Talk:Astroturfing

WIKIPEDIA - Astroturf´s dream

» And then there’s WIKIPEDIA — ASTROTURF’s DREAM COME TRUE. Billed as the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, the reality can’t be more different. Anonymous Wikipedia EDITORS CONTROL and co-opt pages ON BEHALF OF SPECIAL INTERESTS. They forbid and reverse edits that go against their agenda. They skew and delete information, in blatant violation of Wikipedia’s own established policies, with impunity — always superior to the poor schleps who actually believe anyone can edit Wikipedia, only to discover they’re barred from correcting even the simplest factual inaccuracies. Try adding a footnoted fact, or correcting a factual error on one of these monitored Wikipedia pages, then poof! Sometimes within a matter of seconds you’ll find your edit is reversed. « (by Sharyl Attkisson) --149.172.227.137 (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

The accusation of astroturfing comes from a notorious conspiracy theorist, see https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/astroturfer-yeah/ . Wikipedia simply does not fit in the category astroturfing, since it never claimed it were based upon knowledge of the masses. And it is not an attempt (fake or otherwise) at a grassroots movement. We render information supported by elite scholars and scientists, not by the large popular masses. So, whatever we do around here, we don't kowtow to ad populum. So, Wikipedia is not astroturfing, it is elitist. That's the correct word. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an attempt (fake or otherwise) of rendering the knowledge of the commoners. Wikipedia is crowsourced based upon information published by top experts. It has more to do with academic OSINT than with knowledge shared by the large masses. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:01, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Astroturfing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111112065042/http://academicmuseum.lafayette.edu/special/dixie/company.html to http://academicmuseum.lafayette.edu/special/dixie/company.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110224055843/http://blogs.computerworld.com/17852/army_of_fake_social_media_friends_to_promote_propaganda to http://blogs.computerworld.com/17852/army_of_fake_social_media_friends_to_promote_propaganda

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Jexodus

Hello, sorry there has not been a discussion opened on this before. The sources do not confirm the "astroturf" nature of Jexodus. Please find sources which can support this assertion before considering its addition here. I am confident that there are plenty of political astroturfing examples that are more robust and well-documented that could be put in its stead. Thank you. 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 07:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

From the Esquire ref (currently ref #55): Jewish people supposedly leaving the Democratic Party—a "Jexodus" that invokes "Blexit" and "#Walkaway," in that they are social-media campaigns that smell strongly of astroturf and the Times of Israel ref (currently ref #56): Further making clear that this is likely a clumsy astroturf effort rather than an actual grassroots movement is the fact that the Jexodus.org website was registered all the way back on November 5, 2018, before Ilhan Omar and others being accused of anti-Semitism had even been voted in, let alone entered Congress. But since you asked so nicely, I've added an additional ref to GQ (currently ref #54): it’s an operation entirely engineered by conservative flacks, doing its best to masquerade as an authentic grassroots movement, which almost exactly matches the definition of astroturfing in the first sentence of the lede in this Wikipedia article. Mojoworker (talk) 18:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Meme world

I have no data to support this, but I suspect that a percentage of memes which appear to be the work, often (deliberately?) clumsy, of ‘civilians’, are in fact astroturfing efforts. --2001:44B8:3102:BB00:D8BD:B78:CA71:AFC2 (talk) 09:04, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Misquoted ?

‘The authors argued that astroturfing that is "purposefully designed to fulfill corporate agendas, manipulate public opinion and harm scientific research represents a serious lapse in ethical conduct."

They actually used the word ‘purposefully’ instead of ‘purposely’? I would have corrected this, had it been part of the article’s text.

My trust in the content of any written work diminishes in proportion to the sloppiness of its prose. --2001:44B8:3102:BB00:D8BD:B78:CA71:AFC2 (talk) 09:32, 10 July 2021 (UTC)