<img src=http://news.google.com/news?imgefp=1wFgMJLx2rkJ&imgurl=searchengineland.com/images/steve-latourette-diff.jpg width=80 height=60 alt="" border=1>The Right Way To Fix Inaccurate Wikipedia Articles
Search Engine Land, CT - 12 minutes ago
Suppose your company, boss or political candidate discovers that their Wikipedia article is wrong, or has subtle inaccuracies that nonetheless paint them in ...
oh my, what a diluted load.
QUOTE(BobbyBombastic @ Wed 8th August 2007, 10:04pm) 
oh my, what a diluted load.
Yes, if you or your company is maligned on WP a cultish pseudonymous entity known as "Durova" is here to lecture you on how you can accept your fate and conform to properly supplicate yourself to the arcane processes governed by role playing 15 year old boys. Oh by the way, it doesn't work even if you lower yourself to try to do it her way.
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 8th August 2007, 11:17pm)
QUOTE(BobbyBombastic @ Wed 8th August 2007, 10:04pm)
oh my, what a diluted load.
Yes, if you or your company is maligned on WP a cultish pseudonymous entity known as "Durova" is here to lecture you on how you can accept your fate and conform to properly supplicate yourself to the arcane processes governed by role playing 15 year old boys. Oh by the way, it doesn't work even if you lower yourself to try to do it her way.
Once American businessmen are familiar with the way Wikipedia really works, I would expect the reaction to be along these lines:
Can you "wikisleuth" that one, Durova?
We Libeled You? JOIN US and Work for Free. Apology not Included.
Suppose your company, boss or political candidate discovers that their Wikipedia article is wrong, or has subtle inaccuracies that nonetheless paint them in ...[/size]
Jesus why does Durova (continue to) embarass herself with such hypocrisy. She has libeled scores of people with her bad research and paranoid accusations. Still, she continue to write such articles telling people how to act on Wikipedia (including people who are not on Wikipedia). Assuring them that any problem caused to them by Wikipedia, will be solved if they JOIN Wikipedia, and follow the rules. This takes her normal bizarro spin on the world to an extreme bent.
Imagine if an editor of a newspaper that libeled you didn't apologize, but just asked you to come to work at the paper for free, and then you could erase the typescript as benefit, to clear your good name.
What a crank! (if I were British, I'd yell "Bollocks")
She also forgot to mention what a joke the OTRS is. Numbered ticketing system (my butt)! She tactfully glides by notice of the inefficiency by suggesting that if you have a page that gets vandalized, that you monitor it yourself.
How about doing the normal thing, and finding a good lawyer, and suing the ass off of Wikipedia, and/or the crank editor that wrote the crap? That's what people usually do, Durova. They don't go work for the guy who did them dirt. Waiter! Reality check!
WHERE do they get these people? From some robotic factory that forgot to add the brain to a few production lots?
QUOTE(Google News @ Tue 7th August 2007, 7:05am)
Suppose your company, boss or political candidate discovers that their Wikipedia article is wrong, or has subtle inaccuracies that nonetheless paint them in ...[/size]
Jesus why does Durova (continue to) embarass herself with such hypocrisy. She has libeled scores of people with her bad research and paranoid accusations. Still, she continue to write such articles telling people how to act on Wikipedia (including people who are not on Wikipedia). Assuring them that any problem caused to them by Wikipedia, will be solved if they JOIN Wikipedia, and follow the rules. This takes her normal bizarro spin on the world to an extreme bent.
Imagine if an editor of a newspaper that libeled you didn't apologize, but just asked you to come to work at the paper for free, and then you could erase the typescript as benefit, to clear your good name.
What a crank! (if I were British, I'd yell "Bollocks")
She also forgot to mention what a joke the OTRS is. Numbered ticketing system (my butt)! She tactfully glides by notice of the inefficiency by suggesting that if you have a page that gets vandalized, that you monitor it yourself.
How about doing the normal thing, and finding a good lawyer, and suing the ass off of Wikipedia, and/or the crank editor that wrote the crap? That's what people usually do, Durova. They don't go work for the guy who did them dirt. Waiter! Reality check!
WHERE do they get these people? From some robotic factory that forgot to add the brain to a few production lots?
QUOTE(Disillusioned Lackey @ Thu 9th August 2007, 1:30pm)
We Libeled You? JOIN US and Work for Free. Apology not Included.
QUOTE(Google News @ Tue 7th August 2007, 7:05am)
Suppose your company, boss or political candidate discovers that their Wikipedia article is wrong, or has subtle inaccuracies that nonetheless paint them in ...[/size]
Jesus why does Durova (continue to) embarass herself with such hypocrisy. She has libeled scores of people with her bad research and paranoid accusations. Still, she continue to write such articles telling people how to act on Wikipedia (including people who are not on Wikipedia). Assuring them that any problem caused to them by Wikipedia, will be solved if they JOIN Wikipedia, and follow the rules. This takes her normal bizarro spin on the world to an extreme bent.
Imagine if an editor of a newspaper that libeled you didn't apologize, but just asked you to come to work at the paper for free, and then you could erase the typescript as benefit, to clear your good name.
What a crank! (if I were British, I'd yell "Bollocks")
She also forgot to mention what a joke the OTRS is. Numbered ticketing system (my butt)! She tactfully glides by notice of the inefficiency by suggesting that if you have a page that gets vandalized, that you monitor it yourself.
How about doing the normal thing, and finding a good lawyer, and suing the ass off of Wikipedia, and/or the crank editor that wrote the crap? That's what people usually do, Durova. They don't go work for the guy who did them dirt. Waiter! Reality check!
WHERE do they get these people? From some robotic factory that forgot to add the brain to a few production lots?
DL: We are precisely in accord on this issue.
I've already made my obligatory reply, showing how Durova actually obstructed, rather than assisted, when I had a problem with libel against me on Wikipedia. Guess why? It was Durova who defamed me!
While there are tons of gems in her article, maybe my favorite quote was this:
Would those inaccuracies include the many times when Jimbo "cleared out" the notion that Larry Sanger helped found Wikipedia? Or, would it be the many times he "cleared out" the notion that his Bomis project included pornography? Or was it simply when he tried to "clear out" some of his financial holdings?
Man, I miss the days when Jimbo was allowed to "clear out inaccuracies" about himself on his Wikipedia biography.
It's too bad we can't go back in time to check out the old "Bomis Babes Report" and judge for ourselves whether it was pornographic or not -- the Archive.org index of Bomis.com has been blocked. I wonder who arranged for that?
Wikipedia's awesome, isn't it? Thank God for Jimbo, Durova, and all their friends for keeping the rest of the world on the "right path" of understanding.
Greg
While there are tons of gems in her article, maybe my favorite quote was this:
QUOTE
Actually I have no problem with people clearing up obvious vandalism. The question professionals need to ask is, could an opponent put political spin on innocuous edits at campaign time? Jimbo Wales edited his own biography a couple of times and came under harsh criticism for it, even though he was only clearing out inaccuracies.
Would those inaccuracies include the many times when Jimbo "cleared out" the notion that Larry Sanger helped found Wikipedia? Or, would it be the many times he "cleared out" the notion that his Bomis project included pornography? Or was it simply when he tried to "clear out" some of his financial holdings?
Man, I miss the days when Jimbo was allowed to "clear out inaccuracies" about himself on his Wikipedia biography.
It's too bad we can't go back in time to check out the old "Bomis Babes Report" and judge for ourselves whether it was pornographic or not -- the Archive.org index of Bomis.com has been blocked. I wonder who arranged for that?
Wikipedia's awesome, isn't it? Thank God for Jimbo, Durova, and all their friends for keeping the rest of the world on the "right path" of understanding.
Greg
I can only conclude that she has no idea how the real world works.
No normal person is going to invest time in understanding Wikipedia processes to get information changed. Their time is more important than that, Durova.
Wikipedia needs very clear contact information on every single page. And when someone sends an email to that contact, it should go to everyone who has the page on their watchlist (this proposal should cause some fun...)
No normal person is going to invest time in understanding Wikipedia processes to get information changed. Their time is more important than that, Durova.
Wikipedia needs very clear contact information on every single page. And when someone sends an email to that contact, it should go to everyone who has the page on their watchlist (this proposal should cause some fun...)
QUOTE(Unrepentant Vandal @ Fri 10th August 2007, 4:00am)
I can only conclude that she has no idea how the real world works.
No normal person is going to invest time in understanding Wikipedia processes to get information changed. Their time is more important than that, Durova.
Wikipedia needs very clear contact information on every single page. And when someone sends an email to that contact, it should go to everyone who has the page on their watchlist (this proposal should cause some fun...)
The problem is that half of the users with the page on their watch list would insist that the subject/business owner was a liar- wrong- evil - a meatpuppet- friend of DB- on WR etc.
Danny Sullivan has removed some of the comments made on the article, and then closed the Comments field. This is the second Durova article where he's decided to close the comments.
He's invited me to write my own article, so we'll see how that goes. I wonder if I'll get my Comments section closed when the water gets too hot.
Greg
He's invited me to write my own article, so we'll see how that goes. I wonder if I'll get my Comments section closed when the water gets too hot.
Greg
QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 10th August 2007, 8:03pm)
Danny Sullivan has removed some of the comments made on the article, and then closed the Comments field. This is the second Durova article where he's decided to close the comments.
He's invited me to write my own article, so we'll see how that goes. I wonder if I'll get my Comments section closed when the water gets too hot.
Greg
I doubt she'll make an appearance. Faced with any real evidence of her unethical behavior, Durova usually sends a short, squeaky emissary to point out something relevant, like Digg counts. In a tight spot, she'll probably quote her story on the Congressional edits (again) which is old news after the Wikiscanner tool. Poor honey, that Wikiscanner took the wind out of her wiki-sleuthing, journalism-sourcing sails. Replaced by a machine. Ach, poor Durova.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.