This is the comment I made to The New Yorker article: If you, or anyone else, has a similar problem please contact the Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team Directions are on that page in Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Volunteer_Response_Team We are sorry this matter was not handled better.
Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2012/09/an-open-letter-to-wikipedia.html#ixzz25taiCMHm Now, a factual inquiry, if he had done that would this problem have been solved? Or would he still ended up trying to bully us? Fred > It's not a crazy train of thought though; people naturally feel they > are the authority on their own opinions. > > We usually don't do brilliantly in explaining why that doesn't work. > Because we start with explaining reliable sources, and often glaze > over the most important bit. > > I DO see these sorts of issues all the time. When I log into OTRS > there is sure to be at least one. > > I've taken to explaining that Wikipedia only summarises other sources. > So inaccuracy needs to be addressed either with a retraction from the > source, or another source appearing to rebut it. > > This is much more palatable than "your word isn't a reliable source". > > If for no other reason than the phrasing sounds like your impugning > the reliability of him/her as a person. > > Tom Morton > > On 8 Sep 2012, at 17:00, Charles Matthews > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 8 September 2012 16:55, Thomas Morton >> <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> No it doesn't. >>> >>> I'll give you good odds on me being right. >>> >>> Because I see the same thing week after week. >>> >>> >> You mean leading author almost synonymous with "rare interview" assumes >> his >> word is good enough for WP? Complaining that people make up stuff about >> your inspiration is fair enough: bookchat, as Gore Vidal called it, has >> a >> percentage of drivel. But The Human Stain was published 12 years ago. >> Really, nothing on the record? >> >> (I know that isn't what you mean. But Wikipedians in this kind of >> situation >> do have to explain policy to those who don't get it, and act on it, >> even if >> dealing with someone famous.) >> >> Charles >> _______________________________________________ >> WikiEN-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
