SJ wrote: 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

David Goodman 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. -- Tim Starling

Bryan Derksen wrote: 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

Roberto Alfonso 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. -- Tim Starling

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(a)shaw.ca> wrote: -- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.