Ectaco caught using MobileRead to create fake buzz about Jetbook

[LovesMacs]

Originally Posted by gamba66

I think it is interesting which position you guys take. From a logical point-of-view you may very well be right but I think it is it is a different story if you view it from the moral side.

To sum it up, there is no need to violate Wikipedia's policies and guidelines just because people have violated MobileRead's terms.

Originally Posted by LovesMacs

To sum it up, there is no need to violate Wikipedia's policies and guidelines just because people have violated MobileRead's terms.

Agreed on the first part, however Ectaco went a little further than violating MR's terms. They violated many people's trust, and deeper sense of ethics.

[gamba66]

Originally Posted by LovesMacs

To sum it up, there is no need to violate Wikipedia's policies and guidelines just because people have violated MobileRead's terms.

Well if this is what its all about for you.. then you just saved the day !

I really don't care that much about the wiki entries, I just think its a good thing if people spread the word and this issue gets some more public attention while also wondering why people are so bothered by a wiki entry.. What I can say though is thatI have often read about accusations or scandals on wikipedia, also from specific companies

But I will definitely say that I am not responsible for these edits, but whoever has done them, good job!

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by LovesMacs

That was a more direct statement of what I was getting at. According to how Wikipedia is supposed to work, unsubstantiated (by news media, that is) allegations that a company misused a blog site shouldn't be included.

Done. I've substantiated the allegations.

Also, you place far too much faith in the media. Just because a story was written up on a major tech blog doesn't mean it is more likely to be true or accurate.

[LovesMacs]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Done. I've substantiated the allegations.

Also, you place far too much faith in the media. Just because a story was written up on a major tech blog doesn't mean it is more likely to be true or accurate.

You misunderstand me, and ascribe too much belief in my faith in the media. I agree that the astroturfing was morally wrong. I was merely pointing out that by Wikipedia guidelines, using a blog as a source doesn't necessarily qualify as a reliable source.

Those sources tend to be secondary, independent sources that have undergone some editorial oversight. My mention of news media was a quick and convenient example, even though we all know that media can be slanted, incomplete, and inaccurate.

This Ectaco controversy is a particular case where citing MobileRead may qualify as a reliable source, but I haven't edited the Wikipedia article because I don't want to risk getting blocked for what may be seen by outsiders as adding unsubstantiated derogatory allegations. I'm personally fully convinced that the astroturfing did occur as stated.

[jersysman]

The bad thing about what has happened here is that now, whenever I see anything about one of Ectaco's products, I will assume that it is a company shill providing that information. Whether it is or not, I don't really know, but that is as a result of what they have done here. The reputation of that company has taken a hit with users here.

[Blossom]

Originally Posted by jersysman

The bad thing about what has happened here is that now, whenever I see anything about one of Ectaco's products, I will assume that it is a company shill providing that information. Whether it is or not, I don't really know, but that is as a result of what they have done here. The reputation of that company has taken a hit with users here.

Too true. I remember when I was interested in the Jetbook Mini and email their support asking what formats it supported and never got a real answer. The truth was it supported only plain text but they claimed it supports all kinds of formats but you needed Calibre to convert them to plain text.

[Lemurion]

I also found that the "pro-Ectaco" version of the controversy on Wikipedia really read like something written by a bad propagandist.

Stripping it out would have made more sense.

[amgoforth]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Its a shame. I had the original Jetbook, it was a good reader, if a bit less durable than I might have liked. It doesn't appear having shills here did them a whole lot of good since they are not really a player in the ebook reader market anymore.

I like jetbook, would love to have same type screen, but much bigger, maybe twelve inches.

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Also, you place far too much faith in the media. Just because a story was written up on a major tech blog doesn't mean it is more likely to be true or accurate.

It has nothing to do with placing faith in the media. It is about looking at the evidence and trusting the source of the evidence.

If the moderators on MR say that they have logs pointing to the users posting from an Ectaco IP address, I can say that I have a fair amount of trust in the type of evidence and trust that the moderators of MR are not deliberately misleading us.

If someone says that someone from Ectaco must be reverting the Wikipedia and writing inflamatory messages because the nature of the modifications are suspect, I'm asking: where's the concrete evidence? I don't care if it's a so-called reputable source or an independent blog making the claim, because suspicious actions and probable motive doesn't actually prove anything.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

It has nothing to do with placing faith in the media. It is about looking at the evidence and trusting the source of the evidence.

If the moderators on MR say that they have logs pointing to the users posting from an Ectaco IP address, I can say that I have a fair amount of trust in the type of evidence and trust that the moderators of MR are not deliberately misleading us.

If someone says that someone from Ectaco must be reverting the Wikipedia and writing inflamatory messages because the nature of the modifications are suspect, I'm asking: where's the concrete evidence? I don't care if it's a so-called reputable source or an independent blog making the claim, because suspicious actions and probable motive doesn't actually prove anything.

True. A man may sprain his ankle and someone who doesn't see it happen may see him staggering around and think he's drunk, but that doesn't prove that the man had been drinking when he sprained his ankle. Likewise we may think that someone connected with Ectaco changed the entry at Wikipedia but that doesn't mean that it is so. It could be someone who read the post here and felt the company was hard done by or it could be a customer of Ectaco who has no connection with MR or Ectaco. We don't know who it was as Wikipedia is openly editable by anyone who is signed in. To point the finger of blame without proof helps no one.

Originally Posted by crich70

True. A man may sprain his ankle and someone who doesn't see it happen may see him staggering around and think he's drunk, but that doesn't prove that the man had been drinking when he sprained his ankle. Likewise we may think that someone connected with Ectaco changed the entry at Wikipedia but that doesn't mean that it is so. It could be someone who read the post here and felt the company was hard done by or it could be a customer of Ectaco who has no connection with MR or Ectaco. We don't know who it was as Wikipedia is openly editable by anyone who is signed in. To point the finger of blame without proof helps no one.

That's one possibility. Another possibility is that someone could have been venting in a peculiar way, even though they have not relation to MR or Ectaco. Of course, it could have been an employee of Ectaco acting independently or under direction. I'm sure that there are other options too, since I have a hard time understanding certain types of actions by certain types of people.

One thing I should mention is that I launched a mini-investigation into the Wikipedia posts before posting about my doubts here. I'm not going to claim that my investigation is authoritative because my knowledge in such matters is limited, but I do feel that my knowledge in this area is better than most people. (Apologies for being immodest, but it seems as though very few people have a basic understanding of how the Internet works.) That mini-investigation didn't provide anything definitive, which is why I started challenging other people.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

That's one possibility. Another possibility is that someone could have been venting in a peculiar way, even though they have not relation to MR or Ectaco. Of course, it could have been an employee of Ectaco acting independently or under direction. I'm sure that there are other options too, since I have a hard time understanding certain types of actions by certain types of people.

One thing I should mention is that I launched a mini-investigation into the Wikipedia posts before posting about my doubts here. I'm not going to claim that my investigation is authoritative because my knowledge in such matters is limited, but I do feel that my knowledge in this area is better than most people. (Apologies for being immodest, but it seems as though very few people have a basic understanding of how the Internet works.) That mini-investigation didn't provide anything definitive, which is why I started challenging other people.

Well I do know that you can't go anywhere on the net without leaving some trace probably. I was just agreeing with you that accusing without actual evidence is hearsay at best. We can speculate all we want about who did what but without solid proof nothing can be proven. I've learned that much from watching shows like Law & Order among others. I would imagine that with enough software of the right type someone could even misdirect suspicion onto others who were innocent of whatever was being investigated too. Certainly I've heard about the early days of the net when hackers would hate having to pay for the phone bill and would re-direct calls through whatever they directed them through to avoid the charges. I can only imagine that if a person had enough time and inclination much more could be done today. Certainly the police and CIA among others have their hands full with cyber crime I'm thinking. Whether or not someone would go to the trouble of doing something like that on Wikipedia is a whole other story though I'd guess.

Originally Posted by crich70

Well I do know that you can't go anywhere on the net without leaving some trace probably. I was just agreeing with you that accusing without actual evidence is hearsay at best. We can speculate all we want about who did what but without solid proof nothing can be proven. I've learned that much from watching shows like Law & Order among others. I would imagine that with enough software of the right type someone could even misdirect suspicion onto others who were innocent of whatever was being investigated too. Certainly I've heard about the early days of the net when hackers would hate having to pay for the phone bill and would re-direct calls through whatever they directed them through to avoid the charges. I can only imagine that if a person had enough time and inclination much more could be done today. Certainly the police and CIA among others have their hands full with cyber crime I'm thinking. Whether or not someone would go to the trouble of doing something like that on Wikipedia is a whole other story though I'd guess.

I should be clear that I didn't mean to contradict what you were saying. I simply wanted to elaborate on the point that life is much more complex than, "motive implies crime."

You are correct: things can get very complicated very fast when you're dealing with sophisticated criminals. Likewise, it takes skilled investigators to untangle that mess. Even then those investigators are not always successful. Finding the truth is often beyond the realm of bloggers and forum posters (such as myself). On the other hand, recognizing our limitations in uncovering that truth is something that we should all be able to recognize -- especially before participating in a lynch mob. (Again, that comment is not directed at you. Though some of the participants in this thread should consider it.)

[tompe]

This page is enlightning:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...ity,_not_truth

Wikipedia's core sourcing policy, Wikipedia:Verifiability, used to define the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia as "verifiability, not truth". "Verifiability" was used in this context to mean that material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source. Editors may not add their own views to articles simply because they believe them to be correct, and may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them.

The phrase "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth" meant that verifiability is a necessary condition (a minimum requirement) for the inclusion of material, though it is not a sufficient condition (it may not be enough). Sources must also be appropriate, and must be used carefully, and must be balanced relative to other sources per Wikipedia's policy on due and undue weight.

Wikipedia's articles are intended as intelligent summaries and reflections of current published debate within the relevant fields, an overview of the relevant literature. The Verifiability policy is related to another core content policy, Neutral point of view, which holds that we include all significant views on a subject. Citing reliable sources for any material challenged or likely to be challenged gives readers the chance to check for themselves that the most appropriate sources have been used, and used well (see below).

That we have rules for the inclusion of material does not mean Wikipedians have no respect for truth and accuracy, just as a court's reliance on rules of evidence does not mean the court does not respect truth. Wikipedia values accuracy, but it requires verifiability. Unlike some encyclopedias, Wikipedia does not try to impose "the truth" on its readers, and does not ask that they trust something just because they read it in Wikipedia. We empower our readers. We don't ask for their blind trust.