Worth a quick read. Ranked by votes from a few thousand "branding professionals and students".
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070126/wr_nm/brands_global_winners_dc
++SJ
SJ wrote:
Worth a quick read. Ranked by votes from a few thousand "branding professionals and students".
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070126/wr_nm/brands_global_winners_dc
It looks like nobody has noticed this, at least on this list. Brandchannel took this opportunity to hint to their readers that they might want to contest Wikipedia's deletion of their article.
"(Incidentally, the brandchannel Wikipedia entry was deleted because it was declared "[a]n article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." We'd like to think we do, in fact, assert the important or significance of our subject—and 90,000 subscribers like yourselves can't be wrong. If you agree, please consider launching what the site calls a deletion review.)"
http://brandchannel.com/start1.asp?fa_id=352
-- Tim Starling
The deleted article may not have included the word "notable" in the first sentence. articles have been sent to Speedy for that alone. -DGG
On 1/27/07, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
SJ wrote:
Worth a quick read. Ranked by votes from a few thousand "branding professionals and students".
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070126/wr_nm/brands_global_winners_dc
It looks like nobody has noticed this, at least on this list. Brandchannel took this opportunity to hint to their readers that they might want to contest Wikipedia's deletion of their article.
"(Incidentally, the brandchannel Wikipedia entry was deleted because it was declared "[a]n article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." We'd like to think we do, in fact, assert the important or significance of our subject—and 90,000 subscribers like yourselves can't be wrong. If you agree, please consider launching what the site calls a deletion review.)"
http://brandchannel.com/start1.asp?fa_id=352
-- Tim Starling
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
David Goodman wrote:
The deleted article may not have included the word "notable" in the first sentence. articles have been sent to Speedy for that alone. -DGG
On 1/27/07, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
[...]
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070126/wr_nm/brands_global_winners_dc
It looks like nobody has noticed this, at least on this list. Brandchannel took this opportunity to hint to their readers that they might want to contest Wikipedia's deletion of their article.
Tagged {{db-web}} by an anon and speedied by Aaron Brenneman 6.5 hours later, which was 1.5 hours after Quarl removed the speedy tag, recommending AfD/prod in his edit summary. I think that counts as out-of-process deletion. How about I undelete it and clean it up a bit? Notable or not, the deleted text does have the tone of an advertisement.
-- Tim Starling
Tim Starling wrote:
Tagged {{db-web}} by an anon and speedied by Aaron Brenneman 6.5 hours later, which was 1.5 hours after Quarl removed the speedy tag, recommending AfD/prod in his edit summary. I think that counts as out-of-process deletion. How about I undelete it and clean it up a bit? Notable or not, the deleted text does have the tone of an advertisement.
IMO there's no need to ask in a case as clear as this, just go ahead and do it. I've already started. :)
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Tim Starling wrote:
Tagged {{db-web}} by an anon and speedied by Aaron Brenneman 6.5 hours later, which was 1.5 hours after Quarl removed the speedy tag, recommending AfD/prod in his edit summary. I think that counts as out-of-process deletion. How about I undelete it and clean it up a bit? Notable or not, the deleted text does have the tone of an advertisement.
IMO there's no need to ask in a case as clear as this, just go ahead and do it. I've already started. :)
I sent them an email berating them for the uncritical tone of the original article. Ironically, they published a feature this month about dealing with negative comment in blogs. Their recommendations about respect, candour and the importance of facts could easily be extended to astroturfing in Wikipedia articles.
http://brandchannel.com/features_effect.asp?pf_id=348
-- Tim Starling
Interestingly, this reminds me of a quote in Daniel Terdiman's article about his entry's AFD:
<<I asked a friend, Business 2.0 magazine senior editor Chris Taylor, about his Wikipedia entry, which was created in 2005 when he wrote about Wikipedia for Time magazine.
"It didn't take long to realize why the entry had been made--and the timing, right after my authorship of the first Time story on Wikipedia, made sense," Taylor said. "So after the initial feelings of flattery and suspicion, I was like, Oh, OK, this is my 'reward' from the Wiki geeks. I wrote about their baby, so I've arrived.">>
http://news.com.com/To+delete+Wikipedia+entry+or+not+to+delete+-+page+2/2100...
Regards, RB
On 1/27/07, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Tim Starling wrote:
Tagged {{db-web}} by an anon and speedied by Aaron Brenneman 6.5 hours later, which was 1.5 hours after Quarl removed the speedy tag, recommending AfD/prod in his edit summary. I think that counts as out-of-process deletion. How about I undelete it and clean it up a bit? Notable or not, the deleted text does have the tone of an advertisement.
IMO there's no need to ask in a case as clear as this, just go ahead and do it. I've already started. :)
I sent them an email berating them for the uncritical tone of the original article. Ironically, they published a feature this month about dealing with negative comment in blogs. Their recommendations about respect, candour and the importance of facts could easily be extended to astroturfing in Wikipedia articles.
http://brandchannel.com/features_effect.asp?pf_id=348
-- Tim Starling
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Roberto Alfonso wrote:
Interestingly, this reminds me of a quote in Daniel Terdiman's article about his entry's AFD:
<<I asked a friend, Business 2.0 magazine senior editor Chris Taylor, about his Wikipedia entry, which was created in 2005 when he wrote about Wikipedia for Time magazine.
"It didn't take long to realize why the entry had been made--and the timing, right after my authorship of the first Time story on Wikipedia, made sense," Taylor said. "So after the initial feelings of flattery and suspicion, I was like, Oh, OK, this is my 'reward' from the Wiki geeks. I wrote about their baby, so I've arrived.">>
http://news.com.com/To+delete+Wikipedia+entry+or+not+to+delete+-+page+2/2100...
That would be a cynical way of looking at it. There's no core policy issue at stake, the reason for deletion was a poor one. We're just responding to public criticism by taking a token step in the right direction.
-- Tim Starling
Tim Starling wrote:
That would be a cynical way of looking at it. There's no core policy issue at stake, the reason for deletion was a poor one. We're just responding to public criticism by taking a token step in the right direction.
Indeed. And even if this particular website _does_ turn out to be not particularly notable (I haven't done much checking myself), the proper way to deal with that IMO would be to redirect to the article on its parent company [[Interbrand]] and perhaps add a section on it there. Everyone wins.
It is difficult to do accurate procedure when there are large numbers of items, most of them totally unworthy. It's like traffic court. At any such review, after looking at a certain number, people get into a really foul mood and tend to express it.
This sort of thing affects teachers also, and most have worked out some routine to minimize the effect, such as grading question one for everybody first & only then doing question two; thats why many use multiple choice tests, even if they're less accurate. But there the students are very ready to appeal, and know how.
The immediate solution is for more people to take an interest, and appeal informally first. and then ask others, and then formally when necessary.--but only what is necessary, lest the problems escalate. Besides DRV--which I do not recommend at present-- there's ANB if someone is really unreasonable. The sure way to perpetuate the present situation is to give up and tolerate real abuse.
The longer term way is to devise more narrowly directed rapid procedure, and fairer procedure for other problems. I suggest it will be easier to get such change if real problems are called to wider attention. -- DGG
On 1/27/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Tim Starling wrote:
That would be a cynical way of looking at it. There's no core policy issue at stake, the reason for deletion was a poor one. We're just responding to public criticism by taking a token step in the right direction.
Indeed. And even if this particular website _does_ turn out to be not particularly notable (I haven't done much checking myself), the proper way to deal with that IMO would be to redirect to the article on its parent company [[Interbrand]] and perhaps add a section on it there. Everyone wins.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org