Linn on Wikipedia - We need your help

[Warren]

Wikipedia has standards and even a list of top pages based on quality.

Also, this is a case of "Eaglesham, we have a problem."

This page appears to have been highjacked by someone and the page contains libellous information.

Wikipedia request that libellous information is reported and have a channel for company staff to report such incidents, I posted the link in the second part of my post 6 here. Has this been done yet?

This is the first step that needs to be taken before we get into what content should be on the page.

I also think there should be the usual About Us page on the Linn website that captures an official history.

[slackboy]

So some Internet Tough Guy goes on there, posts a load of crap that just isn't true, and there's little to nothing the company in question can do about it? That just can't be right.

Interesting, isn't it, to see how many inaccuracies there are in this one small page and extrapolate that to the whole of wikipedia. You know that saying, "everything you know is wrong"? Educate yourself solely off wikipedia, and it will be. The faith the whole human race puts in that website worries me.

[Village Idiot]

(2012-02-27 18:14)linnrd Wrote:  Again this brings us into the sticky domain of what is defined as a "factual and informative overview". Welcome to the world of Wikis and blogs. My personal views on free speech (i.e. let the moron have his say) compel me do defend those I most strongly disagree with as opposed to suppressing their voices. I also think that a counter argument based in fact could me more convincing. If there are differing view of the "facts" then perhaps it is up to their proponents to make a case of their veracity.

In many ways, I find the title of this thread, and indeed this whole thread, rather disturbing for the exact reasons I have outlined in this post. There are better ways for Linn to deal with inaccuracies on Wikipedia than a call to arms from its customers/dealers.

|'m right with you on freedom of speech, amd also agree it seems off to have your customers fight your battle for you, but a couple of riders spring to mind here. In everday public life there is usually a right of reply and it's not clear what Linn's right of reply is if someone (seemingly) can veto editing.

Secondly it seems most of us on here clearly see Wikipedia's shortcomings, but I'm not convinced Joe Public does, or not all of them. Some people may think they are opening up the Encyclopedia Britannica and reading that Linn are counterfeitors and manufacturers of sh1t products. If I were Linn I'd want to exercise a bit of influence over that.

---

(2012-02-27 23:28)slackboy Wrote:  So some Internet Tough Guy goes on there, posts a load of crap that just isn't true, and there's little to nothing the company in question can do about it? That just can't be right.

Interesting, isn't it, to see how many inaccuracies there are in this one small page and extrapolate that to the whole of wikipedia. You know that saying, "everything you know is wrong"? Educate yourself solely off wikipedia, and it will be. The faith the whole human race puts in that website worries me.

Our posts seem to have crossed in the, er, post, and we are saying much the same thing.

[Warren]

(2012-02-27 18:14)linnrd Wrote:  My personal views on free speech (i.e. let the moron have his say)

Wikipedia isn't about free speech and it isn't the place for it, it is an encyclopedia, regardless of authoring. If I write that 2+2=5, it should be deleted.

[Joesilva]

(2012-02-28 00:37)Warren Wrote:  

(2012-02-27 18:14)linnrd Wrote:  My personal views on free speech (i.e. let the moron have his say)

Wikipedia isn't about free speech and it isn't the place for it, it is an encyclopedia, regardless of authoring. If I write that 2+2=5, it should be deleted.

I agree you should not allow rubbish, non-factual information such as 2 + 2 = 5 on Wikipedia, and that is why there is a procedure in place to report such false information and have it removed. However, when it comes to issues such as who invented what or where the idea originated, etc., none of us were actually there at the time, so we cannot be entirely sure. Who can categorically say what is the truth, and why should the public be prevented from viewing alternative views ? I grew up hearing some of the stories that are now on Wikipedia, and while I cannot say which are true and which are false, I'm glad to have the chance to read different views and draw my own conclusions. For example, I know for a fact that the Acoustic Research XA turntable that was made in the U.S. was launched over a decade before the LP-12 and it had a two-part platter, belt drive, three-point spring suspended sub-chasis and a.c. synchronous motor. It is entirely up to each individual whether they choose to believe Gilad's statement that the the LP-12 was not in any way influenced by the AR design, but it will be difficult to prove this to anyone given their similarities in design. So for a sight such as Wikipedia, I would imagine that you could only say something like, "Despite their similarities in design, Linn claim that their LP-12 was not influenced by the Acoustic Research XA or any other turntable". It would be interesting to see what the lads on the LP-12 forum think about this comment from Gilad.

It is natural for any individual or corporation to want history to be written the way they see it. Clearly, this can be done on their own websites. However, for those of us that weren't there, its interesting to have a place like Wikipedia to read alternative views of the truth, and if these alternative views are proved to be false, they ought to be reported and justified to the proper authorities at Wikipedia with the intent of having them removed or amended.

[linnrd]

(2012-02-27 23:22)Warren Wrote:  Wikipedia request that libellous information is reported and have a channel for company staff to report such incidents, I posted the link in the second part of my post 6 here. Has this been done yet?

This is the first step that needs to be taken before we get into what content should be on the page.

Done and thanks for the link. Agree with this as the first step.

(2012-02-27 23:22)Warren Wrote:  I also think there should be the usual About Us page on the Linn website that captures an official history.

Totally agree with this and there is no reason to not link to it from Wikipedia either. Other bits 'n' bobs regarding who makes what for whom, can be left on Wikipedia if Linn does not feel it forms a coherent "About Us" section.

(2012-02-27 23:31)Village Idiot Wrote:  |'m right with you on freedom of speech, amd also agree it seems off to have your customers fight your battle for you, but a couple of riders spring to mind here. In everday public life there is usually a right of reply and it's not clear what Linn's right of reply is if someone (seemingly) can veto editing.

and

(2012-02-27 23:28)slackboy Wrote:  So some Internet Tough Guy goes on there, posts a load of crap that just isn't true, and there's little to nothing the company in question can do about it? That just can't be right.

Reporting the content to wikipedia is a first step in sorting out the content. It's not about a "right of reply" as much as it is about getting correct info on there. Anyone can do that; I just found the call to arms on this forum a bit weird.

(2012-02-27 23:28)slackboy Wrote:  Interesting, isn't it, to see how many inaccuracies there are in this one small page and extrapolate that to the whole of wikipedia. You know that saying, "everything you know is wrong"? Educate yourself solely off wikipedia, and it will be. The faith the whole human race puts in that website worries me.

One must be careful with extrapolations. Your faith, much like James Bond's favourite beverage, is rightly shaken and not stirred.

(2012-02-27 23:31)Village Idiot Wrote:  Secondly it seems most of us on here clearly see Wikipedia's shortcomings, but I'm not convinced Joe Public does, or not all of them. Some people may think they are opening up the Encyclopedia Britannica and reading that Linn are counterfeitors and manufacturers of sh1t products. If I were Linn I'd want to exercise a bit of influence over that.

Honestly, if Joe Public thinks that. Do you really imagine that this particular Joe Public is playing in the K-DS field let alone the S-DS field? <PI>This would be an individual likely battling in the bargain bins for Bose.<\PI>

(2012-02-28 00:37)Warren Wrote:  

(2012-02-27 18:14)linnrd Wrote:  My personal views on free speech (i.e. let the moron have his say)

Wikipedia isn't about free speech and it isn't the place for it, it is an encyclopedia, regardless of authoring. If I write that 2+2=5, it should be deleted.

The internet is about free speech, and that is where Wikipedia is housed. And Warren, you take my quote out of context. In fact, you leave out a bit. The bit where I said:

(2012-02-27 18:14)linnrd Wrote:  There may be some disagreements to this, but.... The exact role of Wikipedia is to be deduced from the name itself. It is a an encyclopedia that is put together with public entries as opposed to paying someone to write entries for it.

And reporting the matter is the way to go in order to do that. I merely found thread title "We need your help" a tad weird if not disturbing. Linn does not need our help. It is something that can be done from within, perhaps by Gilad himself. Who could provide a more accurate picture that he or Ivor? There are ways of handling this, and this, I thought was probably not the most appropriate way to do so.

PS: NOT to be tooooo persnickety and all, but why the heck is this in the DS forum section? Wouldn't it be better on the "Forum and Web" section? Besides, them LP-12 owners will have something else to complain about now.

[Joesilva]

(2012-02-28 02:43)linnrd Wrote:  

(2012-02-28 00:37)Warren Wrote:  

(2012-02-27 18:14)linnrd Wrote:  My personal views on free speech (i.e. let the moron have his say)

Wikipedia isn't about free speech and it isn't the place for it, it is an encyclopedia, regardless of authoring. If I write that 2+2=5, it should be deleted.

The internet is about free speech, and that is where Wikipedia is housed. And Warren, you take my quote out of context. In fact, you leave out a bit. The bit where I said:

(2012-02-28 00:37)Warren Wrote:  ... it is an encyclopedia, regardless of authoring. If I write that 2+2=5, it should be deleted.

And reporting the matter is the way to go in order to do that. I merely found thread title "We need your help" a tad weird if not disturbing. Linn does not need our help. It is something that can be done from within, perhaps by Gilad himself. Who could provide a more accurate picture that he or Ivor? There are ways of handling this, and this, I thought was probably not the most appropriate way to do so.

+1

PS: NOT to be tooooo persnickety and all, but why the heck is this in the DS forum section? Wouldn't it be better on the "Forum and Web" section? Besides, them LP-12 owners will have something else to complain about now.

+1

[glenbourne]

(2012-02-28 02:43)linnrd Wrote:  

(2012-02-28 00:37)Warren Wrote:  ... it is an encyclopedia, regardless of authoring. If I write that 2+2=5, it should be deleted.

And reporting the matter is the way to go in order to do that. I merely found thread title "We need your help" a tad weird if not disturbing. Linn does not need our help. It is something that can be done from within, perhaps by Gilad himself. Who could provide a more accurate picture that he or Ivor? There are ways of handling this, and this, I thought was probably not the most appropriate way to do so.

PS: NOT to be tooooo persnickety and all, but why the heck is this in the DS forum section? Wouldn't it be better on the "Forum and Web" section? Besides, them LP-12 owners will have something else to complain about now.

+1
Yea, sort of sums it all up IMHO.

[Warren]

(2012-02-28 02:34)Joesilva Wrote:  However, when it comes to issues such as who invented what or where the idea originated, etc., none of us were actually there at the time, so we cannot be entirely sure.

So we shouldn't be writing in an encyclopedia.

(2012-02-28 02:34)Joesilva Wrote:  Who can categorically determine what is the truth, and why should the public be prevented from viewing alternative views ?

The first question doesn't get us anywhere other than to say the people that where there and do know what happened.

I have this conspiracy theory that the LP12 doesn't actually exist. This must be added to the contents of every book ever written.

Unfortunately I don't exist and any pictures you've seen of me are all down to photoshop.

(2012-02-28 02:34)Joesilva Wrote:  It is entirely up to each individual whether they choose to believe Gilad's statement that the the LP-12 was not in any way influenced by the AR design.

I was surprised by Gilad's comment.

(2012-02-27 23:28)slackboy Wrote:  Interesting, isn't it, to see how many inaccuracies there are in this one small page and extrapolate that to the whole of wikipedia.

I think most pages are pretty accurate. My experience with WP is that any page relating to a current person or company is likely to be poorly written and the big coloured boxes at the top of the page indicate this.

(2012-02-27 23:28)slackboy Wrote:  One must be careful with extrapolations. Your faith, much like James Bond's favourite beverage, is rightly shaken and not stirred.

"Shaken not stirred will get you cold water with a dash of gin and dry vermouth. The reason you stir it with a special spoon is so not to chip the ice. James is ordering a weak martini and being snooty about it."

President Bartlet "The West Wing" 3:17, Stirred (2002)

(2012-02-27 18:14)linnrd Wrote:  The internet is about free speech

Not according to wikipedia, the phrase isn't mentioned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet

I'm guessing you're American.

(2012-02-27 18:14)linnrd Wrote:  The internet ... is where Wikipedia is housed.

If the internet is about free speech, that doesn't mean one subset of it is. An encyclopedia isn't about free speech regardless of authoring model.

The internet is a communication network, initially instigated by the US government.

The web is one application built atop the internet, by an English CERN academic for easy research sharing.

Wikipedia, like any an encyclopedia, is a reference compendium holding a summary of information.

(2012-02-27 18:14)linnrd Wrote:  And Warren, you take my quote out of context. In fact, you leave out a bit. The bit where I said:

Where you said what, the next part of your article just quoted me.

(2012-02-27 18:14)linnrd Wrote:  tad weird
...
why in the DS forum section?

+1

[linnrd]

(2012-02-28 02:34)Joesilva Wrote:  However, when it comes to issues such as who invented what or where the idea originated, etc., none of us were actually there at the time, so we cannot be entirely sure.

Umm...that's why written history is so neat. As is the US Patent Office, which will tell you that the combover was actually patented by a couple of gentlemen in Florida. And PLEASE don't ask me how I know this useless piece of information.

(2012-02-28 02:34)Joesilva Wrote:  Who can categorically determine what is the truth, and why should the public be prevented from viewing alternative views ?

This is dangerously close to:
Philosophy + Free Speech = Fundamentalism
where people are forced to give equal weight to evolution and ... the other thing.

(2012-02-28 03:40)Warren Wrote:  I have this conspiracy theory that the LP12 doesn't actually exist.

It really doesn't. If you look on the pages of "How many parts of the LP-12 are from the original, it would seem that most people hardly have anything from the original one.

(2012-02-28 03:40)Warren Wrote:  "Shaken not stirred will get you cold water with a dash of gin and dry vermouth. The reason you stir it with a special spoon is so not to chip the ice. James is ordering a weak martini and being snooty about it."

President Bartlet "The West Wing" 3:17, Stirred (2002)

Actually there was an article on the chemistry of shaking vs stirring a vodka martini that was published a while ago. Darned good read too.

(2012-02-28 03:40)Warren Wrote:  

(2012-02-27 18:14)linnrd Wrote:  The internet is about free speech

Not according to wikipedia, the phrase isn't mentioned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet
I'm guessing you're American.

It will be mentioned on there by tomorrow. As to the latter, heck no. I haven't had my sense of humour excised along with the "u" following the "o".

(2012-02-28 03:40)Warren Wrote:  An encyclopedia isn't about free speech regardless of authoring model.

Just for shiggles and gits and also the possible danger of bringing the site to its knees, I wikipediad Wikipedia only to read:
"Almost all of its articles can be edited by anyone with access to the site."
Basically, you can say what you like, but it will be corrected. Soon. (We hope.) Kinda like on here. I say something, and along comes Bri and then everything is OK.