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
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 11:05 AM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 March 2011 15:34, Scott MacDonald doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
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.
To wit, why not pay $1,000 to get someone else to deal with OTRS for you? For $1,000 surely you can hire an expert in the OTRS process to draft up a letter, have a notary to come to your house, notarize your signature on the document, and scan it in.
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 11:05 AM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 March 2011 15:34, Scott MacDonald doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
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.
To wit, why not pay $1,000 to get someone else to deal with OTRS for you? For $1,000 surely you can hire an expert in the OTRS process to draft up a letter, have a notary to come to your house, notarize your signature on the document, and scan it in.
Actually, that might not be possible. It seem simple to you because you are familiar with Wikipedia; the chances of a wealthy celebrity, or anyone they might hire, being so is slim.
And don't tell me they could hire some banned Wikipedian... Although some public relations professionals are getting training and might someday be able to actually get something done.
Fred
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 11:05 AM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote: To wit, why not pay $1,000 to get someone else to deal with OTRS for you? For $1,000 surely you can hire an expert in the OTRS process to draft up a letter, have a notary to come to your house, notarize your signature on the document, and scan it in.
Actually, that might not be possible. It seem simple to you because you are familiar with Wikipedia; the chances of a wealthy celebrity, or anyone they might hire, being so is slim.
If OTRS is so difficult to deal with that a wealthy celebrity can't pay someone $1000 to navigate it, you've got much lower hanging fruit than ICorrect to deal with.
I find that rather hard to believe, though. At $20/hour that's 50 hours. That'd have to be a pretty stupid secretary/publicist/whatever not to be able to figure out to click on "contact us", then "report a problem with an article" then "article about you" then "info-en-q@wikimedia.org" within 50 hours.
And don't tell me they could hire some banned Wikipedian...
Why not? Because you already know they could?
$1000 to navigate OTRS and fix a problem simple enough that you're just going to take the celebrity's word on it? I'll do it for $200. And I'm not even banned.