On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 10:31 PM, David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com> wrote:
On 13 November 2012 22:29, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466@gmail.com> wrote:Bollocks. The case is about Finsbury removing well-referenced
> That's not entirely fair, for several reasons:
> Until recently, the Contact Us page and the pages you were directed to when
> you wanted to report a problem were an absolute maze:
information to attempt to cleanse a client's entry. You are stretching
beyond sanity to paint their actions as in any way reasonably
acceptable.
- d.You may have noticed that I don't like the idea of Usmanov's biography being sanitised, and posted on its talk page to that effect.But this is a completely different matter from the way Wikipedia handles complaints. Wikipedia gets anonymous contributions that spin just as well as the best PR companies, only negatively, and there must be a way for justifiably aggrieved biography subjects to get some satisfaction.Francis Ingham, the guy who made that comment about Wikipedia's cumbersome and opaque complaints system, is the PRCA director-general, and he does not work for Finsbury as far as I know. And it so happens I and Tom Morris here for example said exactly the same thing about the complaints system until a few weeks ago – until Oliver revamped the whole thing.That still doesn't mean every OTRS e-mail will get a prompt reply, but it's a step in the right direction.
Andreas
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org