http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19527797
"Author Roth rebukes Wikipedia over Human Stain edit"
"Following the publication of the New Yorker letter, the Wikipedia entry was changed and a section noting the debate inserted near its end."
Has this been mentioned on any other mailing lists?
I noticed that the article makes the (very common) error/assumption that administrators exercise some sort of editorial control, when (in principle), it is editors that exercise editorial control (when the editorial process works, that is). Do those dealing with Wikipedia publicity ever try and correct this misunderstanding, or is it near-impossible to get the distinction across to journalists?
Carcharoth
On 8 September 2012 13:22, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
I noticed that the article makes the (very common) error/assumption that administrators exercise some sort of editorial control, when (in principle), it is editors that exercise editorial control (when the editorial process works, that is). Do those dealing with Wikipedia publicity ever try and correct this misunderstanding, or is it near-impossible to get the distinction across to journalists?
It's near-impossible. The BBC didn't contact anyone for comment, either; the article is strictly ex-culo.
- d.
On 8 September 2012 13:22, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
I noticed that the article makes the (very common) error/assumption that administrators exercise some sort of editorial control, when (in principle), it is editors that exercise editorial control (when the editorial process works, that is). Do those dealing with Wikipedia publicity ever try and correct this misunderstanding, or is it near-impossible to get the distinction across to journalists?
It's near-impossible. The BBC didn't contact anyone for comment, either; the article is strictly ex-culo.
- d.
That is the sort of thing that happens in a monarchy like England or North Korea, idiots in charge... something that really pissed off George Washington.
Fred
On 8 September 2012 13:48, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
That is the sort of thing that happens in a monarchy like England or North Korea, idiots in charge... something that really pissed off George Washington.
Fred, that's really an insanely stupid thing to post.
- d.
On 8 September 2012 14:16, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 September 2012 13:48, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
That is the sort of thing that happens in a monarchy like England or North Korea, idiots in charge... something that really pissed off George Washington.
Fred, that's really an insanely stupid thing to post.
Nonsense - everyone knows HM The Queen writes all the articles on the BBC News website!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19527797
"Author Roth rebukes Wikipedia over Human Stain edit"
"Following the publication of the New Yorker letter, the Wikipedia entry was changed and a section noting the debate inserted near its end."
Has this been mentioned on any other mailing lists?
I noticed that the article makes the (very common) error/assumption that administrators exercise some sort of editorial control, when (in principle), it is editors that exercise editorial control (when the editorial process works, that is). Do those dealing with Wikipedia publicity ever try and correct this misunderstanding, or is it near-impossible to get the distinction across to journalists?
Carcharoth
Roth is an elderly man googling, see
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/entertainment/2012/09/internet-stain-philip-r...
Our current content seems appropriate.
Fred
I liked the promoted comment in the Ars Technica article: http://arstechnica.com/business/2012/09/wikipedia-told-philip-roth-hes-not-c...
(Found via the Reddit comments in http://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/comments/zim4r/philip_roth_an_open_letter_... & http://www.reddit.com/r/TrueReddit/comments/zirub/philip_roth_author_of_the_... )