On 28 March 2011 15:34, Scott MacDonald doc.wikipedia@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