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

[Who Cares]

  On 1/28/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> 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.
>

  Um... why? If we write the article as well as we should, they will not have any valid reason to complain, and I refuse to think that we should be hosting blatantly untrue things under the guise of the subject defending himself. Do we really want the White House telling us about how everyone who disagrees with them is a terrorist-lover, in their own page where nobody is allowed to remove the content, or even register disagreement?
   
  -Amarkov


 
---------------------------------
No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go 
with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.