Talk:Shill/Archives/2014

Journalism

The discussion in this section has some serious POV issues. The tone is dripping with contempt for the US media. Also needs references.157.182.105.1 (talk) 20:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

How would you go about getting a reference for something that no one would ever put in print or put their name to online? (This is a serious question, and one I've wondered often while browsing wikipedia) --Sephikus (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the anon user that first made this comment. I think the words 'plant' and 'stooge' are derisive, not to mention uncited. If they are used, perhaps we should indicate that these 'often called' slang terms do have a derisive connotation. OR drohowa (talk) 14:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia a shill?

Unsurprisingly, I see sites like this claiming Wikipedia is a shill, with the reason being that Wikipedia is deleting articles it doesn't like or something like that.--TemplarJLS (talk) 05:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. I think the issue you raise is covered, albeit categorically and not specifically, by the Internet section of this article, and also by the article Sockpuppet (Internet), which is linked from that section. If you have specific ideas to improve either article, they are welcome. There certainly are Wikipedia editors out there whose contributions are sponsored by companies (see this article, for example), much like there are on many forums and online communities throughout the Web. You can read more about how this behavior is addressed in the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline. If you feel there have been conflicts of interest in the conduct of certain editors, you'll find information on that page as to how to report and investigate it. Ibadibam (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)