Yet another PR company busted:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/9671471/Finsbury-edited-Alisher-Usmanovs-Wikipedia-page.html
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/business/industries/telecoms/article3597035.ece
(you can read the article text in "View source")
We won't win a moral argument; they are breaking the social contract of a
website. We regularly defame people.
Tom
On 12 November 2012 13:49, David Gerard wrote:
> Yet another PR company busted:
>
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/9671471/Finsbury-e
On 12 November 2012 13:54, Thomas Morton 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 th
On 12 November 2012 14:56, Charles Matthews
wrote:
> On 12 November 2012 13:54, Thomas Morton 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-tweak
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
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012, David Gerard wrote:
The industry response? An apparently unanimous "our bad behaviour is
totally Wikipedia's fault":
http://www.prweek.com/uk/news/1159206/pr-industry-blames-cumbersome-wikipedia-finsbury-editing-issue/
Guys, this really doesn't help your case.
Doesn't i
The difference is one of intent. I dispute the claim that we often defame
people - an innocent mistake in an article is not defamation. Even if we're
a little careless to allow such mistakes, that still isn't defamation (I
think the legal threshold in most jurisdictions is recklessness).
On Nov 12,
Well, OK, I will agree *legal* ambiguity exists of whether it is
officially defamation or not.
However that ambiguity doesn't affect the content in articles :)
Tom
On 12 November 2012 15:29, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> The difference is one of intent. I dispute the claim that we often defame
> p
It certainly happens.
http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/in-a-web-of-lies-the-newspaper-must-live.premium-1.469273
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=522638898#Muna_AbuSulayman
The rest depends on how you define "often". How "often" is
On 12 November 2012 15:26, Thomas Morton wrote:
> 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 t
Note, in other words, that the "defence" of the PR editing here is
> entirely deflection
>
To an extent.
It also represents frustration along the lines of: "whenever one of us does
a bad thing we get lambasted in the news, but when they do a bad thing it
gets no traction or notice"
I don't *nece
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Charles Matthews <
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> On 12 November 2012 15:26, Thomas Morton
> wrote:
> > You misunderstand.
> >
> > As I mentioned: we simply have no moral high ground to criticise their
> > actions. Our controls are shoddy and we defame
On 12 November 2012 15:46, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> It occurs to me that biographies can be malicious without being defamatory.
> It would be wise to check what exactly went on in the biography before
> passing judgment.
Actually, I agree. Treating each instance of a general problem as a
"case stu
On 12 November 2012 15:45, Thomas Morton wrote:
>> Note, in other words, that the "defence" of the PR editing here is
>> entirely deflection
> To an extent.
> It also represents frustration along the lines of: "whenever one of us does
> a bad thing we get lambasted in the news, but when they do
Ken Arromdee wrote:
> When they say that Wikipedia's proces for fixing articles is
> "opaque, time-consuming and cumbersome", they are *correct*.
Well, yeah, but. Right (sorta) conclusion, wrong reason.
It can always be improved, but I don't think our "process" for
fixing articles is *that* bad.
On 12 November 2012 16:30, Steve Summit wrote:
> Ken Arromdee wrote:
>> When they say that Wikipedia's proces for fixing articles is
>> "opaque, time-consuming and cumbersome", they are *correct*.
>
> Well, yeah, but. Right (sorta) conclusion, wrong reason.
>
> It can always be improved, but I do
16 matches
Mail list logo
