BBC article on Roth novel and Wikipedia article

[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

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[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.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Fred Bauder-2]

> 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

[Fred Bauder-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

[David Gerard-2]

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

[Thomas Dalton]

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

[Gwern Branwen]

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