http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1191474/Labour-councillor-David-Boo throyd-caught-altering-David-Camerons-Wikipedia-entry.html
(Not sure "forced to resign" is accurate, given the text of his resignation letter.)
H
(Not sure "forced to resign" is accurate, given the text of his resignation letter.)
With the greatest to respect to Sam, I think it was a case of "jump or be pushed." When news of his failure during the Committee elections of '07 to disclose his prior accounts (especially the accounts that had had their +sysop flag removed).
AGK
Harry Willis wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1191474/Labour-councillor-David-Boo throyd-caught-altering-David-Camerons-Wikipedia-entry.html
(Not sure "forced to resign" is accurate, given the text of his resignation letter.)
The story is bad news all round, for us. Here's what else is wrong with the Mail's coverage, though:
- "malicious tampering"
Handily assumes what it sets out to prove.
- "Any Internet user can alter pages but Wikipedia appoints supposedly impartial and unpaid moderators to review and correct changes."
Total myth.
- "sock-puppeting - using multiple, bogus online identities to create an illusion of support or unpopularity for a person or organisation."
"Bogus" is misleading journalese. "Pseudonymous", please. And they have mixed in the definition astroturfing.
- "Wikimedia UK, the British arm of the U.S. company"
Wrong.
Charles
2009/6/8 Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com:
Harry Willis wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1191474/Labour-councillor-David-Boo throyd-caught-altering-David-Camerons-Wikipedia-entry.html (Not sure "forced to resign" is accurate, given the text of his resignation letter.)
The story is bad news all round, for us. Here's what else is wrong with the Mail's coverage, though:
Remember their one on the Scientology case:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1189581/Wikipedia-bans-Church...
Never let mere facts get in the way of a truly stirring epic tale.
- d.
Mr Boothroyd has been a member of its 15-strong international arbitration committee for two years, helping settle hundreds of disputes a day.
The number is probably closer to "1 a week" (in terms of the frequency of case closures), but why should something as silly as the facts get in the way of a nice helping of sensationalism.
AGK
To be fair on that last point, they hear we "resolve disputes" and they know there are hundreds of disputes a week. They just don't have the awareness AC doesn't solve 99% of them :)
FT2
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 1:24 PM, AGK wikiagk@googlemail.com wrote:
Mr Boothroyd has been a member of its 15-strong international arbitration committee for two years, helping settle hundreds of disputes a day.
The number is probably closer to "1 a week" (in terms of the frequency of case closures), but why should something as silly as the facts get in the way of a nice helping of sensationalism.
AGK
To be fair on that last point, they hear we "resolve disputes" and they know there are hundreds of disputes a week. They just don't have the awareness AC doesn't solve 99% of them :)
The argument stands: the Daily Mail are printing gross inaccuracies, and it's harming our public image.
AGK
Tough situation. Even with David not talking, it's a little surprising that the background got presented like that. It looks like the reporter didn't fully understand. From this distant vantage (California), I wonder whether ComCom could have explained the context?
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 7:24 AM, AGK wikiagk@googlemail.com wrote:
To be fair on that last point, they hear we "resolve disputes" and they know there are hundreds of disputes a week. They just don't have the awareness AC doesn't solve 99% of them :)
The argument stands: the Daily Mail are printing gross inaccuracies, and it's harming our public image.
AGK _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
The Daily Mail is notorious in the United Kingdom for its somewhat sensationalist reporting. I am doubtful that the reporter tried too hard to establish facts that would have closed down an opportunity to smear a Labour Party politician. AGK
2009/6/8 AGK wikiagk@googlemail.com:
The Daily Mail is notorious in the United Kingdom for its somewhat sensationalist reporting. I am doubtful that the reporter tried too hard to establish facts that would have closed down an opportunity to smear a Labour Party politician.
Remember their story on the Scientology case. Never let mere facts stand in the way of a stirring epic tale.
- d.
On 2009-06-08 16:04:01 +0100, AGK wikiagk@googlemail.com said:
The Daily Mail is notorious in the United Kingdom for its somewhat sensationalist reporting. I am doubtful that the reporter tried too hard to establish facts that would have closed down an opportunity to smear a Labour Party politician. AGK _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Too right, no doubt politically biased.
Could someone contact them to ask for a correction regarding 'the British arm of the U.S. company, said: ''?
Durova wrote:
Tough situation. Even with David not talking, it's a little surprising that the background got presented like that. It looks like the reporter didn't fully understand.
The Mail understands well enough, I guess, that (a) editing under a pseudonym is OK, and (b) editing [[David Cameron]] is OK even if you are a Labour party member. So "caught altering David Cameron's Wikipedia entry" certainly misleads as to where the problem lies. "Although the alterations were not inaccurate or overtly critical, many were unfavourable." Yes, but were they or were they not "from a neutral point of view"? Pah. Reporters know that difference, if they care to. I'm glad I generally don't have to read this stuff.
Charles
AGK wrote:
To be fair on that last point, they hear we "resolve disputes" and they know there are hundreds of disputes a week. They just don't have the awareness AC doesn't solve 99% of them :)
The argument stands: the Daily Mail are printing gross inaccuracies, and it's harming our public image.
Inaccuracies are a fact of life with newspapers, but then your conclusion may also be inaccurate. Inaccuracies come with the territory of being big. Where is it stated that maintaining public image is one of Wikipedia's goals?
Ec
----- "Ray Saintonge" saintonge@telus.net wrote:
From: "Ray Saintonge" saintonge@telus.net To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, 8 June, 2009 18:34:13 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Daily Mail article on Sam Blacketer case
AGK wrote:
To be fair on that last point, they hear we "resolve disputes" and they know there are hundreds of disputes a week. They just don't have the awareness AC doesn't solve 99% of them :)
The argument stands: the Daily Mail are printing gross inaccuracies, and it's harming our public image.
Inaccuracies are a fact of life with newspapers, but then your conclusion may also be inaccurate. Inaccuracies come with the territory of being big. Where is it stated that maintaining public image is one of Wikipedia's goals?
Promoting the public image of the Wikipedia website is very much one of the goals of Wikimedia UK and, I should imagine, the Wikimedia Foundation. Given that the Daily Mail quoted our Volunteers Director, it's very relevant to this discussion.
Andrew Turvey Secretary Wikimedia UK Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited. Wiki UK Ltd is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL, United Kingdom.