[WikiEN-l] Fwd: The counterattack of the PR companies

[Thomas Morton]

On 18 April 2012 13:45, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Thomas Morton <
> morton.thomas at googlemail.com
> > wrote:
>
> > On 18 April 2012 13:38, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Thomas Dalton <
> thomas.dalton at gmail.com
> > > >wrote:
> > >
> > > > They say you have to wait 2-5 days for a response after requesting
> > > changes
> > > > as though that is a bad thing. I'm very impressed with that response
> > > time.
> > > > How many commercial encyclopaedias can do better?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I hope you're joking here. :)
> > >
> > > Just in case you weren't: commercial encyclopedias have a sophisticated
> > > editorial and legal process in place to ensure they do not print
> > defamatory
> > > content. Sometimes subjects are sent a draft before publication, and
> are
> > > given an opportunity to make an input.
> > >
> >
> > Having dealt with such things before...
> >
> > That process takes* much much longer* than 2-5 days.
> >
>
>
> Yes, but it takes place *before* publication. :P
>
>
Not at all.

My specific experience was while consulting on another matter for a firm;
they were surprised to find their name had been noted in connection with
some years-before legal action (quite a disturbing one) in a prominent
printed encyclopaedia.

I helped them get in touch and resolve the issue.

It took about a week for initial contact to prove successful - the material
was reviewed, taking another two weeks, and "amended internally". The next
years print run was currently happening, and they were unable to modify the
problem.

So all in all it took about 18 months for a correction to be published.

I happen to know of several other examples where incorrect material is
still being published years after the point has been brought up.

Whilst you will get some material sent out for review I don't believe it
accounts for much of the content. And, as such, is something of
misdirection on the issue.

I'm not arguing Wikipedia is the solution. But the argument that
printed encyclopaedias are better at this I know to be false.

Tom