iCorrect

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
62 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

iCorrect

Fred Bauder-2
A site, where for $1,000, corrections to one's Wikipedia article can be
posted:

For $1,000, Site Lets Celebrities Say It Ain’t So

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/28/world/europe/28icorrect.html?ref=todayspaper

If you search for Wikipedia:

http://www.icorrect.com/search/node/Wikipedia

I'm just suggesting it as an editing tool.

Fred Bauder




_______________________________________________
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: iCorrect

geni
On 28 March 2011 11:53, Fred Bauder <[hidden email]> wrote:

> A site, where for $1,000, corrections to one's Wikipedia article can be
> posted:
>
> For $1,000, Site Lets Celebrities Say It Ain’t So
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/28/world/europe/28icorrect.html?ref=todayspaper
>
> If you search for Wikipedia:
>
> http://www.icorrect.com/search/node/Wikipedia
>
> I'm just suggesting it as an editing tool.
>
> Fred Bauder

It fails our reliable source requirement.


--
geni

_______________________________________________
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: iCorrect

David Gerard-2
On 28 March 2011 12:25, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:

> It fails our reliable source requirement.


Claims authentically by the subject are relevant to BLP issues.


- 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: iCorrect

Doc glasgow
In reply to this post by geni
"It fails our reliable source requirement."-- geni

Wow. Geni that's truly the remark that encapsulates exactly what's wrong
with BLPs, and the irresponsible attitude of Wikipedia.

Nevermind our many biased articles, factual errors, and stuff written from
"reliable sources" (aka tabloid sensationalist hatchet jobs), we can dismiss
the subject trying to set our record straight because it fails our
Scriptural requirement. That's Wikipedia's myopic fundamentalism taken to
its extreme.

Ever considered the requirements just might occasionally be screwed?

Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of geni
Sent: 28 March 2011 12:26
To: [hidden email]; English Wikipedia
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] iCorrect

On 28 March 2011 11:53, Fred Bauder <[hidden email]> wrote:
> A site, where for $1,000, corrections to one's Wikipedia article can be
> posted:
>
> For $1,000, Site Lets Celebrities Say It Ain't So
>
>
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/28/world/europe/28icorrect.html?ref=todayspa
per
>
> If you search for Wikipedia:
>
> http://www.icorrect.com/search/node/Wikipedia
>
> I'm just suggesting it as an editing tool.
>
> Fred Bauder

It fails our reliable source requirement.


--
geni

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
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: iCorrect

Daniel R. Tobias
In reply to this post by Fred Bauder-2
On 28 Mar 2011 at 12:00, Fred Bauder wrote:

> A site, where for $1,000, corrections to one's Wikipedia article can be
> posted:

Did Andrew Knight really pay $1000 to write "Wikipedia entry is
anodyne and largely accurate. Never mind, let's keep it that way"?



--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/



_______________________________________________
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: iCorrect

geni
In reply to this post by geni
On 28 March 2011 12:38, Scott MacDonald <[hidden email]> wrote:
> "It fails our reliable source requirement."-- geni
>
> Wow. Geni that's truly the remark that encapsulates exactly what's wrong
> with BLPs, and the irresponsible attitude of Wikipedia.

Since people can write anything there with zero fact checking its a
bit hard to see why you would want to use it as a source so much.

> Nevermind our many biased articles, factual errors, and stuff written from
> "reliable sources" (aka tabloid sensationalist hatchet jobs), we can dismiss
> the subject trying to set our record straight because it fails our
> Scriptural requirement. That's Wikipedia's myopic fundamentalism taken to
> its extreme.

The site is no different from someone's personal blog. I for one would
not be happy to encourage people to drop £1000 for a blog post but
perhaps you are.

> Ever considered the requirements just might occasionally be screwed?

Having dealt with some interesting BLP subjects over the years not
really. Now if someone were to start say the journal of BLP [[Citation
Needed]] with at least a nominal review process that would be a far
better approach and would have the advantage of not looking to sting
people for £1000.

--
geni

_______________________________________________
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: iCorrect

geni
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
On 28 March 2011 12:32, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 28 March 2011 12:25, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> It fails our reliable source requirement.
>
>
> Claims authentically by the subject are relevant to BLP issues.

Site say no fact checking remember. That means we don't actually know
it is the subject.

--
geni

_______________________________________________
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: iCorrect

Doc glasgow
Geni,
It might help if you checked you own facts before making false claims:

I quote:

" It is fundamental for ICorrect to confirm the true identity of each
Corrector. Therefore ICorrect requires a reliable reference for all new
Correctors. A reference can be either:

   1. An existing Corrector - in which case you simply enter their name and
secret reference code or
   2. A lawyer or representative who can vouch for your identity"


-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of geni
Sent: 28 March 2011 13:51
To: English Wikipedia
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] iCorrect

On 28 March 2011 12:32, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 28 March 2011 12:25, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> It fails our reliable source requirement.
>
>
> Claims authentically by the subject are relevant to BLP issues.

Site say no fact checking remember. That means we don't actually know
it is the subject.

--
geni

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
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: iCorrect

geni
In reply to this post by geni
On 28 March 2011 14:40, Scott MacDonald <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Geni,
> It might help if you checked you own facts before making false claims:
>
> I quote:
>
> " It is fundamental for ICorrect to confirm the true identity of each
> Corrector. Therefore ICorrect requires a reliable reference for all new
> Correctors. A reference can be either:
>
>   1. An existing Corrector - in which case you simply enter their name and
> secret reference code or
>   2. A lawyer or representative who can vouch for your identity"
>

You believe them?

--
geni

_______________________________________________
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: iCorrect

Fred Bauder-2
In reply to this post by geni
> On 28 March 2011 11:53, Fred Bauder <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> A site, where for $1,000, corrections to one's Wikipedia article can be
>> posted:
>>
>> For $1,000, Site Lets Celebrities Say It Ain’t So
>>
>> https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/28/world/europe/28icorrect.html?ref=todayspaper
>>
>> If you search for Wikipedia:
>>
>> http://www.icorrect.com/search/node/Wikipedia
>>
>> I'm just suggesting it as an editing tool.
>>
>> Fred Bauder
>
> It fails our reliable source requirement.
>
> geni
>

Only under work to rule.

We can depend on the account actually being the person, who in the case
of simple factual errors would be within policy to simply correct the
article themselves. But here, as a substantial sum of money is paid,
posers are extremely unlikely.

If it were not such a minor matter, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable
sources, could, within policy, be changed.

Fred



_______________________________________________
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: iCorrect

Fred Bauder-2
In reply to this post by geni
> On 28 March 2011 14:40, Scott MacDonald <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>> Geni,
>> It might help if you checked you own facts before making false claims:
>>
>> I quote:
>>
>> " It is fundamental for ICorrect to confirm the true identity of each
>> Corrector. Therefore ICorrect requires a reliable reference for all new
>> Correctors. A reference can be either:
>>
>>   1. An existing Corrector - in which case you simply enter their name
>> and
>> secret reference code or
>>   2. A lawyer or representative who can vouch for your identity"
>>
>
> You believe them?
>
> --
> geni

I believe a ridiculous piece of printed paper can be used to buy
potatoes, why not them?

Fred



_______________________________________________
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: iCorrect

geni
On 28 March 2011 15:06, Fred Bauder <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I believe a ridiculous piece of printed paper can be used to buy
> potatoes, why not them?
>
> Fred

Because with buying potatoes the business model makes sense. It
doesn't make sense than any celebrity prepared to pay to have mistakes
corrected doesn't have far cheaper options.



--
geni

_______________________________________________
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: iCorrect

Doc glasgow
Geni, you are now being obtuse.

Sometimes we publish false crap on people, sometimes we do it all on our
own, and sometimes it's because we're following a source that is publishing
falsehood.

When a victim tries to get a correction, the whole deck is stacked against
them. Edit Wikipedia and get hit with COI. E-mail OTRS and you're dealing
with a non-editorial non-authority, who might not believe who you are, and
probably won't accept your own testimony as other than worthless. Even if
you convince the OTRS person, he might well get reverted by someone who
can't see the e-mails.

Now, along comes another way of people setting the record straight, and you
reject it because a) it doesn't comply with policy b) people may pay $1,000
to impersonate someone c) you choose to be cynical about their identity
checking d) it doesn't make sense to you.

The bottom line is that you are representative of the most cynical,
irresponsible BLP attitudes on Wikipedia, and if we were serious about our
responsibilities here, people with you cavalier attitude would be banned
from BLPs, and BLP process, as a positive menace.

Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of geni
Sent: 28 March 2011 15:26
To: [hidden email]; English Wikipedia
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] iCorrect

On 28 March 2011 15:06, Fred Bauder <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I believe a ridiculous piece of printed paper can be used to buy
> potatoes, why not them?
>
> Fred

Because with buying potatoes the business model makes sense. It
doesn't make sense than any celebrity prepared to pay to have mistakes
corrected doesn't have far cheaper options.



--
geni

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
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: iCorrect

Nathan Awrich
In reply to this post by geni
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Scott MacDonald
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Geni, you are now being obtuse.
>
> Sometimes we publish false crap on people, sometimes we do it all on our
> own, and sometimes it's because we're following a source that is publishing
> falsehood.
>
> When a victim tries to get a correction, the whole deck is stacked against
> them. Edit Wikipedia and get hit with COI. E-mail OTRS and you're dealing
> with a non-editorial non-authority, who might not believe who you are, and
> probably won't accept your own testimony as other than worthless. Even if
> you convince the OTRS person, he might well get reverted by someone who
> can't see the e-mails.
>
> Now, along comes another way of people setting the record straight, and you
> reject it because a) it doesn't comply with policy b) people may pay $1,000
> to impersonate someone c) you choose to be cynical about their identity
> checking d) it doesn't make sense to you.
>
> The bottom line is that you are representative of the most cynical,
> irresponsible BLP attitudes on Wikipedia, and if we were serious about our
> responsibilities here, people with you cavalier attitude would be banned
> from BLPs, and BLP process, as a positive menace.
>
> Scott
>


I think you're going a bit overboard there, Doc. I agree that the
claims of the subject shouldn't be ignored, particularly if they spend
$1000 to publish a correction on a startup site (as long as we can
confirm it is them). But should it count as a reliable reference to
trigger a chance in our articles? Not necessarily. Geni and I have
both worked over the years on a particular BLP where the subject has
enormous financial resources and the apparent desire to
distort/falsify his record. If we were to credit his public statements
as fact, we'd be allowing him to hijack our content to suit his own
needs.

Nathan

_______________________________________________
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: iCorrect

David Gerard-2
On 28 March 2011 15:43, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I think you're going a bit overboard there, Doc. I agree that the
> claims of the subject shouldn't be ignored, particularly if they spend
> $1000 to publish a correction on a startup site (as long as we can
> confirm it is them). But should it count as a reliable reference to
> trigger a chance in our articles? Not necessarily. Geni and I have
> both worked over the years on a particular BLP where the subject has
> enormous financial resources and the apparent desire to
> distort/falsify his record. If we were to credit his public statements
> as fact, we'd be allowing him to hijack our content to suit his own
> needs.


However, noting what the subject says is surely apposite in the
general case, even if it's delusional - as long as it can be
reasonably cited in a source that is almost certainly said subject.


- 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: iCorrect

Fred Bauder-2
In reply to this post by Nathan Awrich

>
> I think you're going a bit overboard there, Doc. I agree that the
> claims of the subject shouldn't be ignored, particularly if they spend
> $1000 to publish a correction on a startup site (as long as we can
> confirm it is them). But should it count as a reliable reference to
> trigger a chance in our articles? Not necessarily. Geni and I have
> both worked over the years on a particular BLP where the subject has
> enormous financial resources and the apparent desire to
> distort/falsify his record. If we were to credit his public statements
> as fact, we'd be allowing him to hijack our content to suit his own
> needs.
>
> Nathan

Yes, the usual rules still apply, but if someone says they are not called
"The Honorable", why not listen? The main advantage is that we know that
no one is likely to spend $1,000 to spoof an account. There are lots of
minor details that people know about themselves which are inconsequential
and uncontroversial, except to them when we get it wrong.

Fred


_______________________________________________
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: iCorrect

Fred Bauder-2
In reply to this post by Daniel R. Tobias
> On 28 Mar 2011 at 12:00, Fred Bauder wrote:
>
>> A site, where for $1,000, corrections to one's Wikipedia article can be
>> posted:
>
> Did Andrew Knight really pay $1000 to write "Wikipedia entry is
> anodyne and largely accurate. Never mind, let's keep it that way"?
>

> == Dan ==

I assume he had issues with other sites. I'm going to have to look up
anodyne someday. It's in the John Wayne movie Angel and the Badman too. I
wonder if it means anything at all.

Fred


_______________________________________________
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: iCorrect

Andrew Gray-3
In reply to this post by geni
On 28 March 2011 13:50, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> Claims authentically by the subject are relevant to BLP issues.
>
> Site say no fact checking remember. That means we don't actually know
> it is the subject.

No fact checking of what the subject *says* is very different from no
fact checking of who the subject *is* - for them to fail to do the
latter, or at least make a good attempt at it, would turn the project
into an very elaborate way of becoming bankrupt!

This particular site is, I think, something of an inspired device for
parting rich people from their money (a thousand dollars? really?) but
in spirit, it's not a bad idea.

One of our problems has always been dealing with cases where there's a
widespread error floating around about someone - often relatively
trivial, the exact location of their birthplace or their mother's
name, the sort of minor detail that annoys them but that isn't really
enough to get Corrections Published and so forth. As such, it persists
in the sources, and then we pick it up; they try to correct it, or
contact us to complain, and... well, we revert them saying "check
sources", or say "well, um, sorry, but we can't do anything", etc. -
usually, the best we can do is advise them to set up a website,
publish a correction on it, and hope we notice. We really don't have a
good, workable method for dealing with these situations, and the one
we have now is really a bit undesirable.

So, any reasonable solution is good. If we were to actually encourage
the creation of one - presuming this site isn't quite what we're after
- how would it work? This might be a good opportunity to encourage an
independent but useful "right of reply" project...

--
- Andrew Gray
  [hidden email]

_______________________________________________
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: iCorrect

geni
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
On 28 March 2011 15:46, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> However, noting what the subject says is surely apposite in the
> general case, even if it's delusional - as long as it can be
> reasonably cited in a source that is almost certainly said subject.

Not really the case article in question is Giovanni di Stefano. A
fraudster (he has a conviction from the 80s). Using his own words
presents two problems. Firstly it would accuse of being technically
guilty of things I'm pretty sure he isn't. Secondly one of the lines
he was trying to push has just been reported on by the crown
prosecution service:

"The charges refer to events between 2004 and 2009 and the alleged
deceptions include representations that he was a qualified Italian
lawyer."

http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/press_statements/cps_statement_on_giovanni_di_stefano/

You see the problem?
--
geni

_______________________________________________
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: iCorrect

geni
In reply to this post by geni
On 28 March 2011 15:34, Scott MacDonald <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Geni, you are now being obtuse.
>
> Sometimes we publish false crap on people, sometimes we do it all on our
> own, and sometimes it's because we're following a source that is publishing
> falsehood.
>
> When a victim tries to get a correction, the whole deck is stacked against
> them. Edit Wikipedia and get hit with COI. E-mail OTRS and you're dealing
> with a non-editorial non-authority, who might not believe who you are, and
> probably won't accept your own testimony as other than worthless. Even if
> you convince the OTRS person, he might well get reverted by someone who
> can't see the e-mails.

However if OTRS can't it through we are dealing with a situation more
complex than setting the record strait

> Now, along comes another way of people setting the record straight, and you
> reject it because a) it doesn't comply with policy b) people may pay $1,000
> to impersonate someone c) you choose to be cynical about their identity
> checking d) it doesn't make sense to you.

The kind of people who might normally be expect to spend that kind of
amount on reputation management have better and cheaper options. So
the site would appear to be taking advantage of people who don't know
better.

It could well be argued that the ethical response on our part would be
to undercut them.

> The bottom line is that you are representative of the most cynical,
> irresponsible BLP attitudes on Wikipedia, and if we were serious about our
> responsibilities here, people with you cavalier attitude would be banned
> from BLPs, and BLP process, as a positive menace.

It has been suggested

--
geni

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
1234