A site, where for $1,000, corrections to one's Wikipedia article can be posted:
For $1,000, Site Lets Celebrities Say It Aint So
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/28/world/europe/28icorrect.html?ref=todayspa...
If you search for Wikipedia:
http://www.icorrect.com/search/node/Wikipedia
I'm just suggesting it as an editing tool.
Fred Bauder
On 28 March 2011 11:53, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
A site, where for $1,000, corrections to one's Wikipedia article can be posted:
For $1,000, Site Lets Celebrities Say It Ain’t So
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/28/world/europe/28icorrect.html?ref=todayspa...
If you search for Wikipedia:
http://www.icorrect.com/search/node/Wikipedia
I'm just suggesting it as an editing tool.
Fred Bauder
It fails our reliable source requirement.
On 28 March 2011 12:25, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
It fails our reliable source requirement.
Claims authentically by the subject are relevant to BLP issues.
- d.
On 28 March 2011 12:32, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 March 2011 12:25, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
It fails our reliable source requirement.
Claims authentically by the subject are relevant to BLP issues.
Site say no fact checking remember. That means we don't actually know it is the subject.
Geni, It might help if you checked you own facts before making false claims:
I quote:
" It is fundamental for ICorrect to confirm the true identity of each Corrector. Therefore ICorrect requires a reliable reference for all new Correctors. A reference can be either:
1. An existing Corrector - in which case you simply enter their name and secret reference code or 2. A lawyer or representative who can vouch for your identity"
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of geni Sent: 28 March 2011 13:51 To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] iCorrect
On 28 March 2011 12:32, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 March 2011 12:25, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
It fails our reliable source requirement.
Claims authentically by the subject are relevant to BLP issues.
Site say no fact checking remember. That means we don't actually know it is the subject.
On 28 March 2011 13:50, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Claims authentically by the subject are relevant to BLP issues.
Site say no fact checking remember. That means we don't actually know it is the subject.
No fact checking of what the subject *says* is very different from no fact checking of who the subject *is* - for them to fail to do the latter, or at least make a good attempt at it, would turn the project into an very elaborate way of becoming bankrupt!
This particular site is, I think, something of an inspired device for parting rich people from their money (a thousand dollars? really?) but in spirit, it's not a bad idea.
One of our problems has always been dealing with cases where there's a widespread error floating around about someone - often relatively trivial, the exact location of their birthplace or their mother's name, the sort of minor detail that annoys them but that isn't really enough to get Corrections Published and so forth. As such, it persists in the sources, and then we pick it up; they try to correct it, or contact us to complain, and... well, we revert them saying "check sources", or say "well, um, sorry, but we can't do anything", etc. - usually, the best we can do is advise them to set up a website, publish a correction on it, and hope we notice. We really don't have a good, workable method for dealing with these situations, and the one we have now is really a bit undesirable.
So, any reasonable solution is good. If we were to actually encourage the creation of one - presuming this site isn't quite what we're after - how would it work? This might be a good opportunity to encourage an independent but useful "right of reply" project...
So, any reasonable solution is good. If we were to actually encourage the creation of one - presuming this site isn't quite what we're after
- how would it work? This might be a good opportunity to encourage an
independent but useful "right of reply" project...
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
The talk page of the article is the place we have. And it does work, if our editors pay attention and use common sense.
Fred
On 28 March 2011 16:50, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
So, any reasonable solution is good. If we were to actually encourage the creation of one - presuming this site isn't quite what we're after
- how would it work? This might be a good opportunity to encourage an
independent but useful "right of reply" project...
The talk page of the article is the place we have. And it does work, if our editors pay attention and use common sense.
The problem here is that the talk page has no practical verifiability. Again, as long as everyone acts reasonably and assumes good faith, it works fine, but at the moment someone says - I don't believe you, you're not Joe Smith, you're just some random guy claiming the sources are wrong - then it breaks down.
Perhaps the angle we should work on here is some way of "verifiying" identity of accounts on request, which is something of a double-edged sword...
"It fails our reliable source requirement."-- geni
Wow. Geni that's truly the remark that encapsulates exactly what's wrong with BLPs, and the irresponsible attitude of Wikipedia.
Nevermind our many biased articles, factual errors, and stuff written from "reliable sources" (aka tabloid sensationalist hatchet jobs), we can dismiss the subject trying to set our record straight because it fails our Scriptural requirement. That's Wikipedia's myopic fundamentalism taken to its extreme.
Ever considered the requirements just might occasionally be screwed?
Scott
-----Original Message----- From: wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of geni Sent: 28 March 2011 12:26 To: fredbaud@fairpoint.net; English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] iCorrect
On 28 March 2011 11:53, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
A site, where for $1,000, corrections to one's Wikipedia article can be posted:
For $1,000, Site Lets Celebrities Say It Ain't So
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/28/world/europe/28icorrect.html?ref=todayspa per
If you search for Wikipedia:
http://www.icorrect.com/search/node/Wikipedia
I'm just suggesting it as an editing tool.
Fred Bauder
It fails our reliable source requirement.
On 28 March 2011 11:53, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
A site, where for $1,000, corrections to one's Wikipedia article can be posted:
For $1,000, Site Lets Celebrities Say It Aint So
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/28/world/europe/28icorrect.html?ref=todayspa...
If you search for Wikipedia:
http://www.icorrect.com/search/node/Wikipedia
I'm just suggesting it as an editing tool.
Fred Bauder
It fails our reliable source requirement.
geni
Only under work to rule.
We can depend on the account actually being the person, who in the case of simple factual errors would be within policy to simply correct the article themselves. But here, as a substantial sum of money is paid, posers are extremely unlikely.
If it were not such a minor matter, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, could, within policy, be changed.
Fred