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
On 17 November 2012 01:34, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com 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
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 jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, no, because the Foundation has made it abundantly clear that they
assume no responsibility whatsoever for content, or for
On 17 November 2012 16:10, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com 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 jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, no, because the Foundation has made it abundantly clear that
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
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 2:28 PM, David Goodman dgge...@gmail.com 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
On 16 November 2012 14:38, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com 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,
On 16 November 2012 14:38, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 2:28 PM, David Goodman dgge...@gmail.com wrote:
There is a fundamental difference between our inefficient and
sometimes unsuccessful attempts to do things right, and their
deliberate attempts to do
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 jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 2:28 PM, David Goodman dgge...@gmail.com
wrote:
There is a fundamental difference between our inefficient
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 dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Yet another PR company busted:
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
On 12 November 2012 14:56, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com 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.
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
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
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
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/Noticeboardoldid=522638898#Muna_AbuSulayman
The rest depends on how you define often. How often is
On 12 November 2012 15:26, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com 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
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
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 morton.tho...@googlemail.com
wrote:
You misunderstand.
As I mentioned: we simply have no moral high ground to criticise their
actions. Our controls are
On 12 November 2012 15:46, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com 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
On 12 November 2012 15:45, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com 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
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.
22 matches
Mail list logo
