A site, where for $1,000, corrections to one's Wikipedia article can be
posted:
For $1,000, Site Lets Celebrities Say It Aint So
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/28/world/europe/28icorrect.html?ref=todayspaper
If you search for Wikipedia:
http://www.icorrect.com/search/node/Wikipedia
I'm just
On 28 March 2011 11:53, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
A site, where for $1,000, corrections to one's Wikipedia article can be
posted:
For $1,000, Site Lets Celebrities Say It Ain’t So
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/28/world/europe/28icorrect.html?ref=todayspaper
If you search
On 28 March 2011 12:25, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
It fails our reliable source requirement.
Claims authentically by the subject are relevant to BLP issues.
- d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this
It fails our reliable source requirement.-- geni
Wow. Geni that's truly the remark that encapsulates exactly what's wrong
with BLPs, and the irresponsible attitude of Wikipedia.
Nevermind our many biased articles, factual errors, and stuff written from
reliable sources (aka tabloid
On 28 Mar 2011 at 12:00, Fred Bauder wrote:
A site, where for $1,000, corrections to one's Wikipedia article can be
posted:
Did Andrew Knight really pay $1000 to write Wikipedia entry is
anodyne and largely accurate. Never mind, let's keep it that way?
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site:
On 28 March 2011 12:38, Scott MacDonald doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote:
It fails our reliable source requirement.-- geni
Wow. Geni that's truly the remark that encapsulates exactly what's wrong
with BLPs, and the irresponsible attitude of Wikipedia.
Since people can write anything there
On 28 March 2011 12:32, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 March 2011 12:25, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
It fails our reliable source requirement.
Claims authentically by the subject are relevant to BLP issues.
Site say no fact checking remember. That means we don't actually know
Geni,
It might help if you checked you own facts before making false claims:
I quote:
It is fundamental for ICorrect to confirm the true identity of each
Corrector. Therefore ICorrect requires a reliable reference for all new
Correctors. A reference can be either:
1. An existing Corrector -
On 28 March 2011 14:40, Scott MacDonald doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Geni,
It might help if you checked you own facts before making false claims:
I quote:
It is fundamental for ICorrect to confirm the true identity of each
Corrector. Therefore ICorrect requires a reliable reference
On 28 March 2011 11:53, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
A site, where for $1,000, corrections to one's Wikipedia article can be
posted:
For $1,000, Site Lets Celebrities Say It Aint So
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/28/world/europe/28icorrect.html?ref=todayspaper
If you search
On 28 March 2011 14:40, Scott MacDonald doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com
wrote:
Geni,
It might help if you checked you own facts before making false claims:
I quote:
It is fundamental for ICorrect to confirm the true identity of each
Corrector. Therefore ICorrect requires a reliable reference
On 28 March 2011 15:06, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
I believe a ridiculous piece of printed paper can be used to buy
potatoes, why not them?
Fred
Because with buying potatoes the business model makes sense. It
doesn't make sense than any celebrity prepared to pay to have
Geni, you are now being obtuse.
Sometimes we publish false crap on people, sometimes we do it all on our
own, and sometimes it's because we're following a source that is publishing
falsehood.
When a victim tries to get a correction, the whole deck is stacked against
them. Edit Wikipedia and get
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Scott MacDonald
doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Geni, you are now being obtuse.
Sometimes we publish false crap on people, sometimes we do it all on our
own, and sometimes it's because we're following a source that is publishing
falsehood.
When a victim
On 28 March 2011 15:43, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
I think you're going a bit overboard there, Doc. I agree that the
claims of the subject shouldn't be ignored, particularly if they spend
$1000 to publish a correction on a startup site (as long as we can
confirm it is them). But should
I think you're going a bit overboard there, Doc. I agree that the
claims of the subject shouldn't be ignored, particularly if they spend
$1000 to publish a correction on a startup site (as long as we can
confirm it is them). But should it count as a reliable reference to
trigger a chance in
On 28 Mar 2011 at 12:00, Fred Bauder wrote:
A site, where for $1,000, corrections to one's Wikipedia article can be
posted:
Did Andrew Knight really pay $1000 to write Wikipedia entry is
anodyne and largely accurate. Never mind, let's keep it that way?
== Dan ==
I assume he had issues
On 28 March 2011 13:50, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
Claims authentically by the subject are relevant to BLP issues.
Site say no fact checking remember. That means we don't actually know
it is the subject.
No fact checking of what the subject *says* is very different from no
fact checking
On 28 March 2011 15:46, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
However, noting what the subject says is surely apposite in the
general case, even if it's delusional - as long as it can be
reasonably cited in a source that is almost certainly said subject.
Not really the case article in question
On 28 March 2011 15:34, Scott MacDonald doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Geni, you are now being obtuse.
Sometimes we publish false crap on people, sometimes we do it all on our
own, and sometimes it's because we're following a source that is publishing
falsehood.
When a victim tries to
On 28 March 2011 16:00, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 March 2011 15:46, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
However, noting what the subject says is surely apposite in the
general case, even if it's delusional - as long as it can be
reasonably cited in a source that is almost
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 1:46 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
However, noting what the subject says is surely apposite in the
general case, even if it's delusional - as long as it can be
reasonably cited in a source that is almost certainly said subject.
Indeed. To the extent that we
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 6:34 PM, Scott MacDonald
doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote:
When a victim tries to get a correction, the whole deck is stacked against
them. Edit Wikipedia and get hit with COI. E-mail OTRS and you're dealing
with a non-editorial non-authority, who might not believe who
On 28 March 2011 16:13, Victor Vasiliev vasi...@gmail.com wrote:
OTRS is not that bad, at least as far as I know. The volunteers there
are supposed to be friendly (at least polite) as long as the person
does not behave very aggresively. The only problem I am aware of is
backlog
So, any reasonable solution is good. If we were to actually encourage
the creation of one - presuming this site isn't quite what we're after
- how would it work? This might be a good opportunity to encourage an
independent but useful right of reply project...
--
- Andrew Gray
On 28 March 2011 16:13, Victor Vasiliev vasi...@gmail.com wrote:
OTRS is not that bad, at least as far as I know. The volunteers there
are supposed to be friendly (at least polite) as long as the person
does not behave very aggresively. The only problem I am aware of is
backlog
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 7:55 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
A personal note from the subject needs to be added, and accepted, as
reference. It is by most authors and editors, for appropriate matters.
Fred
Where do you suggest to store it?
--vvv
On 28 March 2011 15:46, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
However, noting what the subject says is surely apposite in the
general case, even if it's delusional - as long as it can be
reasonably cited in a source that is almost certainly said subject.
Not really the case article in
The main issue with OTRS is the mismatch between the subject's reasonable
expectation that he's dealing with the editorial authority and the fact
that the volunteer is just an editor. If the complaint is about vandalism or
unsourced content it works fine, but if the complaint is complex, not so
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 7:55 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net
wrote:
A personal note from the subject needs to be added, and accepted, as
reference. It is by most authors and editors, for appropriate matters.
Fred
Where do you suggest to store it?
--vvv
refNote from [subject], or
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011, Victor Vasiliev wrote:
A personal note from the subject needs to be added, and accepted, as
reference. It is by most authors and editors, for appropriate matters.
Where do you suggest to store it?
There's no reason an ordinary comment on the talk page can't be used for
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011, Victor Vasiliev wrote:
A personal note from the subject needs to be added, and accepted, as
reference. It is by most authors and editors, for appropriate matters.
Where do you suggest to store it?
On 28 March 2011 16:50, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
So, any reasonable solution is good. If we were to actually encourage
the creation of one - presuming this site isn't quite what we're after
- how would it work? This might be a good opportunity to encourage an
independent but
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
On 28 March 2011 16:00, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
You see the problem?
Do I ever.
Fred, a couple of points:
1) You missed out the attribution to geni when you reposted what he
said (you made it look like David
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
What shouldn't be done is piecing together bits
from newspaper articles and primary sources
I should have mentioned that obituaries from reliable newspapers are
generally OK, but should be considered superseded if a
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
The main advantage is that we know that
no one is likely to spend $1,000 to spoof an account.
It's even more unlikely that someone is going to spend $1,000 to
create a legitimate account.
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net
wrote:
On 28 March 2011 16:00, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
You see the problem?
Do I ever.
Fred, a couple of points:
1) You missed out the attribution to geni when you reposted what he
said (you made it look like
On 28 March 2011 16:55, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
A personal note from the subject needs to be added, and accepted, as
reference. It is by most authors and editors, for appropriate matters.
Mmm. But those authors and editors usually have the personal note
sitting in their
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 11:05 AM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 March 2011 15:34, Scott MacDonald doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote:
E-mail OTRS and you're dealing
with a non-editorial non-authority, who might not believe who you are, and
probably won't accept your own testimony as other
Good grief, Carcharoth, there it is! Brilliant!
I've been stumbling about for years looking for a way to differentiate
between legitimate encyclopaedic biography, which Wikipedia should do, and
the problematic, armature-journalistic, selectively biased, originally
researched, WP:NOTNEWS
Well, there are articles that can be expanded beyond the basic stuff
found in places like Who's Who. An example is the article here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Mestel
But as soon as anyone become newsworthy, you get newspaper sources
jostling for room with all the other sources.
Good grief, Carcharoth, there it is! Brilliant!
I've been stumbling about for years looking for a way to differentiate
between legitimate encyclopaedic biography, which Wikipedia should do,
and
the problematic, armature-journalistic, selectively biased, originally
researched, WP:NOTNEWS
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 11:05 AM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 March 2011 15:34, Scott MacDonald doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com
wrote:
E-mail OTRS and you're dealing
with a non-editorial non-authority, who might not believe who you are,
and
probably won't accept your own testimony as
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 7:47 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
I couldn't find an obituary for Joel Renaldo, but I still had a lot of
fun researching him. Anyone who doesn't think he is notable should ask O.
Henry, if you can find him these days.
I don't get the connection.
Do
Fred,
I'm failing to see the connection between a chap born in 1870 and our BLP
policy. You perhaps can't find an obituary, but I'm pretty sure he's dead.
Scott
-Original Message-
From: wikien-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikien-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Fred
On 28 March 2011 20:15, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
My other theory is that writing stand-alone articles is not a good
thing in the long-run. Articles should be created if there is a demand
for the articles from people *other* than those creating the articles.
In other
A well known, even notorious, joint in 1910... as O. Henry was a well
known writer. Joel's Cafe could be linked from O. Henry, but it is hard
to know how much he hung out there.
The Grinch successfully stole Christmas but Wikipedia is more like The
Gingerbread Man:
I am I am a gingerbread man.
Fred,
I'm failing to see the connection between a chap born in 1870 and our BLP
policy. You perhaps can't find an obituary, but I'm pretty sure he's
dead.
Scott
Articles about living people strung together from press coverage can be
troublesome. That is due to the nature of the press,
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 8:28 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
A well known, even notorious, joint in 1910... as O. Henry was a well
known writer. Joel's Cafe could be linked from O. Henry, but it is hard
to know how much he hung out there.
The Grinch successfully stole Christmas
On 28 March 2011 20:37, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
But some articles are unlikely to be anything more than stubs.
The question is whether this is better than no information at all.
- d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 8:52 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 March 2011 20:37, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
But some articles are unlikely to be anything more than stubs.
The question is whether this is better than no information at all.
As I said, the
On 28/03/2011, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 March 2011 20:15, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
My other theory is that writing stand-alone articles is not a good
thing in the long-run. Articles should be created if there is a demand
for the articles from people
On 28/03/2011, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 March 2011 20:15, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
My other theory is that writing stand-alone articles is not a good
thing in the long-run. Articles should be created if there is a demand
for the articles from people
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011, Fred Bauder wrote:
Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is still policy.
Unfortunately, whenever there is a dispute between someone who wants
to obey rules (possibly to the extent of obsessive/compulsive behavior)
and someone who wants to ignore rules, the system is extremely slanted
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 11:05 AM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
To wit, why not pay $1,000 to get someone else to deal with OTRS for
you? For $1,000 surely you can hire an expert in the OTRS process to
draft up a
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 05:38, Scott MacDonald
doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote:
It fails our reliable source requirement.-- geni
Wow. Geni that's truly the remark that encapsulates exactly what's wrong
with BLPs, and the irresponsible attitude of Wikipedia.
Nevermind our many biased
The real problem is that people are perfectly willing to lie about
themselves. I never slept with that woman. I don't fund the Tea Party.
I'm not a hypocrite. etc. etc.
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 10:27 PM, Sarah slimvir...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 05:38, Scott MacDonald
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 10:27 PM, Sarah slimvir...@gmail.com wrote:
The requirements are good if people apply them properly.
Self-published material by living persons is allowed in their bios, so
long as -- we know they wrote it; it's not unduly self-serving; and
they're talking about
The real problem is that people are perfectly willing to lie about
themselves. I never slept with that woman. I don't fund the Tea
Party.
I'm not a hypocrite. etc. etc.
You're only getting warm; the real problem is that they believe it.
Fred
___
59 matches
Mail list logo
