On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Charles Matthews < [email protected]> wrote:
> On 14 November 2012 12:23, Andreas Kolbe <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Charles Matthews > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> On 14 November 2012 12:04, Andreas Kolbe <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> > As I said in that discussion, the underlying problem seems to be that > we > >> > have a certain number of low-notability articles that are only (or > >> > mainly) > >> > edited by the subjects themselves, and the people who hate them. > >> > >> Since the worst BLP I know about falls in that class, I'd have to > >> agree with the statement, to the extent that there is a problem. On > >> the other hand the PR issue is more about high-notability articles. No > >> deletionist approach is a remedy to the Usmanov scenario, is it? > > > > > > > > No; but there are articles in the PR "weight class" that can be just as > > problematic. The article on Vodacom for example was attacked by a white > > supremacist, who posted about his exploits here: > > > > http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t809859-9/#post10057604 > > > > His stuff stayed in there for months. There is no evidence that Vodacom > have > > ever taken an interest in their article; but I am sure they have a PR > agent. > > We are simply spread too thin to prevent this sort of thing, and often > it's > > only the subjects themselves, or their PR agents, who try to fix the > > article. > > With respect, that does seem to be an entirely different issue. The > "too thin" phenomenon is the result of growth (a problem of success) > and can be addressed in other ways. And has been, in 2012. > > Charles > Sorry, I am not following you. How has it been addressed in 2012? Andreas
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list [email protected] http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
