http://rohitbhargava.typepad.com/weblog/2006/03/using_wikipedia.html
If it's not there already, could someone please post this link to [[WT:CSD]]? Our beloved speedy patrollers really need to know about this one and shoot as needed. (Speedy cleanup can follow behind reviving anything that actually warrants an article.)
- d.
Hi, What exactly needs to be shot here? I see this:
* Give up control, people will take your original content and change it completely. * It is ok to put in "corporate" content, as long as it is relevant to the community. * Let it live and breath, only step in to correct inaccurate information * Make sure your own content is not getting pushed out of search results by this new content
Seems ok to me - the fourth point is a bit of a crack up though. (I think it's saying, when you write the wikipedia article on BobJones.com, make sure that bobjones.com itself doesn't get pushed out of the top 10 by Wikipedia and its mirrors). We've had a million and one POV's come and go, each advocate getting their POV in more subtly than the last.
Ultimately, either the topic that they add is notable, or it isn't. In the latter case, they'll get killed. In the former, content is good - regardless of by whom, or why it was written.
No?
Steve
On 3/7/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://rohitbhargava.typepad.com/weblog/2006/03/using_wikipedia.htmlIf it's not there already, could someone please post this link to [[WT:CSD]]? Our beloved speedy patrollers really need to know about this one and shoot as needed. (Speedy cleanup can follow behind reviving anything that actually warrants an article.)
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
David Gerard wrote:
http://rohitbhargava.typepad.com/weblog/2006/03/using_wikipedia.htmlIf it's not there already, could someone please post this link to [[WT:CSD]]? Our beloved speedy patrollers really need to know about this one and shoot as needed. (Speedy cleanup can follow behind reviving anything that actually warrants an article.)
See http://www.micropersuasion.com/2006/03/marketing_and_w.html for details. I consider the word "marketing" misleading. There is no reason why companies shouldn't update information about themselves in wikipedia if they have a source and if they follow the NPOV and other wikipedia policies.
[[de:Siemens AG]]'s financial figures for 2005 were updated from IPs from within Siemens. This is fine and not "marketing".
"Incoming!!!" again is misleading. This is not a war and there are no incoming missiles.
Mathias, who just had a 20 minutes phone call with the marketing department of a logistics company trying to explain to them why they did not behave nice and how they can fix their behavior problems in Wikipedia.
On 3/7/06, Mathias Schindler neubau@presroi.de wrote:
See http://www.micropersuasion.com/2006/03/marketing_and_w.html for details. I consider the word "marketing" misleading. There is no reason why companies shouldn't update information about themselves in wikipedia if they have a source and if they follow the NPOV and other wikipedia policies.
I agree. We've already decided that pedophiles can edit Wikipedia as long as they maintain neutrality and so forth. You're not really saying that marketers are lower than pedophiles, are you, David? ;-)
Ryan
On 3/7/06, Mathias Schindler neubau@presroi.de wrote:
See http://www.micropersuasion.com/2006/03/marketing_and_w.html for details. I consider the word "marketing" misleading. There is no reason why companies shouldn't update information about themselves in wikipedia if they have a source and if they follow the NPOV and other wikipedia policies.
I agree. That would make a great news story. "Company complains: Anyone can edit our article on Wikipedia - except us".
[[de:Siemens AG]]'s financial figures for 2005 were updated from IPs from within Siemens. This is fine and not "marketing".
As long as they do it transparently.
Is it time we updated [[WP:AUTO]] to cover corporate entities?
Steve
On 3/7/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/7/06, Mathias Schindler neubau@presroi.de wrote:
See http://www.micropersuasion.com/2006/03/marketing_and_w.html for details. I consider the word "marketing" misleading. There is no reason why companies shouldn't update information about themselves in wikipedia if they have a source and if they follow the NPOV and other wikipedia policies.
I agree. That would make a great news story. "Company complains: Anyone can edit our article on Wikipedia - except us".
Keep an eye on newsmax. We blocked at least one of their representertives from their article.
-- geni
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 3/7/06, Mathias Schindler neubau@presroi.de wrote:
See http://www.micropersuasion.com/2006/03/marketing_and_w.html for details. I consider the word "marketing" misleading. There is no reason why companies shouldn't update information about themselves in wikipedia if they have a source and if they follow the NPOV and other wikipedia policies.
I agree. That would make a great news story. "Company complains: Anyone can edit our article on Wikipedia - except us".
[[de:Siemens AG]]'s financial figures for 2005 were updated from IPs from within Siemens. This is fine and not "marketing".
As long as they do it transparently.
Is it time we updated [[WP:AUTO]] to cover corporate entities?
Yes.
On Tue, 7 Mar 2006 13:56:17 +0000, you wrote:
http://rohitbhargava.typepad.com/weblog/2006/03/using_wikipedia.html
So the guy advises people not to violate [[WP:OWN]], to be open and transparent, and to let consensus prevail? We should have more POV pushers like this! Guy (JzG)
In message fbad4e140603070556w33272ae9v@mail.gmail.com, David Gerard dgerard-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org writes
http://rohitbhargava.typepad.com/weblog/2006/03/using_wikipedia.html
Actually, I wish we could have more posters like this. He's advocating
* Give up control, people will take your original content and change it completely. * It is ok to put in "corporate" content, as long as it is relevant to the community. * Let it live and breath, only step in to correct inaccurate information * Make sure your own content is not getting pushed out of search results by this new content
I don't have any problems with those, though how he expects the last to happen once Google gets hold of the Wikipedia article and all its mirrors I have no idea.
Arwel Parry wrote:
In message fbad4e140603070556w33272ae9v@mail.gmail.com, David Gerard dgerard-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org writes
http://rohitbhargava.typepad.com/weblog/2006/03/using_wikipedia.html
Actually, I wish we could have more posters like this. He's advocating
* Give up control, people will take your original content and changeit completely. * It is ok to put in "corporate" content, as long as it is relevant to the community. * Let it live and breath, only step in to correct inaccurate information * Make sure your own content is not getting pushed out of search results by this new content
I don't have any problems with those, though how he expects the last to happen once Google gets hold of the Wikipedia article and all its mirrors I have no idea.
Perhaps some of our dedicated POV pushers would learn something by reading this. Similar principles apply whether your marketting a product or an idea.
Ec