they get PAID as long as they are disclosing the TRUTH through Wikipedia?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324493</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28328061</id>
	<title>Re:what diff ??</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1245009420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"wikipedia is already biased and untrustworthy." - Anonymous comment on a random forum.</p><p>Heaven forbid we rely on a referenced article that's on <i>Wikipedia</i>. But yes, obviously I'll take your word for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" wikipedia is already biased and untrustworthy .
" - Anonymous comment on a random forum.Heaven forbid we rely on a referenced article that 's on Wikipedia .
But yes , obviously I 'll take your word for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"wikipedia is already biased and untrustworthy.
" - Anonymous comment on a random forum.Heaven forbid we rely on a referenced article that's on Wikipedia.
But yes, obviously I'll take your word for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324211</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28325549</id>
	<title>Re:No</title>
	<author>Hope Thelps</author>
	<datestamp>1244977320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Once you receive money for edits you've made, you're no longer an uninterested third party and have a biased voice.</p></div><p>You sound like you've encountered Wikipedia before so - open your eyes and look at it. Do you really think all those articles about Star Trek were written by people who are uninterested in it? Someone below mentioned the Scientology article - suprise it's already dominated by a mixture of pro-scientologists and anti-scientologists. Who else would you expect to devote time to it? This is less extreme of an effect for some articles than for others but it still applies throughout - any argument premised on the idea that non-paid Wikipedians are 'uninterested third parties' is not merely wrong but completely absurd. People do not spend their time writing about things they're 'uninterested' in. Unless, of course, they're paid to.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Once you receive money for edits you 've made , you 're no longer an uninterested third party and have a biased voice.You sound like you 've encountered Wikipedia before so - open your eyes and look at it .
Do you really think all those articles about Star Trek were written by people who are uninterested in it ?
Someone below mentioned the Scientology article - suprise it 's already dominated by a mixture of pro-scientologists and anti-scientologists .
Who else would you expect to devote time to it ?
This is less extreme of an effect for some articles than for others but it still applies throughout - any argument premised on the idea that non-paid Wikipedians are 'uninterested third parties ' is not merely wrong but completely absurd .
People do not spend their time writing about things they 're 'uninterested ' in .
Unless , of course , they 're paid to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once you receive money for edits you've made, you're no longer an uninterested third party and have a biased voice.You sound like you've encountered Wikipedia before so - open your eyes and look at it.
Do you really think all those articles about Star Trek were written by people who are uninterested in it?
Someone below mentioned the Scientology article - suprise it's already dominated by a mixture of pro-scientologists and anti-scientologists.
Who else would you expect to devote time to it?
This is less extreme of an effect for some articles than for others but it still applies throughout - any argument premised on the idea that non-paid Wikipedians are 'uninterested third parties' is not merely wrong but completely absurd.
People do not spend their time writing about things they're 'uninterested' in.
Unless, of course, they're paid to.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324207</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28326967</id>
	<title>Fuck Wikipedia</title>
	<author>Moe1975</author>
	<datestamp>1244999520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>nuff' said</htmltext>
<tokenext>nuff ' said</tokentext>
<sentencetext>nuff' said</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324555</id>
	<title>They already are biased, might as well get paid.</title>
	<author>BrookHarty</author>
	<datestamp>1244913180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ever check out the favorite topics and edits of some of the popular wikipedia editors? They have their personal bias's already. Its been biased editing going on since day one.  People can say it doesn't happen, but it does.  It has a very large group of editors who think alike and push the rules towards their own beliefs and moderate accordingly. They already use the rules to ban or alter topics they have strong opinions about, even though this goes against the rules.</p><p>They might as well, just open the flood gates and let what spin offs happen. This is the motto of open source as a whole. As long as the information is free and everyone can add/change articles, let the public do what what they want.</p><p>I'd rather see it open to more topics, and less editor heavy handed on people or topics they dont like.  Do we really need every simpson episode in full detail articles yet smaller articles are routinely deleted because some biased editors report they are not popular enough?</p><p>Wikipedia could be so much, but its bogged down in politics and personal agendas. Might as well open up more, than trying to rule it with an iron fist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ever check out the favorite topics and edits of some of the popular wikipedia editors ?
They have their personal bias 's already .
Its been biased editing going on since day one .
People can say it does n't happen , but it does .
It has a very large group of editors who think alike and push the rules towards their own beliefs and moderate accordingly .
They already use the rules to ban or alter topics they have strong opinions about , even though this goes against the rules.They might as well , just open the flood gates and let what spin offs happen .
This is the motto of open source as a whole .
As long as the information is free and everyone can add/change articles , let the public do what what they want.I 'd rather see it open to more topics , and less editor heavy handed on people or topics they dont like .
Do we really need every simpson episode in full detail articles yet smaller articles are routinely deleted because some biased editors report they are not popular enough ? Wikipedia could be so much , but its bogged down in politics and personal agendas .
Might as well open up more , than trying to rule it with an iron fist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ever check out the favorite topics and edits of some of the popular wikipedia editors?
They have their personal bias's already.
Its been biased editing going on since day one.
People can say it doesn't happen, but it does.
It has a very large group of editors who think alike and push the rules towards their own beliefs and moderate accordingly.
They already use the rules to ban or alter topics they have strong opinions about, even though this goes against the rules.They might as well, just open the flood gates and let what spin offs happen.
This is the motto of open source as a whole.
As long as the information is free and everyone can add/change articles, let the public do what what they want.I'd rather see it open to more topics, and less editor heavy handed on people or topics they dont like.
Do we really need every simpson episode in full detail articles yet smaller articles are routinely deleted because some biased editors report they are not popular enough?Wikipedia could be so much, but its bogged down in politics and personal agendas.
Might as well open up more, than trying to rule it with an iron fist.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324211</id>
	<title>what diff ??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244908140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>wikipedia is already biased and untrustworthy. another idiot adding to the existing idiots in the pot wont make a difference.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>wikipedia is already biased and untrustworthy .
another idiot adding to the existing idiots in the pot wont make a difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wikipedia is already biased and untrustworthy.
another idiot adding to the existing idiots in the pot wont make a difference.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28325669</id>
	<title>Quote from his own ad:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244980260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I have a rich experience in technical writing, content writing, and instructional design."</p><p>Well, either he has a single instance of writing experience and/or he can't write.  Either way, I can't see why anyone would hire this doofus.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I have a rich experience in technical writing , content writing , and instructional design .
" Well , either he has a single instance of writing experience and/or he ca n't write .
Either way , I ca n't see why anyone would hire this doofus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I have a rich experience in technical writing, content writing, and instructional design.
"Well, either he has a single instance of writing experience and/or he can't write.
Either way, I can't see why anyone would hire this doofus.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28325013</id>
	<title>Hmm</title>
	<author>rubah</author>
	<datestamp>1244921820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Would this be an issue if it were an anonymous contributor?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would this be an issue if it were an anonymous contributor ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would this be an issue if it were an anonymous contributor?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28327653</id>
	<title>so you are filling up wiki with non notable crap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245005880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>good show guvnah</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>good show guvnah</tokentext>
<sentencetext>good show guvnah</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324365</id>
	<title>How would you stop it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244910600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is there going to be a background check on anyone that edits a page? You can't stop it, so you can already forget about it.</p><p>Next thing you are going to tell me is that the internet shouldn't have unsolicited e-mail. That'll be the day, junior.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there going to be a background check on anyone that edits a page ?
You ca n't stop it , so you can already forget about it.Next thing you are going to tell me is that the internet should n't have unsolicited e-mail .
That 'll be the day , junior .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there going to be a background check on anyone that edits a page?
You can't stop it, so you can already forget about it.Next thing you are going to tell me is that the internet shouldn't have unsolicited e-mail.
That'll be the day, junior.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324209</id>
	<title>And ruin a good thing?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244908080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wikipedia has grown to be the biggest encyclopedia in the world without paying anybody. I don't see why they should start now. We all contribute to Wikipedia and expect nothing in return. That's how we pay for the articles - with our kindness.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wikipedia has grown to be the biggest encyclopedia in the world without paying anybody .
I do n't see why they should start now .
We all contribute to Wikipedia and expect nothing in return .
That 's how we pay for the articles - with our kindness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wikipedia has grown to be the biggest encyclopedia in the world without paying anybody.
I don't see why they should start now.
We all contribute to Wikipedia and expect nothing in return.
That's how we pay for the articles - with our kindness.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324463</id>
	<title>I get paid to post on Slashdot!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244911920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every single time I post, I get paid.  Mod points increase the amount.  It's awesome and increases the quality of my contributions here.  Why some discussions I get dozens of posts and rake in the dough!</p><p>(Sssh, don't tell Cmdr Taco!)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every single time I post , I get paid .
Mod points increase the amount .
It 's awesome and increases the quality of my contributions here .
Why some discussions I get dozens of posts and rake in the dough !
( Sssh , do n't tell Cmdr Taco !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every single time I post, I get paid.
Mod points increase the amount.
It's awesome and increases the quality of my contributions here.
Why some discussions I get dozens of posts and rake in the dough!
(Sssh, don't tell Cmdr Taco!
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324263</id>
	<title>Death</title>
	<author>DirtyCanuck</author>
	<datestamp>1244908800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Youtubes demise? Deleting full episodes, editing comments, deleting controversial videos and muting personal videos.</p><p>Wikipedia? Going from a user generated non bias global collaborative encyclopedia to just an encyclopedia.</p><p>Once these companies get big enough, the always revert back to standard business models. This however is always completely against what made them so good to begin with, youtube became famous for the very content they now destroy, and pay people to seek out.</p><p>Next in line? Google......</p><p>They all sell out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Youtubes demise ?
Deleting full episodes , editing comments , deleting controversial videos and muting personal videos.Wikipedia ?
Going from a user generated non bias global collaborative encyclopedia to just an encyclopedia.Once these companies get big enough , the always revert back to standard business models .
This however is always completely against what made them so good to begin with , youtube became famous for the very content they now destroy , and pay people to seek out.Next in line ?
Google......They all sell out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Youtubes demise?
Deleting full episodes, editing comments, deleting controversial videos and muting personal videos.Wikipedia?
Going from a user generated non bias global collaborative encyclopedia to just an encyclopedia.Once these companies get big enough, the always revert back to standard business models.
This however is always completely against what made them so good to begin with, youtube became famous for the very content they now destroy, and pay people to seek out.Next in line?
Google......They all sell out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324377</id>
	<title>Bad idea, but ...</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1244910720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>... can we pay certain people <b>not</b> to edit it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>... can we pay certain people not to edit it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... can we pay certain people not to edit it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28331575</id>
	<title>Selling expertise or access?</title>
	<author>webagogue</author>
	<datestamp>1244997480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the editor was simply selling his expertise in writing acceptable/good/great Wikipedia articles then I cannot see any harm in what he was doing. But, if he was selling his access (can he edit things others are not allowed to edit? can he bypass filters/restrictions that your average joe cannot?), then he's wrong. He's wrong and there should be a policy that anyone caught doing so has their rights busted down to average joe.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the editor was simply selling his expertise in writing acceptable/good/great Wikipedia articles then I can not see any harm in what he was doing .
But , if he was selling his access ( can he edit things others are not allowed to edit ?
can he bypass filters/restrictions that your average joe can not ?
) , then he 's wrong .
He 's wrong and there should be a policy that anyone caught doing so has their rights busted down to average joe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the editor was simply selling his expertise in writing acceptable/good/great Wikipedia articles then I cannot see any harm in what he was doing.
But, if he was selling his access (can he edit things others are not allowed to edit?
can he bypass filters/restrictions that your average joe cannot?
), then he's wrong.
He's wrong and there should be a policy that anyone caught doing so has their rights busted down to average joe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324203</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28325757</id>
	<title>Re:Death</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244983200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agree</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agree</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agree</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324263</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28325291</id>
	<title>You don't go far enough.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244971500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wikipedia is a bad idea.  It's the best engine for defamation since the invention of the printing press.  Ask anyone who's been accused of being part of the Kennedy assassination (this happened to a high-profile American politician), kept from flying (happened to an academic)...shall I go on?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wikipedia is a bad idea .
It 's the best engine for defamation since the invention of the printing press .
Ask anyone who 's been accused of being part of the Kennedy assassination ( this happened to a high-profile American politician ) , kept from flying ( happened to an academic ) ...shall I go on ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wikipedia is a bad idea.
It's the best engine for defamation since the invention of the printing press.
Ask anyone who's been accused of being part of the Kennedy assassination (this happened to a high-profile American politician), kept from flying (happened to an academic)...shall I go on?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324309</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324453</id>
	<title>Nope.</title>
	<author>zerospeaks</author>
	<datestamp>1244911800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>No.

That settles that.  Glad we had this talk.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No .
That settles that .
Glad we had this talk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.
That settles that.
Glad we had this talk.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28325193</id>
	<title>Re:I've spent $300 on this already</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245012120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>i suggest you yiff in hell</htmltext>
<tokenext>i suggest you yiff in hell</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i suggest you yiff in hell</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324515</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_1824225_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28325757
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324263
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_1824225_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28325133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324515
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_1824225_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28327653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324711
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_1824225_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28325549
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324207
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_1824225_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28332841
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324493
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324203
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_1824225_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28325185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324207
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_1824225_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28325075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324203
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_1824225_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324317
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324207
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_1824225_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28328061
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324211
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_1824225_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28325291
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324309
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_1824225_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28326395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324207
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_1824225_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324991
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324309
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_1824225_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28346521
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324493
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324203
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_1824225_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28325803
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324207
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_1824225_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28325107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324207
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_1824225_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28325511
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324459
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324203
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_1824225_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28325775
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324263
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_1824225_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28326315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324207
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_1824225_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28327895
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324515
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_1824225_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28327305
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324353
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_1824225_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28325193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324515
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_1824225_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28331429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28325149
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_1824225_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28325863
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324515
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_1824225_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28329567
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324207
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_1824225_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28331043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324207
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_13_1824225_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28331575
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324203
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_13_1824225.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324403
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_13_1824225.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324215
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_13_1824225.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324207
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28325549
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28331043
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324317
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28325803
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28325107
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28329567
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28326315
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28326395
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28325185
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_13_1824225.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324463
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_13_1824225.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324559
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_13_1824225.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324211
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28328061
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_13_1824225.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324263
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28325757
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28325775
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_13_1824225.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324711
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28327653
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_13_1824225.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324209
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_13_1824225.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324213
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_13_1824225.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324309
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324991
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28325291
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_13_1824225.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324203
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324493
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28332841
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28346521
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28331575
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324459
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28325511
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28325075
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_13_1824225.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324715
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_13_1824225.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28325149
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28331429
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_13_1824225.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324771
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_13_1824225.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324515
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28325193
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28325863
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28325133
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28327895
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_13_1824225.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28324353
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_13_1824225.28327305
</commentlist>
</conversation>
