On 12/10/2007, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/10/2007, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
It's great advice. And paid PR people are not OK. But, frankly, they're not OK in the same way sockpuppets aren't OK. It's not that you're not allowed to do it, it's just that you're not allowed to do it so badly that we notice and go "Oh for fuck's sake."
Heh. "You're not allowed to do it so blatantly that I notice, because then I'd have to stop you. Also, don't tell me about it, because then I'd have to stop you. You know I don't approve, right? Just don't make a noise, I'm trying to work." Wikipedia users and over-enthusiastic thirteen-year-olds: not so different after all.
Indeed. This, I think, is why Durova does her outreach work to search engine optimisers. These people have boundless commercial energy; we can at least turn it to the good of the projects and of the Foundation's mission. Show them how to do well by doing good. Similarly, PR people have a place on the article talk pages, dealing in a teflon-coated manner with the rotten tomatoes as well as the gentle queries of regular editors, supplying actual useful resources and information.
(Also, look at the press on the WikiScanner. Wikipedia came across as imperfect but basically a useful and noble endeavour; the people who'd edited discovered that "conflict of interest" isn't "what I can justify to myself" or "what's on the Wikipedia guideline page" but "what the public and press will lynch me for" - and the last of those turned out to be a fair bit harsher than the second. We don't *need* to make a big fuss ourselves. 'Cos we're nice and all.)
- d.
On 10/12/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote: [snip]
(Also, look at the press on the WikiScanner. Wikipedia came across as imperfect but basically a useful and noble endeavour; the people who'd edited discovered that "conflict of interest" isn't "what I can justify to myself" or "what's on the Wikipedia guideline page" but "what the public and press will lynch me for" - and the last of those turned out to be a fair bit harsher than the second. We don't *need* to make a big fuss ourselves. 'Cos we're nice and all.)
So you support publishing the IPs of every edit?
On 12/10/2007, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/12/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
(Also, look at the press on the WikiScanner. Wikipedia came across as imperfect but basically a useful and noble endeavour; the people who'd edited discovered that "conflict of interest" isn't "what I can justify to myself" or "what's on the Wikipedia guideline page" but "what the public and press will lynch me for" - and the last of those turned out to be a fair bit harsher than the second. We don't *need* to make a big fuss ourselves. 'Cos we're nice and all.)
So you support publishing the IPs of every edit?
No, I'm saying it was interesting and a harsh lesson to conflicted editors.
- d.
On 10/12/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/10/2007, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/12/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
(Also, look at the press on the WikiScanner. Wikipedia came across as imperfect but basically a useful and noble endeavour; the people who'd edited discovered that "conflict of interest" isn't "what I can justify to myself" or "what's on the Wikipedia guideline page" but "what the public and press will lynch me for" - and the last of those turned out to be a fair bit harsher than the second. We don't *need* to make a big fuss ourselves. 'Cos we're nice and all.)
So you support publishing the IPs of every edit?
No, I'm saying it was interesting and a harsh lesson to conflicted editors.
Ah, it sounded like you thought the COI disclosure was a good thing, but since far more COI editors will be smart enough to make accounts....