Sunday, February 11, 2007

"What's the right way to edit the page about my company and my own bio?"

MORE: he's NOT pushing? (Cnewmark 17:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC) under "article errors") what is he doing then...? what's the point of propping up Lumarine? notice that his agreement with him -- that his simply asserting the stuff should be enough -- is the opposite to what he said on his blog: "for very good reasons, I just can't assert the facts. That makes sense, in light of increasing fact checking, which is mighty important.") what happened with all those very good reasons? sounds like he was bullshitting again... D.

UPDATE: well, that doesn't work as well as I expected... (Craig posted to the Wikipedia talkpage for "Craig Newmark" without signing the post, meaning it does NOT show on his contributions page... just keep an eye on Wikipedia talkpages for "craigslist" and "Craig Newmark" if you'd like to follow this... that should keep you abreast of what's going on...)

there is NO right way to edit Wikipedia pages on oneself or one's company... (especially when you are Craig Newmark and are very likely to get preferential treatment even if all you do is "suggest" things...)

notice what was the actual effect of his "suggestions"-- it got even mild valid criticism (that should have been easily proven to be true and verifiably so) off the page:

"An issue faced by many users is that the company allows other users (volunteers) to police the site for them" ( searching feedback, flag and help would have shown that's true...)

"Many believe that the company must do more to police such actions through more intense screening of volunteers or monitoring of their behavior." (again, searching feedback, flag and help would have shown that's true...)

these were present prior (to editor EncMstr' removing "unsupported material contested by user:Cnewmark; minor cleanup of voice, grammar, cites, wikidates") and are absent thereafter ...

EncMstr: "In your case [meaning Craig's case], I'd be happy to incorporate any changes for which I can find a reliable published source, or remove material for which I can't find something you point out is in error."(under "proper etiquette")

well... what he really did was remove info that was NOT in error (and could have easily found that out through basic research) without even stating what he removed... (which makes it difficult to notice what took place)


P.S. if you are interested in when and how this all started and unfolds, check-out Craig’s Wikepedia contributions page D.

No comments: