Mailing-List: contact dev-help@openoffice.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of luispo@gmail.com designates
 209.85.223.181 as permitted sender)
Sender: =?UTF-8?Q?Louis_Su=C3=A1rez=2DPotts?= <luispo@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <50FCC212.4060207@apache.org>
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 23:20:34 -0500
From: =?UTF-8?B?TG91aXMgU3XDoXJlei1Qb3R0cw==?= <louis@apache.org>
Reply-To: louis@apache.org
User-Agent: Postbox 3.0.6 (Macintosh/20121022)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org>, dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: In case you missed it: The OpenOffice Wikipedia page was FUD'ed
 over the holidays
References: 
 <CAP-ksohjhfPPxuuuPj31iDPT1vQP7x__irbrJ6WFq7ZfGLa+8Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <006201cdf779$b0a9bd70$11fd3850$@acm.org>
 <CAP-ksohnEv0obKPUZfkrOd3kzj65jEa9rysvtTn+1T-8XvUjmw@mail.gmail.com>
 <50FCB239.3050801@apache.org>
 <CAP-ksohJBkF4F15mHJhi2VF4GoUOsCGo+Rq7YM6Hq9BRJ6haTg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAP-ksohJBkF4F15mHJhi2VF4GoUOsCGo+Rq7YM6Hq9BRJ6haTg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Rob Weir wrote:
>> For what it is worth, I too am a Wikipedia editor. Many are, and it's
>> > not anything to write home about as something special. But it does mean
>> > that presenting a more truthful and honest account of Apache OpenOffice
>> > is something we can do.
>> >
> 
> So what can you do when you have someone pushing a biased POV?
> 
> His comments here, for example, seem to show that he not only lacks
> the facts, but has an axe to grind:
> 
> https://plus.google.com/u/0/111502940353406919728/posts/3CUDTZoTsAp
> 
> Doesn't that make someone ineligible to edit an article?
> 
> -Rob
> 

In a better land, where notions of fairness are codified and observed as
an honour code, and where cheating is out of the question because it
would devalue oneself (or one's affiliations), I'd think so; and even
Wikipedia might have codified provisions to guard against that sort of
thing; I cannot recall. But my understanding is that there is in play a
Hayek-style free speech rule, where the solution to biased or otherwise
untrue (or untrustworthy) speech is more speech, but from others,
including the offended parties.

I can't recall but I would be curious if Wikipedia does have a kind of
means of safeguarding the impartiality of its editors. As just about
anybody can be an editor, and put out the most wonderfully batty stuff
(recall Sarah Palin's pages? language coined to give truth to bizarre
falsehood, and by her minions, no less, this was done), the remedy is
the agonistic one.

So, I'd be delighted to help out here, and correct this nonsense. My
motivation is by no means adversarial. I do not wish ill of LO or TDF.
Gerard seems committed here, as elsewhere (such as his blog on
Wikimedia) to a certain notion of activism. That's fine for him. But
what it means for us is to fix the errors that we can identify and
clarify in the talk sections the logic of our work.

Much of that has already been done in this thread by Rob and Dennis.

best
Louis

-- 
Louis Suárez-Potts
Apache OpenOffice PMC
In Real Life: Community Strategist, Age of Peers
@luispo