On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 6:34 PM, Scott MacDonald
<doc.wikipedia(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
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.
OTRS is not that bad, at least as far as I know. The
volunteers there
are supposed to be friendly (at least polite) as long as the person
does not behave very aggresively. The only problem I am aware of is
backlog ([[m:OTRS/volunteering]] is the only answer here).
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.
It would have the same value as the statement published on the
person's own website; I see no reason to give it more value than any
other statement issued by the person in question themselves.
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.
That sort of personal attack would do no good, please refrain from it.
--vvv