[WikiEN-l] David is on Channel 4 tonight re MS issue

[Ray Saintonge]

David Gerard wrote:

>The issue now, the real problem, is how Wikipedia deals with this sort
>of thing in the future. We have procedures for actual legal problems,
>but not yet for this sort of editorial problem. Something where
>companies with issues with content can say so, and where the regular
>volunteers will take an interest and look into improving articles
>based on that.
>
>We don't have that yet. I said we'd probably work out something over
>the weekend.
>
>So, regular editors. How do we set up a page or forum where companies
>and people written about can express editorial concerns (rather than
>e.g. legal ones), such that they know people will at least look over
>them with thought and improve the articles from there?
>
>This was a MAJOR news story and it came completely out of the blue.
>But it is an ongoing problem for Wikipedia - we don't want companies
>fearful of dealing with us in case they get the sort of bad press this
>issue got Microsoft and Doug Mahugh. How can we get better at this,
>quickly?
>
Handled correctly this could be a PR benefit for WP.

Not long ago I expressed my opinion that our view toward Conflicts of 
Interest was not a workable one.  I'm also of the view that any severe 
action against editors who are paid to clean up a company's article, 
will only drive such activities underground.

I think that we need to establish a right of defence or rebuttal (or 
whatever we want to call it).  This would allow anyone who is directly 
affected by the article a place to defend his point of view.  This could 
probably be done in a template that is linked from the page in 
question.  The person or company affected would have the exclusive right 
to make substantive edits to that template. The result would be a 
section that is the person's view on the issue; if they want to make a 
radical departure from the truth that would be their right within that 
context.  If the subject tries to put the same information in the main 
body of the article that would be subject to the usual meat-grinder rules.

I'm sure that we will have a few of our own dinosaurs complaining that 
they should have the right to edit everything, and that having such 
pages would be tremendously unwiki, but I think that giving any person 
the opportunity to defend himself should improve Wikipedia's image as 
one of fairness.

A few simple rules may be necessary for these persons.
    1. The writer must be the person himself or have the right to speak 
on behalf of the person
    2. The writer must be registered and properly identified.
    3. All that he writes is subject to GFDL
    4. The financial arrangements between the writer and the person are 
not our concern.
    5. We reserve the right to limit the length of submissions to 
prevent long-winded rants.

Ec