Comments on: WikiPRedia http://alex.halavais.net/wikipredia Things that interest me. Sun, 05 Feb 2012 12:26:16 +0000 hourly 1 By: Constantin Basturea http://alex.halavais.net/wikipredia/comment-page-1#comment-3243 Constantin Basturea Thu, 28 Apr 2005 11:22:57 +0000 /?p=1122#comment-3243 FWIW, here's <a href="http://blog.basturea.com/archives/2005/04/28/wikipedia-before-the-flack-attack/" title="Wikipedia: the night before the flack attack">my comment</a>. FWIW, here’s my comment.

]]> By: David Brake http://alex.halavais.net/wikipredia/comment-page-1#comment-3242 David Brake Thu, 28 Apr 2005 09:02:29 +0000 /?p=1122#comment-3242 It's clear that PRs have the right to use Wikipedia to correct what they see as errors just as critics have the right to criticise. I think this is why the provenance of changes should be made more clear and why rather than claiming to provide a "neutral" point of view Wikipedia should be explicit in providing all POVs clearly labelled letting the reader decide. It’s clear that PRs have the right to use Wikipedia to correct what they see as errors just as critics have the right to criticise. I think this is why the provenance of changes should be made more clear and why rather than claiming to provide a “neutral” point of view Wikipedia should be explicit in providing all POVs clearly labelled letting the reader decide.

]]> By: Kevin http://alex.halavais.net/wikipredia/comment-page-1#comment-3241 Kevin Thu, 28 Apr 2005 04:17:06 +0000 /?p=1122#comment-3241 While what you said makes sense, the situation faced on wikipedia was that negative things were being said about the companies, so it's not any better with or without the PR people stepping in. Essentially, the facts get tossed into the backseat while hate-writers and corporate PR execs battle it out on wikipedia. Do people really have no agenda wiki-ing? I find it hard to believe that they do it only for the greater good of wikipedia. Where's the "what's in it for me?" While what you said makes sense, the situation faced on wikipedia was that negative things were being said about the companies, so it’s not any better with or without the PR people stepping in.

Essentially, the facts get tossed into the backseat while hate-writers and corporate PR execs battle it out on wikipedia.

Do people really have no agenda wiki-ing? I find it hard to believe that they do it only for the greater good of wikipedia. Where’s the “what’s in it for me?”

]]>