Ray Saintonge wrote
> Conflicts of interest are a fact of life, and should not in themselves
> bar a person from editing a subject. It's more important that potential
> conflicts of interest be declared so that the person's perspective is
> clear.
The WP:COI page Geoffrey Kohs is attacking has had wording added recently, to cover just that feature of 'declarations of interest'. It would be pleasant to have some credit given for this, rather than the blanket condemnation.
I don't think WP should actually advise people whether to declare an interest or not. The consequences are not calculable, and the onus is on a person to decide on pros and cons. That is how the page treats the issue.
While neutrality is important, and articles should clearly
> approach neutrality more closely with each edit, no-one can completely
> divorce himself from his own perspective on a controversial issue. A
> person directly connected with a company may very well quote from the
> company's PR material; that's fine because he can very well be an
> authority on what the company's point of view really is. Editing that
> should not distort what the company is trying to say. If the company's
> statements differ from what it actually does that needs to be expressed
> too, but this is in addition to rather than instead of the company's
> propaganda.
We don't really have problem with informed people fact-checking and providing citations. As I think would be common ground, it rarely stops there. If people battle over prominence of criticism, over reliability of sources, over balance of material appropriate to NPOV, then one gets the everyday debates. And, as WP:COI says, proper Wikipedians edit from both sides. Hired flacks may well not.
> The contrast that you make between the band manager and the climate
> change crusader is interesting. There is a lot of controversy about
> climate change, but you seem to support a lighter application of the
> rules in this case than with the band manager in an article that is of
> more limited importance. In the absence of further information why not
> let the band manager's comments stand if they are not of a controversial
> nature?
I think we do. But this doesn't remove the conflict, as such. For a band, the absence of fans who would add verifiable material is a prima facie argument that the band is not too notable. For academic areas, there is no such argument. Conflicts of interest are defined in terms of interests cutting across WP's interests. Academia's model is broadly in line with WP's: make information public. Academics hit conflict of interest mainly if they try to skew the relative importance of their sub-area relative to other areas.
> The advice of other editors is to be considered, but a claim that
> someone is in a conflict of interest is often a personal attack. It can
> too often be used as a bullying tactic to make the opposing POV dominant.
The new WP:COI advises specifically against introducing COI as an adversarial tactic in POV disputes. Again, some acknowledgement from Geoffrey Kohs that this improves the guideline would be welcome.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
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
Rob wrote:
> On 11/3/06, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Have a look at the arbcom pages some time. Fred Bauder seriously
>> proposed some time last year that Chip Berlet should not be allowed to
>> edit articles about the LaRouchians because - hah! - his expertise on
>> the subject meant he was too involved.
>
> Did he actually say that "expertise" should be a disqualification from
> editing or did he say that due to his experience Berlet may have a
> preconceived notion that the LaRouchians were all nuts and should thus
> be disqualified?
After allowing for some hyperbole in this description of Berlet's views
regarding LaRouche supporters--at some point, when all the experts have
reached the conclusion that the earth orbits the sun, you can't
disqualify them from writing articles that describe the solar system,
simply on account of their vehemence in making that argument in the
past. In particular, when people show that they can write neutral prose
in articles, it should matter very little that they express strong views
on the talk pages.
--Michael Snow
I don't think that all this is worth quitting Wikipedia over. If you take a breath and a wikibreak, you can come back to try to fix it. If you do not want to come back at all, we will miss you. Goodbye.
"Gregory Kohs" wrote
> (Prediction: This is where we'll begin to see these layers of excuses and
> hypocrisy being donned once again. Wikia is a different case. The Reward
> Board is an exception.)
The guideline at WP:COI is clear enough: those whose editing of an area is or is likely to be at cross-purposes with Wikipedia's interest in the matter are discouraged from editing in that area. It is surprising to think that any other sort of policy could be contemplated. But instead of trying to stretch the principles involved to the point of absurdity (which is the lowest, crudest form of debate that we get here), perhaps you should look at the detailed form of the guideline. Which includes:
- statement that conflict of interest is handled within the other policies, not in some special way;
- advice that good practice is not to bring up authorship of articles at AfD, advice that conflict of interest should not be used adversarially as an accusation in disputes over POV editing;
- neutral discussion of the question of declaring an interest, concentrating on its pros and cons.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Charles R. Matthews wrote:
++++++++++++++
We would reject the edits of anyone claiming to be Einstein! We would have
rejected edits from AE himself, if he had not been able to edit neutrally on
the Copenhagen interpretation.
>* 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.
*
I think we might have some problems with Mr. Gates's POV on, for example,
the EU's fining of Microsoft. I think we'd have many problems with
Microsoft's legal office slanting the articles about Micrsoft's litigation.
Don't you?
++++++++++++++++++++
Charles, thank you for actually defending my main point. If Wikipedians
like yourself assume that PREVENTION of editing is the only way we'll ever
see whether paid, seemingly-conflicted editing can actually be done
neutrally, we'll never actually know. Let's just all assume that Albert
Einstein and Bill Gates would be intellectually INCAPABLE of contributing
neutral, beneficial content to Wikipedia. Let's assume that the Wikipedia
community would not be capable of MERCILESSLY EDITING (or reverting) the
content that they found to be biased (through cited sources, of course). In
fact, let's just assume bad faith, all around, shall we? It certainly
stands to reason that the only thing Bill Gates might possibly be able to
add to an article about Microsoft (or computers, or inner-city secondary
education) would be his perspective on EU fines against Microsoft. It would
equally stand to reason that Arch Coal and Fleshlight are very similar
companies, in search of exploiting Wikipedia in the exact same ways.
So, as long as we're assuming the worst possible abilities on the part of
anyone who earns a dollar, I'm curious to see what you had to say about my
other two points (to which you didn't respond) -- that of Angela Beesley's
editing "her" Wikia article, and the nature of the Reward Board, which
offers MONEY to people to write about a particular topic that the financier
wants written about?
(Prediction: This is where we'll begin to see these layers of excuses and
hypocrisy being donned once again. Wikia is a different case. The Reward
Board is an exception.)
--
Gregory Kohs
Cell: 302.463.1354
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Excessive units converstion?
> I very much believe that quotes should be respected, but there are
> still
> places where judgement should be exercised. I have no problem with
> correcting obvious typos, as long as there is no question about it.
> This can also depend on the nature of the work. If a person is highly
> literary the obvious typo may not be a typo at all. US/UK spelling
> differences are not typos. Malapropisms are not typos. Typos that
> lead
> to a grammatical but off beat result, like a reference to an "immoral
> soul" when "immortal soul" is likely intended should not be altered.
>
> In some cases though, particularly in factual writing, we don't
> need to
> make a writer look like an idiot when it serves no purpose. The
> following from an article called "The Post Offices of Bracken County,
> Kentucky" is one where I would make the corrections: "The Genmantown
> post office was established on the Mason Cbunty side of the line on
> December 8, 1817 with Ludwell Owings (?) as postmaster." The town
> should be "Germantown", as the rest of the context will establish; I
> also know that in reading some sans-serif typefaces in particular the
> distinction between the "rm" and "nm" combinations is not always
> clear.
> The totally meaningless "Cbunty" should also be changed. On the other
> hand the date format should not be altered, and the question mark
> expressing the author's uncertainty should be retained.
I have _great_ reservations about changing directi quotations for any
reason. I take your point, but even in the case you mention, it
requires a certain degree of expert judgement to "correct" an
"obvious" typo, and the danger is that the correction leaves no
obvious trace. I think it's better to place the correction in a
footnote.
Someone once told me that in analyzing old texts, it is an
established principle that if there are two versions and one makes
sense and one doesn't, it is the one that doesn't that is likely to
be accurate, because the coherent version is usually the result of a
later editor trying to "correct" the passage.
To your examples, I'd add that when Lewis Carroll spells the words
_can't_, _won't_, and _shan't_ as _ca'n't_, _wo'n't_ and "sha'n't,"
respectively, they are not typos... and when George Bernard Shaw
spells the same words as _cant_, _wont_, and _shant_ they are not
typos, either.
"Gregory Kohs" wrote
> 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.
Well, only if you have interests that 'conflict' with Wikipedia's.
> 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.
We would reject the edits of anyone claiming to be Einstein! We would have rejected edits from AE himself, if he had not been able to edit neutrally on the Copenhagen interpretation.
> 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.
I think we might have some problems with Mr. Gates's POV on, for example, the EU's fining of Microsoft. I think we'd have many problems with Microsoft's legal office slanting the articles about Micrsoft's litigation. Don't you?
> 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.
Depends whether Tajiri was providing verifiable, neutral edits or not.
> 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.
Yes, I think that's right. We do think that people editing for free and without ulterior motive has made 'the house that Jimbo built' what it is.
<snip>
> 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.
Hmmm ... did it say at WP:COI that Buridan's Ass came into it? AFAIK, people who attack that guideline or say it is unworkable actually _want_ WP not to have a workable policy in this area. They find weaselly ways to get round the point: WP is quite entitled to say that those who edit and not for the good of WP, but to some other end, are to be discouraged.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Guettarda write
> While IAR is often abused as a reason to be disruptive, the truth is that
> it's the last defense against insanity in many cases, specifically
> becausewe have too many useless guidelines and policies.
Right. IAR is not to be ignored, except by those who can't work out why it is needed.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information