Hi there, I agree that we should take action and make it real hard for any corporation
financially to achieve this result.
Legal action is one thing, but the first thing to be done is to ensure that all affairs of
the type are detected and publicly outed, on the very articles if there is large media
coverage. I would be in favor of a banner over the article stating the article has been
targeted for promotional purposes by the company.
Maybe we should start a whole independent wikipedia project proposing a « conflict of
interest rating » just as wikirating does it for financial markets.
James, I dont believe this can be done at chapter level (at the current state of things) :
it must be addressed by the WMF and the communities.
Regards (I’ve just added sourced chunks of the controversies on the French wiki by the
way, maybe we could ask the community to do it in every language?)
Nattes à chat
Le 14 avr. 2017 à 07:49, James Heilman
<jmh649(a)gmail.com> a écrit :
With respect to Pine's request for more legal support to help deal with
undisclosed paid editing issues, to that I strongly agree.
To better address these concerns we need the WMF, communities, and
affiliate organizations to collaborate. It is a difficult problem to
address.
James
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 11:09 PM, Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I tend to think along James' lines more than
Risker's.
Responding to Risker:
It seems to me that the key point that you're missing is that Burger King
altered Wikipedia content in order to execute this campaign. This wasn't a
simple case of an organization reusing existing Wikipedia content; the
organization appears to have altered Wikipedia content to suit their
purposes regardless of an obvious conflict of interest with Wikipedia's
purpose of being an educational resource rather than an advertising
platform.
It seems to me that entities of varying sizes -- from a start-up brand that
wants to make itself look important by having a Wikipedia article, to large
corporations and government officials -- will continue to alter Wikipedia
content in ways that are inappropriate and do a disservice to our readers
(including advertising, inserting "alternative facts" for medical and
political content, and eliminating negative information that certain people
and organizations find inconvenient) and cost editors' and administrators'
collective time and attention, until there is a financial price that is put
on this kind of behavior that is large enough to deter them. I don't see
why we should stand idly by as our products' quality and trustworthiness
are degraded and our resources are diverted. I'm hoping that WMF's
enforcement actions in this domain would more than pay for themselves
through financial penalties that WMF extracts from the wrongdoers.
Pine
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>