Wikipedia's article on the Wikipedia Review, You mean its not totally deleted and protected from editing? Options

[blissyu2]

It is currently listed as an unprotected redirect to Criticism of Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...iew&redirect=no

So if anyone wanted to create a viable article, they could do so.

Tips: Link to involvement in the Seigenthaler controversy, Essjay controversy, SlimVirgin scandal and Snowspinner scandal as well as listing any news hits that you can find.

Just for reference, it has been up for deletion twice. Here are the results:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...ikipedia_Review
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...d_nomination%29

For ages and ages it was a protected deleted page, but it became an unprotected redirect because of this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Del...007_February_21

(Click "show" on the Wikipedia Review heading)

However, it remains kept out of the Criticism of Wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Wikipedia

Anyway, if someone wants to go up against the cabal, they are free to try to make that in to a good article.

[Daniel Brandt]

Go for it. Wikimedia Foundation's general counsel has apparently overruled the attack site policy, unless the New York Times is making up quotations out of thin air. This means WR has grounds for a complaint if the cabal deletes our good-faith efforts to write an article about WR.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/20/technology/20link.html

But there is no Wikipedia rule against editing an article about yourself or your employer, and Mr. Godwin freely acknowledges editing his own article. "There has been some give and take about my biographical entry," he said. "I removed factually incorrect information. Who could dispute that we were better off?"

[dtobias]

It would be great if they would overrule that stupid attack site policy, but the quote you gave doesn't seem to do anything of the sort, though it does seem to overrule any policy interpretation that would flatly ban editing an article about yourself or your own company, a different matter.

As for whether WR deserves its own article, I'm skeptical about it being sufficiently notable, but it ought to at least be mentioned in Criticisms of Wikipedia, as those AfD debates seem to imply it should be (they predate the idiotic attack site policy, and put the lie to the claims from the clique that the policy only put in writing what the community was always doing with regard to such sites).

[Infoboy]

Is there any on-wiki or wikien-l response/chatter about Godwin basically saying the COI policies on English are basically bullshit and not endorsed by the Foundation?

[Jonny Cache]

Is there any on-wiki or wikien-l response/chatter about Godwin basically saying the COI policies on English are basically bullshit and not endorsed by the Foundation?

No, they're all too buzzy breaking their arms patting themselves on the bak because ∑1 found 1½ lines of Wikipedia content on a cereal box or something and they're so gawdawful proud of that. Several days of Wikipleased as Wikipunch gushing allover themselves appears to prevented NE1 from thinking to ask where the editor who added it to Wikipedia in the 1st place most likely stole it from.

Jonny

[SenseMaker]

Is there any on-wiki or wikien-l response/chatter about Godwin basically saying the COI policies on English are basically bullshit and not endorsed by the Foundation?

Not to be a spoil-sport, but I did a few searches for WP:RS dealing with WR and I couldn't find any except on Slashdot and other user generated publications. I would be concerned that there isn't enough mainstream coverage of WR to justify an article at this point. There is for ED (and via Alexa I just confirmed that it is ranked at the 5,247th most popular site!), but WR is still not covered at all in a mainstream non-user generated content publications that I could find.

My thoughts are that WR isn't notable enough to get an article, even though I would like to see it have one.

[BobbyBombastic]

why not take the position that you don't want WR to have an article, just to fuck with them?

[Somey]

why not take the position that you don't want WR to have an article, just to fuck with them?

That's actually my own position, and it isn't just to fuck with them (frankly, I can't think of any Wikipedians at the moment that I really want to have sex with).

Having an article about us just gives them more phony leverage and another way they can feel powerful by threatening to delete it if we all don't "behave ourselves." And does anyone seriously think that a WP article on this website is going to be anything other than an attack piece?

More to the point, since most WP articles about controversial subjects are inaccurate and subject to complete ruination at any time, why should ours be any different? We're better off not dealing with that shite...

Besides, now that the media has proven rather clearly (via all the "Wikipedia Scanner" coverage) that the rest of the world has even less respect for their precious anonymity than we do, we can always use the lack of an article as proof that they're engaging in censorship.

We should, of course, make fun of them at every opportunity, expose the corruption and hypocrisy, and at the same time try to accomodate or even help the ones who try to do the right thing. But play by their rules? Never.

[blissyu2]

If the Wikipedia article about Wikipedia Review was nasty, then so what? That's just more evidence.

[JoseClutch]

Is there any on-wiki or wikien-l response/chatter about Godwin basically saying the COI policies on English are basically bullshit and not endorsed by the Foundation?

Not that I've seen, but I think anyone with half a clue knows this is the case. What Wikipedia actually wants to prevent is people or organisations controlling articles about themselves to present a blatantly biased picture. Jimmy's said "Reverting someone who's trying to eliminate libel about themselves is a terribly stupid thing to do" and "on the ball" editors and admins know this. Of course, there are a lot of morons around, who fuck this up ....

[Kato]

Wouldn't it be wiser not to have an article about Wikipedia Review on a flawed forum where anyone can edit and add slanderous statements at will? Not to mention the bullshit drama that'll swirl round the talk page. Much like it would have been better not to create an article on ED about Poetlister and co (which will deteriorate as times goes by to the standard ED level of a schoolboy scrum judging by other articles about women).

Having seen enough of public wikis now, I wouldn't create an article on my worst enemies on a site anyone can edit, let alone my allies. It took the experience of Wiki Abuse to hammer that message home.

[Infoboy]

Wouldn't it be wiser not to have an article about Wikipedia Review on a flawed forum where anyone can edit and add slanderous statements at will?

Actually, to see whether they could maintain an article in an NPOV state and if they would adhere to their own rules (assuming notability were met) would be the most interesting test of all for Wikipedia. Would they turn aside their own prized nutjobs to keep the same standards that should apply to all articles, to [[Wikipedia Review]]?

If they didn't, it would be an especially public failing. Like the later attempts at [[Daniel Brandt]] I'd imagine the WR article would be one of the more NPOV ones.

[Pwok]

Three things to say:

1. Wikipedia doesn't really have any rules. True, there are lists of "policies" and 'pillars," but they are honored so sporadically and inconsistently that they should be regarded as sham devices. I think the recent articles about corporate editing make it quite clear to the public at large, which knows advertising when it sees it. This is a fatal flaw at Wikipedia, and neither Jimmy Wales nor anyone else in the organization has shown any intention of taking a serious look about how Wikipedia is administered.

Frankly, after reading Wales's comments in regard to corporate editing, and his response to the earlier problem in which an insider lied about his background, I am convinced that Mr. Wales is simply not a serious guy. He's a techie child who made a pile of money and, as a result, was regarded as smart. No more. In America, we ask little of our rich adult children: they usually build a splashy house somewhere, join the right clubs, and (usually, at least in the first generation and usually the second) live the great life. There is ample precedent for this in American history; I can only hope that the techies build houses interesting enough to turn into museums in 50 or 60 years like the steel, oil, railroad, and auto barons did before them. Please, Jimmy, don't erect some drywall palace in Santa Clara with a big media room, a personal vineyard, and a bunch of hotel art in the three-story foyer. Please?

2. A technical point: "Slander" is defamation by means of the spoken word, and it does not apply to Wikipedia. You meant to use the word "libel," which is defamation by means of the written word.

3. The reason libel is such a critical issue for Wikipedia is that, by definition, its "user-edited encyclopedia" regards fact as negotiable via consensus. This is simply wrong, and by "wrong" I don't mean morally wrong but factually wrong. There is plenty of research out there to indicate that consensus opinion, i.e., conventional wisdom, is inaccurate roughly 30% of the time. Thus, any system that allows fact to be determined by consensus will always fail, as Wikipedia has.

In their lizard brains, whoever runs Wikipedia knows this. You see, truth is always a defense to libel damages. But if you know that what you're publishing can't ever be regarded as true, then you'll by necessity pull in your horns, and eventually become a promotional tool. Wikipedia is one lawsuit away from this, because when that lawsuit comes, Wikipedia won't be able to confidently argue that the targeted article is true. Their "BLP" policy (actually a sham device due to its capricious interpretation and enforcement) opens the door to obfuscation of fact and rampant corporate apple-polishing: it is an implicit declaration that Wikipedia can't be trusted because it doesn't trust itself. Wikipedia doesn't trust itself because, virtually by definition, it can't trust itself. You cannot determine fact by a consensus of amateurs, and Wikipedia's insiders know it.

This post has been edited by Pwok: Mon 20th August 2007, 8:10pm

[Kato]

Good post Pwok. Keep 'em coming.

[BobbyBombastic]

why not take the position that you don't want WR to have an article, just to fuck with them?

That's actually my own position, and it isn't just to fuck with them (frankly, I can't think of any Wikipedians at the moment that I really want to have sex with).

You must have forgotten about Sherilyn Sidaway then! ( ) I agree with the idea it is best not to have an article on WP. I would hope that no serious participant here would go creating a WP article. It would be somewhat hypocritical to go create an article about this site on wikipedia, given the stances we often take here.

But for those of you that really want one, then the best way would probably to jump up and down and scream about absolutely not wanting an article on the evil Wikipedia, and some JoshuaZ like editor will do his homework and create a WR article with more reliable sources than you or Sherilyn Sidaway can shake a stick at.

[guy]

some JoshuaZ like editor will do his homework and create a WR article

JoshuaZ is a member here, though I think he has not yet posted.

[jdrand]

Go for it. Wikimedia Foundation's general counsel has apparently overruled the attack site policy, unless the New York Times is making up quotations out of thin air. This means WR has grounds for a complaint if the cabal deletes our good-faith efforts to write an article about WR.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/20/technology/20link.html

But there is no Wikipedia rule against editing an article about yourself or your employer, and Mr. Godwin freely acknowledges editing his own article. "There has been some give and take about my biographical entry," he said. "I removed factually incorrect information. Who could dispute that we were better off?"

When I get unblocked, I can't create the article, because I'm on here, and everyone knows it, and that's a WP:COI (or trolling on their site, sneaky ownership), but I can say ignore all rules when it comes to a good faith effort. Am I being too idealistic there? WP might label me a troll and harasser only pretending to be an 11-year-old, but I can prove I really am.

[guy]

WP might label me a troll and harasser only pretending to be an 11-year-old, but I can prove I really am.

I'm afraid that proving you're who you say you are is no grounds for being treated nicely on WP. Several people here can testify to that.

[jdrand]

Three things to say:

1. Wikipedia doesn't really have any rules. True, there are lists of "policies" and 'pillars," but they are honored so sporadically and inconsistently that they should be regarded as sham devices. I think the recent articles about corporate editing make it quite clear to the public at large, which knows advertising when it sees it. This is a fatal flaw at Wikipedia, and neither Jimmy Wales nor anyone else in the organization has shown any intention of taking a serious look about how Wikipedia is administered.

Wikipedia has rules, it is just that regular users are ruled under an iron fist by policy, but nobody cares when administraitors break policy.