David, this has nothing to do with marketing, and I honestly feel like you
are the one acting in bad faith here.  This is about Wikipedia being
accurate, and the simple truth is, on a question like "what's the status of
AOO" none of your "sources" are more accurate than a primary source like
the internal project timeline / roadmap that I cited.

If you have a grudge against AOO for some reason that's fine, I don't give
a flying fuck and I doubt anybody else does either.  But Wikipedia is not
the place for you to further some personal vendetta.


This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM

On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 10:25 AM, David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com> wrote:

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

Reply via email to