From: Mark Pellegrini mapellegrini@comcast.net
I'm more than a little suprised that no one is angry about the fact that companies admit to subtle PR-pushing on Wikipedia. ("planting of viral information in entries, modification of entries to point to new promotional sites or 'leaks' embedded in entries to test diffusion of information.") Where's the outrage? Why aren't people upset about this?
I personally think that the co-opting of Wikipedia for commercial and promotional purposes is a real danger to Wikipedia.
I am especially concerned about the articles we get about movies, software, games, concert tours, reality TV shows, etc. that are _about to_ be released within the next couple of months, always with the assertion that they are certain to be very notable.
I have tried to get acceptance of a firm statement of policy about this into WP:NOT under the rubric of "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball," but it is one of those areas where there is, I fear, no consensus. The articles are in most cases seem to be written not directly by promoters, but by fans who identify with and buy into everything the promoters say or promise. I recognize that the existence of tens of thousands of excited fans in the present is a fact, but it is a generic one; hundreds of movies will come and go and each of them will be preceded by a wave of publicity that will carry enthusiasts along with it, always insisting that the particular wave they happen to be riding is a tsunami.
I think articles of this kind damage Wikipedia in a way that articles about generic elementary schools, streets, minor characters in Harry Potter, etc. do not.
-- Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith@verizon.net "Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print! Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/
Daniel P. B. Smith wrote:
From: Mark Pellegrini mapellegrini@comcast.net
I'm more than a little suprised that no one is angry about the fact that companies admit to subtle PR-pushing on Wikipedia. ("planting of viral information in entries, modification of entries to point to new promotional sites or 'leaks' embedded in entries to test diffusion of information.") Where's the outrage? Why aren't people upset about this?
I personally think that the co-opting of Wikipedia for commercial and promotional purposes is a real danger to Wikipedia.
I am especially concerned about the articles we get about movies, software, games, concert tours, reality TV shows, etc. that are _about to_ be released within the next couple of months, always with the assertion that they are certain to be very notable.
I guess I don't see the where the danger part comes in. It seems more like a self-correcting phenomenon - if the thing becomes real, then cool, we have a writeup in progress already; if it fizzles, people will lose interest in writing about it very quickly. If it fizzles spectacularly, that itself is notable, and worth an article that goes into all the embarassing details.
If you really wanted to monitor and be able to VfD things after they've proven to be obscure duds, just make a new category of "to be released" things, perhaps subcatted by year, then review the following year.
Stan