Wikipedia Used For Apparent Viral Marketing Ploy

jangobongo writes "An article over at BoingBoing discusses what appears to be a viral marketing ploy appearing in a Wikipedia entry. Quote: "Someone has apparently abused collaborative reference site Wikipedia in a viral marketing campaign for a BBC online alternate reality game." "

Wow, posting it on the front page of /.

[deminisma]

That'll really teach those BBC punks!

Re:And on slashdot

[Ihlosi]

Yes !

Viral marketing at its very best. Well done, folks.

Re:Hmm

[Breakfast Pants]

Hah nice try. It is obvious that your post is a part of that same viral marketing ploy.

Marketing people twisting facts?

[mwvdlee]

Really????
I can't believe it!

Re:Wikipedia will survive this

[Spacejock]

A bit of sensationalist nonsense is all.

What, here?

OMG

[Michael_Munks]

It's infected slashdot.

Re:Their Name will be Bukkake

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. a informal article about bukkake. All bow for the mighty wikipedia!

Re:NO, it is NOT a viral Campaign

[Anonymous Coward]

It was nothing more than common garden vandalism for which I am sorry.

So it was you who trashed the Blue Peter garden, you unspeakable bounder.

Re:Nice

[RidiculousPie]

However, the article is linked on the front page of slashdot, but it is only one of many pages in wikipedia.

"Aw, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. Forfty percent of all people know that."

It's obvious!

[dancallaghan]

... that the fan site [jamiekane.co.uk] is fake, because it doesn't look like my 12-year-old sister made it using 1997-vintage Geocities Page Builder (cf a lot of other fan sites out there).

Re:Wow, posting it on the front page of /.

[mshiltonj]

It's okay. It seems the target market of the game is "14-18 year old girls," and there are no 14-18 year old girls on slashdot.

wikipedia archive

[cinnamon colbert]

this thread points out the need for a wiki archive; on historical/scholarship grounds this aritcle should not be deleted into nothing, but deleted into the archive - or am i unaware of, say, the wiki snapshot, that takes asnapshot of thew ikipedia every 15 minutes..

Re:Yeh but it was the BBC corrupting it

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, everyone! Let's get drunk and naked and do some blow off a whore's back! And kill defenseless baby animals!

Shhhh, don't tell anyone I work for Microsoft.

BBC? Nooo!..

[mi]

A profit-driven corporation -- maybe. But for people-owned BBC to do anything remotely unethical? No way!..

Gebyy zl oruvaq...

The only thing of interest...

[dame4jc]

The only thing I found interesting about this whole mess is the reference to wikipedia being slashdotted...and then the pageview reports comparing wikipedia to slashdot.

Holy crap! I had NO idea that Wikipedia was getting that much traffic.

One month comparison http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details? &range=1m&size=medium&compare_sites=slashdot.org&y =p&url=wikipedia.org [alexa.com] and a two year comparison, http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details? &range=2y&size=large&compare_sites=slashdot.org&y= p&url=wikipedia.org#top [alexa.com]

Good

[nuclearpenguins]

Not to turn this into "flamebait" or whatever you kids are calling it nowadays, I am no huge fan of Wikipedia. I'd much rather have a resource that's peer-reviewed and professional, i.e. no sources/ "facts" from the general population. Sure, a free resource of info is all well-and good, but this allowing everyone and their brother to edit articles is unacceptable.

Interesting

[jonoton]

That the same day the BBC have an article about wikipedia....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4152860.stm [bbc.co.uk]

Re:Wow, posting it on the front page of /.

[Lars T.]

But some here scream like them ;-)