3 ms·

Yes, because the company has something to gain by lying. If Wikipedia cites a newspaper article which brought to light that the company has been poisoning the

by crote 2y ago

Yes, because the company has something to gain by lying. If Wikipedia cites a newspaper article which brought to light that the company has been poisoning the local water supply, should that section be removed just because the company's founder says differently?

CamperBob2 2y ago
No, but someone else can use a "reliable source" (whatever that means) or an authoritative primary source to add that information. Personally, I want a resource that values primary sources, not one that censors them. The world isn't short on hard drive space (and deletionism didn't make sense back when it was, either.) I would prefer that an article about XYZ Co. is edited by the former CEO of XYZ Co., rather than by someone who knows nothing about XYZ Co., but whose opinion regarding "reliable sources" is informed by their biases regarding the "social structure of capitalism."
- dessimus 2y ago
  > I would prefer that an article about XYZ Co. is edited by the former CEO of XYZ Co. Even a former CEO would keep secrets. The next corporation's board is not going to hire a CEO that will knowingly be frank on Wikipedia about a former company.
  - CamperBob2 2y ago
    Note that he didn't say anything about the information the CEO tried to add/remove/edit, just that the edit was "historical" in nature and epistemically unacceptable based on its source. It might not have involved a secret plot to dilute the company's baby formula with methanol, it might have been as innocent (and as objective) as their date of formation or ownership structure. We simply don't know. There's a lot we don't know because somebody like this didn't approve of where the information came from. Somewhere a homeowner's association is missing a lawn committee chair.
arp242 2y ago
Of course not, but no one is saying that we should always uncritically accept what a company says. That's just boring black/white nonsense. Obviously people involved in a topic have a conflict of interest and their edits should be viewed with the appropriate amount of trepidation (if they should even be editing at all). This, however, has nothing to do with capitalism. It's a very odd swipe to include. And it really does depend on the specifics of what they wanted to change. People with a conflict of interest try to make poor edits all the time, but there's also tons of uncited or poorly cited stuff on Wikipedia that can be hard to change if one particularly difficult editor stands in the way for whatever reason (possibly due to their own opposing conflict of interest). A whole-sale dismissal of their complaint without any information about the specifics at all is just flat-out wrong. This is exactly the sort of behaviour are complain about.

by crote 2y ago

CamperBob2 2y ago

No, but someone else can use a "reliable source" (whatever that means) or an authoritative primary source to add that information. Personally, I want a resource that values primary sources, not one that censors them. The world isn't short on hard drive space (and deletionism didn't make sense back when it was, either.) I would prefer that an article about XYZ Co. is edited by the former CEO of XYZ Co., rather than by someone who knows nothing about XYZ Co., but whose opinion regarding "reliable sources" is informed by their biases regarding the "social structure of capitalism."

dessimus 2y ago
> I would prefer that an article about XYZ Co. is edited by the former CEO of XYZ Co. Even a former CEO would keep secrets. The next corporation's board is not going to hire a CEO that will knowingly be frank on Wikipedia about a former company.
- CamperBob2 2y ago
  Note that he didn't say anything about the information the CEO tried to add/remove/edit, just that the edit was "historical" in nature and epistemically unacceptable based on its source. It might not have involved a secret plot to dilute the company's baby formula with methanol, it might have been as innocent (and as objective) as their date of formation or ownership structure. We simply don't know. There's a lot we don't know because somebody like this didn't approve of where the information came from. Somewhere a homeowner's association is missing a lawn committee chair.

arp242 2y ago

Of course not, but no one is saying that we should always uncritically accept what a company says. That's just boring black/white nonsense. Obviously people involved in a topic have a conflict of interest and their edits should be viewed with the appropriate amount of trepidation (if they should even be editing at all). This, however, has nothing to do with capitalism. It's a very odd swipe to include. And it really does depend on the specifics of what they wanted to change. People with a conflict of interest try to make poor edits all the time, but there's also tons of uncited or poorly cited stuff on Wikipedia that can be hard to change if one particularly difficult editor stands in the way for whatever reason (possibly due to their own opposing conflict of interest). A whole-sale dismissal of their complaint without any information about the specifics at all is just flat-out wrong. This is exactly the sort of behaviour are complain about.