So the Americas favorite burger should have been "America's Favorite
Burger(tm)". Agreed.
Cheers,
Peter
-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
FRED BAUDER
Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2017 8:21 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject
Add the information about their behaviour to the article. Just make sure it is
accurate, near the top, and gets published somewhere that can be used as a
reliable source. Even if this only sticks 50% of the time it is not something
they will want to risk. If the foundation is willing to stick t
"The Whopper, also known as America’s favorite burger, " is a problem
as it implies that the Whopper is the favorite burger of the American
public. Perhaps it is, but that is a trademark, not the result of a
survey. The other stuff, "a flame-[[grilling|grilled]] patty made with
100% beef with n
As far as I can see the edits are slightly peacocky, but not much worse than an
ordinary fanboy might do on a game or music article. The big issue to me is the
undisclosed COI, which is unethical. Proving that the edits were paid for does
not seem reasonably practicable unless you start off by a
James,
Which parts of those statements to you consider factually inaccurate, and which
parts do you consider misleading in some other way?
Cheers,
Peter
-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
James Heilman
Sent: Friday, April
P.S. The paragraph ending "instead of backsliding, and" should have been
followed by "proposing cuts to the payroll tax."
On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 12:54 PM James Salsman wrote:
> Is it better to think of the problem as paid editing or organized advocacy
> for persuasion at the expense of accuracy
Is it better to think of the problem as paid editing or organized advocacy
for persuasion at the expense of accuracy regarding all costs and benefits?
Burger King is a commercial enterprise which makes money by mass production
of beef products, which require more water and produce more greenhouse
I'm just a bit agog at the idea that this article became "advertising" when
Burger King made the connection using Google Home. Since its very first
edit, it has been an advertisement for this product. It may not have been
intended that way, but that is the reality. Now it's almost 4200 words
lon
On 14 April 2017 at 17:39, Gabriel Thullen wrote:
> The damage has been done. Theverge.com claims to have done such a
> modification on Wikipedia, to quote them "as did we, in a test yesterday".
> We will probably see more of this.
Yes. This is why we need to respond in such a way as to deter
c
This advertising campaign is particularly interesting, it appears that this
is the first time we can talk about an exploit (as is said in computer
security). It has been done once so it can be done again.
What worries me here is that an advertising campaign like this one, mixing
TV advertising and
On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 5:23 AM, Gnangarra wrote:
>
> > but they didnt spam, nor did they introduce any false hoods, or remove
> > controversial content, they just put a description of the Whopper for the
> > opening sentence.
I agree with James on this one. They "described" their product in a v
Wikipedia is not for sale. We are not simply another advertising venue
available to the corporations of the world. We have mechanisms for
corporations to suggest changes to our content and it is called the talk
page.
Lets look at the changes likely made by Burger King staff in more detail:
In thi
but they didnt spam, nor did they introduce any false hoods, or remove
controversial content, they just put a description of the Whopper for the
opening sentence. As Andy said rather than biting and creating arguments
amongst ourselves would it not be better to have used the opportunity to
benefit
On 14 April 2017 at 11:38, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> A far better (and less WP:BITEy) outcome would be to get then to
Pretty sure WP:BITE doesn't apply in the case of deliberate abuse for
clear purposes of spamming.
- d.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, g
On 13 April 2017 at 05:01, Pine W wrote:
> I would like for WMF to make Burger King feel that their
> misuse of WIkipedia was inappropriate and for WMF to hit them where it
> counts -- in their checkbook -- and with enough force that corporations
> will decide that messing with Wikipedia is both
I really dont think the Whopper comparison is a good one because the change
they made was reasonable and at least more consistent with my understanding
of the english language as used here with us having distinct difference
between what is a sandwich and what is a burger. The Whopper comment does
Hi there, I agree that we should take action and make it real hard for any
corporation financially to achieve this result.
Legal action is one thing, but the first thing to be done is to ensure that all
affairs of the type are detected and publicly outed, on the very articles if
there is large
17 matches
Mail list logo
