Everything Booklikes & Leafmarks discussion

184 views
Discuss the situation on GR > Wikipedia takes STGRB line

Comments Showing 1-27 of 27 (27 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

Emma Deplores Goodreads Censorship (emmadeploresgoodreadscensorship) | 23 comments So I happened to look up Goodreads on Wikipedia today, and here's what I found about the current situation:

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?


message 2: by Thalia (new)

Thalia (thaliaanderson) *facepalm*
*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.


Karma♥Bites ^.~ (karma_bites) | 47 comments Damn, I haven't edited anything on wiki in ages but this may be enough for me to hunt for my log-in info. FYI, Mercy Pilkington is a lovely, lovely person--truly, someone of the highest calibre. /heavy sarc


Emma Deplores Goodreads Censorship (emmadeploresgoodreadscensorship) | 23 comments 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.


Karma♥Bites ^.~ (karma_bites) | 47 comments Thalia wrote: "...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. :/


message 6: by Shomeret (new)

Shomeret | 13 comments It's possible to register a protest about an article in the Talk section about it.


Emma Deplores Goodreads Censorship (emmadeploresgoodreadscensorship) | 23 comments I would think the first step would be an edit to try to make it fair and balanced, and then if somebody came on and edited it back, at that point it would be up to some third party to arbitrate.


message 8: by Lobstergirl (last edited Nov 20, 2013 07:54PM) (new)

Lobstergirl From what I've read recently, editors of different wiki sections are extremely proprietary about the edits in their sections. If they don't like your edit, it will be immediately reversed. Sounds like either some ignorance on the part of whoever did the edit (they think the "anti-bullying" statement is value neutral, but it's not as we know, it's taking a position...), or non-ignorance, someone with a partisan opinion doing edits. I've posted things in Talk sections before that either went unseen, or ignored, although if you show up as a stranger making an edit, the regulars are more likely to assume you have a partisan viewpoint.


Susanna - Censored by GoodReads (susannag) | 231 comments Shomeret wrote: "It's possible to register a protest about an article in the Talk section about it."

That Talk column makes interesting reading.


message 10: by Randolph (new)

Randolph (us227381) If you can find anyone who wants to get in this dogfight go ahead. Wikipedia is so fraught with partisan bias in even the most mundane and tedious entries that it is almost useless except for basic fact checking: dates, names, geography etc. Anything that requires a synthetic thought be made is always biased by the editor and most things have become so turfy that independent unbiased scrutiny is almost non-existent.

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


message 11: by Randolph (new)

Randolph (us227381) Ugh, she's one of these people that helps inspire all these talentless authors to self-publish. She's basically a swindler for impotent authors. Well a fool and their money are soon...


message 12: by Cruth (new)

Cruth Looking at the talk, the person who made the edits also thinks Carroll Bryant is an author of repute. *sigh*

S/he obviously has a partisan view.


Alana ~ The Book Pimp (loonyalana) | 2 comments Thalia wrote: "*facepalm*
*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


message 14: by [Name Redacted] (new)

[Name Redacted] | 15 comments This is...this is just...

I'm glad I plan to leave this site at year's end.


message 15: by Traveller (new)

Traveller (moontravlr) | 2 comments Anybody can edit Wikipedia, it's really not such a big deal to do it if you have the time. One of us should take the trouble to fix it. Remember, its just another user (likely a STRGB member) who took the trouble to post that.

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.


message 16: by Cecily (new)

Cecily | 10 comments Traveller wrote: "...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.


Petra hugged a guy who got Covid next day. Oh dear (petra-x) Editing the page in Wikipedia might work. Another way is try to think up an opposite page and publish that on Wikipedia. Since you can do books on it, perhaps "Off-Topic by G.R. Reader about the Goodreads deletion and censorship debacle". If the same tags and keywords are used (I'm not sure on this bit) as the stgrb page, both articles should show up in searches.


Themis-Athena (Lioness at Large) (themis-athena) | 209 comments Petra's #1 Sock Puppet Smells Fishy wrote: "Editing the page in Wikipedia might work. Another way is try to think up an opposite page and publish that on Wikipedia. Since you can do books on it, perhaps "Off-Topic by G.R. Reader about the Go..."

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).


Petra hugged a guy who got Covid next day. Oh dear (petra-x) I didn't know all the backstory to Off-Topic so thank you. How do the spa's get pages for their books on GR and presumably other book sites?

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.


message 20: by Thalia (new)

Thalia (thaliaanderson) Petra's #1 Sock Puppet Smells Fishy wrote: "BookLikes did exist before October, I got an invite April 1st."

I think she meant the BookLikes wikipedia page. (:


Themis-Athena (Lioness at Large) (themis-athena) | 209 comments Thalia wrote: "Petra's #1 Sock Puppet Smells Fishy wrote: "BookLikes did exist before October, I got an invite April 1st."

I think she meant the BookLikes wikipedia page. (:"


I did indeed! :)


Petra hugged a guy who got Covid next day. Oh dear (petra-x) What did Rick Carufel do?


message 23: by Lisa (new)

Lisa Vegan (lisavegan) Off-Topic: The Story of an Internet Revolt does have an ISBN though, so the book can't be deleted.


message 24: by Traveller (new)

Traveller (moontravlr) | 2 comments Petra's #1 Sock Puppet Smells Fishy wrote: "What did Rick Carufel do?"

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


message 25: by Themis-Athena (Lioness at Large) (last edited Nov 22, 2013 02:44AM) (new)

Themis-Athena (Lioness at Large) (themis-athena) | 209 comments Lisa wrote: "Off-Topic: The Story of an Internet Revolt does have an ISBN though, so the book can't be deleted."

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."


message 26: by [Name Redacted] (new)

[Name Redacted] | 15 comments Yep. Definitely glad I'm leaving this site come New Year's Eve.


message 27: by Lisa (new)

Lisa Vegan (lisavegan) Ugh. Thanks for that info.

I was looking forward to buying the paperback.

I have a PDF from Lulu if anyone wants a copy.


back to top