4 ms·

Can someone link to a particularly egregious example of an untrue/non-POV/non-verifiable Sussman edit, or an in-bad-faith comment? So far the ones I see are bas

Can someone link to a particularly egregious example of an untrue/non-POV/non-verifiable Sussman edit, or an in-bad-faith comment? So far the ones I see are basically reasonable.

lordlimecat 8y ago
Their complaint seems to be that theyre reasonable but spun in the opposite direction. It's a fair point, but ignores that language like "X inaccurately reported Y" has its own angle. Maybe the reporter in question is generally quite accurate, and got a bad source. Should that context be included, or not, and is that spin? In other words, HuffPo is pretending that there's such a thing as being neutral, which is ironic considering how bad they are at it.
- jessriedel 8y ago
  Yea, exactly. We don't expect reasonably accurate articles to arise because all editors are perfectly unbiased, we expect them to be created by the interaction of (inevitably) biased editors coming to a reasonable consensus.
  - jakelazaroff 8y ago
    I think we also expect editors to be acting in good faith, though. The consensus in this case isn't reached because of an inevitable difference of opinion; one side has been paid to take his position. It's essentially astroturfing.
    - jessriedel 8y ago
      Being paid is not the same as acting in bad faith. Being paid is one potential source of bias, and happens to be one that is strong and particularly easy to objectively define (as opposed to, say, bias from one's political opinions). Everyone is biased, but some people at some times are acting in good faith despite their biases. The point of my comment is that you can't divide the world up into biased and unbiased, label the biased part astroturfing (or whatever), prohibit it, and then expect a nice unbiased outcome. Rather, everyone is biased in their own ways and to varying degrees. The good outcome come from the truth-tracking aspects of the process, not from have unbiased inputs.
      - jakelazaroff 8y ago
        I'm not labeling his actions astroturfing because he's biased, I'm doing so because his bias is paid for and undisclosed. That's a textbook definition of both astroturfing and acting in bad faith. How is this different in any way from e.g. a company paying for reviews on Amazon, or a journalist writing a glowing article about a company without disclosing that they own stock in that company?
        jessriedel 8y ago
        > I'm not labeling his actions astroturfing because he's biased, I'm doing so because his bias is paid for... I understand that, but I'm arguing that the bias from financial incentives are just one form of bias. (That's why I said "or whatever".) I mean that it's not useful to divide the world up into no/negligible bias and bad/paid bias, regardless of what you call it. > ...and undisclosed. That's a textbook definition of both astroturfing and acting in bad faith. In fact, as stated in the article, the payments were disclosed. Do you have other reasons to think he's acting in bad faith, or just your mistaken belief that the payments were undisclosed?
        jakelazaroff 8y ago
        Whoops, I missed that part! I agree with you, then: he's not acting in bad faith.
alexandercrohde 8y ago
Yeah that's kindof a weak argument. That's like saying "Did the judge who took a bribe say anything unreasonable in their ruling?" or like saying "Did the academic study that was paid for a big corporation without disclosing make any logical leaps?" Any paid, undisclosed influence is wrong, period. And almost certainly against TOS.
- jessriedel 8y ago
  > That's like saying "Did the judge who took a bribe say anything unreasonable in their ruling? In fact, it's much more like the attorney is paid, which is considered fine in courts. Indeed, having contributors who are potentially biased, but who each argue their point and agree to a method of conflict resolution, is considered one of the most powerful methods of seeking truth. It's also used in academics, where each researcher bring their own biases to the table. > Any paid, undisclosed influence is wrong, period. I guess you didn't read the article? The paid influence was disclosed.
  - viivaux 8y ago
    >In fact, it's much more like the attorney is paid, which is considered fine in courts. In theory (though tbf not in reality) everyone has the right to an attorney. AFAIK there is no corresponding right to a paid Wikipedia editor. >> Any paid, undisclosed influence is wrong, period. >I guess you didn't read the article? The paid influence was disclosed. “But the plans were on display…” “On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.” “That’s the display department.” “With a flashlight.” “Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.” “So had the stairs.” “But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?” “Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.” Wikipedia articles with significant edits from paid PR hacks need a big red warning sticker.
- xondono 8y ago
  According to the article at least, all his suggestions have been disclosed following the Wikipedia rules.
- 8y ago

Can someone link to a particularly egregious example of an untrue/non-POV/non-verifiable Sussman edit, or an in-bad-faith comment? So far the ones I see are basically reasonable.

lordlimecat 8y ago

Their complaint seems to be that theyre reasonable but spun in the opposite direction. It's a fair point, but ignores that language like "X inaccurately reported Y" has its own angle. Maybe the reporter in question is generally quite accurate, and got a bad source. Should that context be included, or not, and is that spin? In other words, HuffPo is pretending that there's such a thing as being neutral, which is ironic considering how bad they are at it.

jessriedel 8y ago
Yea, exactly. We don't expect reasonably accurate articles to arise because all editors are perfectly unbiased, we expect them to be created by the interaction of (inevitably) biased editors coming to a reasonable consensus.
- jakelazaroff 8y ago
  I think we also expect editors to be acting in good faith, though. The consensus in this case isn't reached because of an inevitable difference of opinion; one side has been paid to take his position. It's essentially astroturfing.
  - jessriedel 8y ago
    Being paid is not the same as acting in bad faith. Being paid is one potential source of bias, and happens to be one that is strong and particularly easy to objectively define (as opposed to, say, bias from one's political opinions). Everyone is biased, but some people at some times are acting in good faith despite their biases. The point of my comment is that you can't divide the world up into biased and unbiased, label the biased part astroturfing (or whatever), prohibit it, and then expect a nice unbiased outcome. Rather, everyone is biased in their own ways and to varying degrees. The good outcome come from the truth-tracking aspects of the process, not from have unbiased inputs.
    - jakelazaroff 8y ago
      I'm not labeling his actions astroturfing because he's biased, I'm doing so because his bias is paid for and undisclosed. That's a textbook definition of both astroturfing and acting in bad faith. How is this different in any way from e.g. a company paying for reviews on Amazon, or a journalist writing a glowing article about a company without disclosing that they own stock in that company?
      - jessriedel 8y ago
        > I'm not labeling his actions astroturfing because he's biased, I'm doing so because his bias is paid for... I understand that, but I'm arguing that the bias from financial incentives are just one form of bias. (That's why I said "or whatever".) I mean that it's not useful to divide the world up into no/negligible bias and bad/paid bias, regardless of what you call it. > ...and undisclosed. That's a textbook definition of both astroturfing and acting in bad faith. In fact, as stated in the article, the payments were disclosed. Do you have other reasons to think he's acting in bad faith, or just your mistaken belief that the payments were undisclosed?
        jakelazaroff 8y ago
        Whoops, I missed that part! I agree with you, then: he's not acting in bad faith.

alexandercrohde 8y ago

Yeah that's kindof a weak argument. That's like saying "Did the judge who took a bribe say anything unreasonable in their ruling?" or like saying "Did the academic study that was paid for a big corporation without disclosing make any logical leaps?" Any paid, undisclosed influence is wrong, period. And almost certainly against TOS.

jessriedel 8y ago
> That's like saying "Did the judge who took a bribe say anything unreasonable in their ruling? In fact, it's much more like the attorney is paid, which is considered fine in courts. Indeed, having contributors who are potentially biased, but who each argue their point and agree to a method of conflict resolution, is considered one of the most powerful methods of seeking truth. It's also used in academics, where each researcher bring their own biases to the table. > Any paid, undisclosed influence is wrong, period. I guess you didn't read the article? The paid influence was disclosed.
- viivaux 8y ago
  >In fact, it's much more like the attorney is paid, which is considered fine in courts. In theory (though tbf not in reality) everyone has the right to an attorney. AFAIK there is no corresponding right to a paid Wikipedia editor. >> Any paid, undisclosed influence is wrong, period. >I guess you didn't read the article? The paid influence was disclosed. “But the plans were on display…” “On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.” “That’s the display department.” “With a flashlight.” “Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.” “So had the stairs.” “But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?” “Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.” Wikipedia articles with significant edits from paid PR hacks need a big red warning sticker.
xondono 8y ago
According to the article at least, all his suggestions have been disclosed following the Wikipedia rules.
8y ago