«

[The Fifth Horseman]

Apparently an individual using an IP adress traced to ESA HQ has modified the Abandonware and Modchip articles in a way pushing ESA's POV to exclusion of any other.
More about the incident can be found here: http://gamepolitics.com/2007/08/18/esa-alt...y-on-mod-chips/

[dosraider]

[agitator modus]
And why shouldn't they edit wiki to their satisfaction?
Wiki is "open", so you can't exclude EA to alter-edit-whatever they want.
It's open ,or it isn't.
[/agitator modus]

It's not the first time this happens, and won't be the last.

[The Fifth Horseman]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dosraider @ Sep 17 2007, 11:11 AM) [snapback]311338[/snapback]</div>

[agitator modus]
And why shouldn't they edit wiki to their satisfaction?
Wiki is "open", so you can't exclude EA to alter-edit-whatever they want.
It's open ,or it isn't.
[/agitator modus]
[/b]

First of all, Wikipedia always strives towards presenting the information in an objective and neutral manner.
POV pushing is considered a form of vandalism.
Go ESA! :brain:

[Doubler]

dosraider, I'd say institutions or their employees editing their own articles is not really 'wrong' or disallowed at that, just in extremely poor taste (or is there a real policy on it? I'm not that familiar with Wikipedia). That is, as long as the editing is done to improve the article to wikipedia's standards - when they edit it to 'their satisfaction', there's a big chance it simply goes against wikipedia policies.

It's not the first time this happens, and won't be the last.[/b]

Obviously, that doesn't mean it's right or that it should just be accepted

[The Fifth Horseman]

institutions or their employees editing their own articles is not really 'wrong' or disallowed at that, just in extremely poor taste (or is there a real policy on it? I'm not that familiar with Wikipedia)[/b]

It's OK as long as they do not violate the NPOV policy.

[Dave]

So, what are the consequences of their actions?

[dosraider]

They probably earned an extra bonus.
And next time a double extra bonus if they succeed without being so stupid to get caught.

[gregor]

but weren't they somehow violating the copyright of the user that wrote the article before them? i mean they edited authors work without the authors permission. i know it's not uncommon in Wiki, but it doesn't go with the ethics they are trying to advertise.

[The Fifth Horseman]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(David86 @ Sep 17 2007, 03:41 PM) [snapback]311413[/snapback]</div>

So, what are the consequences of their actions?
[/b]

For the moment, only having to bear a badge of shame on the subject within their own Wikipedia article.

but weren't they somehow violating the copyright of the user that wrote the article before them? i mean they edited authors work without the authors permission. i know it's not uncommon in Wiki, but it doesn't go with the ethics they are trying to advertise.[/b]

Thing is, copyrights in that meaning do not apply to the content of Wikipedia articles (which is under a public license, IIRC). What they were violating was the neutrality of the article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:COI

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NPOV

[12turtle12]

Unfortunately, as much as I love wikipedia, they have had a history of (corporations especially) of people editing their own entries, or making joke edits. If you look up "wikipedia" on wikipedia (heh heh) they actually do talk at length about this if you click on a few of the "in page" links.