9 comments

[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 25.5 ms ] thread
If you're paying editors under-the-table to create a page for SEO purposes (what the article advocates), it kinda sounds like it should be deleted...
My thoughts exactly. The overall attitude of the article seems to be, "Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia where the content is determined by the community, but since I perceive this not to be the case it is time to play dirty."

She then goes on to advise that you conceal your activities and have your biased associates shill for your position (which is presented in contrast to 'sockpuppeting,' but is effectively very similar in my view).

Self-important self-promoter versus wikipedia aspie. I think we've seen this film before.
I’m not sure this person was actually a troll. The author really isn’t that notable and the tips she gives are odious casting further doubt on the need for this particular article.
The conclusion left me feeling like I missed something. Like I missed the words mouthed by a hostage right before they said how wonderful their captors are.
What the hell have I just read?

No, from what I can see in this article, you are the troll, trying to make your name/business appear/stay on Wikipedia without accepting the Wikipedia rules. The list of things to do to make sure "your page" isn't deleted is just outrageous.

If you think you're in position to have an article on Wikipedia about you, stay away from that article. Unless it's factually wrong, you're the last person to have anything to say about it. It's as simple as that.

BTW - seems like this is the wiki page she's talking about: http://speedydeletion.wikia.com/wiki/Amy_Osmond_Cook

The authors (self reported presumably) title is "VP, Marketing & Creative Services, Simplus; Founder, Osmond Marketing". While she might be noteworthy, I would be skeptical. What this article does quite nicely is provide a window into how content promotion and brand management works on wikipedia.