On 10/25/2010 02:05 PM, George Herbert wrote:
>
> General agree. I do back of the envelope spacecraft mission planning
> with Wikipedia sources when on the road and away from my professional
> tools, and back of the envelope structural design with Wikipedia
> materials properties when similarly aw
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 6:17 PM, Robert S. Horning
wrote:
> On 10/23/2010 03:42 PM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
>>
>> If at any moment it can be stood on its head then the information
>> contained in the articles can never be authoritative. Suppose I have a
>> calculator that every once in
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 08:20, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> --- On Sun, 24/10/10, SlimVirgin wrote:
>> How do we handle articles about drugs if we're not allowed to use the
>> mainstream media? Removing them leaves those articles almost entirely
>> reflecting the position of the pharmaceutical industry
Hoi,
As far as I am concerned, this thread is more appropriate for the en.wp
list. There have been experiments with paid editing on other Wikipedias and
the arguments for paid editing have been quite different. One project I was
involved in was about what does it take to get to the point where thin
--- On Sun, 24/10/10, SlimVirgin wrote:
> >> By excluding high-quality media sources you're elevating the lowliest
> >> scientist as a source, and the vested interests that finance the
> >> research, above the most senior and experienced of disinterested
> >> journalists. That makes no sense to m
>
> For six months this nonsense in Cervical cancer lasted:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HPV_vaccine&diff=133707538&oldid=133421215
>
> the article simply lent itself to extreme POV pushing.
I happen to live in a place with quackery and strange medical ideas
thrive. With respect to
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 06:35, David Gerard wrote:
> On 24 October 2010 12:40, SlimVirgin wrote:
>
>> By excluding high-quality media sources you're elevating the lowliest
>> scientist as a source, and the vested interests that finance the
>> research, above the most senior and experienced of dis
On 24/10/2010 12:40, SlimVirgin wrote:
>
> The whole point of NPOV and V is that we choose sources the world
> regards as reliable, and we run with them, presenting all sides of the
> debate even if we personally dislike some of it.
>
Another thought occurs, though I suspect I'm wasting my time, o
On 24 October 2010 12:40, SlimVirgin wrote:
> By excluding high-quality media sources you're elevating the lowliest
> scientist as a source, and the vested interests that finance the
> research, above the most senior and experienced of disinterested
> journalists. That makes no sense to me.
The
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 9:01 PM, Houston Navarro
wrote:
> So, we lose that point of view in developing our neutral point of view.
exactly, that is why we should just unban kos and give him another chance.
mike
--
James Michael DuPont
Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova and Albania
On 24/10/2010 12:40, SlimVirgin wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 05:17, wrote:
>> On 24/10/2010 08:55, SlimVirgin wrote:
>>> On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 08:15,wrote:
See I took Atorvastatin and you wouldn't let the project report that the
Stanford Medical Journal reported that it causes
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 05:17, wrote:
> On 24/10/2010 08:55, SlimVirgin wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 08:15, wrote:
>>> See I took Atorvastatin and you wouldn't let the project report that the
>>> Stanford Medical Journal reported that it causes more damage to the heart
>>> than
>>> is acce
On 24/10/2010 08:55, SlimVirgin wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 08:15, wrote:
>> See I took Atorvastatin and you wouldn't let the project report that the
>> Stanford Medical Journal reported that it causes more damage to the heart
>> than
>> is acceptable. You want us only to report things once
On 24/10/2010 02:17, Robert S. Horning wrote:
> On 10/23/2010 03:42 PM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
>>
>> If at any moment it can be stood on its head then the information
>> contained in the articles can never be authoritative. Suppose I have a
>> calculator that every once in a while, and
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 19:43, Fred Bauder wrote:
>> --- On Sat, 23/10/10, SlimVirgin wrote:
>>> Someone working for the company that makes Lipitor would try to stop
>>> mainstream media sources being used in the article, because it's the
>>> media that has been pointing out problems with these d
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 08:15, wrote:
> See I took Atorvastatin and you wouldn't let the project report that the
> Stanford Medical Journal reported that it causes more damage to the heart than
> is acceptable. You want us only to report things once the controversy is
> over, in other words once
> --- On Sat, 23/10/10, SlimVirgin wrote:
>> Someone working for the company that makes Lipitor would try to stop
>> mainstream media sources being used in the article, because it's the
>> media that has been pointing out problems with these drugs. And that's
>> exactly what happens on these artic
--- On Sat, 23/10/10, SlimVirgin wrote:
> Someone working for the company that makes Lipitor would try to stop
> mainstream media sources being used in the article, because it's the
> media that has been pointing out problems with these drugs. And that's
> exactly what happens on these articles, b
On 10/23/2010 03:42 PM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
>
> If at any moment it can be stood on its head then the information
> contained in the articles can never be authoritative. Suppose I have a
> calculator that every once in a while, and quite randomly, adds up two
> numbers wrongly, such
A stupid PR agency would do just that. A good one , writing for any
medium, would try to make sure that positive sources are also
included, that the presentation was balanced., and that is was
factual, not tabloid hysteria and exaggeration. A really good one
that understands Wikipedia would for a
> On 23/10/2010 22:00, Wjhonson wrote:
>>
>> But it does have authoritative perspective. That is exactly my point
>> and the point at which you railed at, from a position that was
>> extreme. Your contention is that we should not report *any* thing in
>> our work on a drug except what the manufac
In a message dated 10/23/2010 2:43:02 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk writes:
> If at any moment it can be stood on its head then the information
> contained in the articles can never be authoritative. Suppose I have a
> calculator that every once in a while, and quite ra
> On 23/10/2010 22:00, Wjhonson wrote:
>>
>> But it does have authoritative perspective. That is exactly my point
>> and the point at which you railed at, from a position that was
>> extreme. Your contention is that we should not report *any* thing in
>> our work on a drug except what the manu
On 23/10/2010 22:00, Wjhonson wrote:
>
> But it does have authoritative perspective. That is exactly my point
> and the point at which you railed at, from a position that was
> extreme. Your contention is that we should not report *any* thing in
> our work on a drug except what the manufacturer p
particular page fetch may have just been edited by someone with a COI.
-Original Message-
From: wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Sat, Oct 23, 2010 12:43 pm
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Paid editing, was Re: Ban and moderate
On 23/10/2
On 23/10/2010 15:15, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 10/23/2010 3:40:30 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk writes:
>
>
>> OK this is going to be controversial but have you ever considered taht
>> maybe you shouldn't have anything on Atorvastatin other than what com
On 23/10/2010 15:15, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 10/23/2010 3:40:30 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk writes:
>
>
>> OK this is going to be controversial but have you ever considered taht
>> maybe you shouldn't have anything on Atorvastatin other than what com
On 23/10/2010 13:46, Fred Bauder wrote:
>> On 23/10/2010 08:02, SlimVirgin wrote:
>>>
>>> Look at our article -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atorvastatin There
>>> is criticism, no mention of how much money the drug is making for the
>>> company, no mention of how widespread and unquestioned the
>
Anybody else here find it ironic that we're trying to have a discussion
about the
relative merits and impacts of paid editing, and whether it is detectable or
stoppable, but the list moderators have banned from participation the
founder
of the world's first wiki-focused paid editing service?
So,
In a message dated 10/23/2010 3:40:30 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk writes:
> OK this is going to be controversial but have you ever considered taht
> maybe you shouldn't have anything on Atorvastatin other than what comes
> as the medical advice in the packaging? One c
> On 23/10/2010 08:02, SlimVirgin wrote:
>>
>> Look at our article -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atorvastatin There
>> is criticism, no mention of how much money the drug is making for the
>> company, no mention of how widespread and unquestioned the
>> prescription of these drugs is. And I know
On 23/10/2010 08:02, SlimVirgin wrote:
>
> Look at our article -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atorvastatin There
> is criticism, no mention of how much money the drug is making for the
> company, no mention of how widespread and unquestioned the
> prescription of these drugs is. And I know from ex
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 08:02, Fred Bauder wrote:
> So, to take a random example that I have not looked at, what would a
> public relations firm hired by the maker of Lipitor be trying to
> accomplish? And what is the result if they are skillful in terms of
> having collaborative editing skills? I
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 00:02, Fred Bauder wrote:
> So, to take a random example that I have not looked at, what would a
> public relations firm hired by the maker of Lipitor be trying to
> accomplish?
Someone working for the company that makes Lipitor would try to stop
mainstream media sources b
> I think that the field for professional Wikipedians are exactly PR
> departments and agencies. And I prefer much more to see two or more
> professionals who are arguing by using facts, than two or more amateur
> POV-pushers whose best argument are personal attacks.
So, to take a random example
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 23:57, David Goodman wrote:
> Obviously, the ones who do better at it are the ones we cannot detect.
> My experience is that some in-house PR people do a very poor and
> easily detectable job. An expert specialist who knows what is
> actually wanted will do far better than
No. You underestimate their subtlety and professionalism.. See
Durova, at
http://searchengineland.com/seo-tips-tactics-from-a-wikipedia-insider-11715
. I am aware of editing by paid editing that is neither aggressive
nor inappropriate. Really good PR people can learn to be careful not
to expre
> Obviously, the ones who do better at it are the ones we cannot detect.
It is not so much that they cannot be detected, after all their editing
has purpose and they are usually both aggressive and persistent. However,
adequate demonstration of such patterns of activity to other
administrators, or
Obviously, the ones who do better at it are the ones we cannot detect.
My experience is that some in-house PR people do a very poor and
easily detectable job. An expert specialist who knows what is
actually wanted will do far better than a PR generalist who approaches
it like any other PR. I have,
Since the can of worms has been opened...
In my opinion, which ironically is probably similar to Greg Kohs',
having any stance on paid editing of Wikipedia is pointless. Most large
companies and organizations are already paying people to edit Wikipedia
(albeit quietly). The ones we know about a
40 matches
Mail list logo
