On 3/13/07, Oldak Quill <oldakquill(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Would an
unpaid editor on the Wikipedia think "gosh, I should lie on
Google's wikipedia page because they are one of dozens (hundreds?
thousands?) of companies that have donated to the foundation."
No, I wouldn't expect many editors to make a conscious decision to lie
on a corporate article, but our preferences and likes do manifest in
our editing.
It could go either way. I remember thinking when looking at the
[[Virgin United]] article last time that I would find it somewhat mean
to be as hard-nosed towards their article as I might normally be. But
I'm sure that other editors would be the opposite, perversely
insisting on sources for *everything*, bringing up any dirt they can
find, to challenge the notion that the company is getting a free ride
on us.
Come to think of it, the second way of thinking is more likely to
prevail. A lot of our editors fiercely defend democracy, independence,
freedom...
You're probably right - but what about the 20% who aren't committed
enough to Wikipedia's policy to reason in this way?
Still, bias influences and exterts in unexpected ways.
--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill(a)gmail.com)