The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> Discussions in this subforum are hidden from search engines.

However, they are not hidden from automobile engines, including the newer, more "environmentally-friendly" electric and hybrid engines. Also, please note that this subforum is meant to be used for discussion of the actual biographical articles themselves; more generalized discussions of BLP policy should be posted in the General Discussion or Bureaucracy forums.

3 Pages V  1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Feuding Art Masters, Wikipedia makes the Evening Standard
Peter Damian
post Fri 6th May 2011, 6:33pm
Post #1


I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined: Tue 18th Dec 2007, 9:25pm
Member No.: 4,212

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



A good piece by Sebastian Shakespeare in the London Standard this afternoon. A feud between art dealers Mark Weiss and Philip Mould. Weiss is accused of revising Mould's Wikipedia to put down his abilities, accuse him of extramarital affairs, etc etc. Weiss had to resign form the Society of London art dealers.

I checked out the Philip Mould page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history and it seems somewhat more complicated. An editor calling themselves EmmaHenderson originally created the, er, flattering article on Mould, then seems to have got into a massive edit war with an editor called Teapot George, who was making the somewhat slanderous allegations.

Interestingly they both seem to have extensive knowledge of Wikipedia editing conventions.

I have to rush off to dinner now, apologies if this has been reported before (although Shakespeare claims this is the first time it has been made public).

[edit] Possibly my mistake - some of the allegations came from an IP

QUOTE
Philip Mould OBE would like everyone to think he is one of the United Kingdom's foremost authorities on British art, and that he is widely consulted by galleries, private collectors and the media.[citation needed] He is under the impression that he is the leading specialist in British portraiture, including Tudor and Jacobean, seventeenth and eighteenth century, and even contemporary commissions.[according to whom?] He is also well known amongst the trade for his numerous so-called discoveries in the area of early British art.[clarification needed]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=302095026


On the other hand 'Teapot George' did insist on reverting back to a slanderous version

QUOTE

The couple separated in May 2009, after Mould started an affair with artist Charlotte "Charlie" Barton
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=319390856


QUOTE

Philip Mould has left his beautiful wife for the sluttish charlie barton
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=319087377


But then it was also in the gushing Daily Mail

QUOTE
MARRIED Antiques Roadshow presenter Philip Mould looks relaxed as he takes a stroll with the new woman in his life.

The multi-millionaire art dealer is said to be bewitched with Charlotte Barton - known as Charlie to her friends - since meeting her a year ago. Mr Mould and the svelte Ms Barton, who was dressed in black and carrying a sheaf of papers, were spotted out together last week.
Read more: http://mail-on-sunday.vlex.co.uk/vid/romeo...7#ixzz1LbDAtzox
http://mail-on-sunday.vlex.co.uk/vid/romeo...tching-68703787


The Standard article also claims that the same person who added the material to the Wikipedia article also wrote the tabloid articles:

QUOTE
The 'press release' was written in breathless tabloid style and provided journalists with salacious details
.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Fri 6th May 2011, 6:43pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Peter Damian
post Fri 6th May 2011, 8:27pm
Post #2


I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined: Tue 18th Dec 2007, 9:25pm
Member No.: 4,212

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



More in the Telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/849...ilip-Mould.html

This looks like a beautiful example of fiction turning to fact. The IP makes the allegations in Wikipedia, the Wikipedia article gets into the tabloid press. Then the article can be supported by 'reliable sources', and an admin can prevent any reversion.

QUOTE
(Undid revision 319390856 by Emmahenderson (talk)revert removal of referenced material by coi editor)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=319390856


This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Fri 6th May 2011, 8:30pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Peter Damian
post Fri 6th May 2011, 10:54pm
Post #3


I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined: Tue 18th Dec 2007, 9:25pm
Member No.: 4,212

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



And now the Art Market Monitor

http://www.artmarketmonitor.com/2011/05/06...tm_campaign=rss

QUOTE
May 6, 2011 By Marion Maneker Comments
The Telegraph reports on the revelation that Old Master dealer Mark Weiss has been planting rumors in the British press about Philip Mould ever since the latter published a book trumpeting his exploits:

It began with alterations to [Mould's] online Wikipedia entry, questioning the importance of “discoveries” and suggesting other dealers had made far more important finds – including the Weiss Gallery. Then, in October 2009, the same person sent a “press release” to national newspapers, falsely claiming Mr Mould was having an affair with Charlotte Barton, a 42-year-old artist. After one Sunday newspaper ran the story, Mr Mould’s wife Catherine temporarily left him. Then, five months ago, Mr Mould bought a painting attributed to Rubens at a Bonhams auction, paying £700,000 with a fellow investor, Dr Alfred Bader.

When the art press received a tip-off that Mr Mould did not have the funds to pay for the painting [...], Mr Mould and Dr Bader brought in private investigators, who quickly reported back that Mr Weiss was responsible.

Mayfair art dealer Mark Weiss in disgrace after admitting poison pen campaign against rival Philip Mould (Telegraph)


And this is the whole point. The "experienced" editor TeapotGeorge replaces the fake allegations here

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=319390856

with the comment "revert removal of referenced material by coi editor". But the 'reference material' seems was sourced from the fake press release which found its way into the tabloids. As I said above, a perfect example of fake material in Wikipedia being used to source tabloid nonsense, which then cannot be reverted in Wikipedia because 'reliable source'. Fiction becomes reality. Why are we not picking up on this beautiful story?

Standard writer Sebastian Shakespeare picked this up. But WR did not, nor are the feeds picking this up either. Why not?

However someone has complained on Wales page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=427826689

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Fri 6th May 2011, 11:10pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EricBarbour
post Sat 7th May 2011, 2:19am
Post #4


blah
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am
Member No.: 5,066

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Good find!

Unfortunately, it keeps getting pushed off the front page of WR
by Abd's refreshing walls of text...... hrmph.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Somey
post Sat 7th May 2011, 6:39am
Post #5


Can't actually moderate (or even post)
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,815
Joined: Sat 17th Jun 2006, 7:47pm
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275



QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Fri 6th May 2011, 5:54pm) *
Standard writer Sebastian Shakespeare picked this up. But WR did not, nor are the feeds picking this up either. Why not?

We'd been scaling back on the amount of stuff we bring in, but I've also noticed a time lag with some news sites, sometimes lasting a good 3-4 days. It could be a problem with the RSS feed aggregator we use, but it could also be that the news sites are delaying things on their end, for reasons known only to them...

Anyway, yes, this was a good catch. And speaking of time-lag, it also shows once again that events of this nature can come back to bite WP on the ass months after the fact - in this case, almost 18 months, long after any established WP'ers who might have actually participated in the whole affair have (most likely) forgotten all about it, and/or left to find other ways to amuse themselves.

Still, if Weiss really was behind this, then you have to conclude that he got pretty much what he deserved, though this probably would never have happened, or at least not have been so easy for him to do, in the pre-Wikipedia days.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Peter Damian
post Sat 7th May 2011, 7:40am
Post #6


I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined: Tue 18th Dec 2007, 9:25pm
Member No.: 4,212

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Brad has stepped in and removed
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=427831059 the offending content. But of course it's been there since 10 December 2009, that's one and a half years. Why did it take an article in the London Standard - a major English newspaper - to get it removed?

He comments "There is evidence of a deliberate plot to defame the subject of this article. For those investigating this misuse of Wikipedia, the content formerly here can be found in the page history." So you can still see the offensive content. But then of course if it were completely erased, there would be no evidence of the misuse of Wikipedia.

He follows up with a wonderful piece of Bradspeak
QUOTE
As I have said before in many forums, the rise of the Internet has been a force for much good, but it also enables the most outrageous lies, slanders, hoaxes, and invasions of privacy to be spread worldwide at the push of a button, often with devastating effect. This is an Internet-wide problem, not a Wikipedia-specific one, but our unique combination of high pageranks and free editing make Wikipedia pages, particularly [[WP:BLP|biographies of living persons]], an especially inviting forum for the malicious, the vindictive, and the depraved. Short of shutting down the project altogether there is nothing we can do to solve this problem, but we must do more than we are doing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=427831859


The last bit is illogical. He says there is nothing that can be done, then says that something must be done. And it's not just the combination of high pageranks and free editing, it's also that Wikipedia is thought of by many people as an encyclopedia, rather than a giant rubbish heap of every possible theory on any given topic. Thus they imagine it is more reliable than anything they would read in tabloid newspaper, rather than something actually sourced from a tabloid newspapers. And in this case, as I have pointed out, sourced from a tabloid newspaper that was itself recycling lies from Wikipedia. It is too incredible.

I wonder if people like Brad aren't really a force for evil. He is a nice figleaf for Wikiopedia with his measured words and avuncular tone. But he never actually does anything, he merely gives the impression that there are good people who are prepared to do something.

Needless to say, neither he nor anyone else on the Committee has done anything about the way I was personally defamed last month. But of course I haven't had an article in a major newspaper about the problem. Let's wait and see.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sat 7th May 2011, 7:45am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Peter Damian
post Sat 7th May 2011, 9:01am
Post #7


I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined: Tue 18th Dec 2007, 9:25pm
Member No.: 4,212

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



I have written up the story here http://ocham.blogspot.com/2011/05/wikipedi...in-fiction.html in my blog which is widely read by many responsible people.

The edit war between Mould and the innocent* Wikipedian claiming he has a 'conflict of interest' is hilarious.

* When I say 'innocent' I mean 'stupid' rather than 'malicious'. There is no evidence that the idiotic and stupidly named 'Teapot george' is connected with Weiss.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Peter Damian
post Sat 7th May 2011, 5:45pm
Post #8


I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined: Tue 18th Dec 2007, 9:25pm
Member No.: 4,212

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



There is a phenomenally stupid discussion now going among the Wikipediots (see below). Perhaps they shouldn't include any biographical information from 'tabloids'? Iridescent correctly points out that 'tabloid' simply refers to the size of the newspaper, and that nearly all newspapers are tabloids now.

The less stupid of them now realise that some 'reliable sources' are not really reliable at all, but how can the magic of crowdsourcing detect which are and which aren't? Oo-er missus.

But this misses the point of this particular episode, where the original article was written by the person who was slandered (because no one else would have bothered to write it), and then it developed into an edit war between someone who hated him.

And that's the way it will be in the more obscure corners of existence. How many 'BLPs' are either autobiographical, or are the work of haters, or a toxic mixture of both? Who knows. How is the magic fairy dust of crowdsourcing going to solve that little conundrum?

QUOTE
We could solve this problem very easily, and radically, by putting these tabloids on the blacklist. Hans Adler 16:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. If it's true, reliable sources have also reported it. However, most of the 'scoops' from these tabloids should be tagged [ not intended to be a factual statement ]. Flatterworld (talk) 16:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I like Hans' idea...blacklist the tabloids. Of course, they don't have to include the url to put the refs in & they'd still need to be manually reverted but it would certainly help.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

In purely practical terms, how would you decide what qualifies as "a tabloid"? In Britain (where this story originates) every national newspaper other than the Daily Telegraph is tabloid, along with almost all local and regional newspapers. – iridescent 17:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

We can list them, though of course there may be some short amount of discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a cultural difference in the meaning of "tabloid". In the US, what is meant is tabloid journalism or sensationalism (read trashy). That is what we're talking about here.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 17:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales"

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EricBarbour
post Sat 7th May 2011, 9:53pm
Post #9


blah
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am
Member No.: 5,066

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sat 7th May 2011, 12:40am) *
I wonder if people like Brad aren't really a force for evil. He is a nice figleaf for Wikiopedia with his measured words and avuncular tone. But he never actually does anything, he merely gives the impression that there are good people who are prepared to do something.

This is why the name "Newyorkbrad" is a joke around here. And has been for some time.
WRers keep mocking him, and yet he keeps hanging around, trying to make himself look "better"
by following up every screw-up and maundering post on Wikipedia with posts on WR that
completely fail to explain or justify anything.

To reiterate: I feel sorry for his legal-practice clients.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Peter Damian
post Sun 8th May 2011, 7:31am
Post #10


I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined: Tue 18th Dec 2007, 9:25pm
Member No.: 4,212

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



The discussion is dragging on. People are talking about software to detect unreliable sources, special flags on sensitive pages and so on. Wales (who often makes good points, even if he fails to implement any of them), gets to the heart of it. He points out that there is something fundamentally wrong with this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=319300905 , which contains the allegation that Mould is having an affair with someone who is not is wife. True or not, what is it doing in a reliable and comprehensive reference work.

Good point. But then why has no one pointed this out to the editor who caused the problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Trident13 ? And why as I pointed out here http://ocham.blogspot.com/2011/05/wikipedi...in-fiction.html did the subject of the slander have to get into a protracted edit war http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=319390856 in order to try, and fail, to get the slander removed?

And even if Wales gets something done about it - perhaps another policy on what kind of information you can put in articles - won't that conflict with Sue Gardner's aim to tear up all those difficult manuals and policies that are making it too hard for new editors to join Wikipedia?

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sun 8th May 2011, 7:52am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Eva Destruction
post Sun 8th May 2011, 9:42am
Post #11


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,735
Joined: Sun 30th Sep 2007, 7:22pm
Member No.: 3,301

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 8th May 2011, 8:31am) *

And even if Wales gets something done about it - perhaps another policy on what kind of information you can put in articles - won't that conflict with Sue Gardner's aim to tear up all those difficult manuals and policies that are making it too hard for new editors to join Wikipedia?

The BLP problem is inevitable with anything aiming for comprehensiveness, and assuming user-editable sites aren't going to go away even if Jimmy Wales pulls the plug on Wikipedia tomorrow, it's a problem that will always exist. The DNB solution, of not mentioning any living people at all, wouldn't work since people would reasonably expect the Bill Clintons and Paul McCartneys of the world to be mentioned, even if 99% of the minor-soap-actor and drummer-from-a-one-hit-band biographies were zapped.

My personal solution—which I can't envisage ever happening unless the WMF imposed it by fiat—would be that the subject of any biography, provided they can verify their identity via OTRS or something similar, should have the right to request via OTRS that their article be reduced to a bare-bones stub containing nothing remotely controversial, and locked in place. ("Don Murphy (b. 1966) is an American movie producer. He produced numerous films including Natural Born Killers and Transformers.", "Daniel Brandt is an American researcher and social activist specializing in accountability on the internet.") That would avoid the mass of redlinks and the "there isn't a page on this guy, I'll create one" problem, while allowing people who have a grievance to get biographies they feel are inappropriate taken down. It would only work if there were no exceptions to the rule, otherwise it would just displace the problem into endless "this guy is too notable to have his biography stubbified" arguments.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Peter Damian
post Sun 8th May 2011, 10:12am
Post #12


I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined: Tue 18th Dec 2007, 9:25pm
Member No.: 4,212

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Sun 8th May 2011, 10:42am) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 8th May 2011, 8:31am) *

And even if Wales gets something done about it - perhaps another policy on what kind of information you can put in articles - won't that conflict with Sue Gardner's aim to tear up all those difficult manuals and policies that are making it too hard for new editors to join Wikipedia?

[...] assuming user-editable sites aren't going to go away even if Jimmy Wales pulls the plug on Wikipedia tomorrow, it's a problem that will always exist.


No. A user-editable site is simply that. The problem is that Wikipedia, because of its generally reliable coverage of stuff like Boron and set theory, is somehow perceived as a reliable source.

Even a tabloid is not considered an encyclopedia. And note that the Daily Mail did pull the planted article, and this is because you can sue the Daily Mail. But Wikipedia is both a "user editable site" and an "encyclopedia". Hence, the defamatory material remained for more than a year.

QUOTE

The DNB solution, of not mentioning any living people at all, wouldn't work since people would reasonably expect the Bill Clintons and Paul McCartneys of the world to be mentioned, even if 99% of the minor-soap-actor and drummer-from-a-one-hit-band biographies were zapped.


Not to forget this 'film director' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Gardner_(film_producer) who made this film http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXjPb8rhXuk .

QUOTE
My personal solution—which I can't envisage ever happening unless the WMF imposed it by fiat


You jest. But at least you bothered to notify one of the main culprits (see below). And what about 'Teapotgeorge'? The one who reverted back to defamatory material 5 or more times on the ground that the victim had a 'conflict of interest'?

QUOTE
Since nobody seems to have bothered to notify you…Nobody seems to have actually notified you, but an edit of yours is being discussed at great length on Jimbo's talk page, having made multiple newspapers. You may want to comment there. – iridescent 09:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sun 8th May 2011, 10:13am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
HRIP7
post Sun 8th May 2011, 2:18pm
Post #13


Senior Member
****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 483
Joined: Sat 6th Feb 2010, 3:58pm
Member No.: 17,020

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 8th May 2011, 8:31am) *

Wales (who often makes good points, even if he fails to implement any of them)

My impression isn't so much that he fails to implement them, but that the community fails to implement them.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
A Horse With No Name
post Sun 8th May 2011, 11:49pm
Post #14


I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,471
Joined: Mon 26th Jan 2009, 1:54pm
Member No.: 9,985



QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sat 7th May 2011, 5:53pm) *

This is why the name "Newyorkbrad" is a joke around here. And has been for some time.
WRers keep mocking him, and yet he keeps hanging around, trying to make himself look "better"
by following up every screw-up and maundering post on Wikipedia with posts on WR that
completely fail to explain or justify anything.

To reiterate: I feel sorry for his legal-practice clients.


I feel sorry for his parents. unhappy.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Michaeldsuarez
post Mon 9th May 2011, 12:01am
Post #15


Über Member
*****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 562
Joined: Mon 9th Aug 2010, 7:51pm
From: New York, New York
Member No.: 24,428

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(HRIP7 @ Sun 8th May 2011, 3:18pm) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 8th May 2011, 8:31am) *

Wales (who often makes good points, even if he fails to implement any of them)

My impression isn't so much that he fails to implement them, but that the community fails to implement them.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pen...t_February_2011

Such as Pending Changes / Flagged Revisions.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
tarantino
post Mon 9th May 2011, 1:29am
Post #16


the Dude abides
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,440
Joined: Mon 30th Jul 2007, 11:41pm
Member No.: 2,143



QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Sun 8th May 2011, 11:49pm) *

I feel sorry for his parents. unhappy.gif


Speaking of his parents, his father and stepmother are both notable enough by wikipedia standards to have their biographies included on the project. I wonder what would happen if someone were to create them?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Zoloft
post Mon 9th May 2011, 3:20am
Post #17


May we all find solace in our dreams.
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,332
Joined: Fri 15th Jan 2010, 11:08pm
From: Erewhon
Member No.: 16,621



QUOTE(tarantino @ Sun 8th May 2011, 6:29pm) *

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Sun 8th May 2011, 11:49pm) *

I feel sorry for his parents. unhappy.gif


Speaking of his parents, his father and stepmother are both notable enough by wikipedia standards to have their biographies included on the project. I wonder what would happen if someone were to create them?

Two people who probably deserve better would then have BLP defamation magnets.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
carbuncle
post Mon 9th May 2011, 3:32am
Post #18


Fat Cat
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,601
Joined: Sun 30th Mar 2008, 4:48pm
Member No.: 5,544



QUOTE(Zoloft @ Mon 9th May 2011, 3:20am) *

QUOTE(tarantino @ Sun 8th May 2011, 6:29pm) *

QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Sun 8th May 2011, 11:49pm) *

I feel sorry for his parents. unhappy.gif


Speaking of his parents, his father and stepmother are both notable enough by wikipedia standards to have their biographies included on the project. I wonder what would happen if someone were to create them?

Two people who probably deserve better would then have BLP defamation magnets.

I suspect Tarantino is implying that those articles would get deleted, rather than suggesting that Brad sample his own dogfood, but I could be wrong.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Somey
post Mon 9th May 2011, 5:21am
Post #19


Can't actually moderate (or even post)
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,815
Joined: Sat 17th Jun 2006, 7:47pm
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275



QUOTE(tarantino @ Sun 8th May 2011, 8:29pm) *
Speaking of his parents, his father and stepmother are both notable enough by wikipedia standards to have their biographies included on the project. I wonder what would happen if someone were to create them?

I think we're getting a bit off-topic. Besides, if being a major comic-book collector is enough to warrant a BLP, then half the admins on Wikipedia would be eligible, right?

As for the situation at hand, I expect nothing whatsoever will be done, of course. However, if they could somehow come up with a rule that disallows spurious information about extramarital affairs and other sexual peccadilloes in general, that would help make the site seem more respectable, at least from a PR perspective. Without a stringent edit-approval regime on BLPs, though, it wouldn't do much to increase actual respectability.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EricBarbour
post Tue 10th May 2011, 5:51am
Post #20


blah
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am
Member No.: 5,066

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 8th May 2011, 10:21pm) *

QUOTE(tarantino @ Sun 8th May 2011, 8:29pm) *
Speaking of his parents, his father and stepmother are both notable enough by wikipedia standards to have their biographies included on the project. I wonder what would happen if someone were to create them?

I think we're getting a bit off-topic. Besides, if being a major comic-book collector is enough to warrant a BLP, then half the admins on Wikipedia would be eligible, right?

Agreed. However, I can't help but remark on how interesting it is, that Amanda Matetsky is not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia.....she even put the boy in one of her book acknowledgements.

QUOTE
As for the situation at hand, I expect nothing whatsoever will be done, of course. However, if they could somehow come up with a rule that disallows spurious information about extramarital affairs and other sexual peccadilloes in general, that would help make the site seem more respectable, at least from a PR perspective. Without a stringent edit-approval regime on BLPs, though, it wouldn't do much to increase actual respectability.

So long as no one grows a pair, and writes a stringent BLP standard, and rams it down the collective throats of the "community", things will remain Wiki-busted.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 23rd 8 17, 4:16am