What To Do When Your Company Wikipedia Page Goes Bad - WikiEN-l - lists.wikimedia.org

List overview All Threads
Download

What To Do When Your Company Wikipedia Page Goes Bad

Re: [WikiEN-l] Why are veterans so...

Garbage in, garbage out (was Re: ...

Daniel R. Tobias

28 Jun 2007 28 Jun '07

1:11 a.m.

http://searchengineland.com/070627-094651.php -- == Dan == Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/

Reply

Show replies by date

Steven Walling

28 Jun 28 Jun

2:06 a.m.

Wow. talk about public relations industry cabal. On 6/27/07, Daniel R. Tobias <dan(a)tobias.name> wrote:

http://searchengineland.com/070627-094651.php -- == Dan == Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Reply

michael west

2:11 a.m.

On 28/06/07, Daniel R. Tobias <dan(a)tobias.name> wrote:

http://searchengineland.com/070627-094651.php -- == Dan == Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/ mmmmm. still getting wikibiz templates posted. Dont they realise? what do companies think? blow bucks on wikibiz but u just gonna get googled in ur ass! kid who have a lil record company i can blind eye for a few hours. If they reply to a prod and dont clean up its very minor abuse of the system. they just get a spd that someone forgot to apply.

There should be a new db for wikibiz - dont u know how stupid u are? mike

Reply

Bryan Derksen

3:38 a.m.

Daniel R. Tobias wrote:

http://searchengineland.com/070627-094651.php

Huh. At least a lot of the advice seems relatively constructive, as these things go.

Reply

David Goodman

5:12 a.m.

Interesting that they think it helps distract from possibly unappreciated content to have a number of pictures... On 6/27/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:

Daniel R. Tobias wrote:

http://searchengineland.com/070627-094651.php

Huh. At least a lot of the advice seems relatively constructive, as these things go. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

-- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.

Reply

Cheney Shill

4:17 p.m.

--- "Daniel R. Tobias" <dan(a)tobias.name> wrote:

http://searchengineland.com/070627-094651.php

Thanks for posting. The funniest part is someone (talking a lot like the typical admin lost in wiki jargon) claiming that all such changes will be reverted. Of course, they rarely are. This is a common strategy and pretty much describes any and every major company and political page on wikipedia. Not to mention the supposedly NPOV abortion page that gets mentioned in the NPOV article. It's more general concept is: * add lots of information and picture * obscure the disagreeable information with overload * bury objectionables in stats and meaningless (aka, nuetral) phrases I.e., push "negativity" (any thing that disagrees with your POV) out of site or marginalize as if it's just opinions, such as under a criticism header near the end but not so near that it's visible from the bottom. Highlight the information that agrees with your POV. See Dick Cheney, Hummers, Alberto Gonzales, Halliburton, and extremism like the ABC Hypothesis and fetal pain. Wikipedia should thank Jessica for highlighting the technique so admins and editors have a clue as to what's influencing things like the pretty infoboxes that highlight only branding, Web sites, numbers, and photos that support the PR objectives. Why do so many start off like a resume describing company history, who started it, when, how, products, etc.? ~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (Wikia supported site since 2006) --spam may follow-- ____________________________________________________________________________________ Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit. http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097

Reply

Slowking Man

9:43 p.m.

On Thu, 2007-06-28 at 09:17 -0700, Cheney Shill wrote:

I.e., push "negativity" (any thing that disagrees with your POV) out of site or marginalize as if it's just opinions, such as under a criticism header near the end but not so near that it's visible from the bottom. Highlight the information that agrees with your POV. See Dick Cheney, Hummers, Alberto Gonzales, Halliburton, and extremism like the ABC Hypothesis and fetal pain.

So, would you say that Wikipedia articles on various politically-charged subjects have neutrality problems, or only articles on subjects which contradict your point of view? -- Slowking Man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Slowking_Man)

Reply

Cheney Shill

11:40 p.m.

--- Slowking Man <slowkingman(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, 2007-06-28 at 09:17 -0700, Cheney Shill wrote:

I.e., push "negativity" (any thing that disagrees with

your

POV) out of site or marginalize as if it's just

opinions,

such as under a criticism header near the end but not

so

near that it's visible from the bottom. Highlight the information that agrees with your POV. See Dick

Cheney,

Hummers, Alberto Gonzales, Halliburton, and extremism

like

the ABC Hypothesis and fetal pain.

So, would you say that Wikipedia articles on various politically-charged subjects have neutrality problems, or only articles on subjects which contradict your point of view?

Much like the consensus of colleges and professors, I'd say that I wouldn't trust a Wikipedia article as a reference. Let me know if that needs clarification. I'd also say more than just politically charged. Politically charged sometimes helps the neutrality by getting more people to participate in otherwise ignored articles that benefit from large company's internal advertising budgets and spare time and PR companies shaping them as they see fit without critical review, much less educated peer review. ~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (Wikia supported site since 2006) --spam may follow-- ____________________________________________________________________________________ Luggage? GPS? Comic books? Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=graduation+gifts&cs…

Reply

Cheney Shill

11:46 p.m.

Evidence that corporations edit their products' Wikipedia pages with a "neutral" spin: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070628/ap_on_re_us/wrestler_dead ~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (Wikia supported site since 2006) --spam may follow-- ____________________________________________________________________________________ Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games. http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow

Reply

Nick Wilkins

29 Jun 29 Jun

1:53 a.m.

On 6/28/07, Cheney Shill <halliburton_shill(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

Evidence that corporations edit their products' Wikipedia pages with a "neutral" spin: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070628/ap_on_re_us/wrestler_dead

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how someone posting about Chris Benoit's wife's death before the police knew about it has anything at all to do with corporate spin. Could you please explain? -- Jonel

Reply

Kamryn Matika

3:25 a.m.

On 6/29/07, Nick Wilkins <nlwilkins(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 6/28/07, Cheney Shill <halliburton_shill(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

Evidence that corporations edit their products' Wikipedia pages with a "neutral" spin: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070628/ap_on_re_us/wrestler_dead

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how someone posting about Chris Benoit's wife's death before the police knew about it has anything at all to do with corporate spin. Could you please explain? -- Jonel _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Heh, I'm pretty sure it was a joke (or at least, if it was a mistake, it was a funny one).

Reply

Cheney Shill

6:56 a.m.

--- Kamryn Matika <kamrynmatika(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 6/29/07, Nick Wilkins <nlwilkins(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 6/28/07, Cheney Shill <halliburton_shill(a)yahoo.com>

wrote:

> > Evidence that corporations edit their products'

Wikipedia

> pages with a "neutral" spin: >

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070628/ap_on_re_us/wrestler_dead

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how someone posting about

Chris Benoit's

wife's death before the police knew about it has anything at

all to do with

corporate spin. Could you please explain?

Heh, I'm pretty sure it was a joke (or at least, if it was a mistake, it was a funny one).

Part 2 of the reality show "Let the facts speak for themselves": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NPOV#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves Wikipedia page altered by corporation, not "someone", as noted by the corporate location the edit originated from in the article. Corporation described murder as "death" before anyone publicly knew anything. Death was murder committed by wrestler. Wrester is sellable product of corporation. Sellable products do not sell as well when they are also wife and child murderers. OTOH, sympathy is very marketable. ~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (Wikia supported site since 2006) --spam may follow-- ____________________________________________________________________________________ Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check. Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_tools.html

Reply

Slowking Man

12:04 a.m.

On Thu, 2007-06-28 at 16:40 -0700, Cheney Shill wrote:

Much like the consensus of colleges and professors, I'd say that I wouldn't trust a Wikipedia article as a reference. Let me know if that needs clarification.

I would certainly hope so, as no college-level work should be using tertiary sources, whether Wikipedia, another encyclopedia (such as Britannica), a textbook, or some other work, for cited information. As background, and for help in directing one's research, it's fine, but primary sources should be the primary (no pun intended) supply of information, with secondary sources used as needed. Of course, there's plenty of room for improvement in Wikipedia's quality, but, regardless of what some of the general public seems to think, Wikipedia is not the be-all-and-end-all of information, nor is it intended to be. -- Slowking Man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Slowking_Man)

Reply

Cheney Shill

7:47 a.m.

--- Slowking Man <slowkingman(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, 2007-06-28 at 16:40 -0700, Cheney Shill wrote:

Much like the consensus of colleges and professors, I'd

say

that I wouldn't trust a Wikipedia article as a

reference.

Let me know if that needs clarification.

I would certainly hope so, as no college-level work should be using tertiary sources, whether Wikipedia, another encyclopedia ..., a textbook, or some other work, for cited

Interesting. A remarkable insight. So not only is Wikipedia not NPOV or trustable, but it's OK because encylopedias, including textbooks, in general are not considered reliable sources by higher education. Could I get the references that showed that consensus among professors also refused other encyclopedias and not just Wikipedia? Do they have any findings with regard to other reference sources, such as textbooks and dictionaries? ~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (Wikia supported site since 2006) --spam may follow-- ____________________________________________________________________________________ The fish are biting. Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing. http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/sponsoredsearch_v2.php

Reply

Slowking Man

9:17 a.m.

On Fri, 2007-06-29 at 00:47 -0700, Cheney Shill wrote:

Interesting. A remarkable insight. So not only is Wikipedia not NPOV or trustable, but it's OK because encylopedias, including textbooks, in general are not considered reliable sources by higher education. Could I get the references that showed that consensus among professors also refused other encyclopedias and not just Wikipedia? Do they have any findings with regard to other reference sources, such as textbooks and dictionaries?

Hmm, I think you may be misinterpreting my point somewhat. I'm certainly not trying to justify any shortcomings Wikipedia has by saying "it's an encyclopedia, so it's okay." However, the issue of Wikipedia's fitness as a source is ultimately independent of point-of-view issues and the like; if Wikipedia were somehow certified as completely neutral and reliable by some hypothetical authority, it would still, as a tertiary source, be no more appropriate as a cited reference for the kind of work I'm referring to. As far as data on professors' views of Wikipedia, I don't have anything at my fingertips, but I'm speaking more about a general principle than the current views of a majority of professionals in higher education. From personal experience, I /can/ state that in university courses, as well as some higher-tier high school courses (such as Advanced Placement in the U.S.), I've been explicitly told that encyclopedias and textbooks were not acceptable sources for research assignments. -- Slowking Man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Slowking_Man)

Reply

Cheney Shill

3:19 p.m.

--- Slowking Man <slowkingman(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 2007-06-29 at 00:47 -0700, Cheney Shill wrote:

Interesting. A remarkable insight. So not only is Wikipedia not NPOV or trustable, but it's OK because encylopedias, including textbooks, in general are not considered reliable sources by higher education. Could

I

get the references that showed that consensus among professors also refused other encyclopedias and not

just

Wikipedia? Do they have any findings with regard to

other

reference sources, such as textbooks and dictionaries?

like; if Wikipedia were somehow certified as completely neutral and reliable by some hypothetical authority, it would still, as a tertiary source, be no more appropriate as a cited reference for the kind of work I'm referring to.

No more appropriate according to what?

As far as data on professors' views of Wikipedia, I don't have anything at my fingertips, but I'm speaking more about a general principle than the current views of a majority of professionals in higher education. From personal experience, I /can/ state that in

Oh, no more appropriate according to your original, unsourced, unverifiable personal claims. You're an expert? A scholar? Essjay also had lots of personal scholarly experience to share. LOL. ~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (Wikia supported site since 2006) --spam may follow-- ____________________________________________________________________________________ Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us. http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7

Reply

Slowking Man

3:29 p.m.

On Fri, 2007-06-29 at 08:19 -0700, Cheney Shill wrote:

Oh, no more appropriate according to your original, unsourced, unverifiable personal claims. You're an expert? A scholar? Essjay also had lots of personal scholarly experience to share. LOL.

It's nice to know how interested you are in constructive discussion. I'll definitely keep that in mind in the future. -- Slowking Man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Slowking_Man)

Reply

Cheney Shill

5:28 p.m.

--- Slowking Man <slowkingman(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 2007-06-29 at 08:19 -0700, Cheney Shill wrote:

Oh, no more appropriate according to your original, unsourced, unverifiable personal claims. You're an

expert?

A scholar? Essjay also had lots of personal scholarly experience to share. LOL.

It's nice to know how interested you are in constructive discussion. I'll definitely keep that in mind in the future.

Very interested. Please post if you get some verifiable information. ~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (Wikia supported site since 2006) --spam may follow-- ____________________________________________________________________________________ Choose the right car based on your needs. Check out Yahoo! Autos new Car Finder tool. http://autos.yahoo.com/carfinder/

Reply

Tracy Poff

30 Jun 30 Jun

8:46 a.m.

On 6/29/07, Slowking Man <slowkingman(a)gmail.com> wrote:

As far as data on professors' views of Wikipedia, I don't have anything at my fingertips, but I'm speaking more about a general principle than the current views of a majority of professionals in higher education. From personal experience, I /can/ state that in university courses, as well as some higher-tier high school courses (such as Advanced Placement in the U.S.), I've been explicitly told that encyclopedias and textbooks were not acceptable sources for research assignments.

Well, neither am I a professor, but I am a student, and I can tell you that this isn't quite so, at least in mathematics. See Google Scholar's list of citations for the CRC Concise Encyclopedia of Mathematics (365 cites): http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&cites=8408… or Hungerford's Algebra (430 cites): http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&cites=1030… Granted, some of these may well be in 'further reading' sections or such, but a fair number of them are from books and journal articles citing things. Tracy Poff

Reply

6159

days inactive

6161

days old

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

18 comments

10 participants

tags (0)

participants (10)

Bryan Derksen
Cheney Shill
Daniel R. Tobias
David Goodman
Kamryn Matika
michael west
Nick Wilkins
Slowking Man
Steven Walling
Tracy Poff