Talk:Luca Poma

Undisclosed paid editing

The Italian journalistic transmission Report used this page to demonstrate paid editing. This page was edited by Apramkush allegedly in exchange for money. This paid editing activity was not disclosed. The page should be reviewed and cleaned up, if that is deemed necessary. The original source can be seen here: raiplay.it Report episode of January, 16 2023 at 1:21:13 --CristianCantoro (talk) 02:38, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I raised the issue on their talk page per WP:COICOIN. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:49, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you absolutely you have the right editor? They mention User:Apramkush in the video, but User:Zarar69 edited the account around the same time and has been blocked for undisclosed paid editing; maybe they misunderstood how to read the page logs? Apramkush's edits seem uncontentious, whereas Zarar69's appear unambiguously promotional. JeffUK 18:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Scratch that, they've both basically just copy/pasted this bio, https://creatoridifuturo.it/full-bio-english-version/ what a waste of effort! JeffUK 18:23, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Yep. Incidentally, in that Report programme Luca Poma explains that he turned to paid copy editors because he was annoyed that the article about him had been deleted from the Italian Wikipedia. he wanted to prove that Wikipedia is a business and operates according to an economic logic. Report is a reliable source, and maybe this content is WP:DUE for inclusion in the article. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:45, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is particularly important information, unless anyone else is reporting on his actions? Either way we need to be very careful to remain neutral, I'm going to let other editors decide if this should be in the article or not. JeffUK 00:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Gitz, I read what you wrote, I'm Luca Poma, I'm writing to you from Italy. First of all, I want to clarify that I have nothing to do about on the online postingthis Wikipedia file, the same I have nothing to do about the same Wikipedia file in Italian language: the changes made during the works for the investigation by the TV Report broadcast of RAI 3, in which I collaborated, were very marginal. You wrote that I would be "annoyed by the cancellation of my page on Wikipedia Italia": this is false. The observations that I have made to Wikipedia are much more articulated, documented and justified than a simple "irritation", and certainly do not concern my page on Wikipedia (I have no interest in having a page on Wikipedia, fortunately there is a life real, and my curriculum vitae is very rich even without a file on Wikipedia). I talked about (and documented) the "toxic" climate that reigns in Italy in the relationship between the "senior" and expert admins and younger contributors, I recalled the suicide of an Admin which took place in Italy most likely as a result of these "pressures ”, and much more: to reduce the constructive criticisms I made to a simply matter of “irritation” is intellectually dishonest. You can find my observations and criticisms on this article (Redacted) which you may not be able to reach because (regarding abuse and censorship) reading on Wikipedia has been blocked, and on this second article (Redacted) (in both cases, the English language version is below the Italian one). Finally, I also talked about the arbitrariness with which, inexplicably, entries on Wikipedia are maintained or deleted, and about this matter my case is just an example: this page illustrates the requirements for which a writer can be considered encyclopedic https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aiuto:Criteri_di_enciclopedicit%C3%A0/Scrittori_e_libri and among these requirements there is the fact of "having distinguished oneself in a particular way in one's sector". As far as I know, no other Italian author has published like myself on the subject of reputation management and crisis management (15 books, almost all for national publishing houses, and hundreds of articles and essays, as you can see by scrolling through my Bibliography (Redacted)) and yet subjective arguments were used to justify the deletion of my file on Wikipedia Italia which ignored these criteria. I do not claim that it was wrong to delete my page (only the Wikipedia community can evaluate it) or that I am irritated by this: I claim that flaunting selection criteria as "objective" when these are then applied only when it is convenient, is not healthy, and therefore I renew everything I wrote in my articles, which - I repeat - go far beyond my personal case. Furthermore, when I published my analyzes they were criticized by various Admins in a quite aggressive way, arguing that they were not analyzes worthy of attention because they were published on a blog and not on a national mass media. This inspired me to contact Report and solicit an investigation. Who knows, RAI, the Italian National Television, will now be considered a mass media of national level and worthy of attention… PS: a Wikipedia contributor has been blocked endlessly, for life, for reporting my first Wikipedia article to the community (https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Marino_Maldera), with the motivation that “he would have been called by me to work on the community”. This is false, I have never "called" him and I absolutely do not know who this person is. This, among many others, is just the latest abuse promoted by arrogant and aggressive Admins… As you can see, perhaps the Wikipedia community has some reason to better reflect on its own behaviour: I hope I have made a small contribution to make this happen, also to improve the community itself, of which I am a staunch supporter, not as a Wikipedia contributor but as a sustaining member of the Wikimedia Italia Association. Thanks for reading and enjoy your day

Luca Poma