I've have my setting on "receive copy of own emails", but did not receive this email that I sent out. Can someone please confirm?
Regards, On 22 July 2013 18:02, Rui Correia <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear All > > It is certainly not news that a lot of deliberately biased editing goes on > on the Wikipedia. It is equally known that there are mechanims to address > these issues. > > But that is where the problem lies - those intent on skewing information > know all the tricks and loopholes, whereas neutral editors who pass by to > add something they came across are not so clued up. Most editors that get > reverted just move on and don't bother. This leads to the 'ownsership' > syndrome, with editors shooing away anybody that adds anuthing they don't > like. The bigger problem, is when these editors who act as if they 'own' > certain articles are actually either being paid to do so or are actually > lomked to an organisation with particilar interests in the page(s). > > A case in point, the other day I was looking for images of mosquitos > sucking blood and and came across blatant pornography on Flickr. I added a > few lines about pornography on Flickr and because it was reverted (I admit > the edit was not sterling worsmithing) it made me look into the history of > the page. > > That there are two or three editors who automatically revert anything > negative is obvious. Less obvious is that one of these editors was > 'dormant' for a year-and-a-half, then suddenly came out of hibernation 2 > months ago to exclusively counter any anti-Flickr edits and add pro-Flickr > edits - about 75 edits in 2 months. And one or 2 sanitsing the page of > Marissa Mayer, the CEO of Yahoo!, (which owns Flickr). Another has > practically admitted to having some kind of association with Flickr (there > is plenty in Flickr-related debates on user pages to prove that there is > indeed a sinsiter and unhealthy relationship. The two or three work in a > concerted manner, even replying on behalf of each other, which makes > suspect the presence of sockpuppets or similar. There is also a high-school > student among the reverters. Things are now at a point that they are making > rules, 'agreeing' with those against them on the maximum length of a > section of a Flickr controversy. No such limitations on any other > (positive) aspect of the article. They have have 'agreed' that a number of > Huffington Post comments on Flickr must not be included - it is not a > relaible source, apparently.. > > This would not have bothered me were it not for the fact that the Flickr > article is of an adequate size, with lots of good information on it and > most of it quite complimentary. It is worrying that a few lines of bad > press should so annoy people that they are on stand-by to revert at > whatever hour of day or night. > > The mechanisms that the Wikipedia has created to improve the project play > into the hands of people like these - features such as the watchlist. > Within minutes of a change, it gets reverted. Sometimes an editor will > persist for a while, but eventually walks off and goes edit elsewhere. > Which is odd, because if there are mechanisms for redress, why not use > them? Unfortunately, in my experience, whenever anything is put up for > arbitration, the first ones on the scene include the very editors involved > or others whom they trust who get tipped off about the issue as soon as it > develops. It is this that is tarnishing the name of the Wikipedia and > driving away good editors. > > I use Flickr as an example, but is it not the firwst time that I have come > across this type of behaviour. > And so, tiny cliques and coteries flourish like fiefdoms in the blind > spots of the mechanisms created to ensure that we all strive for the same > principes. What is worse, there are big players behind this all. In an age > when the so-called 'big media' is already overwhelmingly in the service of > 'big business', we owe to ourselves to keep them out of the WP. > > Regards, > > Rui Correia. > > > > -- > _________________________ > Rui Correia > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant > Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant > > Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186 > Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186 > _______________ > -- _________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186 Número de Telemóvel na África do Sul +27 74 425 4186 _______________ _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
