Comments on: Wikipedia and Corporate Participation http://www.joemanna.com/blog/wikipedia-and-corporate-participation/ Tech News, Social Media & Politics From a Geek Sun, 12 Oct 2008 10:24:31 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Terry http://www.joemanna.com/blog/wikipedia-and-corporate-participation/#comment-20923 Terry Tue, 28 Aug 2007 21:41:10 +0000 http://www.joemanna.com/blog/wikipedia-and-corporate-participation/#comment-20923 I think the argument has been a bit one-sided. A lot of editing has been done to present oneself in a positive light in an effort to offset something slanderous. It's all POV, so everyone, most of all the subject of the article, has the right to weigh in. When it comes to an open source anyone can edit with anonymity, there can be no discussion of "ethics." It's preposterous to hold anyone's behavior to ethical standards when their participating in something (Wikipedia) that is unethical intrinsically. Admins often take sides in disputes and preserve slanderous content (i.e. a reference to one netizen as a "kook" was defended by admins because they cited as an authoritative source some ridiculous vote in a Usenet news group). And one admin created a user box for some editor he didn't like and defamed him in that user box. The admin in question, who calls himself Calton, admitted in a de facto livejournal entry that before Wikipedia was born, his hobby was writing negative reviews in Amazon.com of books whose author blogs he didn't like. And we think there is any ethics attached to Wikipedia? I think the argument has been a bit one-sided. A lot of editing has been done to present oneself in a positive light in an effort to offset something slanderous. It’s all POV, so everyone, most of all the subject of the article, has the right to weigh in.

When it comes to an open source anyone can edit with anonymity, there can be no discussion of “ethics.” It’s preposterous to hold anyone’s behavior to ethical standards when their participating in something (Wikipedia) that is unethical intrinsically. Admins often take sides in disputes and preserve slanderous content (i.e. a reference to one netizen as a “kook” was defended by admins because they cited as an authoritative source some ridiculous vote in a Usenet news group). And one admin created a user box for some editor he didn’t like and defamed him in that user box. The admin in question, who calls himself Calton, admitted in a de facto livejournal entry that before Wikipedia was born, his hobby was writing negative reviews in Amazon.com of books whose author blogs he didn’t like. And we think there is any ethics attached to Wikipedia?

]]>