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 dwhytock@gmail.com designates
 209.85.216.53 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <50FCC212.4060207@apache.org>
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>
	<50FCC212.4060207@apache.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 12:06:51 -0500
Message-ID: 
 <CAMwm1vHzvDWFXfxVb227bjPnbdCo3Xt3u14nskZY5E7Wv-99sg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: In case you missed it: The OpenOffice Wikipedia page was FUD'ed
 over the holidays
From: Donald Whytock <dwhytock@gmail.com>
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org, louis@apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Wikipedia has a lot of policy documents that are typically used to
object to an article or a piece thereof.  This comes out largely as
finger-pointing with a laser sight, but it lends legitimacy to an
argument.

Regarding conflicts of interest:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plain_and_simple_conflict_of_interes=
t_guide

This mostly concerns being personally involved with the subject
matter.  Whether offering a competing product and being personally
committed to the belittlement of the subject matter comprises
"personal involvement" is a complicated question.

Regarding opinionated content:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_n=
ot_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion

AKA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTSOAPBOX

This specifically states that if there are going to be fights over
things they shouldn't happen in Wikipedia articles.  As others have
said, a straight presentation of facts is fine, even if the reader
doesn't particularly care for them, but things like motivations and
value judgments aren't facts.  At best, one can say that such-and-such
person claimed such motivations exist or made such-and-such value
judgments.

Just above that is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_n=
ot_a_publisher_of_original_thought

AKA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTFORUM

which concerns personal opinions, ratings and original research.

Regarding it getting ugly:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_n=
ot_a_battleground

AKA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTBATTLEGROUND

Regarding dispute resolution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution

Arbitration comes at the very bottom of a rather long list of things
that should be tried first.  Arbitration is apparently meant for
situations that have to do with user conduct rather than the content
of the article.

Regarding neutral point-of-view:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute

This has a somewhat similar, though nevertheless different, procedure
for resolving the situation.  The article can be tagged as being part
of an NPOV dispute, and there's an NPOV dispute noticeboard.  The
similarity is that needing an authority figure to make a ruling should
be the very last resort.

Don

On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 11:20 PM, Louis Su=E1rez-Potts <louis@apache.org> w=
rote:
> 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 me=
an
>>> > that presenting a more truthful and honest account of Apache OpenOffi=
ce
>>> > 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 Su=E1rez-Potts
> Apache OpenOffice PMC
> In Real Life: Community Strategist, Age of Peers
> @luispo