I just checked the archives. The original message was not received by the mailing list, for whatever reason, probably misaddressed. This message of inquiry is the first message in the tread. I think you should resend the original message if your mail program permits that. Sounds interesting...
Fred > I've have my setting on "receive copy of own emails", but did not receive > this email that I sent out. Can someone please confirm? > > Regards, > > On 22 July 2013 18:02, Rui Correia <correia....@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear All >> >> It is certainly not news that a lot of deliberately biased editing goes >> on >> on the Wikipedia. It is equally known that there are mechanims to >> address >> these issues. >> >> But that is where the problem lies - those intent on skewing >> information >> know all the tricks and loopholes, whereas neutral editors who pass by >> to >> add something they came across are not so clued up. Most editors that >> get >> reverted just move on and don't bother. This leads to the 'ownsership' >> syndrome, with editors shooing away anybody that adds anuthing they >> don't >> like. The bigger problem, is when these editors who act as if they >> 'own' >> certain articles are actually either being paid to do so or are >> actually >> lomked to an organisation with particilar interests in the page(s). >> >> A case in point, the other day I was looking for images of mosquitos >> sucking blood and and came across blatant pornography on Flickr. I >> added a >> few lines about pornography on Flickr and because it was reverted (I >> admit >> the edit was not sterling worsmithing) it made me look into the history >> of >> the page. >> >> That there are two or three editors who automatically revert anything >> negative is obvious. Less obvious is that one of these editors was >> 'dormant' for a year-and-a-half, then suddenly came out of hibernation >> 2 >> months ago to exclusively counter any anti-Flickr edits and add >> pro-Flickr >> edits - about 75 edits in 2 months. And one or 2 sanitsing the page of >> Marissa Mayer, the CEO of Yahoo!, (which owns Flickr). Another has >> practically admitted to having some kind of association with Flickr >> (there >> is plenty in Flickr-related debates on user pages to prove that there >> is >> indeed a sinsiter and unhealthy relationship. The two or three work in >> a >> concerted manner, even replying on behalf of each other, which makes >> suspect the presence of sockpuppets or similar. There is also a >> high-school >> student among the reverters. Things are now at a point that they are >> making >> rules, 'agreeing' with those against them on the maximum length of a >> section of a Flickr controversy. No such limitations on any other >> (positive) aspect of the article. They have have 'agreed' that a number >> of >> Huffington Post comments on Flickr must not be included - it is not a >> relaible source, apparently.. >> >> This would not have bothered me were it not for the fact that the >> Flickr >> article is of an adequate size, with lots of good information on it and >> most of it quite complimentary. It is worrying that a few lines of bad >> press should so annoy people that they are on stand-by to revert at >> whatever hour of day or night. >> >> The mechanisms that the Wikipedia has created to improve the project >> play >> into the hands of people like these - features such as the watchlist. >> Within minutes of a change, it gets reverted. Sometimes an editor will >> persist for a while, but eventually walks off and goes edit elsewhere. >> Which is odd, because if there are mechanisms for redress, why not use >> them? Unfortunately, in my experience, whenever anything is put up for >> arbitration, the first ones on the scene include the very editors >> involved >> or others whom they trust who get tipped off about the issue as soon as >> it >> develops. It is this that is tarnishing the name of the Wikipedia and >> driving away good editors. >> >> I use Flickr as an example, but is it not the firwst time that I have >> come >> across this type of behaviour. >> And so, tiny cliques and coteries flourish like fiefdoms in the blind >> spots of the mechanisms created to ensure that we all strive for the >> same >> principes. What is worse, there are big players behind this all. In an >> age >> when the so-called 'big media' is already overwhelmingly in the service >> of >> 'big business', we owe to ourselves to keep them out of the WP. >> >> Regards, >> >> Rui Correia. >> >> >> >> -- >> _________________________ >> Rui Correia >> Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant >> Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant >> >> Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186 >> Número de Telemóvel na Ãfrica do Sul +27 74 425 4186 >> _______________ >> > > > > > -- > _________________________ > Rui Correia > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant > Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant > > Mobile Number in South Africa +27 74 425 4186 > Número de Telemóvel na Ãfrica do Sul +27 74 425 4186 > _______________ > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>