Launched today, the prettiest news aggregator you’ll ever see – but its more than that. You can ‘see the vine’ with news stories you see elsewhere, vote on stories to increase their prominence, discuss articles or write your own. V promising.
This is a pretty important dispute, if you look at the Wikipedia policy. Here’s an overview:
NPOV (Neutral Point Of View) is a fundamental Wikipedia principle which states that all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias. This includes reader-facing templates, categories and portals. According to Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, NPOV is “absolute and non-negotiable”.
Now, to me, the post that Marc has written seems to be heavy on the factual and light on the spin. Rather than using words like ‘most important’ (subjective) he uses ‘most recognised’ (fair enough, you’d be hard pressed to argue that one I think). He doesn’t really talk at all about the success or importance of any of the work he’s done. It really is just a list of the involvements he’s had with various activities and projects and organisations over the years. Being Marc, its a pretty long list. Fair enough, he’s been around a while.
The crux of the argument (and there’s only one post there at time of writing) is that Marc wrote it himself, so therefore its not neutral. The objector writes:
Marc has asserted in his own blog that he has re-written much (/all?) of the content of this page himself. I personally don’t feel that writing one’s own entry should be allowed, I also realise that is not Wikipeida [sic] policy. Never the less the content of this entry is both self-promoting and biased towards Mr Canter.
They request that the page be rolled back to show its previous content.
Now, I haven’t had the time to research the reams of Wikipedia policy to see whether it is explicitly stated that you’re not allowed to write your own page… I certainly agree that Wikipedia should aspire to a neutral point of view, as far as that is possible, but should that exclude the most qualified person from writing a post on their most personal topic: themselves?
I think not – so long as they do their best to maintain a neutral POV, which from my reading, Marc has had a good shot at doing.
Surely, the principle of the wiki format is that if anyone finds something that Marc has written to be overly biassed and self promoting, then they should edit the page to remove or neutralise this?
If Marc hadn’t made it clear that he was responsible for this post, would we even be having this discussion? How many pages would have been written by people who have undeclared interests? I’d have to assume this happens fairly frequently.
Having said all of that … I do wonder why Marc decided the best place to post this was on Wikipedia and not on his own website. If its really to eliminate having to send out bios and photos all the time then, personally, I’d be looking on his site for that information before I scouted Wikipedia. And its just as easy to send out either link. Perhaps this is more about attempting to control one’s identity in an environment when people can publish all kinds of inaccuracies that can be perpetuated indefinitely.
ok, just to show that I’m not altogether anti-Telstra, here’s a good thing they’re doing: nowwearetalking is Telstra’s corporate blog and is designed to provide telecoms shareholders and other interested parties with information about the digital revolution (often times in response to something scathing that the press may have written recently). Still, all cynicism aside, its a good showing so far.
Wearing earbuds or headphones telegraphs the message, `Unless it’s urgent, please do not disturb,’ … Rings true to me (although, I’d never quite thought about it that way until I moved over to the designers pod… but that’s another post entirely!
FlickrNation have their eyes on some guy on eBay who is willing to be your Flickr Fan… if you’re the highest bidder. Offer includes favouriting your photos, commenting, writing testimonials,… all the good stuff to get your ego going in FlickrLand
Can someone explain to me why Australia’s biggest Telco, and one of Australia’s largest companies, thinks that its appropriate to launch their brand new blogging service…. when the service is not yet available?
Why didn’t they at least bother designing this page? Maybe telling me *when* it would be launched. Maybe getting my email address and sending me a little note when its up?
Perhaps they could have cleaned out all the dodgy test content before sending the site public?
And I certainly hope someone is going to take a good hard look at that ‘BigBlog Community page’. An alphabetical index does not a ‘Community’ make….