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 <[email protected]> wrote: > On 12 November 2012 14:56, Charles Matthews > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 12 November 2012 13:54, Thomas Morton <[email protected]> > 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 > [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
