Yet another PR company busted:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/9671471/Finsbury-edited-Alisher-Usmanovs-Wikipedia-page.html
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/business/industries/telecoms/article3597035.ece
(you can read the article text in View source)
We won't win a moral argument; they are breaking the social contract of a
website. We regularly defame people.
Tom
On 12 November 2012 13:49, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Yet another PR company busted:
On 12 November 2012 13:54, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
We won't win a moral argument; they are breaking the social contract of a
website. We regularly defame people.
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/report-usmanov-pr-firm-tweaked-wikipedia-entry/471315.html
On 12 November 2012 14:56, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
On 12 November 2012 13:54, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
We won't win a moral argument; they are breaking the social contract of a
website. We regularly defame people.
You misunderstand.
As I mentioned: we simply have no moral high ground to criticise their
actions. Our controls are shoddy and we defame people all over the place.
They massage biographies etc. to cast things in a better light.
Who is the good guy?
Tom
On 12 November 2012 15:21, David Gerard
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012, David Gerard wrote:
The industry response? An apparently unanimous our bad behaviour is
totally Wikipedia's fault:
http://www.prweek.com/uk/news/1159206/pr-industry-blames-cumbersome-wikipedia-finsbury-editing-issue/
Guys, this really doesn't help your case.
Doesn't
The difference is one of intent. I dispute the claim that we often defame
people - an innocent mistake in an article is not defamation. Even if we're
a little careless to allow such mistakes, that still isn't defamation (I
think the legal threshold in most jurisdictions is recklessness).
On Nov
It certainly happens.
http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/in-a-web-of-lies-the-newspaper-must-live.premium-1.469273
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboardoldid=522638898#Muna_AbuSulayman
The rest depends on how you define often. How often is
On 12 November 2012 15:26, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
You misunderstand.
As I mentioned: we simply have no moral high ground to criticise their
actions. Our controls are shoddy and we defame people all over the place.
They massage biographies etc. to cast things in a
Note, in other words, that the defence of the PR editing here is
entirely deflection
To an extent.
It also represents frustration along the lines of: whenever one of us does
a bad thing we get lambasted in the news, but when they do a bad thing it
gets no traction or notice
I don't
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
On 12 November 2012 15:26, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com
wrote:
You misunderstand.
As I mentioned: we simply have no moral high ground to criticise their
actions. Our controls are
On 12 November 2012 15:46, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
It occurs to me that biographies can be malicious without being defamatory.
It would be wise to check what exactly went on in the biography before
passing judgment.
Actually, I agree. Treating each instance of a general
On 12 November 2012 15:45, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
Note, in other words, that the defence of the PR editing here is
entirely deflection
To an extent.
It also represents frustration along the lines of: whenever one of us does
a bad thing we get lambasted in the
Ken Arromdee wrote:
When they say that Wikipedia's proces for fixing articles is
opaque, time-consuming and cumbersome, they are *correct*.
Well, yeah, but. Right (sorta) conclusion, wrong reason.
It can always be improved, but I don't think our process for
fixing articles is *that* bad.
14 matches
Mail list logo
