|
|
|
|
|
|
by Ninjaneered
2367 days ago
|
|
|
Looks like my lateral reading was sub-par (actually I didn't even try, just a quick Google/post). The "Silicon Review" one looks like a pay-to-play as well after further review, it's used in citation on a few other Wikipedia articles, but as far as I can tell, and due to some anecdotal stories, it doesn't look good. * https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicRelations/comments/bha6hs/sil... * https://arpr.com/blog/4-pay-for-play-scams/ Good catch, thanks for spending the time to review my links. Reading your comments above, I largely agree. It's a high bar (mostly) to get an article on Wikipedia, and that's a good thing. It allows us to read the majority of content on Wikipedia without too much suspicion. |
|
|