On 11/12/12 2:49 PM, David Gerard wrote:
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
(yo
On 17 November 2012 16:10, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 8:14 AM, Charles Matthews <
> charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>> On 17 November 2012 01:34, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>>
>> > Well, no, because the Foundation has made it abundantly clear that they
>> > assume no respo
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 8:14 AM, Charles Matthews <
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> On 17 November 2012 01:34, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
> > Well, no, because the Foundation has made it abundantly clear that they
> > assume no responsibility whatsoever for content, or for questions like
>
On 17 November 2012 01:34, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> Well, no, because the Foundation has made it abundantly clear that they
> assume no responsibility whatsoever for content, or for questions like
> whether we have flagged revisions or not. All of that is fully delegated to
> the community.
In a c
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 7:21 PM, Charles Matthews <
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> On 16 November 2012 14:38, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 2:28 PM, David Goodman
> wrote:
> >
> >> There is a fundamental difference between our inefficient and
> >> sometimes unsucce
On 16 November 2012 14:38, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 2:28 PM, David Goodman wrote:
>
>> There is a fundamental difference between our inefficient and
>> sometimes unsuccessful attempts to do things right, and their
>> deliberate attempts to do things wrong.
> Yes, but we mu
On 16 November 2012 14:38, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> Yes, but we must not forget that PR people are not the only people who use
> Wikipedia to do things wrong. By operating the completely open system we
> do, we enable *anyone* to do wrong, be they PR or staff working for a
> company, or a company's
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 2:28 PM, David Goodman wrote:
> There is a fundamental difference between our inefficient and
> sometimes unsuccessful attempts to do things right, and their
> deliberate attempts to do things wrong.
>
Yes, but we must not forget that PR people are not the only people w
There is a fundamental difference between our inefficient and
sometimes unsuccessful attempts to do things right, and their
deliberate attempts to do things wrong.
And there is also a difference, though a smaller one, between an
individual's misguided attempt to fix what he perceives as injustice
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
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 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
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 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
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 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
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
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
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,
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
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 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
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
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
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")
25 matches
Mail list logo
