Everything Booklikes & Leafmarks discussion
Discuss the situation on GR
>
Wikipedia takes STGRB line
date
newest »


*headdesk*
*bodyfloor*
Ugh ugh ugh. I'm not comfortable editing things on wikipedia either, but the article should be objective and not announce it as an "anti-bullying" policy. It shouldn't even be presented as a censorship policy. I can't stand when Wikipedia forces an opinion.



Emma Deplores Goodreads Censorship wrote: "I have to wonder who even wrote this. Even Goodreads itself didn't announce it as an "anti-bullying policy." It was a "don't use review space to talk about author behavior" policy."
IKR? Again, it's been yrs so I can't remember if there's anyone like an ME who could evaluate added info. But IMO, the value of wiki has been steadily declining b/c of stuff like this--users adding biased content, as opposed to facts and/or factual observations. Kinda like how online 'reporting' tanked into yellow journalism. :/



That Talk column makes interesting reading.

Has anyone Googled "Mercy Pilkington?" It sounds like a character from an Trollope Anthony novel.


S/he obviously has a partisan view.

*headdesk*
*bodyfloor*
Ugh ugh ugh. I'm not comfortable editing things on wikipedia either, but the article should be objective and not announce it as an "anti-bullying" policy. It shou..."
+1 mind boggling

Problem is that they might come along again and change it back again. *sigh*
The main problem to me seems to be that if we keep running away to other sites all the time, without ever fighting back, the problem will just eventually follow us there.

I fear you may be right.


They're likely going to redelete the "Off Topic" page for lack of national, let alone international relevance. They did the same thing when Gitta first created a BookLikes page (which didn't even exist until this past October) -- both Gitta and I protested, and we were told we needed to show that the item the newly created page was about was of significant national or even international relevance. So we recreated the BookLikes wiki throwing in all sorts of stuff just about what a great new international phenomenon and viable GR and LibraryThing competitor BookLikes is, and with that material, the page eventually stuck.
"Off Topic" has by far not yet enough votes (and reviews) to register as significant on Wikipedia's horizon. Also, due to Rick Carufel's interference, Lulu pulled it from its catalogue, so it currently doesn't have an official publisher (only the ebook can be downloaded for free at the link that's making the rounds).
I think for the time being our best bet is trying to edit the Wiki page -- and reinstating the edits over and over again if they are deleted (which may happen VERY quickly: the first BookLikes wiki that Gitta created vanished again, talk page entries included, in a matter of a few hours).

BookLikes did exist before October, I got an invite April 1st. Joined and didn't like it. I rejoined in Oct. I wonder how many members the site has and what percentage are GR people? I don't think I've met any people there who weren't GR. I notice that there are some very odd blogs advertising Far Eastern companies with a single post, but I don't know how many.

I think she meant the BookLikes wikipedia page. (:

I think she meant the BookLikes wikipedia page. (:"
I did indeed! :)

http://ctrlq.org/files/screenshots/in...

No, but Lulu has pulled it from distribution. Which for the time being means there won't be any print copies -- only the ebook that's circulating already (and you can't order that from Lulu anymore, either, you now have to download it from one of the other places, such as the dropbox link).
ETA, and the mere fact that "Off Topic" has an ISBN doesn't oblige Wikipedia to allow a wiki page for it to be created (even less so now that Lulu refuses to distribute the book). Virtually EVERY self-published book has an ISBN or equivalent cataloguing number (ASIN, etc.). That doesn't mean it's also going to be allowed to have a Wikipedia page under Wikipedia's terms and definition of "relevance."
Goodreads has come under criticism from users over the availability and tone of reviews posted on the site, with some users stating that certain reviewers were harassing and encouraging attacks on authors.[33] [34] Goodreads publicly posted their review guidelines in August 2012 to address these issues .[35] In September of 2013, Goodreads announced a new anti-bullying policy which authorized the removal of abusive content throughout the site, sparking a great deal of controversy among authors and readers.[36] Several news sources reported the announcement, noting Amazon's business reasons for the move:
Where authors were threatening a mass account cancellation to protest the bullying, many of the reader users who commented on the announcement are now threatening the same thing. And while much of this might seem like nothing more than petty playground behavior between children who honestly do not have a clear good guy or bad guy, keep in mind that several ebook retailers incorporate the Goodreads’ API into their sales pages, effectively posting book reviews that many in the Goodreads community know to be false, and nothing more than an act of revenge against an author; real-world sales decisions have been made by consumers based on these reviews.
—Mercy Pilkington, Good E-Reader News[37]
I'm not a regular Wikipedia editor and don't want to go around mucking things up, but this pisses me off. "Anti-bullying" policy about removing "abusive" content? Abusive content was already being removed! Does anybody here feel comfortable adding our side of the story and balancing this out a bit?