What is the policy (or information about the policy) on dealing with/reporting whitewashing or smearing by interested/paid parties? An example was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Congressional_Staffer_Edits but it doesn't seem to be under any category... is there any kind of policy? Should there be?
I almost don't want to justify the practice with a defense, because then it sets up a game/conflict for people to "win" at by "beating" Wikipedia. But it would be foolish to ignore what will be more prevalent as Wikipedia grows.
Also, I think it would be good for the community to tackle this, because otherwise the Foundation and Jimbo will take the lead, and they have a necessarily conflict/legal-dispute/panic-mode bias toward the issue, since they're always on the receiving end of irate phone calls or Ann Coulters in their face or controversy-seeking journalists. I for one don't think the "no interested parties" policy idea is very good, but I can see it being implemented if a better framework isn't put in place before all hell breaks loose. An ounce of prevention and all that.
But only an ounce!
Sorry for the rambling if there's already work that's been done on this issue and I just haven't seen it.
G'day Cunct,
What is the policy (or information about the policy) on dealing with/reporting whitewashing or smearing by interested/paid parties? An example was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Congressional_Staffer_Edits but it doesn't seem to be under any category... is there any kind of policy? Should there be?
Good Lord, no. We have more than enough policy.
However, this could be said to fall under our NPOV principle. And persistently violating NPOV when you know what you're doing is wrong but insist on doing it anyway is disruption, which comes under the blocking policy.
I almost don't want to justify the practice with a defense, because then it sets up a game/conflict for people to "win" at by "beating" Wikipedia. But it would be foolish to ignore what will be more prevalent as Wikipedia grows.
We've dealt with POV-pushing from Scientologists, LaRouchites, physics crackpots, right-wing loonies, left-wing loonies, gunzel anoraks, SEO proponents, and all kinds of other tragic, deformed souls. I don't see that Congressional staffers are any different.
<snip/>
On 5/11/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
G'day Cunct,
What is the policy (or information about the policy) on dealing with/reporting whitewashing or smearing by interested/paid parties? An example was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Congressional_Staffer_Edits but
it
doesn't seem to be under any category... is there any kind of policy?
Should
there be?
Good Lord, no. We have more than enough policy.
However, this could be said to fall under our NPOV principle. And persistently violating NPOV when you know what you're doing is wrong but insist on doing it anyway is disruption, which comes under the blocking policy.
I almost don't want to justify the practice with a defense, because then
it
sets up a game/conflict for people to "win" at by "beating" Wikipedia.
But
it would be foolish to ignore what will be more prevalent as Wikipedia grows.
We've dealt with POV-pushing from Scientologists, LaRouchites, physics crackpots, right-wing loonies, left-wing loonies, gunzel anoraks, SEO proponents, and all kinds of other tragic, deformed souls. I don't see that Congressional staffers are any different.
The difference is not so much in the editing response but the public-relations response. I.e. when do we contact the company/organization associated with the editing?
When do we tell the press?
How does one editor notify other editors that there may be a salaried employee of X editing the article about X or about X's enemy in a whitewash/smear way? It's not exactly vandalism...
The Cunctator wrote:
How does one editor notify other editors that there may be a salaried employee of X editing the article about X or about X's enemy in a whitewash/smear way? It's not exactly vandalism...
Of course it is vandalism, if it's a deliberate act to reduce the quality of this encyclopedia.
G'day Raphael,
The Cunctator wrote:
How does one editor notify other editors that there may be a salaried employee of X editing the article about X or about X's enemy in a whitewash/smear way? It's not exactly vandalism...
Of course it is vandalism, if it's a deliberate act to reduce the quality of this encyclopedia.
That's a dangerous definition. Sooner or later, if we use that definition, we'll get people who write Pokémon articles accused of "vandalism".
On May 13, 2006, at 5:21 AM, Mark Gallagher wrote:
Of course it is vandalism, if it's a deliberate act to reduce the quality of this encyclopedia.
That's a dangerous definition. Sooner or later, if we use that definition, we'll get people who write Pokémon articles accused of "vandalism".
No, because the intent of writing Pokemon articles is not to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia, whether or not it actually does so.
Philip Welch wrote:
On May 13, 2006, at 5:21 AM, Mark Gallagher wrote:
Of course it is vandalism, if it's a deliberate act to reduce the quality of this encyclopedia.
That's a dangerous definition. Sooner or later, if we use that definition, we'll get people who write Pokémon articles accused of "vandalism".
No, because the intent of writing Pokemon articles is not to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia, whether or not it actually does so.
...and surely the encyclopedia is better if it says nicer things about me, right?
Defining (and communicating) what is good for "the quality of the encyclopedia" is hard enough as it is, without _also_ trying to divine the intentions of random contributors regarding it. Of course, in some case it is obvious -- for example, I doubt the Squidward guy really thinks his edits improve the encyclopedia -- but generally it's not that easy. Does adding valid criticism improve the encyclopedia? What about removing _in_valid criticism? Who gets to decide what criticism is or is not valid? Surely these allegations about his cousin's financial activities in the 70's are *exactly* the kind of thing people *need* to know about Joe Bloggs in order to make an informed decision in the upcoming election...?
There's also the fact that many people simply do not see how an encyclopedia (a freely editable one in particular!) _could_ serve any other purpose _but_ to promote a given POV. In fact, they may not even be entirely wrong -- there's a reason why the N in NPOV stands for "Neutral", not "None".
I think the principles in Wikipedia:Autobiography could be elaborated on to express a policy. For example, Wal-Mart has recently hired a team of public relations experts, organized as a response team (a "war room"). Our article is an obvious target, especially when we have editors eagerly adding negative information. I think if they identified themselves and commented on the talk page we could have no objection. Surreptitiously editing the article, or edit warring would be very obnoxious. But keep in mind, they are entitled to object strongly, even to legal redress, in the case of libel.
The more commen public relations effort is to polish up the positive aspects of a person or business, create a buzz, etc. Often that is precisely the behavior we see in autobiographical entries by self- published authors.
Fred
On May 11, 2006, at 6:10 PM, The Cunctator wrote:
What is the policy (or information about the policy) on dealing with/reporting whitewashing or smearing by interested/paid parties? An example was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Congressional_Staffer_Edits but it doesn't seem to be under any category... is there any kind of policy? Should there be?
I almost don't want to justify the practice with a defense, because then it sets up a game/conflict for people to "win" at by "beating" Wikipedia. But it would be foolish to ignore what will be more prevalent as Wikipedia grows.
Also, I think it would be good for the community to tackle this, because otherwise the Foundation and Jimbo will take the lead, and they have a necessarily conflict/legal-dispute/panic-mode bias toward the issue, since they're always on the receiving end of irate phone calls or Ann Coulters in their face or controversy-seeking journalists. I for one don't think the "no interested parties" policy idea is very good, but I can see it being implemented if a better framework isn't put in place before all hell breaks loose. An ounce of prevention and all that.
But only an ounce!
Sorry for the rambling if there's already work that's been done on this issue and I just haven't seen it. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
The more commen public relations effort is to polish up the positive aspects of a person or business, create a buzz, etc. Often that is precisely the behavior we see in autobiographical entries by self- published authors.
The more insidious and deceptive type is to dull the negatives. This can easily seem like NPOV because it pushes the content further from stating anything at all. It's similar to blanking or vandalism that replaces the content with a bunch of nonsense, but the point of it is not to stand out. The main things to look for: * Use of bigger and more obscure words. * Making sentences much longer. * Adding long sentences before and after what they don't want highlighted. * Adding short, very clear sentences that contradict the negative with lots of sources that, if checked: ** will turn out to be fluff pieces by industry financed publications ** will have meaningless titles or a titles that support their view, but the actual source, if read, supports the negative or has nothing to do with subject at all. ~~~Pro-Lick
--------------------------------- Yahoo! Mail goes everywhere you do. Get it on your phone.