On 8 Oct 2006 at 22:18, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 15:30:59 -0500, "Richard Holton" richholton@gmail.com wrote:
So, that leaves open the possibility of someone else creating the page?
Nope. Fleshlight demand editorial control. We can't give them that. The only way we can prevent their "advertising value" from being ruined is by not carrying it.
Since when do we have any obligation to preserve somebody else's "advertising value"?
On 10/8/06, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
On 8 Oct 2006 at 22:18, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 15:30:59 -0500, "Richard Holton" richholton@gmail.com wrote:
So, that leaves open the possibility of someone else creating the page?
Nope. Fleshlight demand editorial control. We can't give them that. The only way we can prevent their "advertising value" from being ruined is by not carrying it.
Since when do we have any obligation to preserve somebody else's "advertising value"?
We don't.
In addition, this sets a pretty bad precedent. What if GM comes along and demands the same, on the grounds that our coverage of certain events in the past hurts the "advertising value" of their automobiles?
I'd rather set the precedent that a company with an entry has no control and has no grounds to have anything other than basic vandalism-protection (such as permanent semiprotect) than to go along deleting entries based on this kind of thing.
I know Danny had the right intentions, I just don't agree with the decision.
I have some serious problems with all of this.
The article was created in 2004, and its first version was obviously not advertising. It had three AfDs deciding to keep it.
I recognize that the company's demand of editorial control absolutely cannot be met. But I am gravely concerned that the Foundation Office's response to such a demand is to delete the page outright and salt the earth. Whether we keep an article or not should not be based on whether the article's subject has been a problem for us. The community has repeatedly indicated a desire to keep [[Fleshlight]], and the claim that the page was created for promotional purposes is demonstrably untrue. For the Office to unilaterally delete it marks an unfortunate and dangerous turning point in the relationship between the Office and the community.
Best, Phil Sandifer sandifer@english.ufl.edu
You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door. There is a small mailbox here.
On Oct 8, 2006, at 7:15 PM, Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
On 8 Oct 2006 at 22:18, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 15:30:59 -0500, "Richard Holton" richholton@gmail.com wrote:
So, that leaves open the possibility of someone else creating the page?
Nope. Fleshlight demand editorial control. We can't give them that. The only way we can prevent their "advertising value" from being ruined is by not carrying it.
Since when do we have any obligation to preserve somebody else's "advertising value"?
-- == 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@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Phil Sandifer wrote:
I have some serious problems with all of this.
The article was created in 2004, and its first version was obviously not advertising. It had three AfDs deciding to keep it.
I recognize that the company's demand of editorial control absolutely cannot be met. But I am gravely concerned that the Foundation Office's response to such a demand is to delete the page outright and salt the earth. Whether we keep an article or not should not be based on whether the article's subject has been a problem for us. The community has repeatedly indicated a desire to keep [[Fleshlight]], and the claim that the page was created for promotional purposes is demonstrably untrue. For the Office to unilaterally delete it marks an unfortunate and dangerous turning point in the relationship between the Office and the community.
Best, Phil Sandifer sandifer@english.ufl.edu
I agree.
Will we have to delete Coca Cola etc if they start "demanding" editorial control?
Could we have some further clarification on this please?
Cheers
Funky Monkey
On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 02:30:50 +0100, Kris & Adrian emailus@btopenworld.com wrote:
Will we have to delete Coca Cola etc if they start "demanding" editorial control?
Do you see that happening? Is it not more credible that the smaller and less genuinely significant a company is, the more significant it will view Wikipedia as being in the global panoply of its "advertising" presence?
I honestly don't see Ford or Coca-Cola doing anything other than have us correct errors of fact.
Guy (JzG)
On 09/10/06, Kris & Adrian emailus@btopenworld.com wrote:
Will we have to delete Coca Cola etc if they start "demanding" editorial control?
Could we have some further clarification on this please?
Certainly.
Company A makes an obscure sex toy. There appear to be three people in the world who care about it, and they're all trying to use us for advertising.
Company B is an international household name, with a turnover in billions of dollars, about whom entire shelves of material have been written.
I think there is a pretty clear distinction between the two, and arguing we've set some kind of "precedent" for all corporations by deleting an article on a silly piece of unimportant plastic just doesn't hold water.
There are justifiable reasons to worry about the implications of Danny's action, but I really don't think we need to worry that this in some ways means we're now beholden to anyone with a PR guy and a phone. (Personally I feel the article was asking to be deleted pending a user looking after it, since it had degenerated into an unmaintainable mess of spammers and counter-spammers, but I accept that's an unusual view... and I feel it was rather helpful of the spammer to identify the spam for us!)
On 10/9/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 09/10/06, Kris & Adrian emailus@btopenworld.com wrote:
Will we have to delete Coca Cola etc if they start "demanding" editorial control?
Could we have some further clarification on this please?
Certainly.
Company A makes an obscure sex toy. There appear to be three people in the world who care about it,
evidences suggest otherwise:
http://www.somethingawful.com/index.php?a=3299&p=7
and they're all trying to use us for advertising.
Shear number of edits to article suggsts they are not very sucessful.
On 10/9/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
Company A makes an obscure sex toy. There appear to be three people in the world who care about it, and they're all trying to use us for advertising.
Please stop this. The Fleshlight is significantly more notable than this. Using insulting arguments like this is rude.
George Herbert wrote:
On 10/9/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
Company A makes an obscure sex toy. There appear to be three people in the world who care about it, and they're all trying to use us for advertising.
Please stop this. The Fleshlight is significantly more notable than this. Using insulting arguments like this is rude.
No, a rude insulting argument would be "anyone who gives a flying rat's arse about this thing is a sick perv and should be banned". See the difference?
PS. I count "being mentioned on the Something Awful forums" towards notability the same way as "being mentioned on Slashdot".
On 10/9/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
George Herbert wrote:
On 10/9/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
Company A makes an obscure sex toy. There appear to be three people in the world who care about it, and they're all trying to use us for advertising.
Please stop this. The Fleshlight is significantly more notable than this. Using insulting arguments like this is rude.
No, a rude insulting argument would be "anyone who gives a flying rat's arse about this thing is a sick perv and should be banned". See the difference?
PS. I count "being mentioned on the Something Awful forums" towards notability the same way as "being mentioned on Slashdot".
-- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
More than three people have exhibited concern abount the action here on this list. It is rude and insulting TO US to blow off the concerns in this manner.
More than three people have exhibited concern abount the action here on this list. It is rude and insulting TO US to blow off the concerns in this manner.
I second that motion.
In fact, that's one of the reasons I have given up. Honest dissent is met by dismissal of concerns at best, and outright hostility at worst.
My past few days sending emails this way have been enlightening, and I'll probably be dropping out completely in a couple more the way things are going.
Parker
On 10/10/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
PS. I count "being mentioned on the Something Awful forums" towards notability the same way as "being mentioned on Slashdot".
That wasn't a link to the forums.
G'day Dan,
On 8 Oct 2006 at 22:18, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 15:30:59 -0500, "Richard Holton" richholton@gmail.com wrote:
So, that leaves open the possibility of someone else creating the page?
Nope. Fleshlight demand editorial control. We can't give them that. The only way we can prevent their "advertising value" from being ruined is by not carrying it.
Since when do we have any obligation to preserve somebody else's "advertising value"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Fleshlight
Since 1 October 2006, evidently. I don't know what the Fleshlight people told Danny, but it must have been bloody good to make him take such a rash action. It sounds like they weren't saying "we don't want an article", but rather "we demand to have a say in what you publish, and if we can't have that then ... uhh ... we're non-notable ... yeah, that's it ...". An alternate reading is they called up and said, "How come people are able to edit our article?" and Danny said, "YOUR article?" and pulled the plug, cackling maniacally all the while. Either way, 'twas a goof.
This is not the first time Danny has done the Wrong Thing, nor the first time he's used his this-is-my-treat-me-as-a-normal-editor account for OFFICE actions. Now, fair enough, nobody can be right all the time, but a man with as much power on Wikipedia as Danny wields should a) have a better strike rate, and b) bloody-well admit it when he gets things Wrong. At the very least, I think we'd all appreciate being informed of the reasons why the redirect suggested by Keepsleeping and SPUI is inappropriate, because ISTM that there's no reason not to redirect the article, except that Danny hath decreed it shall be deleted, and doesn't want to encourage alternative solutions if they go against what he's already decided.
(Gosh, it's much easier to criticise now that I'm no longer contributing regularly.)