http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19527797
"Author Roth rebukes Wikipedia over Human Stain edit" "Following the publication of the New Yorker letter, the Wikipedia entry was changed and a section noting the debate inserted near its end." Has this been mentioned on any other mailing lists? I noticed that the article makes the (very common) error/assumption that administrators exercise some sort of editorial control, when (in principle), it is editors that exercise editorial control (when the editorial process works, that is). Do those dealing with Wikipedia publicity ever try and correct this misunderstanding, or is it near-impossible to get the distinction across to journalists? Carcharoth _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [hidden email] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |
On 8 September 2012 13:22, Carcharoth <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I noticed that the article makes the (very common) error/assumption > that administrators exercise some sort of editorial control, when (in > principle), it is editors that exercise editorial control (when the > editorial process works, that is). Do those dealing with Wikipedia > publicity ever try and correct this misunderstanding, or is it > near-impossible to get the distinction across to journalists? It's near-impossible. The BBC didn't contact anyone for comment, either; the article is strictly ex-culo. - d. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [hidden email] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |
In reply to this post by Carcharoth
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19527797 > > "Author Roth rebukes Wikipedia over Human Stain edit" > > "Following the publication of the New Yorker letter, the Wikipedia > entry was changed and a section noting the debate inserted near its > end." > > Has this been mentioned on any other mailing lists? > > I noticed that the article makes the (very common) error/assumption > that administrators exercise some sort of editorial control, when (in > principle), it is editors that exercise editorial control (when the > editorial process works, that is). Do those dealing with Wikipedia > publicity ever try and correct this misunderstanding, or is it > near-impossible to get the distinction across to journalists? > > Carcharoth Roth is an elderly man googling, see http://www.theatlanticwire.com/entertainment/2012/09/internet-stain-philip-roth-wikipedia-entry/56646/ Our current content seems appropriate. Fred _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [hidden email] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
> On 8 September 2012 13:22, Carcharoth <[hidden email]>
> wrote: > >> I noticed that the article makes the (very common) error/assumption >> that administrators exercise some sort of editorial control, when (in >> principle), it is editors that exercise editorial control (when the >> editorial process works, that is). Do those dealing with Wikipedia >> publicity ever try and correct this misunderstanding, or is it >> near-impossible to get the distinction across to journalists? > > > It's near-impossible. The BBC didn't contact anyone for comment, > either; the article is strictly ex-culo. > > > - d. That is the sort of thing that happens in a monarchy like England or North Korea, idiots in charge... something that really pissed off George Washington. Fred _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [hidden email] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |
On 8 September 2012 13:48, Fred Bauder <[hidden email]> wrote:
> That is the sort of thing that happens in a monarchy like England or > North Korea, idiots in charge... something that really pissed off George > Washington. Fred, that's really an insanely stupid thing to post. - d. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [hidden email] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |
On 8 September 2012 14:16, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 8 September 2012 13:48, Fred Bauder <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> That is the sort of thing that happens in a monarchy like England or >> North Korea, idiots in charge... something that really pissed off George >> Washington. > > > Fred, that's really an insanely stupid thing to post. Nonsense - everyone knows HM The Queen writes all the articles on the BBC News website! _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [hidden email] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |
In reply to this post by Carcharoth
I liked the promoted comment in the Ars Technica article:
http://arstechnica.com/business/2012/09/wikipedia-told-philip-roth-hes-not-credible-source-on-book-he-wrote/ (Found via the Reddit comments in http://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/comments/zim4r/philip_roth_an_open_letter_to_wikipedia_about/ & http://www.reddit.com/r/TrueReddit/comments/zirub/philip_roth_author_of_the_human_stain_writes_an/ ) -- gwern http://www.gwern.net _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [hidden email] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |