Paid editing by Ed Sussman and Beutler Ink

General discussion about Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects
Post Reply
User avatar
The Devil's Advocate
Posts: 398
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 7:50 pm

Paid editing by Ed Sussman and Beutler Ink

Post by The Devil's Advocate » Tue Mar 26, 2019 9:34 pm

Been a while, but I have another article up on Breitbart. This follows up on a Huffington Post piece regarding a paid editor called Ed Sussman who was active on articles to NBC and other media. I added on some information about Sussman's activities that piece overlooked, clarified some parts that were covered, and went into detail on William Beutler whose conduct I recalled was fairly similar to Sussman's. Both take a shotgun approach to getting their edits approved, going after multiple editors simultaneously with messages geared towards persuading a favorable review of their paid editing requests and it is effective. At times they also get people who have their own conflict of interest issues to make the approvals.

User avatar
The Devil's Advocate
Posts: 398
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 7:50 pm

Re: Paid editing by Ed Sussman and Beutler Ink

Post by The Devil's Advocate » Thu Mar 28, 2019 4:40 am

President Trump's oldest son, Donald Trump Junior, posted a link to the article on Twitter. Also covered on Mark Levin's radio show at about an hour and fifteen minutes into the program. RT also did a story that is kind of weird in that it spends half the story going on about the Internet and only mentions a few things also covered by HuffPo rather than any of the new information I brought up. Only reason it is clear this is because of my report is the fact that they reference my bio in the video at the end in a way that doesn't even explain why they are mentioning it.

Proabivouac
Posts: 426
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:01 pm

Re: Paid editing by Ed Sussman and Beutler Ink

Post by Proabivouac » Thu Mar 28, 2019 7:28 am

Well done, Mr. Advocate. It is so funny how the faux critics derided and banned you and now you are singlehandedly running circles around them. There is no meritocracy in these spaces, they will cling to power like fleas cling to a dying goat's rump and you will just have to settle for exile writing for minor outlets like Bretibart and Drudge Report instead.

The crazies thing is that you were actually offering this work to Wikipediocracy *for free*, and not only didn't they bite, they got angry with you for it.

User avatar
The Devil's Advocate
Posts: 398
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 7:50 pm

Re: Paid editing by Ed Sussman and Beutler Ink

Post by The Devil's Advocate » Thu Mar 28, 2019 5:02 pm

Proabivouac wrote:
Thu Mar 28, 2019 7:28 am
Well done, Mr. Advocate. It is so funny how the faux critics derided and banned you and now you are singlehandedly running circles around them. There is no meritocracy in these spaces, they will cling to power like fleas cling to a dying goat's rump and you will just have to settle for exile writing for minor outlets like Bretibart and Drudge Report instead.

The crazies thing is that you were actually offering this work to Wikipediocracy *for free*, and not only didn't they bite, they got angry with you for it.
I'm actually still doing it for free. Not bothered by that given it is all under an alias, which they didn't have to allow. As it turns out, someone finally noticed my article over on Wikipedia and has been fussing about not being able to link it directly on account of Breitbart being on the spam blacklist.

Proabivouac
Posts: 426
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:01 pm

Re: Paid editing by Ed Sussman and Beutler Ink

Post by Proabivouac » Fri Mar 29, 2019 3:00 am

The Devil's Advocate wrote:
Thu Mar 28, 2019 5:02 pm
As it turns out, someone finally noticed my article over on Wikipedia and has been fussing about not being able to link it directly on account of Breitbart being on the spam blacklist.
The main reaosn it's on there is likely their coverage of gamergate, which meant a whole lot more to these programmer deviant types than it did to ordinary people. Just look at the logs for the talk page of this article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... Brianna+Wu
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2015/0 ... st-martyr/

An "unreliable source" is one which says true things that we don't like. It does fit with certain meanings of "reliable."

User avatar
The Devil's Advocate
Posts: 398
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 7:50 pm

Re: Paid editing by Ed Sussman and Beutler Ink

Post by The Devil's Advocate » Fri Mar 29, 2019 5:01 am

Proabivouac wrote:
Fri Mar 29, 2019 3:00 am
The main reaosn it's on there is likely their coverage of gamergate, which meant a whole lot more to these programmer deviant types than it did to ordinary people. Just look at the logs for the talk page of this article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... Brianna+Wu
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2015/0 ... st-martyr/

An "unreliable source" is one which says true things that we don't like. It does fit with certain meanings of "reliable."
That's not the reason. It happened in the wake of it being given a Daily Mail-style ban.

Proabivouac
Posts: 426
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:01 pm

Re: Paid editing by Ed Sussman and Beutler Ink

Post by Proabivouac » Fri Mar 29, 2019 5:21 am

The Devil's Advocate wrote:
Fri Mar 29, 2019 5:01 am
That's not the reason. It happened in the wake of it being given a Daily Mail-style ban.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... _Breitbart
Suzy Chapstick a.k.a. JzG wrote: "Support as nominator…It's my view that we should not source anything to Breitbart other than strictly factual and uncontroversial facts about Breitbart on the articles related to Breitbart and its people - if a claim is not covered in more reliable sources then it's not significant and probably WP:UNDUE, if it is, we should use them instead. Guy (Help!)"
Somewhere in that message is a cry for help…

As well as a call to plagiarism, for example if Breitbart broke a story then swapping it out for some other source which reiterates it is plagiaristic in intention. It's what the pettiest scholars do when they greatly dislike a colleague, though Ms. Chapstick isn't close enough to scholarly intentionality that there are any internal ethical misgivings to overcome.

Anyway, you can see that one of the nominator's motivations here was indeed to prevent Breitbart from being used to support facts that his favored sources suppress.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests