4 ms·

How can I sensibly choose if to do business with someone if I am only getting positive spin? When I see a page that's clearly been sanitised I try and dismiss i

How can I sensibly choose if to do business with someone if I am only getting positive spin? When I see a page that's clearly been sanitised I try and dismiss it completely - and often the firm with it. Or go hunting for balance - which might be hugely counter productive for my overall view of the company if I land up on a complaints site. Of the "landscapes", take the image of the woman in black in dead centre of shot - it's terribly framed unless you just wanted a photo of your wife's ass. For deciding if I'd like to visit the region the only thought is "get out of the damn way". The orange tent in corner of landscape? Crop that shit out and have a decent landscape shot. Better still, get a photographer bright enough to take 3 steps left first. The production value is solely of product placement not landscape photography, suited only for their website. Now then, if North Face had paid a renowned landscape photographer to take some excellent photos for Wikipedia it could become well known with no logo or product in sight. Positive PR, and probably a note on North Face's page for genuine production values. Except that's no longer an advertising campaign. What did North Face achieve? Made sure I buy Patagonia, or Jack Wolfskin etc next time I'm buying outdoor gear - which I do fairly regularly.

logicallee 7y ago
If the shots were distracting or not appropriate for the pages, do you know why the changes didn't get reverted?
- tom_mellior 7y ago
  You have tried to make this argument several times. Do you actually think that a committee of editors carefully reviews every single change made to Wikipedia? That is not the case.
  - logicallee 7y ago
    yes, I think that editors on most pages act like little lords and ladies over what they view as their property and instantly revert anything from outsiders that doesn't fit with their conception or isn't a clear improvement. (This has been my experience). sorry, that was my experience.
    - geezerjay 7y ago
      You're presenting a personal pov that's grossly hyperbolic even in its subjectivity and does not reflect reality. With the exception of a hand-full of highly sensible topics that are prone to brigading, such as political issues, most articles barely receive any edit and are far from being monitored. Articles that are particularly vulnerable are articles on geography-related topics from nations that don't have a strong wikipedia presence.
      - DanBC 7y ago
        I mean, it's not that hyperbolic. Wikipedia is a highly toxic place for many people. Even the foundation appreciates this.

logicallee 7y ago

If the shots were distracting or not appropriate for the pages, do you know why the changes didn't get reverted?

tom_mellior 7y ago
You have tried to make this argument several times. Do you actually think that a committee of editors carefully reviews every single change made to Wikipedia? That is not the case.
- logicallee 7y ago
  yes, I think that editors on most pages act like little lords and ladies over what they view as their property and instantly revert anything from outsiders that doesn't fit with their conception or isn't a clear improvement. (This has been my experience). sorry, that was my experience.
  - geezerjay 7y ago
    You're presenting a personal pov that's grossly hyperbolic even in its subjectivity and does not reflect reality. With the exception of a hand-full of highly sensible topics that are prone to brigading, such as political issues, most articles barely receive any edit and are far from being monitored. Articles that are particularly vulnerable are articles on geography-related topics from nations that don't have a strong wikipedia presence.
    - DanBC 7y ago
      I mean, it's not that hyperbolic. Wikipedia is a highly toxic place for many people. Even the foundation appreciates this.