BoboMeowCat (talk | contribs) Thanks! |
BoboMeowCat (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Thanks Atsme, for starting this :) Some ideas I have for this essay actually came out of the recent ANI discussions regarding COI. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#How_to_deal_appropriately_with_COI_concerns.3F] Specifically things that suggest COIDuck such as violations of multiple policies and guidelines such as WP:NPOV, WP:OWN, WP:CHERRYPICK, WP:SYTNTH, WP:BULLY, WP:TAGTEAM, WP:BITE, while editing with a pro-industry POV. |
Thanks Atsme, for starting this :) Some ideas I have for this essay actually came out of the recent ANI discussions regarding COI. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#How_to_deal_appropriately_with_COI_concerns.3F], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Break] Specifically things that suggest COIDuck such as violations of multiple policies and guidelines such as WP:NPOV, WP:OWN, WP:CHERRYPICK, WP:SYTNTH, WP:BULLY, WP:TAGTEAM, WP:BITE, while editing with a pro-industry POV. |
||
Additionally, things that ''do not'' suggest COIDuckery such as an editor simply having substantial scientific knowledge; an editor adding reliably sourced information that is favorable toward a corporation, pesticide, or drug company or an editor removing poorly sourced content that is critical of such. Additionally, appearing to have a pro-industry POV, while not engaging in violation of WP:NPOV, WP:OWN, WP:CHERRYPICK, WP:SYTNTH, WP:BULLY, WP:TAGTEAM, WP:BITE etc is not COIDuckery, COIDucks are disruptive and attempt to run editors with different POV off articles they attempt to WP:OWN. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=653885778]. --[[User:BoboMeowCat|BoboMeowCat]] ([[User talk:BoboMeowCat|talk]]) 02:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC) |
Additionally, things that ''do not'' suggest COIDuckery such as an editor simply having substantial scientific knowledge; an editor adding reliably sourced information that is favorable toward a corporation, pesticide, or drug company or an editor removing poorly sourced content that is critical of such. Additionally, appearing to have a pro-industry POV, while not engaging in violation of WP:NPOV, WP:OWN, WP:CHERRYPICK, WP:SYTNTH, WP:BULLY, WP:TAGTEAM, WP:BITE etc is not COIDuckery, COIDucks are disruptive and attempt to run editors with different POV off articles they attempt to WP:OWN. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=653885778]. --[[User:BoboMeowCat|BoboMeowCat]] ([[User talk:BoboMeowCat|talk]]) 02:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 02:55, 31 March 2015
Thanks Atsme, for starting this :) Some ideas I have for this essay actually came out of the recent ANI discussions regarding COI. [1], [2] Specifically things that suggest COIDuck such as violations of multiple policies and guidelines such as WP:NPOV, WP:OWN, WP:CHERRYPICK, WP:SYTNTH, WP:BULLY, WP:TAGTEAM, WP:BITE, while editing with a pro-industry POV.
Additionally, things that do not suggest COIDuckery such as an editor simply having substantial scientific knowledge; an editor adding reliably sourced information that is favorable toward a corporation, pesticide, or drug company or an editor removing poorly sourced content that is critical of such. Additionally, appearing to have a pro-industry POV, while not engaging in violation of WP:NPOV, WP:OWN, WP:CHERRYPICK, WP:SYTNTH, WP:BULLY, WP:TAGTEAM, WP:BITE etc is not COIDuckery, COIDucks are disruptive and attempt to run editors with different POV off articles they attempt to WP:OWN. [3]. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)