[WikiEN-l] Bad And Wrong Policy/Procedure/Guideline

Fri Nov 3 17:59:51 UTC 2006

I think that WP:COI (or Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest) is botched.  The
basic notion is that if you really intimately know about or care
passionately about a topic that might have some impact on your career,
even in some tangential way, you are either "strongly encouraged" or (just
in case you are dense) "very strongly encouraged" to avoid editing Wikipedia
on that topic.

Following this policy means that:

In the article about the theory of general relativity, Wikipedia would
reject the submissions of Albert Einstein, but encourage those of a talented
high school physics student.

In the article about Microsoft, Wikipedia would reject the submissions of
Bill Gates, but encourage those of an amateur computer enthusiast, or
(heaven forfend!) accept those of Steve Jobs editing anonymously.

In the article about the Pokemon character, "Brock", Wikipedia would reject
the submissions of conceptual creator Satoshi Tajiri, but encourage those of
an 8-year-old kid in his underpants on his mom's computer.

In summary, regardless of whether the authoring agent can prove Notability,
use excellent independently-sourced Citation skills, and civilly engage in
the Editing/Discussion process, if the author stands to make any personal
money in the process, their edits must be "strongly"
avoided/discouraged/deleted.

If that's the case, why is it that:

(1)  Angela Beesley has edited the article about Wikia.com (her own company)
on July 12, April 30, March 27, and February 18 of 2006; plus October 17,
July 15, May 6-7, April 23, March 24, February 10, February 4, and January
14 of 2005?

(2)  The Reward Board is allowed to remain in place -- WP:COI clearly says
that if "you are receiving monetary or other benefits to edit Wikipedia",
then "we *very strongly* encourage you to avoid editing..."

If Wikipedia's most staunch defenders of "non-conflict-of-interest" editing
would grab hold of a clue, maybe they might see that commercial interests
and scrutiny have a lot to offer Wikipedia, in terms of careful, fact-based
editing, contributing hard-to-find information, and engaging in the ongoing
editorial dialogue.  The company that just repeatedly comes into the
Wikipedia space and makes one biased, unsupported claim after another will
just be making itself look foolish.

When you peel away all the layers of excuses and hypocrisy, let's face it,
EVERYONE has some personally-beneficial agenda when they choose to edit one
topic in Wikipedia over any of the 1.3 million other ones at their disposal.

(Great question, David!)

-- 
Gregory Kohs
Cell: 302.463.1354