wikipedia article about potjaman true?

[sweatalot 7,866]

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?

[harrry 4,902]

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.

[edwardandtubs 1,613]

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.

[JesseFrank 3,315]

I think the OP is talking about this

[sweatalot 7,866]

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?

[KhunBENQ 13,021]

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

[sweatalot 7,866]

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