On 07/09/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 07/09/07, David Goodman
<dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> I tried to see , and fund "This question is
no longer available" --
> perhaps you could repeat it here.
I don't have a copy to hand, unfortunately.
I'm presuming he deleted
the question because he didn't like the consistent answers suggesting
he was wrong.
SWATJester found a cached copy. You'll see what I mean. My original
answer is below.
Question Details:
--------------------
Do you think web services like "FREE encyclopedia" Wikipedia have the
right to exclude information they deem a "conflict of interest?"
In my opinion, if you're presenting a FREE web service called
Wikipedia - "the FREE encyclopedia" you should make certain you
present factual information, not "partial facts fitting your vested
interests."
Today, my team visited Wikipedia's "free encyclopedia" and added
www.MyCommunityLink.com to the known list of web-based social
networking services. Afterall,
MyCommunityLink.com is the
patent-pending SSL-secure social networking service for neighborhoods
since June of 2003 (pre Facebook, MySpace, Ning, etc.).
However, within moments, our entry was tagged for "speedy deletion".
So, out of curiosity it was added it again and again by our team over
a day... We witnessed each time it was added it was immediately tagged
for "speedy deletion" by an anonymous "Wikipedia administrator"
hiding
in a dark censorship "backroom." After about ten deletes we received a
threatening message about expected "Wikipedia civil behavior." I have
these questions:
1) Has anyone encountered oxymoronic censorship tied to FREE "information?"
2) Does vested-interest exclusion of information discredit their
"encyclopedia" claims?
3) Does providing a FREE service entitle the provider to "do whatever
they want?"
4) Would you pay a small fee for complete information that has not
been censored in any way?
Personally, I think this brute-level censorship is gutless, disturbing
and red flags what the "powerful will dictate" once all competition is
eliminated by their "FREE" offerings. What are your thoughts? I don't
like "anonymous" censorship. I think it's dangerous. Please comment.
On 9/6/07 2:04 PM, John F. Tummolo (john(a)tummolo.com) added the
following clarification:
We attempted to "discuss" the issues with the administrators who
indicated our entry represented a "conflict of interest" and we should
get a review of our technology by CNN (subsidiary of AOL/TIME WARNER.)
On 9/6/07 3:04 PM, John F. Tummolo (john(a)tummolo.com) added the
following clarification:
The article we submitted along with the list entry was less than five
lines of raw basic factual information. There was no room for "biased"
opinions. Just facts. I suggest anyone can add such basic information.
-----
My original answer was:
Answering as an expert here - I've been on English Wikipedia since
late 2003, admin since 2004, arbitrator in 2005, currently do UK press
for Wikipedia and Wikimedia ... Wikipedia has a terrible spam problem
(as you can imagine for a top-10 website that lets anyone edit), and
unfortunately you would probably have been mistaken for a spammer. My
apologies if they were brusque in this, but we deal with basically a
firehose of sewage on a daily basis. (Everything Wikipedia's gotten,
it's gotten through being as wide-open as possible and clearing the
bad stuff afterwards.)
Writing your own entry is ill-advised - see the
[[Wikipedia:Autobiography]] for some unfortunate past examples. See
also [[WP:COI]]. Basically, if you're noteworthy, some third party
will probably create an entry on you. If you're not, you may be better
off that way - some people have had nasty experiences for what others
did to an entry they wrote about themselves. What's notability? If
independent third parties find you noteworthy, and that's citable in
notable sources, you may be notable. (That's a bit circular as a
definition, but I hope you get the idea.)
The best way to do things is the same way Wikipedia got to the top of
the Google ratings: ignore them, and just do what you do and do it
well. The best recent advice on this I can cite is Durova's essay "SEO
Tips & Tactics From A Wikipedia Insider" (linked).
[links to WP:COI, WP:AUTO and Durova's article]
- d.