On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 6:54 PM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
On 19 April 2012 16:01, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
I liked Andreas's way of putting this earlier:
Positive bias and advertorials *can* be odious, but activist editing with a
negative bent
On 21 April 2012 17:07, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
Historically this is inaccurate, as the article states, the original
phrasing was to abstain from doing harm, which is significantly
different insofar as it implies a willed action. This didn't at all
refer to medical
On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 7:13 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 21 April 2012 17:07, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
Historically this is inaccurate, as the article states, the original
phrasing was to abstain from doing harm, which is significantly
different
On Wed, 18 Apr 2012, David Gerard wrote:
If someone tells you to drive at 5 miles under the speed limit rather than
to drive at the speed limit, he may be trying to keep you from getting too
close to a line.
If someone tells you *not to drive at all* rather than to drive at the speed
limit, that
I think you can share any or all of the following rules of thumb, in order:
make proposed changes to talk pages.
ask other editors to help you update an article.
avoid editing articles about you/your organization directly,
unless you are fixing vandalism or typos, updating stats, or adding
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
On 18 April 2012 23:29, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
On Wed, 18 Apr 2012, Charles Matthews wrote:
Sorry, this is exactly the point. The conversation where we explain very
patiently to
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 1:17 AM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Continuation of conversation:
Look, we're all impressed with Wikipedia. But you seem to be saying that
to edit I have to put your project ahead of my day job; and so I think you
guys are just a bit
On 19 April 2012 12:31, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Continuation of conversation:
Look, we're all impressed with Wikipedia. But you seem to be saying that
to edit I have to put your project
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote:
On 4/19/12, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
You do realise that there have been over 5,000 newspaper articles on our
company in the last 10 years, and only three of them mention that product
recall?
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 1:41 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 April 2012 12:31, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Continuation of conversation:
Look, we're all impressed with
On Thu, 19 Apr 2012, Charles Matthews wrote:
If someone tells you to drive at 5 miles under the speed limit rather than
to drive at the speed limit, he may be trying to keep you from getting too
close to a line.
If someone tells you *not to drive at all* rather than to drive at the
speed
limit,
On 19 April 2012 15:22, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
Rules can cause trouble, but they have one benefit: at least ideally, it's
clear when you have or haven't violated them. (Many Wikipedia rules are
not
ideal, but that's a discussion for another day.) It's a lot harder to
On 19 April 2012 15:34, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Those people, who do not have WP's
best interests at heart, are always arguing for a disconnect between the
letter and spirit of policy, because they have no interest at all in the
spirit.
Well, yes. The entire
On 19 April 2012 14:03, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 1:41 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 April 2012 12:31, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com
No it isn't exactly the same for people and companies. Wikipedia has a
whole bunch of editors whose hobby includes protecting BLPs, we don't have
similar editors who genuinely care about the reputation of companies. Or if
we do they aren't in the same numbers.
Also if PR people are skewed towards
On 19 April 2012 15:38, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 April 2012 15:34, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Those people, who do not have WP's
best interests at heart, are always arguing for a disconnect between the
letter and spirit of policy, because
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
If anything, it's worse for companies. Nobody tells BLP subjects that
because they have a COI, they can't even remove incorrect statements
about themselves.
A fair point.
I liked Andreas's way of putting this earlier:
On 19 April 2012 16:01, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
I liked Andreas's way of putting this earlier:
Positive bias and advertorials *can* be odious, but activist editing with a
negative bent has traditionally been the greater problem in Wikipedia, in
my view, and is the type of
PR people who edited Wikipedia get crucified. Counterattack: reduce
trust in Wikipedia.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120417113527.htm
Paper: http://www.prsa.org/Intelligence/PRJournal/
The paper's message appears to be Wikipedia's rules need to change.
(Also, Jimmy Wsles is a
On 18 April 2012 12:48, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
PR people who edited Wikipedia get crucified. Counterattack: reduce
trust in Wikipedia.
snip
Paper: http://www.prsa.org/Intelligence/PRJournal/
When the talk pages were used to request edits, it was found to typically
take
They say you have to wait 2-5 days for a response after requesting changes
as though that is a bad thing. I'm very impressed with that response time.
How many commercial encyclopaedias can do better?
On Apr 18, 2012 12:48 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
PR people who edited Wikipedia
On 18 April 2012 13:38, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
They say you have to wait 2-5 days for a response after requesting
changes
as though that is a bad thing. I'm very impressed with that response
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com
wrote:
On 18 April 2012 13:38, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
They say you have to wait 2-5 days for a response after
On 18 April 2012 13:45, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Thomas Morton
morton.tho...@googlemail.com
wrote:
On 18 April 2012 13:38, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Thomas Dalton
thomas.dal...@gmail.com
On 18 April 2012 13:38, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
They say you have to wait 2-5 days for a response after requesting
changes
as though that is a bad thing. I'm very impressed with that response
On 18 April 2012 13:53, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
I'm not arguing Wikipedia is the solution. But the argument that
printed encyclopaedias are better at this I know to be false.
More generally, arguments that make a comparison between an idealised
fantasy Britannica and
On 18 April 2012 13:55, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
But the real-life situation is that someone paid to edit has a boss and/or
paymaster. Jimbo knows what he is doing here with sending out a soundbite,
rather than citing the page. The boss can understand the
On 18 April 2012 13:53, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
snip
My specific experience was while consulting on another matter for a firm;
they were surprised to find their name had been noted in connection with
some years-before legal action (quite a disturbing one) in a
To be fair about the time-criticality: it does matter in that mirror sites
will refresh their WP dumps on some basis that probably isn't daily. OTOH
we do offer the OTRS route also for complaints, and that presumably offers
a better triage.
Charles
Unfortunately not. There is a
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com
wrote:
That process takes* much much longer* than 2-5 days.
Yes, but it takes place *before* publication. :P
Not at all.
My specific experience was while consulting on another matter for a firm;
they
On Wednesday, 18 April 2012 at 13:58, David Gerard wrote:
Also note that in my experience, it is pretty much impossible to get
across even to nice PR people that they have a really bloody obvious
COI. I have spent much time trying. I would guess that this is because
getting their POV in is, in
On 18 April 2012 14:24, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote:
User:Fluffernutter gave a talk about paid editing last year at Wikimania,
comparing it with needle exchange programmes. Much as my gut feeling is god
no, don't give an inch to PR people even if they are claiming to act
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Yes indeed. Jimbo neither makes policy nor enforces it, of course. What we
have here is an ongoing loop in being able to read WP:COI properly. I
believe the guideline on COI to be the best available take
On 18 April 2012 14:44, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Yes indeed. Jimbo neither makes policy nor enforces it, of course. What
we
have here is an ongoing loop in being able to read WP:COI
This directly conflicts with the Wikipedia FAQ/Article subjects (2012) page
that specifically
asks public relations professionals to remove vandalism, fix minor errors
in spelling,
grammar, usage or facts, provide references for existing content, and add
or update facts
with references such
On 18 April 2012 15:26, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
This directly conflicts with the Wikipedia FAQ/Article subjects (2012)
page
that specifically
asks public relations professionals to remove vandalism, fix minor
errors
in spelling,
grammar, usage or facts, provide
On Wed, 18 Apr 2012, Charles Matthews wrote:
Let me get this straight. You are arguing It is okay to for Jimbo to tell
the company something which contradicts policy because it's more likely
the company will understand the non-policy than the actual policy.
The COI guideline is not an official
On 18 April 2012 23:29, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
If someone tells you to drive at 5 miles under the speed limit rather than
to drive at the speed limit, he may be trying to keep you from getting too
close to a line.
If someone tells you *not to drive at all* rather than to drive
38 matches
Mail list logo