If my wikipedia page has incorrect info on it - what am I supposed to do?
Tee Hee Hee - turns out Auren Hoffman has been editing his own Wikipedia page. When I did that - it got branded (the page) as biased.
When I asked Jimmy Wales and Joi Ito about this they laughed and said “Oh yah, that happened to us too - but we cleaned it up and had it removed.” Well my page is still not cleaned up and I was wondering what I have to do to have this slur and attack at me - removed.
This whole “who gets to edit your Wikipedia page” - is pretty dam weird. I am the official advocate and representative of myself - so why shouldn’t I be editing my own damm page? And now someone has plopped all these ‘citation needed’ tags in my page. So I have to prove where I was born or that I founded MacroMind? If info isn’t on-line - what does that mean - it doesn’t exist and that its not true?
Meanwhile ValleyWag is exposing the fact that Auren Hoffman edited his page under a psuedo-name. So what?
If he was honest about it, he’d get branded - ‘biased’ - like I am. And for the record - HELL YES - I’m biased towards myself. But I don’t lie - either. But if my page has falsehoods and incorrect facts, what am I supposed to do?
I don’t care about Auren Hoffman’s politics, but as long as this screwey system at Wikipedia exists - how the hell is anyone supposed to edit and correct their wikipedia page? Including references to what photos hang in your home - if not appropriate to a wikipedia page - BTW.
But if your career and CV is tied into who you’ve done business with, what you’ve done and who you allign yourself with, and god forbid you feelings change (say like with Ariana Huffington or Hillary Rosen) - then you should be able to go and change your wikipedia page.
You can do that with LinkedIn - and it should be true - everywhere. Humans are not static data sources. Things change in your life and you oughta be able to change on-line references to you - if your life changes. So Valleywag is wrong haranguing Auren on this point. Auren however is not forgiven for being friends with Jonathan Abrams.
Archives and older versions of these same pages - should be linked to - but the page should represent the CURRENT truths and facts, not outdated, incorrect data. IMHO.
The easiest solution to this seems to be to put up a static profile in HTML on your site that follows as much of Wikipedia house style as possible. That way all the Wikipedians can use that as their guide. And if a serious debate arises over your birthday or something equally silly, you just point them to the page. If someone wants to disagree, they should then have to find a URL which puts across the idea that you weren’t born when you say you were born.
Submit that URL to the Wikipedians via the discuss page and then sit back and hope for the best.
The easiest solution to this seems to be to put up a static profile in HTML on your site that follows as much of Wikipedia house style as possible. That way all the Wikipedians can use that as their guide. And if a serious debate arises over your birthday or something equally silly, you just point them to the page. If someone wants to disagree, they should then have to find a URL which puts across the idea that you weren’t born when you say you were born.
Submit that URL to the Wikipedians via the discuss page and then sit back and hope for the best.
The easiest solution to this seems to be to put up a static profile in HTML on your site that follows as much of Wikipedia house style as possible. That way all the Wikipedians can use that as their guide. And if a serious debate arises over your birthday or something equally silly, you just point them to the page. If someone wants to disagree, they should then have to find a URL which puts across the idea that you weren’t born when you say you were born.
Submit that URL to the Wikipedians via the discuss page and then sit back and hope for the best.
Why don’t you simple sent a note to a Wikipedia responsible about the correct facts and ask him to correct them? I think this would be better than correct yourself because it means having the filter of a third party. Otherwise people may think that you are going to modify your page according to your communication needs.
Nicola
Why don’t you simple sent a note to a Wikipedia responsible about the correct facts and ask him to correct them? I think this would be better than correct yourself because it means having the filter of a third party. Otherwise people may think that you are going to modify your page according to your communication needs.
Nicola
Why don’t you simple sent a note to a Wikipedia responsible about the correct facts and ask him to correct them? I think this would be better than correct yourself because it means having the filter of a third party. Otherwise people may think that you are going to modify your page according to your communication needs.
Nicola
Agreeing with Tom, you need an external source, even if you create it. Standards of proof ought to be high in an encyclopedia. Also make sure that your external source includes your wikipedia account name!
Agreeing with Tom, you need an external source, even if you create it. Standards of proof ought to be high in an encyclopedia. Also make sure that your external source includes your wikipedia account name!
Agreeing with Tom, you need an external source, even if you create it. Standards of proof ought to be high in an encyclopedia. Also make sure that your external source includes your wikipedia account name!
don’t feel bad, Marc. I tried to make my own page and it was simply deleted.
I’m not sure why. I was much less bellicose than you are. Of course, who isn’t?
don’t feel bad, Marc. I tried to make my own page and it was simply deleted.
I’m not sure why. I was much less bellicose than you are. Of course, who isn’t?
don’t feel bad, Marc. I tried to make my own page and it was simply deleted.
I’m not sure why. I was much less bellicose than you are. Of course, who isn’t?