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 <morton.tho...@googlemail.com> > 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 the good guy? > > On the grounds that two hypothetical wrongs don't make a hypothetical > right, there need not be an answer to your question. I thought Tom's question "Who is the good guy" was entirely rhetorical, and precisely intended to make the point that there *wasn't* a good guy. On the grounds > that someone who claims to be able to fix your house or car and then > charges yo u money despite being incompetent is traditionally called a > "cowboy", the idea that WP's procedures _in cases that are not > removing defamation_ can be called "cumbersome" by PR pros rebounds on > them. > 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. Andreas > The right answer is in terms of the hourly rate PR pros can ask for. > If they need to be trained to operate properly on WP, that is what > should happen. The bar for people's reputations should be set at least > as high as for plumbing. > > Note, in other words, that the "defence" of the PR editing here is > entirely deflection. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
