Fit and proper?

If one should look up the Folio Society on wikipedia, one ill note that all previous references to regional pricing and pricing controversy has been removed.

On checking the history of editing on the page, one will note that...

(cur | prev) 09:55, 18 February 2012‎ Philafrenzy (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,714 bytes) (-243)‎ . . (Remove fake "controversy" but note regional pricing system.) (undo)

So, there is no controversy then: it was a fake. (Oh and references to regional pricing has been removed too)

I wonder who is behind this?

Encyclopaedia? Marketopaedia.

Philafrenzy seems to think that someone has an axe to grind just because they're trying to raise a valid point.

> 1

Glad to see it's back.

Regardless of your stance on the pricing issue, it is absolutely not an encyclopedic issue. If major news outlets ran stories on the issue then that would be fair game, but until then it should remain off Wikipedia.

> 4

Says who?

>5

Can you name any other encyclopaedia that, in an article about a publisher, or a manufacturer, or anything that involves providing goods and/or services for money, would devote a large amount of text to pricing differentials?

Just to give a couple of very basic example there's a separate entry on petrol pricing to that of petrol, as that's considered an issue separate to petrol; there is a controversy about downloads from itunes being priced differentially around the world, but no mention on wikipedia.

The comment that's currently there on wikipedia looks hopelessly out of place, unencyclopaedic and disproportionate to an article about the Folio Society. 60 years of publishing, binding, illustrating, slipcasing and limited editioning, and a tenth of it is about Australia paying more for books and a direct reference to here?

> 6

I think you need to read this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About#Wikipedia_vs._paper_encyclopedias

Wikipedia is not like any other, nor should it be.

> 6

The entire Wikipedia Folio Society article is hardly encyclopaedic. Illustration is covered in two sentences, with five artists mentioned. The history consists of a change of address, a list of directors and the revelation that under the ownership of Letts and Lynner, the Folio Society published the collected novels of Dickens. Production trends and bindings? You'd find out more from the FS website.

"60 years of publishing, binding, illustrating, slipcasing and limited editioning, and a tenth of it is about Australia paying more for books and a direct reference to here?"

If a contributor makes what they feel is a valid addition to a skeletal entry, they can hardly be blamed for it's disproportionate appearance.

As for the argument that such matters as regional pricing are not fitting for a wikipedia entry, perhaps a solution may be found by looking at the entry for Apple. You get not only a indepth article about the company, it's history and it's products with due acknowledgement of poor environmental and labour condition practices, but also a number of links throughout the entry which take you to the "Criticism Of Apple Inc" entry detailing issues such as anti-competitive behaviour, misleading warranty claims, customer service issues, anti-trust issues, vexatious litigation and more.

Ah well, back to ignoring topics again. It was a nice break while it lasted.

>8 The size of the FS entry is presumably reflective of it not being a major thing on the world stage. The Thames & Hudson and Little Brown entries are about twice as long despite them being much bigger publishers. The New Naturalist entry is about as long if you take out the list of books; there isn't even an entry at all for Fourth Estate.

"If a contributor makes what they feel is a valid addition to a skeletal entry, they can hardly be blamed for it's disproportionate appearance."

They can when someone else edits it out, only for the poster to put it back in...

Ah well, back to ignoring topics again. It was a nice break while it lasted.

Contradictory. (and expected)

> 10

Why don't you read wikipedia 'about' pages and understand what the essence of wikipedia is all about?

Sheesh

>12

I think the part beginning "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" adequately covers why it's not an appropriate vehicle for the campaign to get the Folio Society to break ranks with the rest of the publishing industry in the matter of Australian book prices. As it says, "You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views".

Here is the comment, text in parentheses is mine:

Controversy (define controversy) has arisen in recent years (how many years?) over the regional pricing system that the Folio Society uses, especially in how much they charge customers in the larger markets like Australia. Australian customers pay much (how much?) higher prices than UK customers and this has caused much debate (so what?) on a popular (define popular) book site (website), www.librarything.com , on the group ("group" needs to be defined for people who aren't familiar with librarything) Folio Society Devotees.

Here are some of Wikipedia's rules:

Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for random information
Wikipedia is not for unverifiable material
Wikipedia is not a soapbox
Wikipedia is not censored
Wikipedia is not a free advertising space
Wikipedia is not a place to publish your opinions

Discussions on librarything are simply not worthy of being immortalized in a Wikipedia entry. A few people have mentioned on this group that they don't like the fact that the Yellow Fairy Book has a green slipcase, unlike the rest of the series where the slipcases match - should we add that to Wikipedia? I agree the rest of the FS entry is not totally encyclopedic and needs rewriting, but the pricing comment is way out of line and is clearly written to try and make the issue heard within the Folio Society, i.e. using Wikipedia as a soapbox.

I agree with you completely.

The wikipedia pages should not be used as a marketing tool for any company.

It should be edited freely until a point of equilibrium is reached.

As noted by other posters here, the IP address of the Folio Society has been found editing information on the site.

This worries me as the information that was removed was the pricing controversy addition.

http://www.librarything.com/topic/132026#3244232

On the edit page the IP address was then removed

(cur | prev) 08:49, 13 February 2012‎ (Username or IP removed)‎ . . (7,589 bytes) (-364)‎ . . (undo)

Soapbox?

Except the most recent removal of the paragraph was by a user called Philafrenzy whose expertise lies, judging by his (her?) recent edits, in the history of stamps with a sideline in private presses. And insofar as removing the price differential bit from the wikipedia entry, philately gets him nowhere...

Boom boom!

>16
Thanks - LOL. Now I can quit for the night and go to bed with a smile on my face.

Os.