Fwd: The counterattack of the PR companies

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
49 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fwd: The counterattack of the PR companies

David Gerard-2
On 19 April 2012 15:34, Charles Matthews
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Those people, who do not have WP's
> best interests at heart, are always arguing for a disconnect between the
> letter and spirit of policy, because they have no interest at all in the
> spirit.


Well, yes. The entire point of this paper is to demand a more gameable system.


- d.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fwd: The counterattack of the PR companies

Charles Matthews
In reply to this post by Andreas Kolbe-2
On 19 April 2012 14:03, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 1:41 PM, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On 19 April 2012 12:31, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Charles Matthews <
> > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > >> Continuation of conversation:
> > >> "Look, we're all impressed with Wikipedia. But you seem to be saying
> > that
> > >> to edit I have to put your project ahead of my day job; and so I think
> > you
> > >> guys are just a bit crazed."
> >
> > > Well, in reality the discussion may be more like this:
> >
> >
> > No, Charles has rendered the conversations I've had on the subject
> > pretty accurately (if skeletally).
>
>
>
> I'm sure both scenarios occur. I don't know what the solution is.
>
> Ah, the Socratic moment.

Charles
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fwd: The counterattack of the PR companies

WereSpielChequers-2
In reply to this post by Ken Arromdee
No it isn't exactly the same for people and companies. Wikipedia has a
whole bunch of editors whose hobby includes protecting BLPs, we don't have
similar editors who genuinely care about the reputation of companies. Or if
we do they aren't in the same numbers.

Also if PR people are skewed towards those members of society who don't
understand the difference between 60% of PR people consider that they've
found an error in their company' article and 60% of Wikipedia articles are
wrong,  then there may be a poorer cultural fit between PR people and
wikipedians than there is between marginally notable people and Wikipedians.

WSC
On 19 April 2012 15:30, Ken Arromdee <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Thu, 19 Apr 2012, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
>> As Sarah says, telling PR people whose day job it is to just present one
>> side of the story to go right ahead isn't the solution. But we cannot
>> close
>> our eyes to the fact that there are editors who for whatever reason
>> similarly have made it their job to only present one side of the story;
>> that PR people may have a legitimate grievance when they come to
>> Wikipedia;
>> and that the restrictions we are applying to them are not applying to the
>> anonymous editors on the "other side", for whom we prescribe "assume good
>> faith", the right to edit anonymously, protection from having their
>> motives
>> questioned, and so forth.
>>
>
> It's exactly the same problem as BLPs, except for companies.  If someone
> tries to edit their own BLP, they're told they have a conflict of interest.
> Due weight problems?  The article's been vandalized for years?  Tough luck,
> deal with it, we have our own procedures for dealing with vandalism.  We're
> sure they'll work out someday.
>
> If anything, it's worse for companies.  Nobody tells BLP subjects that
> because
> they have a COI, they can't even remove incorrect statements about
> themselves.
>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikien-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l>
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fwd: The counterattack of the PR companies

Charles Matthews
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
On 19 April 2012 15:38, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 19 April 2012 15:34, Charles Matthews
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Those people, who do not have WP's
> > best interests at heart, are always arguing for a disconnect between the
> > letter and spirit of policy, because they have no interest at all in the
> > spirit.
>
>
> Well, yes. The entire point of this paper is to demand a more gameable
> system.
>
>
> So the nuanced point would be that my model might need revision, if a
credible group of "Benthamites" (sorry, I'm stuck in about 1820 here)
emerged who could make the case for a new codification of policy. This
week's Signpost article on paid editing is at least a straw in the wind.

Charles
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fwd: The counterattack of the PR companies

metasj
In reply to this post by Ken Arromdee
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Ken Arromdee <[hidden email]> wrote:

> If anything, it's worse for companies.  Nobody tells BLP subjects that
> because they have a COI, they can't even remove incorrect statements
> about themselves.

A fair point.

I liked Andreas's way of putting this earlier:

> Positive bias and advertorials *can* be odious, but activist editing with a
> negative bent has traditionally been the greater problem in Wikipedia, in
> my view, and is the type of bias the Wikipedia system has traditionally
> favoured. Not doing harm is, in my view, more important than preventing
> the opposite.

Sam.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fwd: The counterattack of the PR companies

Charles Matthews
On 19 April 2012 16:01, Samuel Klein <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
> I liked Andreas's way of putting this earlier:
>
> > Positive bias and advertorials *can* be odious, but activist editing with a
> > negative bent has traditionally been the greater problem in Wikipedia, in
> > my view, and is the type of bias the Wikipedia system has traditionally
> > favoured. Not doing harm is, in my view, more important than preventing
> > the opposite.
>
[[Primum non nocere]] is worth reading, but of course it is about
medicine, and is only an aspiration, and does not mean physicians have
to treat conservatively. It means they have justify medical
intervention.

Assuming that "do no harm" in the sense of journalism is supposed to
be applied to WP, it does fall under WP:NOT to some extent.
"Indiscriminate information" ought to be a reason to delete. We do
have to justify intervening in people's lives by hosting an article
about them. On the other hand, we very often can give that
justification. It doesn't have to be in the terms an investigative
journalist would use.

Charles

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fwd: The counterattack of the PR companies

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 6:54 PM, Charles Matthews
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 19 April 2012 16:01, Samuel Klein <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I liked Andreas's way of putting this earlier:
>>
>> > Positive bias and advertorials *can* be odious, but activist editing with a
>> > negative bent has traditionally been the greater problem in Wikipedia, in
>> > my view, and is the type of bias the Wikipedia system has traditionally
>> > favoured. Not doing harm is, in my view, more important than preventing
>> > the opposite.
>>
> [[Primum non nocere]] is worth reading, but of course it is about
> medicine, and is only an aspiration, and does not mean physicians have
> to treat conservatively. It means they have justify medical
> intervention.
>
> Assuming that "do no harm" in the sense of journalism is supposed to
> be applied to WP, it does fall under WP:NOT to some extent.
> "Indiscriminate information" ought to be a reason to delete. We do
> have to justify intervening in people's lives by hosting an article
> about them. On the other hand, we very often can give that
> justification. It doesn't have to be in the terms an investigative
> journalist would use.
>

Historically this is inaccurate, as the article states, the original
phrasing was to "abstain from doing harm", which is significantly
different insofar as it implies a willed action. This didn't at all
refer to medical treatement, but to the common practise of the
time for people who healed to have a sideline in selling poisons
for people who were willing to pay for them.

--
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fwd: The counterattack of the PR companies

David Gerard-2
On 21 April 2012 17:07, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Historically this is inaccurate, as the article states, the original
> phrasing was to "abstain from doing harm", which is significantly
> different insofar as it implies a willed action. This didn't at all
> refer to medical treatement, but to the common practise of the
> time for people who healed to have a sideline in selling poisons
> for people who were willing to pay for them.


You mean, "don't have a co=nflict of interest"?


- d.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fwd: The counterattack of the PR companies

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 7:13 PM, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 21 April 2012 17:07, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Historically this is inaccurate, as the article states, the original
>> phrasing was to "abstain from doing harm", which is significantly
>> different insofar as it implies a willed action. This didn't at all
>> refer to medical treatement, but to the common practise of the
>> time for people who healed to have a sideline in selling poisons
>> for people who were willing to pay for them.
>
>
> You mean, "don't have a co=nflict of interest"?
>

Would "Do not willfully edit to a Point of View." work for you?

There is a difference between those who are blind to the fact
that their viewpoint is not universally accepted, and those who
really should know better, and do, but for ulteriour motives edit
to a certain bias.

--
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
123