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versions of these same pages - should be linked to - but the page should represent the CURRENT truths and facts, not outdated, incorrect data.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.
January 4th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
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.
January 4th, 2007 at 11:56 pm
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
January 5th, 2007 at 6:45 am
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!
January 5th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
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?
January 6th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
[...] Thanks to someone named ShawnSwamer for cleaning up my wikipedia page. Lots of folks suggested I just keep a separate page - up to date - so that the Wikipeddians can refer to it. Seems like a logical thing to do. The truth is - I was just getting lazy and having this wikipedia page sure made it easy for me. [...]
January 24th, 2007 at 12:37 am
[...] Microsoft clearly didn’t feel comfortable making direct changes to article about their technology, and frankly they can’t really be blamed for that. Editing an article about yourself is considered a conflict of interest by many in the Wikipedia community, and people are routinely trashed for doing so. [...]
January 24th, 2007 at 8:07 am
[...] Microsoft clearly didn’t feel comfortable making direct changes to article about their technology, and frankly they can’t really be blamed for that. Editing an article about yourself is considered a conflict of interest by many in the Wikipedia community, and people are routinely trashed for doing so. [...]
January 24th, 2007 at 10:47 am
[...] ここ数日、Microsoftの社員がRick Jelliffeというオーストラリア人ブロガーに報酬を支払ってこのページ[Ecma Office Open XML]などのOpen Office標準に関するWikipediaの記事を編集させたことが議論を呼んでいる。JelliffeはMicrosoftの申し出についてここに書いている。MicrosoftのDoug Mahughは、 この問題に関するSlashdotの記事中のコメントで事実関係をはっきりと認めている。別のソースによれば、Microsoftの広報担当もこれに同調して、「問題の記事はライバルの標準のサポーターであるIBMの社員が深くかかわっており、Microsoftとしては程度の悪い記事の訂正をボランティア編集者だけにまかせておくわけにいかなかった」と述べている。しかし、問題のWikipediaのdiscussion(ノート)ページにはMicrosoftの関与を示す履歴はまったくない。Microsoftが自社の技術に関する記事を直接編集するのは具合が悪いと考えていたことは明らかだ。その点についてはMicrosoftの考えはもっともである。自分自身に関する記事を編集するのは利害の衝突になると多くのWikipediaコミュニティーでは考えられており、そういうことをする人間は必ず非難されてきた。この記事によると、WikipediaのファウンダーJimmy Walesは「Microsoftがこのような手段をとったことに失望している」と述べたというのだが、今晩Walesとメールでやり取りしたところ、「私はMicrosoftがこの問題〔の訂正〕について最初にノートページに書き込みをした形跡が見当たらないと述べただけ」だということだ。自分自身に関するWikipedia記事に問題がある場合、その訂正を安全に行う手段はノートページを利用すること以外にない。 たとえ、その相手に公平な立場から自由に記事を書いてくれと依頼したにしても（この場合がそうだったようだが）、金を払って第三者に直接記事を編集させるのはスマートなやり方とはいえない。自分で直接記事を編集してしまうのも面倒ごとに巻き込まれる元だ。Deep Jive Interestsの記事 が言っているように、「Wikipediaをいじくる（*1）ならうまくいじくれ!」だ。(*1) 原文のastroturfは野球場などで使う人工芝の商品名。それから転じて、政治用語で「草の根（グラスルーツ）運動に見せかけた組織的政治運動」を指す。[原文へ] Wikipedia [...]
January 24th, 2007 at 7:02 pm
[...] Microsoft has strong reasons to believe that the Wikipedia entries were heavily written by people at IBM. Usually when something like this happens, the inaccuracies must be discussed in the discussions page. Microsoft’s approach is completely wrong even if they asked Rick to use his own opinions. [...]
January 24th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
[...] Microsoft ne s’est certainement pas senti à l’aise à l’heure de faire des changements sur un article concernant leur propre technologie et très sincèrement on ne peut pas le leur reprocher. Editer un article sur vous est considéré comme un conflit d’intérêt par beaucoup d’utilisateurs de la communauté Wikipedia et beaucoup de personnes sont critiqués à ce sujet [...]