Ectaco caught using MobileRead to create fake buzz about Jetbook

[crich70]

After a review of the information it was deemed a failed attempt at extortion and racketeering in conjunction with Ectaco, Inc.'s refusal to advertise with the MobileRead.

Pardon me if I'm wrong but didn't the poster over at wikipedia who accused mobileread of extortion and racketeering open themselves up for libel charges?

Originally Posted by crich70

Pardon me if I'm wrong but didn't the poster over at wikipedia who accused mobileread of extortion and racketeering open themselves up for libel charges?

Both sides have been irresponsible with the accusations and both sides may be open to charges of libel. MR itself may be on more solid footing with both the information posted on the forums and the server logs, but I have serious questions over the accusations over the Wikipedia edits.

Like I said before, people should wait a bit before dishing out these disparaging comments because it's easy to interpret events from a tainted perspective in the heat of the moment. MR's initial response was probably appropriate since it informed members who are likely to come across these posts. Relaying that information to the Wikipedia is more of a grey area because it does not directly affect readers of the Wikipedia, though people have the right to know about the actions of the company. A lot of the stuff that came afterwards is not appropriate (in my opinion) because some of the comments are unsubstantiated.

[sun surfer]

If anyone is interested, there are ways to ask wikipedia to protect the page so that it can't be edited over and over again with crazy stuff. It'd probably be best to have the page protected for awhile with no controversy section at all. I don't know how fast wikipedia would respond since it might be a low-level page and I have no idea how to request it myself, but I know it's possible.

[ETA - I found the place to request page protection on wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipe...age_protection
The directions look like gobbledygook to me so I won't be attempting it, but it was ironic (though seemingly unrelated) to see that the page for "Sock Poppet" has also been requested to be protected.]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Three out of four Americans prefer physical tacos to eTacos.

Rasmussen did that poll, didn't they?

[Kumabjorn]

That is sad.
And for several years? Even sadder.

[Apache]

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

But how many of them have even tried eTacos?

We should start an eDrive to eMail an eTaco to eVery ePerson in the eCountry to eNjoy.
Apache

[LovesMacs]

I'm an occasional Wikipedia editor, and from my understanding, an article can be temporarily protected from editing when there is an edit war over which version is correct. An article can be protected from just new users' edits, or from all edits except for administrators. I believe that during edit wars, pages are fully protected--no edits allowed, and you can't pick which revision stays up during the protection.

I hesitate to request protection myself because of my involvement here.

There is also a three revert rule. This means that any one editor can only revert a single article three times in a 24 hour period, except for removing vandalism. In this case, this can mean either inserting or removing the Controversy section after someone else has done the opposite.

For reference, this is the original edit that introduced the Controversies section. You can see successive changes by clicking the "Next edit-->" link on the right side of your screen.

I should also point out that MobileRead by itself may not be the best source to cite for the controversy. Perhaps in conjunction with other sites, especially if something more widely known (I don't know...maybe CNET?) notices.

[Catlady]

I think it's absurd that anyone thinks any of this belongs in Wikipedia.

[LovesMacs]

Originally Posted by Catlady

I think it's absurd that anyone thinks any of this belongs in Wikipedia.

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.

[Kumabjorn]

Originally Posted by Catlady

I think it's absurd that anyone thinks any of this belongs in Wikipedia.

It's it in a post on Sock Puppets or Astroturfing? If so I guess it could be used in illustrative examples.

[gamba66]

Originally Posted by Catlady

I think it's absurd that anyone thinks any of this belongs in Wikipedia.

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.

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.

Also it is interesting that you invalidate the (proven) allegations because they aren't covered by news media, I mean come on, when has ECTACO been in the news media at all?

This is simply a company where most of their products are simply rebrands from chinese white-label manufacturers, this isn't a major company like Kobo or Sony.

In a nutshell they don't create any major value, sell rebranded products while offering little to none customer service (atleast in terms of returns and repairs, not considering that they don't really answer E-Mails). You should be happy if your products don't become a warranty case.

Some people should just open their eyes there is more than enough evidence, For example: The sock puppet LuBiB posted a Video Review the jetbook on a private youtube channel(under the fake name of Kris Anderson), when it can be clearly heard and seen , when comparing the review to a video of the official ECTACO yt channel, that the user LuBiB is their Product Manager Greg Stetson.

What more evidence do you guys need? If you take your time to actually read their posts and look at the given evidence the final synopsis becomes pretty clear

[CWatkinsNash]

Originally Posted by gamba66

What more evidence do you guys need? If you take your time to actually read their posts and look at the given evidence the final synopsis becomes pretty clear

None of that is relevant to the issue that it has to meet Wikipedia's requirements and standards before it belongs on Wikipedia. This is just as true for the edits showing there now, claiming that it's "extortion" on the part of Mobileread. I don't think anyone here is defending Ectaco's actions.

[jersysman]

What exactly is Wikipedia for anyway? Is it not an information dump? A place where information is kept on various subjects? I can see where rumors as such should not be used as fact, but one thing it is not is a media source where you should have independent corroboration. If that were the case, nothing would be published on that site.

[CWatkinsNash]

Originally Posted by jersysman

What exactly is Wikipedia for anyway? Is it not an information dump? A place where information is kept on various subjects? I can see where rumors as such should not be used as fact, but one thing it is not is a media source where you should have independent corroboration. If that were the case, nothing would be published on that site.

I look at Wikipedia as a starting point. They have requirements for citations and verifiable sources, in addition to other rules. Information can and will be removed if it does not meet the standards, but the key is that someone has to identify the bad or incomplete or unverified information and act on it.

It works better for some types of information than it does for others. Certain categories of information can be designated as part of a WikiProject, or fall within the scope of a "task force", or both. Generally, these are handled, edited and watched closely by those with a specific interest in maintaining quality in those areas.

You can find out what, if any, special classes or designations a page falls into, as well as any editorial review oversight it has had, by looking at its "Talk" page. As an example, here is the Talk page for Classical Music: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Classical_music

[tompe]

Originally Posted by jersysman

What exactly is Wikipedia for anyway? Is it not an information dump? A place where information is kept on various subjects? I can see where rumors as such should not be used as fact, but one thing it is not is a media source where you should have independent corroboration. If that were the case, nothing would be published on that site.

What it is is something were you have to have independent sources to publish anything. Which is a good thing. In that way they try to use the other sources work in confirming the claims. It is not for original data or information.

[SouthernSun]

Ectaco are probably watching this thread - if nobody had publicly brought up the Wikipedia entry, I doubt there'd be an edit war over it.