On 28 March 2011 15:34, Scott MacDonald <doc.wikipedia(a)ntlworld.com> 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