Re: [WikiEN-l] Yet another PR company busted ... apparently it's all our fault
On 11/12/12 2:49 PM, David Gerard wrote: 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") 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. Lying somewhere between amusing and sad, The Times has an update to their article (linked above) noting that Alisher Usmanov is now suing them over that exposé. Will be interesting to see if any more facts come to light in that suit. -Mark ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Yet another PR company busted ... apparently it's all our fault
On 17 November 2012 16:10, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 8:14 AM, Charles Matthews < > charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com> wrote: > >> On 17 November 2012 01:34, Andreas Kolbe wrote: >> >> > Well, no, because the Foundation has made it abundantly clear that they >> > assume no responsibility whatsoever for content, or for questions like >> > whether we have flagged revisions or not. All of that is fully delegated >> to >> > the community. >> > >> In a couple of misleading senses you could argue this. The legal buck >> stops with the WMF. > > > > No it does not, except in very limited circumstances: if the Foundation > receives a DMCA takedown notice and don't respond to it, they become > liable, as in the recent Loriot case. And if they are advised of child > pornography and fail to remove it from servers, they become liable. But > beyond such limited cases, they do not have legal responsibility for the > content of Wikipedia articles, the Wikipedia main page, or Commons > categories or Wikiversity courses. That editorial responsitility is fully > delegated to the community. If you believe otherwise, you are wrong. What you have written doesn't contradict what I wrote. >> (You clearly want to look further than the legal >> position, but in the context of PR editing it has been argued that the >> law is the standard, not "ethics"). What software is in operation is >> handled by the developers employed by the WMF. It has indeed been >> contentious whether the WMF should impose its view on the software, so >> it has backed off at present. > In cases of software features that affect fundamental editorial policy, > like pending changes/flagged revisions or the image filter, we have seen > very clearly that the decision to implement or not rests with the > community. And as a mere host for the projects, the Foundation is not > legally liable for the consequences of editorial community decisions. We could discuss the image filter, but let's not. I was of course alluding to it. >> It does seem you want to target a "blame game" at the community, >> whatever bad actors do who are certainly not within the community by >> any reasonable standard of compliance with norms. >> > > > I am not talking about blame, but about recognising that the community has > a responsibility, and that there is no point in waiting for the Foundation > to come up with ways to deal with what you correctly call "bad actors". We're all in this. The "bad actors" who happen to be paid PR folks are not to be excused just because they are not the only bad actors. That would be the point of this thread. > > > > >> The third is about on-site politics, which I don't think is in a very >> satisfactory state, but about which I have adopted a "less is more" >> line in my own comments for a few years (for reasons that are obvious, >> at least to me). It is not closely connected in any case with dealing >> properly with complaints, which is the problem-solving approach to >> things going wrong on WP, as opposed to looking round for someone to >> blame. >> > > > I am talking about problem prevention rather than problem solving. That > does not require apportioning blame, but assuming responsibility. > > The community needs to think further than saying "those bad actors are not > part of us". It needs to think about ways to minimise the impact bad actors > can have on the project's content and on subjects' reputations. As far as I know, huge numbers of words have been typed into Wikipedia on these very subjects. > So can we discuss points arising in some other thread, please? All of >> the above may be worth talking about, but conventionally off-topic >> matters get a new subject line. Such as "If only the enWP community >> got its act together we would never have to worry about PR editing >> because it would be a Brave New World", perhaps. > > > > Look, Charles, this thread is called, in part, "...apparently it's all our > fault". Can't we have a good-faith investigation of what things the > community might indeed do better to prevent justified complaints? The > Foundation will not manage what you called "bad actors": how to do that is > the community's job to figure out. Right now, as SmartSE demonstrated, one > guy and another guy who hates him can spend months reverting each other > without anyone else taking an interest, even if the wronged party asks for > help repeatedly. Flagged revisions would prevent this sort of slow edit > war, with improperly sourced reputation-damaging material being deleted and > inserted again and again. We do have dispute resolution on the site, you know. I happen to support some sort of revision control, but simply expanding your definition of "bad actor" to include parties who should be in low-level dispute resolution doesn't forward your point, as far as I can see. (Dispute Resolution 101 says people are going to imply the other party is a vandal, which gets us nowhere.) > In my opinion, the
Re: [WikiEN-l] Yet another PR company busted ... apparently it's all our fault
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 8:14 AM, Charles Matthews < charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com> wrote: > On 17 November 2012 01:34, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > > > Well, no, because the Foundation has made it abundantly clear that they > > assume no responsibility whatsoever for content, or for questions like > > whether we have flagged revisions or not. All of that is fully delegated > to > > the community. > > In a couple of misleading senses you could argue this. The legal buck > stops with the WMF. No it does not, except in very limited circumstances: if the Foundation receives a DMCA takedown notice and don't respond to it, they become liable, as in the recent Loriot case. And if they are advised of child pornography and fail to remove it from servers, they become liable. But beyond such limited cases, they do not have legal responsibility for the content of Wikipedia articles, the Wikipedia main page, or Commons categories or Wikiversity courses. That editorial responsitility is fully delegated to the community. If you believe otherwise, you are wrong. > (You clearly want to look further than the legal > position, but in the context of PR editing it has been argued that the > law is the standard, not "ethics"). What software is in operation is > handled by the developers employed by the WMF. It has indeed been > contentious whether the WMF should impose its view on the software, so > it has backed off at present. > In cases of software features that affect fundamental editorial policy, like pending changes/flagged revisions or the image filter, we have seen very clearly that the decision to implement or not rests with the community. And as a mere host for the projects, the Foundation is not legally liable for the consequences of editorial community decisions. > It does seem you want to target a "blame game" at the community, > whatever bad actors do who are certainly not within the community by > any reasonable standard of compliance with norms. > I am not talking about blame, but about recognising that the community has a responsibility, and that there is no point in waiting for the Foundation to come up with ways to deal with what you correctly call "bad actors". > The third is about on-site politics, which I don't think is in a very > satisfactory state, but about which I have adopted a "less is more" > line in my own comments for a few years (for reasons that are obvious, > at least to me). It is not closely connected in any case with dealing > properly with complaints, which is the problem-solving approach to > things going wrong on WP, as opposed to looking round for someone to > blame. > I am talking about problem prevention rather than problem solving. That does not require apportioning blame, but assuming responsibility. The community needs to think further than saying "those bad actors are not part of us". It needs to think about ways to minimise the impact bad actors can have on the project's content and on subjects' reputations. So can we discuss points arising in some other thread, please? All of > the above may be worth talking about, but conventionally off-topic > matters get a new subject line. Such as "If only the enWP community > got its act together we would never have to worry about PR editing > because it would be a Brave New World", perhaps. Look, Charles, this thread is called, in part, "...apparently it's all our fault". Can't we have a good-faith investigation of what things the community might indeed do better to prevent justified complaints? The Foundation will not manage what you called "bad actors": how to do that is the community's job to figure out. Right now, as SmartSE demonstrated, one guy and another guy who hates him can spend months reverting each other without anyone else taking an interest, even if the wronged party asks for help repeatedly. Flagged revisions would prevent this sort of slow edit war, with improperly sourced reputation-damaging material being deleted and inserted again and again. In my opinion, the following are all things the community could do better: 1. We don't put enough obstacles in the way of bad actors. 2. We tell aggrieved organisations and their representatives to complain on talk pages, but when they do post to talk pages, they often don't get a reply. 3. We tell aggrieved organisations and their representatives to email OTRS, but when they do, it sometimes takes weeks before they even get an answer. 4. We could build bots that recognise and flag slow edit wars between subjects and their detractors, as SmartSE suggested. There is one thing the Foundation could do: provide better software support to OTRS. As far as I can tell, OTRS volunteers have unanimously complained about the software for years, and to no effect. Andreas ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wik
Re: [WikiEN-l] Yet another PR company busted ... apparently it's all our fault
On 17 November 2012 01:34, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > Well, no, because the Foundation has made it abundantly clear that they > assume no responsibility whatsoever for content, or for questions like > whether we have flagged revisions or not. All of that is fully delegated to > the community. In a couple of misleading senses you could argue this. The legal buck stops with the WMF. (You clearly want to look further than the legal position, but in the context of PR editing it has been argued that the law is the standard, not "ethics"). What software is in operation is handled by the developers employed by the WMF. It has indeed been contentious whether the WMF should impose its view on the software, so it has backed off at present. It does seem you want to target a "blame game" at the community, whatever bad actors do who are certainly not within the community by any reasonable standard of compliance with norms. > But the community generally is not aware of that responsibility, or denies > it, and certainly lacks any efficient organ to exercise it. The first is basically untrue. The second, I think, only represents fairly the attitude of a few "free speech extremists" on enWP (I'm not familiar enough with other Wikipedias to comment on their communities). I think they are fewer than they used to be. The third is about on-site politics, which I don't think is in a very satisfactory state, but about which I have adopted a "less is more" line in my own comments for a few years (for reasons that are obvious, at least to me). It is not closely connected in any case with dealing properly with complaints, which is the problem-solving approach to things going wrong on WP, as opposed to looking round for someone to blame. So can we discuss points arising in some other thread, please? All of the above may be worth talking about, but conventionally off-topic matters get a new subject line. Such as "If only the enWP community got its act together we would never have to worry about PR editing because it would be a Brave New World", perhaps. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Yet another PR company busted ... apparently it's all our fault
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 7:21 PM, Charles Matthews < charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com> wrote: > On 16 November 2012 14:38, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 2:28 PM, David Goodman > wrote: > > > >> There is a fundamental difference between our inefficient and > >> sometimes unsuccessful attempts to do things right, and their > >> deliberate attempts to do things wrong. > > > Yes, but we must not forget that PR people are not the only people who > use > > Wikipedia to do things wrong. By operating the completely open system we > > do, we enable *anyone* to do wrong, be they PR or staff working for a > > company, or a company's detractors. > > > > The community is responsible for managing Wikipedia. And whether > Wikipedia > > is easy or difficult to abuse is the community's responsibility. > > I suppose this line of argument might be of some interest to someone > looking for a dissertation topic in moral philosophy (as has been > noted, it is off-topic). What happens to the notion of "agency" > online? > > Still, I can't accept that it makes sense of some putative connection > inherent in wiki technology, collective responsibility, and mere > participation as an editor. Talking about the "community" as a way of > avoiding talking about the intentions of the actors here is a neat > trick. I think the meaning of "wrong" is being slurred here. I > certainly don't think one should talk about enabling when editing is > always a conditional permission rather than any kind of right, and the > permission is given for a definite reason. And so on. The usual > approach would surely be to look first at who is hosting the site when > you seek to assign responsibility. Well, no, because the Foundation has made it abundantly clear that they assume no responsibility whatsoever for content, or for questions like whether we have flagged revisions or not. All of that is fully delegated to the community. We know we have more than four million articles and not enough people watching them. Every time something happens like the examples I gave earlier 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/Noticeboard&oldid=522638898#Muna_AbuSulayman or the sort of thing SmartSE raised here the other day http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=523399299#Spotting_off-wiki_disputes_that_end_up_causing_serious_problems_here or even the thing Wizardman raised on the same page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=523399299#The_main_problem_with_the_site the responsibility for having allowed it to happen lies with the community, not with the Foundation. But the community generally is not aware of that responsibility, or denies it, and certainly lacks any efficient organ to exercise it. At most, you sometimes get people worrying whether "Wikipedia might get sued", when in reality, thanks to Section 230 safe harbour provisions, * the only people who ever might theoretically get sued over content they added are individual editors, and * the Foundation has no more responsibility for Wikipedia content than gmail has editorial responsibility for the content of our e-mails. So the community designs the system under which Wikipedia operates. And DGG is right: the aim is not to minimise the number of complaints, but the number of *justified* complaints. You can't do that without changing the system that is generating the problems, and that's up to the community, not the Foundation. Andreas ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Yet another PR company busted ... apparently it's all our fault
On 16 November 2012 14:38, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 2:28 PM, David Goodman wrote: > >> There is a fundamental difference between our inefficient and >> sometimes unsuccessful attempts to do things right, and their >> deliberate attempts to do things wrong. > Yes, but we must not forget that PR people are not the only people who use > Wikipedia to do things wrong. By operating the completely open system we > do, we enable *anyone* to do wrong, be they PR or staff working for a > company, or a company's detractors. > > The community is responsible for managing Wikipedia. And whether Wikipedia > is easy or difficult to abuse is the community's responsibility. I suppose this line of argument might be of some interest to someone looking for a dissertation topic in moral philosophy (as has been noted, it is off-topic). What happens to the notion of "agency" online? Still, I can't accept that it makes sense of some putative connection inherent in wiki technology, collective responsibility, and mere participation as an editor. Talking about the "community" as a way of avoiding talking about the intentions of the actors here is a neat trick. I think the meaning of "wrong" is being slurred here. I certainly don't think one should talk about enabling when editing is always a conditional permission rather than any kind of right, and the permission is given for a definite reason. And so on. The usual approach would surely be to look first at who is hosting the site when you seek to assign responsibility. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Yet another PR company busted ... apparently it's all our fault
On 16 November 2012 14:38, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > Yes, but we must not forget that PR people are not the only people who use > Wikipedia to do things wrong. By operating the completely open system we > do, we enable *anyone* to do wrong, be they PR or staff working for a > company, or a company's detractors. > The community is responsible for managing Wikipedia. And whether Wikipedia > is easy or difficult to abuse is the community's responsibility. This still has nothing to do with the actual point of the thread. You are knowingly derailing the thread to push your personal hobby horses. Again. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Yet another PR company busted ... apparently it's all our fault
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 2:28 PM, David Goodman wrote: > There is a fundamental difference between our inefficient and > sometimes unsuccessful attempts to do things right, and their > deliberate attempts to do things wrong. > Yes, but we must not forget that PR people are not the only people who use Wikipedia to do things wrong. By operating the completely open system we do, we enable *anyone* to do wrong, be they PR or staff working for a company, or a company's detractors. The community is responsible for managing Wikipedia. And whether Wikipedia is easy or difficult to abuse is the community's responsibility. Andreas > And there is also a difference, though a smaller one, between an > individual's misguided attempt to fix what he perceives as injustice > towards themselves, and a commercial concern's deliberate attempt to > violate or evade for money what they must know are our rules . Nobody > can perceive whitewashing as proper, though they may think it > something they can get away with. > > And we also need to realize that the more we stop improper efforts, > the more people trying to make them will complain. Avoiding complaints > is not our measure of success; avoiding justified complaints is. > > > > On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Charles Matthews > wrote: > > On 12 November 2012 16:30, Steve Summit wrote: > >> 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. And, in any case, it wasn't at > >> all so cumbersome that it kept Finsbury from whitewashing the > >> article! > > > > The real point, surely, is whether the word "needlessly" can be > > shoehorned in front of "cumbersome". > > > > Charles > > > > ___ > > WikiEN-l mailing list > > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > > > > -- > David Goodman > > DGG at the enWP > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG > > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Yet another PR company busted ... apparently it's all our fault
There is a fundamental difference between our inefficient and sometimes unsuccessful attempts to do things right, and their deliberate attempts to do things wrong. And there is also a difference, though a smaller one, between an individual's misguided attempt to fix what he perceives as injustice towards themselves, and a commercial concern's deliberate attempt to violate or evade for money what they must know are our rules . Nobody can perceive whitewashing as proper, though they may think it something they can get away with. And we also need to realize that the more we stop improper efforts, the more people trying to make them will complain. Avoiding complaints is not our measure of success; avoiding justified complaints is. On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Charles Matthews wrote: > On 12 November 2012 16:30, Steve Summit wrote: >> 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. And, in any case, it wasn't at >> all so cumbersome that it kept Finsbury from whitewashing the >> article! > > The real point, surely, is whether the word "needlessly" can be > shoehorned in front of "cumbersome". > > Charles > > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- David Goodman DGG at the enWP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Yet another PR company busted ... apparently it's all our fault
On 12 November 2012 16:30, Steve Summit wrote: > 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. And, in any case, it wasn't at > all so cumbersome that it kept Finsbury from whitewashing the > article! The real point, surely, is whether the word "needlessly" can be shoehorned in front of "cumbersome". Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Yet another PR company busted ... apparently it's all our fault
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. And, in any case, it wasn't at all so cumbersome that it kept Finsbury from whitewashing the article! ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Yet another PR company busted ... apparently it's all our fault
On 12 November 2012 15:45, Thomas Morton 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 news, but when they do a bad thing it > gets no traction or notice" Note that PR Week seems to have avoided asking for comment from CIPR, who put out a statement on the matter with WMUK joining in: http://newsroom.cipr.co.uk/cipr-responds-to-reports-of-rlm-finsbury-editing-wikipedia-pages-for-alisher-usmanov/ So at least it's not actually unanimous. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Yet another PR company busted ... apparently it's all our fault
On 12 November 2012 15:46, Andreas Kolbe 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 problem as a "case study" is better. But our discussions do not always favour that approach. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Yet another PR company busted ... apparently it's all our fault
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 > 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 better light. > > > > Who is the good guy? > > On the grounds that two hypothetical wrongs don't make a hypothetical > right, there need not be an answer to your question. I thought Tom's question "Who is the good guy" was entirely rhetorical, and precisely intended to make the point that there *wasn't* a good guy. On the grounds > that someone who claims to be able to fix your house or car and then > charges yo u money despite being incompetent is traditionally called a > "cowboy", the idea that WP's procedures _in cases that are not > removing defamation_ can be called "cumbersome" by PR pros rebounds on > them. > 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. Andreas > The right answer is in terms of the hourly rate PR pros can ask for. > If they need to be trained to operate properly on WP, that is what > should happen. The bar for people's reputations should be set at least > as high as for plumbing. > > Note, in other words, that the "defence" of the PR editing here is > entirely deflection. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Yet another PR company busted ... apparently it's all our fault
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 *necessarily *blame them for taking advantage of the scrutiny of PR and trying to make it about the problems Wikipedia has as well. 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
Re: [WikiEN-l] Yet another PR company busted ... apparently it's all our fault
On 12 November 2012 15:26, Thomas Morton 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 better light. > > Who is the good guy? On the grounds that two hypothetical wrongs don't make a hypothetical right, there need not be an answer to your question. On the grounds that someone who claims to be able to fix your house or car and then charges yo u money despite being incompetent is traditionally called a "cowboy", the idea that WP's procedures _in cases that are not removing defamation_ can be called "cumbersome" by PR pros rebounds on them. The right answer is in terms of the hourly rate PR pros can ask for. If they need to be trained to operate properly on WP, that is what should happen. The bar for people's reputations should be set at least as high as for plumbing. Note, in other words, that the "defence" of the PR editing here is entirely deflection. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Yet another PR company busted ... apparently it's all our fault
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/Noticeboard&oldid=522638898#Muna_AbuSulayman The rest depends on how you define "often". How "often" is okay? Andreas On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > 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 12, 2012 3:26 PM, "Thomas Morton" > 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 better light. > > > > Who is the good guy? > > > > Tom > > > > > > On 12 November 2012 15:21, David Gerard wrote: > > > > > On 12 November 2012 14:56, Charles Matthews > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/report-usmanov-pr-firm-tweaked-wikipedia-entry/471315.html > > > > is interesting to read in this context. The moral side of > whitewashing > > > > a biography ahead of a stock market flotation is fairly elusive. > > > > > > > > > Indeed. I urge Thomas to go grab a copy of the Times today. If only > > > articles this well-written concerning Wikipedia were more likely to be > > > read by the people on the Internet who would be most interested in > > > them ... > > > > > > > > > - d. > > > > > > ___ > > > WikiEN-l mailing list > > > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > > > > > ___ > > WikiEN-l mailing list > > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > > > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Yet another PR company busted ... apparently it's all our fault
Well, OK, I will agree *legal* ambiguity exists of whether it is officially defamation or not. However that ambiguity doesn't affect the content in articles :) Tom On 12 November 2012 15:29, Thomas Dalton wrote: > 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 12, 2012 3:26 PM, "Thomas Morton" > 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 better light. > > > > Who is the good guy? > > > > Tom > > > > > > On 12 November 2012 15:21, David Gerard wrote: > > > > > On 12 November 2012 14:56, Charles Matthews > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/report-usmanov-pr-firm-tweaked-wikipedia-entry/471315.html > > > > is interesting to read in this context. The moral side of > whitewashing > > > > a biography ahead of a stock market flotation is fairly elusive. > > > > > > > > > Indeed. I urge Thomas to go grab a copy of the Times today. If only > > > articles this well-written concerning Wikipedia were more likely to be > > > read by the people on the Internet who would be most interested in > > > them ... > > > > > > > > > - d. > > > > > > ___ > > > WikiEN-l mailing list > > > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > > > > > ___ > > WikiEN-l mailing list > > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > > > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Yet another PR company busted ... apparently it's all our fault
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 12, 2012 3:26 PM, "Thomas Morton" 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 better light. > > Who is the good guy? > > Tom > > > On 12 November 2012 15:21, David Gerard wrote: > > > On 12 November 2012 14:56, Charles Matthews > > wrote: > > > On 12 November 2012 13:54, Thomas Morton > > > 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 > > > is interesting to read in this context. The moral side of whitewashing > > > a biography ahead of a stock market flotation is fairly elusive. > > > > > > Indeed. I urge Thomas to go grab a copy of the Times today. If only > > articles this well-written concerning Wikipedia were more likely to be > > read by the people on the Internet who would be most interested in > > them ... > > > > > > - d. > > > > ___ > > WikiEN-l mailing list > > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > > > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Yet another PR company busted ... apparently it's all our fault
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 it? I've said for a while that paid editing is often similar to BLP editing. (And this one seems especially similar since it is indeed about a living person, not a company.) If the guy himself had come onto Wikipedia and done exactly the same thing himself that he hired someone to do, we might think his edits were bad but we wouldn't be complaining about his temerity in making them at all. It's basically a BLP except the guy is making the edits through an intermediary. Now, whether this is a justified or unjustified BLP edit depends on the details, but it sounds like a completely typical BLP subject complaint, and normally BLP subjects who edit like this are supposed to be treated with respect. And wikipedia is just not good at 1) making it easy for people to fix their own BLPs (or their own company's article) or 2) getting such things fixed at all. When they say that Wikipedia's proces for fixing articles is "opaque, time-consuming and cumbersome", they are *correct*. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Yet another PR company busted ... apparently it's all our fault
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 wrote: > On 12 November 2012 14:56, Charles Matthews > wrote: > > On 12 November 2012 13:54, Thomas Morton > 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 > > is interesting to read in this context. The moral side of whitewashing > > a biography ahead of a stock market flotation is fairly elusive. > > > Indeed. I urge Thomas to go grab a copy of the Times today. If only > articles this well-written concerning Wikipedia were more likely to be > read by the people on the Internet who would be most interested in > them ... > > > - d. > > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Yet another PR company busted ... apparently it's all our fault
On 12 November 2012 14:56, Charles Matthews wrote: > On 12 November 2012 13:54, Thomas Morton 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 > is interesting to read in this context. The moral side of whitewashing > a biography ahead of a stock market flotation is fairly elusive. Indeed. I urge Thomas to go grab a copy of the Times today. If only articles this well-written concerning Wikipedia were more likely to be read by the people on the Internet who would be most interested in them ... - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Yet another PR company busted ... apparently it's all our fault
On 12 November 2012 13:54, Thomas Morton 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 is interesting to read in this context. The moral side of whitewashing a biography ahead of a stock market flotation is fairly elusive. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Yet another PR company busted ... apparently it's all our fault
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 wrote: > 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") > > 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. > > > - d. > > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] Yet another PR company busted ... apparently it's all our fault
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") 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. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
