On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:27:53 GMT, Rob Weir <r...@robweir.com> wrote:

> Last word, in case the inference is unclear.   We're dealing with a
> sophisticated serial infringer on Wikipedia.  Correcting erroneous
> information, which is proper to do, is unlikely to be achieved via an
> edit war.  Don't bring a knife to a gunfight.   Any progress would
> only be made by showing Mr. Gerard's own conflict  and his bad will
> (not hard to do),  and escalating it within the the formal Wikipedia
> appeals process, patiently dealing with the ministerial types to whom
> bureaucratic process is dear.  Since Dennis does not want to discuss
> this on the list, feel free to contact me offline if anyone wishes to
> discuss this further.

When you're putting together a plan for marketing efforts concerning a
Wikipedia article, it may help if you don't leave prima facie evidence
of your coordinated effort on a public mailing list.

Editing with a conflict of interest is not specifically disallowed by
Wikipedia policies, but ideally it should be avoided. Note example on
the talk page, where a list participant properly noted his involvement
when this was brought to his attention.

Relevant guideline: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest

You should note also that a "conflict of interest" does not mean a
differing opinion, and also that improperly founded accusations of COI
are held to constitute personal attacks and should ideally be avoided.

There are those (e.g. Jimmy Wales) who believe public relations
efforts on Wikipedia should work to the "bright line" standard, where
you don't go near the article at all, and certainly don't try to
coordinate an off-site attack on a Wikipedia contributor because you
believe they are not helping your marketing. This is something the
project, and the Foundation in general, should probably consider.


- d.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Reply via email to