[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       wikien-l
Subject:    Re: [WikiEN-l] David is on Channel 4 tonight re MS issue
From:       Ray Saintonge <saintonge () telus ! net>
Date:       2007-01-29 8:31:48
Message-ID: 45BDB0F4.4050807 () telus ! net
[Download RAW message or body]

Who Cares wrote:

> On 1/28/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge@telus.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> > Handled correctly this could be a PR benefit for WP.
> > 
> > Not long ago I expressed my opinion that our view toward Conflicts of
> > Interest was not a workable one.  I'm also of the view that any severe
> > 
> > 
> > action against editors who are paid to clean up a company's article,
> > will only drive such activities underground.
> > 
> > I think that we need to establish a right of defence or rebuttal (or
> > whatever we want to call it).  This would allow anyone who is directly
> > 
> > 
> > affected by the article a place to defend his point of view.  This could
> > 
> > 
> > probably be done in a template that is linked from the page in
> > question.  The person or company affected would have the exclusive right
> > 
> > 
> > to make substantive edits to that template. The result would be a
> > section that is the person's view on the issue; if they want to make a
> > 
> > 
> > radical departure from the truth that would be their right within that
> > 
> > 
> > context.  If the subject tries to put the same information in the main
> > 
> > 
> > body of the article that would be subject to the usual meat-grinder rules.
> > 
> > 
> > I'm sure that we will have a few of our own dinosaurs complaining that
> > 
> > 
> > they should have the right to edit everything, and that having such
> > pages would be tremendously unwiki, but I think that giving any person
> > 
> > 
> > the opportunity to defend himself should improve Wikipedia's image as
> > one of fairness.
> > 
> > A few simple rules may be necessary for these persons.
> > 1. The writer must be the person himself or have the right to speak
> > 
> > 
> > on behalf of the person
> > 2. The writer must be registered and properly identified.
> > 3. All that he writes is subject to GFDL
> > 4. The financial arrangements between the writer and the person are
> > 
> > 
> > not our concern.
> > 5. We reserve the right to limit the length of submissions to
> > prevent long-winded rants.
> > 
> > 
> Um... why? If we write the article as well as we should, they will not have any \
> valid reason to complain, and I refuse to think that we should be hosting blatantly \
> untrue things under the guise of the subject defending himself. Do we really want \
> the White House telling us about how everyone who disagrees with them is a \
> terrorist-lover, in their own page where nobody is allowed to remove the content, \
> or even register disagreement? 
Think of it as a parallel to User pages.  The purpose would parallel 
that structure in many ways.  The prospect that we will write the 
article so well that they will have no reason to complain is 
unrealistic.  I would not make the presumption that what these people 
will write will be so blatantly untrue.  On the other hand, how do we 
prevent other writers from creating an article that is biased against 
the company.  This can easily happen with people who are focused on the 
company's failings..  If what a company says about itself is really 
outrageous they'll ruin their own image. If George Bush did what you 
suggest the demands on the server would be more than we could handle.  
It is not unusual for people to say that the media, including us, 
misinterpret them.  This would give them the opportunity to "set the 
record straght".  If they take that as an opportunity to make fools of 
themselves we can't be blamed for that. :-)

Ec


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]