sweatalot 9,076 Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 When I read about the man who blowed the whistle to Potjaman I remembered that she had been convicted to prison. But I never heard about her being in prison. So I checked Wikipedia. When opening the article about her a window popped up that said something like there is a suspicion that the article had been paid for. I wonder if the content is reliable. Can anybody check and help? Link to post Share on other sites
harrry 4,906 Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 Are you sure it was not a notice that said that wikipaedea would always be free with no ads but they would like donations to help pay for it. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
edwardandtubs 2,282 Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 Wikipedia articles on Thailand are very unreliable and of poor quality because they tend to be edited by Thais with poor English and no grasp at all of the purpose of an encyclopaedia. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
JesseFrank 3,316 Posted March 9, 2014 Share Posted March 9, 2014 I think the OP is talking about this Link to post Share on other sites
sweatalot 9,076 Posted March 10, 2014 Author Share Posted March 10, 2014 I think the OP is talking about this Capture.JPG exactly, unfortunately it appeared only the first time I opened that article. I think the quality of the English is not bad. Did anybody read? Link to post Share on other sites
KhunBENQ 15,334 Posted March 10, 2014 Share Posted March 10, 2014 (edited) This is nothing specific about this article and it does not say that this article is paid for. Look at the wording. Its an amendment to the terms of use. Asking for help in identifying articles that are paid for. Even when I open an article about matchboxes I will see that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matchbox (seems to depend on cookies whether it appears or not). WiKi is fighting for quite a while against "paid" articles. It refers mostly to manipulation by commercial interest groups (companies, organisations) to get rid of critical content. Phamaceutical industry seems to be most busy to pay authors to "tidy up" articles. To me this looks like a severe strike against the WiKi idea. --- About the question: I am not aware that Pojaman has served a prison sentence. Edited March 10, 2014 by KhunBENQ Link to post Share on other sites
sweatalot 9,076 Posted March 10, 2014 Author Share Posted March 10, 2014 This is nothing specific about this article and it does not say that this article is paid for. Look at the wording. Its an amendment to the terms of use. Asking for help in identifying articles that are paid for. Even when I open an article about matchboxes I will see that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matchbox WiKi is fighting for quite a while against "paid" articles. It refers mostly to manipulation by commercial interest groups (companies, organisations) to get rid of critical content. Phamaceutical industry seems to be most busy to pay authors to "tidy up" articles. To me this looks like a severe strike against the WiKi idea. a severe strike against the WiKi idea. I think so, too Did anybody read the article about P.? Is it correct? Not omitting important facts? If so, I would not suspect manipulation Link to post Share on other sites
Subscribe to the newsletter
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now