Linn on Wikipedia - We need your help

[linnrd]

(2012-02-28 13:13)NickP Wrote:  

(2012-02-28 06:01)Warren Wrote:  

(2012-02-28 04:29)linnrd Wrote:  

(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.

I was told in the 70s that the only original component of the VW Beetle still in use was the door seal... But equally, I still have my great-grandfathers axe. It's in good nick despite its age, though my grandfather did have to replace the blade, and my father replaced the haft.

N

Aye, as it is with the Dwarf King. Hail, fellow Pratcheter.

[Imseti]

(2012-02-28 12:12)glenbourne Wrote:  I'd have though this would have been the professional course of action, but somehow suggesting Linn customers or supportive readers of this forum could edit the content on the behalf of Linn IMHO is rather unethical. A strange request and an altogether bizarre thread.

Wholeheartedly agree.

[To be a Rock and not a Roll]

As a reader of Private Eye.... I am informed that trips to the High Court are a little on the high side of expensive
And I don't see anything wrong with asking someone to set the record ( no pun intended ) straight....
If you don't like it, don't do it.... But if you believe something is wrong, try to set it straight, I don't think ethics come into this debate, it is after all just pieces of kit, that we just happen to like very much

[Warren]

(2012-02-28 11:06)giladt Wrote:  As I understand it, Wikipedia rules / etiquette forbid a company from editing a Wikipedia page about itself because, by definition, it's not a trusted source - according to what I've been told.

I'd check this.

When I looked into the links I posted above company staff can definitely report libel etc.

[afewbeers]

Having read the whole wiki page, it's difficult to reach a meaningful conclusion. In some ways I think the controversy issue probably reflects some aspects of the brand. There is no question that as a customer of Linn for over 25 years I have been made aware of some controversial anecdotes relating to both IT and Linn. In some ways they are part of the culture of the business, and to some extent one of the things that I admire about the company.

As the owner of several businesses, I would be upset if they were publicly misrepresented. To that end I have complete sympathy with GT on this one. I suppose the difficulty here is that no one else can put the record straight because they probably don't have access to enough detail and facts to be able to do so.

Of all the times that I have been reported on in the press, whether that be national or industry specific, or TV, on every single occasion there has been at least one inaccuracy ranging from either my name, age, or other content. Wikipedia is precisely the same in that regard. We live in age when accuracy and consistency is not regarded as important.

If it was my business and these facts were important to me then I would ask my lawyers to fire off a suitably acerbic letter to ensure that it was corrected. As it is, the flavour of Linn appears to come through in many ways. Specifically the company has been controversial in it's views and that is part of it's brand and character (for some of us anyway) and I mean that in a positive sense. The lemon ad was a case in point; I may have misinterpreted it but the fact is I became a more loyal customer as a consequence - 90% of my Linn products have been bought unauditioned. I'm sure plenty of others were unamused.

Linn has achieved great things, much of that appears to stem from IT's drive for success and innovative approach to the whole process of consuming hifi. Luxury brands all have an edge and at least Linn's is ultimately founded on performance. Rolex is a great brand but mine hasn't kept correct time in 15 years. In fact, I probably ought to stick that on their wiki page.

[MnM]

Nice one afewbeers.

It's got to be more than an annoyance when your company's brand is displayed on wikipedia - which people do take as an authority - without any direct control over it.

I'm just not sure what to do about it (having never touched wikipedia). Look at the View History page on the top right of the Linn wikipedia article - Warren has made some edits, and so has GrimReaper, and they've been undone in one move by the guy who's decided to squat on the page, with the reason 'restoring text that had some cites vs text with no cites'. I have no idea what counts in wiki land but this guy reckons he wins because he can cite a reference. Does it matter if his reference valid?

And so it rapidly becomes dull, meanwhile 95% of people believe whatever wikipedia says... annoying.

[Warren]

To quote Mahatma Gandhi

“First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win.”

“When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they can seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall. Think of it--always.”

[charlie1]

Interesting problem.

Did anyone ever get a firm answer reference the manufacturer being allowed to amend their own page?

I've re-jigged the "System hierarchy and Tune-Dem" section a bit and cut out the PRAT and LP12SE references. I am presuming it will be changed back to what it was in a few days.

I find it bizzare that I didn't even have to register. I presume I'm not contactable in that case. Perhaps if I join then you can be challanged on my edits by other members. Anyone know? Does wikipedia reveal my IP address to members as a way of identification?

[Warren]

(2012-04-15 22:41)charlie1 Wrote:  Did anyone ever get a firm answer reference the manufacturer being allowed to amend their own page?

I think the basic premise of the site overrides this - anyone can edit.

Also it would be difficult to police.

I also don't see anything wrong with it. I used to work for the training team of a large software company and a couple of times I contributed technical information to a wikipage on our software.

[charlie1]

(2012-04-16 01:47)Warren Wrote:  I think the basic premise of the site overrides this - anyone can edit.

Also it would be difficult to police.

I also don't see anything wrong with it. I used to work for the training team of a large software company and a couple of times I contributed technical information to a wikipage on our software.

Thanks Warren.