Re: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: The counterattack of the PR companies
On Wed, 18 Apr 2012, David Gerard wrote: If someone tells you to drive at 5 miles under the speed limit rather than to drive at the speed limit, he may be trying to keep you from getting too close to a line. If someone tells you *not to drive at all* rather than to drive at the speed limit, that no longer has anything to do with getting close to a line. He's just making up his own rules. Ken, what's your practical solution to the problems on each side, and how will it work out well? I don't know, but whatever it is, it should be consistent. Having the policy say one thing and Jimbo say something completely different is stupid as well as increasing Wikipedia's reputation for incomprehensible rules. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: The counterattack of the PR companies
I think you can share any or all of the following rules of thumb, in order: make proposed changes to talk pages. ask other editors to help you update an article. avoid editing articles about you/your organization directly, unless you are fixing vandalism or typos, updating stats, or adding sources. SJ On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 1:59 AM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: On Wed, 18 Apr 2012, David Gerard wrote: If someone tells you to drive at 5 miles under the speed limit rather than to drive at the speed limit, he may be trying to keep you from getting too close to a line. If someone tells you *not to drive at all* rather than to drive at the speed limit, that no longer has anything to do with getting close to a line. He's just making up his own rules. Ken, what's your practical solution to the problems on each side, and how will it work out well? I don't know, but whatever it is, it should be consistent. Having the policy say one thing and Jimbo say something completely different is stupid as well as increasing Wikipedia's reputation for incomprehensible rules. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- Samuel Klein identi.ca:sj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266 ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: The counterattack of the PR companies
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: On 18 April 2012 23:29, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: On Wed, 18 Apr 2012, Charles Matthews wrote: Sorry, this is exactly the point. The conversation where we explain very patiently to someone what our definition of COI is and is not; and the response is you're telling me that if I sail close to the wind on NPOV but don't quite go over the line, then whatever my potential conflict of interest is, then I'm not breaking your rules. That conversation is exactly why the whole business is arcane _to people who think they are paid to sail close to the wind and get away with it_. E.g. people with good legal advisers who are smart enough to listen to the advice and understand the fine print. If someone tells you to drive at 5 miles under the speed limit rather than to drive at the speed limit, he may be trying to keep you from getting too close to a line. If someone tells you *not to drive at all* rather than to drive at the speed limit, that no longer has anything to do with getting close to a line. He's just making up his own rules. Or he may have noticed that you are off your face or otherwise not fit to drive, and is applying common sense. Good metaphor. But you do seem hung up on rules. Without the required understanding that there are indeed sub-sub-clauses, such as the requirement to edit for the enemy that is written into WP:NPOV, that are implicit in WP:COI, and without the idea that WP is a purposeful activity and has aims that should be appreciated (which is there in black-and-white in WP:COI), there is no way some people can do what we want. Continuation of conversation: Look, we're all impressed with Wikipedia. But you seem to be saying that to edit I have to put your project ahead of my day job; and so I think you guys are just a bit crazed. Right both times. And you're now telling me I have to flack for the opponents of the guy I am paid by, and put their criticisms into due form in the the way that, frankly, they are too dumb to do, using the skills I have but against the brief I have been given. Yup, that's what it says on the page about neutrality. Well ... where I come from ... words fail me ... This is really not the beginning of a beautiful friendship. Well, in reality the discussion may be more like this: Oy, Wikipedia is beating up on my client. What User:Geteven has written here is totally unfair. Can you believe, he goes on for 500 words about that product recall we had three years ago? The entire article on our company is only 600 words long. It is sourced. Don't delete negative material. You do realise that there have been over 5,000 newspaper articles on our company in the last 10 years, and only three of them mention that product recall? I don't know about this. [Thinks: That dude has a conflict of interest. He may be lying. PR people are paid to lie. He is probably lying.] Don't delete sourced negative material. We cannot allow you to censor the article. But why do you enable people to portray us in the worst light? It's totally unfair. We think this was written by a disgruntled employee, Gareth, whom we fired last year. He was involved with that issue. You have just outed one of our contributors. Wikipedia takes outing very seriously. Your comment has been oversighted, and you have been blocked for one week. You may appeal your block on your talk page. Please unblock me. Why have I been punished when it is User:Geteven who is abusing Wikipedia? We will only unblock you only when you show us that you realise what you did was very, very wrong. You clearly don't. Instead you continue to pretend it is everybody else's fault. Unblock denied. Etc. Not the beginning of a beautiful relationship either. For those interested, there is an ongoing court case involving a scenario somewhat similar to this: http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/law_librarian_blog/2012/04/whats-the-difference-between-stating-facts-or-opinion-online-wikipedia-contributor-faces-defamation-.html?utm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=feedutm_campaign=Feed%3A+LawLibrarianBlog+%28Law+Librarian+Blog%29 Andreas ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] The counterattack of the PR companies
On 18 April 2012 12:48, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: PR people who edited Wikipedia get crucified. Counterattack: reduce trust in Wikipedia. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120417113527.htm Paper: http://www.prsa.org/Intelligence/PRJournal/ On the CREWE Facebook page, Andrew Lih from WIkipedia has asked Dr diStaso to correct her claims. His request: ‘Thanks, but doesn’t that mean the correct conclusion should be: “60% of respondents who identified an article about their client found at least one error”? That’s very different than: “60% of Wikipedia articles about PR clients had factual errors” even more different than: “60% of Wikipedia articles had factual errors” Doesn’t this warrant a significant correction?’ Dr diStaso has, instead, reinforced the wrong impression in quotes given to ABC News today: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/2012/04/wikipedia-survey-shows-60-percent-of-entries-have-errors-and-public-relations-people-cant-correct-them/ I've asked her as well to please take the opportunity to urgently correct the impression her work is giving. I'm sure there will be no problem with this. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: The counterattack of the PR companies
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 1:17 AM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: Continuation of conversation: Look, we're all impressed with Wikipedia. But you seem to be saying that to edit I have to put your project ahead of my day job; and so I think you guys are just a bit crazed. Right both times. And you're now telling me I have to flack for the opponents of the guy I am paid by, and put their criticisms into due form in the the way that, frankly, they are too dumb to do, using the skills I have but against the brief I have been given. Yup, that's what it says on the page about neutrality. Well ... where I come from ... words fail me ... This is really not the beginning of a beautiful friendship. That's exactly why people with a strong COI -- such a strong one that it's their day job to present only one side of a position -- should stay away from articles related to that topic. Sarah ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: The counterattack of the PR companies
On 19 April 2012 12:31, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: Continuation of conversation: Look, we're all impressed with Wikipedia. But you seem to be saying that to edit I have to put your project ahead of my day job; and so I think you guys are just a bit crazed. Well, in reality the discussion may be more like this: No, Charles has rendered the conversations I've had on the subject pretty accurately (if skeletally). - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: The counterattack of the PR companies
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote: On 4/19/12, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: You do realise that there have been over 5,000 newspaper articles on our company in the last 10 years, and only three of them mention that product recall? That might seem like a good point, but really, articles shouldn't be constructed from surveys of newspaper articles. I know they are, in practice, but they really shouldn't be. What is needed is something beyond that, some indication that someone with the right credentials has sat down and sorted through things and come to some sort of independent conclusion. Some newspaper journalists do this, but not many do. Indeed, but there needs to be some measure of due weight, and for many companies, newspaper articles and primary sources are all there is. Andreas ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: The counterattack of the PR companies
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 1:41 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 April 2012 12:31, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: Continuation of conversation: Look, we're all impressed with Wikipedia. But you seem to be saying that to edit I have to put your project ahead of my day job; and so I think you guys are just a bit crazed. Well, in reality the discussion may be more like this: No, Charles has rendered the conversations I've had on the subject pretty accurately (if skeletally). I'm sure both scenarios occur. I don't know what the solution is. As Sarah says, telling PR people whose day job it is to just present one side of the story to go right ahead isn't the solution. But we cannot close our eyes to the fact that there are editors who for whatever reason similarly have made it their job to only present one side of the story; that PR people may have a legitimate grievance when they come to Wikipedia; and that the restrictions we are applying to them are not applying to the anonymous editors on the other side, for whom we prescribe assume good faith, the right to edit anonymously, protection from having their motives questioned, and so forth. Usually we let activists of every couleur fight things out for years, until they come to a bloody end in arbitration. (Traditional Wikipedia wisdom is of course that having people with opposite POVs collaborate leads to neutral articles, which works nowhere near as well as Wikipedia would like to pretend.) Yet in this scenario, we are turning the PR person with the obvious COI into a pariah, while shielding the anonymous activist editor whose COI is less easy to pin down, but indistinguishable in terms of editing result. As long as there is activist editing, Wikipedia cannot claim any moral high ground vs. the PR man, because we know that many people -- including the Anders Breiviks and Johann Haris of this world -- contribute to Wikipedia precisely for the reason of propagating their world view. Andreas ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: The counterattack of the PR companies
On Thu, 19 Apr 2012, Charles Matthews wrote: If someone tells you to drive at 5 miles under the speed limit rather than to drive at the speed limit, he may be trying to keep you from getting too close to a line. If someone tells you *not to drive at all* rather than to drive at the speed limit, that no longer has anything to do with getting close to a line. He's just making up his own rules. Or he may have noticed that you are off your face or otherwise not fit to drive, and is applying common sense. Good metaphor. If I'm not fit to drive, he can tell me you're not fit to drive. Claiming that it's because it has anything to do with getting close to the line is a lie. And the analogy doesn't work with drunkenness because there's no conscious action you can do if you're drunk that will make you fit to drive. The analogy would require that he thinks I'm unfit to drive because I never learned how to drive, but he ignores that I passed the driving test. But you do seem hung up on rules. Without the required understanding that there are indeed sub-sub-clauses, such as the requirement to edit for the enemy that is written into WP:NPOV, that are implicit in WP:COI, and without the idea that WP is a purposeful activity and has aims that should be appreciated (which is there in black-and-white in WP:COI), there is no way some people can do what we want. Rules can cause trouble, but they have one benefit: at least ideally, it's clear when you have or haven't violated them. (Many Wikipedia rules are not ideal, but that's a discussion for another day.) It's a lot harder to inject personal prejudice to the issue when the rule spells out what you're allowed to do. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: The counterattack of the PR companies
On 19 April 2012 15:22, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: Rules can cause trouble, but they have one benefit: at least ideally, it's clear when you have or haven't violated them. (Many Wikipedia rules are not ideal, but that's a discussion for another day.) It's a lot harder to inject personal prejudice to the issue when the rule spells out what you're allowed to do. I was thinking about this graphically, with an x-axis measuring involvement in, commitment to, or responsibility for Wikipedia. The y-axis representing the value attached to detailed policies, in enWP's sense, as a definition of what the site is or should be. I'm pretty sure that in a notional plot the spread of views would go north-west to south-east. Jimbo is somewhere asymptotically off to the right, for sure. I'm quite sure that when x goes negative you get people whose view is that policy should be drafted in entirely legalistic terms. Those people, who do not have WP's best interests at heart, are always arguing for a disconnect between the letter and spirit of policy, because they have no interest at all in the spirit. There are probably some outliers: why wouldn't there be, in a diverse community? But roughly speaking most editors who could get near the ArbCom are interested in making the site work a bit better, rather than pacifying the ghost of Jeremy Bentham. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: The counterattack of the PR companies
On 19 April 2012 15:34, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: Those people, who do not have WP's best interests at heart, are always arguing for a disconnect between the letter and spirit of policy, because they have no interest at all in the spirit. Well, yes. The entire point of this paper is to demand a more gameable system. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: The counterattack of the PR companies
On 19 April 2012 14:03, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 1:41 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 April 2012 12:31, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: Continuation of conversation: Look, we're all impressed with Wikipedia. But you seem to be saying that to edit I have to put your project ahead of my day job; and so I think you guys are just a bit crazed. Well, in reality the discussion may be more like this: No, Charles has rendered the conversations I've had on the subject pretty accurately (if skeletally). I'm sure both scenarios occur. I don't know what the solution is. Ah, the Socratic moment. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: The counterattack of the PR companies
No it isn't exactly the same for people and companies. Wikipedia has a whole bunch of editors whose hobby includes protecting BLPs, we don't have similar editors who genuinely care about the reputation of companies. Or if we do they aren't in the same numbers. Also if PR people are skewed towards those members of society who don't understand the difference between 60% of PR people consider that they've found an error in their company' article and 60% of Wikipedia articles are wrong, then there may be a poorer cultural fit between PR people and wikipedians than there is between marginally notable people and Wikipedians. WSC On 19 April 2012 15:30, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: On Thu, 19 Apr 2012, Andreas Kolbe wrote: As Sarah says, telling PR people whose day job it is to just present one side of the story to go right ahead isn't the solution. But we cannot close our eyes to the fact that there are editors who for whatever reason similarly have made it their job to only present one side of the story; that PR people may have a legitimate grievance when they come to Wikipedia; and that the restrictions we are applying to them are not applying to the anonymous editors on the other side, for whom we prescribe assume good faith, the right to edit anonymously, protection from having their motives questioned, and so forth. It's exactly the same problem as BLPs, except for companies. If someone tries to edit their own BLP, they're told they have a conflict of interest. Due weight problems? The article's been vandalized for years? Tough luck, deal with it, we have our own procedures for dealing with vandalism. We're sure they'll work out someday. If anything, it's worse for companies. Nobody tells BLP subjects that because they have a COI, they can't even remove incorrect statements about themselves. __**_ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikien-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: The counterattack of the PR companies
On 19 April 2012 15:38, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 April 2012 15:34, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: Those people, who do not have WP's best interests at heart, are always arguing for a disconnect between the letter and spirit of policy, because they have no interest at all in the spirit. Well, yes. The entire point of this paper is to demand a more gameable system. So the nuanced point would be that my model might need revision, if a credible group of Benthamites (sorry, I'm stuck in about 1820 here) emerged who could make the case for a new codification of policy. This week's Signpost article on paid editing is at least a straw in the wind. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: The counterattack of the PR companies
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: If anything, it's worse for companies. Nobody tells BLP subjects that because they have a COI, they can't even remove incorrect statements about themselves. A fair point. I liked Andreas's way of putting this earlier: Positive bias and advertorials *can* be odious, but activist editing with a negative bent has traditionally been the greater problem in Wikipedia, in my view, and is the type of bias the Wikipedia system has traditionally favoured. Not doing harm is, in my view, more important than preventing the opposite. Sam. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: The counterattack of the PR companies
On 19 April 2012 16:01, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote: I liked Andreas's way of putting this earlier: Positive bias and advertorials *can* be odious, but activist editing with a negative bent has traditionally been the greater problem in Wikipedia, in my view, and is the type of bias the Wikipedia system has traditionally favoured. Not doing harm is, in my view, more important than preventing the opposite. [[Primum non nocere]] is worth reading, but of course it is about medicine, and is only an aspiration, and does not mean physicians have to treat conservatively. It means they have justify medical intervention. Assuming that do no harm in the sense of journalism is supposed to be applied to WP, it does fall under WP:NOT to some extent. Indiscriminate information ought to be a reason to delete. We do have to justify intervening in people's lives by hosting an article about them. On the other hand, we very often can give that justification. It doesn't have to be in the terms an investigative journalist would use. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] How our competitors are doing
On Conservapedia, a parodist came up with this template: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template%3ANohearsayaction=historysubmitdiff=976114oldid=976104 Mr Schlafly approves: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:CPalmercurid=72836diff=976121oldid=975547 - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] How our competitors are doing
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 6:21 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: Mr Schlafly approves: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:CPalmercurid=72836diff=976121oldid=975547 Poe's law lives! -- gwern ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] How our competitors are doing
Conservapedia aren't a competitor. They aren't in remotely the same business as us. On Apr 19, 2012 11:22 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On Conservapedia, a parodist came up with this template: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template%3ANohearsayaction=historysubmitdiff=976114oldid=976104 Mr Schlafly approves: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:CPalmercurid=72836diff=976121oldid=975547 - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] How our competitors are doing
On 20 April 2012 00:36, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: On Apr 19, 2012 11:22 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On Conservapedia, a parodist came up with this template: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template%3ANohearsayaction=historysubmitdiff=976114oldid=976104 Mr Schlafly approves: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:CPalmercurid=72836diff=976121oldid=975547 Conservapedia aren't a competitor. They aren't in remotely the same business as us. Don't tell them that! http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:How_Conservapedia_Differs_from_Wikipedia Their article on us is great, though: http://conservapedia.com/Wikipedia - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] How our competitors are doing
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 9:58 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: Their article on us is great, though: http://conservapedia.com/Wikipedia Wow, that's awesome - the whole introduction is gold. In fact, so much to enjoy about that article - even the effect of scandals on Wikipedia foundation donations, which appears to show...well, nothing really. Steve ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
