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 properly. I > > believe the guideline on COI to be the best available take on this issue. > > However - and it's a big however - we are learning that the limitation on > > COI to a "universal" statement makes it harder for those with particular > > types of COI to understand. This applies both to paid editing, and to > > "activist" editing (I think you will have no trouble understanding this, > > Andreas ...), as well as autobiography. > > > > > That is one of the points the authors of the study picked up on, too: > > ---o0o--- > > There are problems with the “bright line” rule. By not allowing public > relations/communications professionals to directly edit removes the > possibility of a timely > correction or update of information, ultimately denying the public a right > to accurate > information. Also, by disallowing public relations/communications > professionals to make > edits while allowing competitors, activists and anyone else who wants to > chime in, is > simply asking of misinformation. If direct editing is not a possibility, an > option must be > provided that can quickly and accurately update Wikipedia articles; as this > study found, no > such process currently exists. > > ---o0o--- > > Unfortunately, they do have a point. > > 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 bias the Wikipedia system has traditionally > favoured. Not doing harm is, in my view, more important than preventing the > opposite. > > Andreas
It would be interesting to study what sort of edits are being talked about. >From my dealings with PR-style edit requests there is a fairly broad form ranging from: - desire to remove sourced negative material (whitewashing) - correction of serious innacuracies/POV (i.e. defamation or other) - simple information updates/corrections (like: circulation in 2012 is 41,000, you currently use the 2010 figures). - desire to add PR-style gushy material Of those I'd consider only #2 important to address quickly and seriously. Finding a way to filter major problems would be good. OTRS isn't (currently) a good way, IMO. Tom _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
