Line 343: | Line 343: | ||
:::::::::Core this is about the third time you have accused me of weakening the guideline; your assumption of bad faith is getting in the way of working. There is no way you could even have read and considered my changes in the 1 minute you took to revert. So please explain exactly how I have weakened the guideline in that edit. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 22:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC) |
:::::::::Core this is about the third time you have accused me of weakening the guideline; your assumption of bad faith is getting in the way of working. There is no way you could even have read and considered my changes in the 1 minute you took to revert. So please explain exactly how I have weakened the guideline in that edit. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 22:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC) |
||
::::::::{{ping|Alanscottwalker}} just to be clear, do you mean that readers don't know about COI editing as it is not usually noted in the article proper but only on the talk page? This is true, and perhaps should be mentioned. [[User:Coretheapple|Coretheapple]] ([[User talk:Coretheapple|talk]]) 22:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC) |
::::::::{{ping|Alanscottwalker}} just to be clear, do you mean that readers don't know about COI editing as it is not usually noted in the article proper but only on the talk page? This is true, and perhaps should be mentioned. [[User:Coretheapple|Coretheapple]] ([[User talk:Coretheapple|talk]]) 22:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC) |
||
::::::::::it is an interesting suggestion. generally policies and guidelines are for editors are not intended for readers. But i could see adding something about that. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 22:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC) |
|||
Replying to Jytdog's point at 21:54, 22 June, the lead says: |
Replying to Jytdog's point at 21:54, 22 June, the lead says: |
||
Revision as of 22:24, 22 June 2016
Sources on conflict of interest
- (chronological)
- Michael Davis, "Conflict of Interest," Business and Professional Ethics Journal, 1(4), 1982, pp. 17–27 (influential)
- Luebke, Neil R. "Conflict of Interest as a Moral Category," Business & Professional Ethics Journal, 6, 1987, pp. 66–81. JSTOR 27799930 (influential)
- Michael Davis, "Conflict of Interest Revisited," Business & Professional Ethics Journal, 12(4), Winter 1993, pp. 21–41. JSTOR 27800924
- Michael Davis, Andrew Stark (eds.). Conflict of Interest in the Professions, University of Oxford Press, 2001.
- Andrew Stark, Conflict of Interest in American Public Life, Harvard University Press, 2003.
- Sheldon Krimsky, "The Ethical and Legal Foundations of Scientific 'Conflict of Interest'", in Trudo Lemmings and Duff R. Waring (eds.), Law and Ethics in Biomedical Research: Regulation, Conflict of Interest, and Liability, University of Toronto Press, 2006.
- Bernard Lo and Marilyn J. Field (eds.), Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice, National Academies Press, 2009.
- Wayne Norman, Chris McDonald, "Conflicts of Interest", in George G. Brenkert, Tom L. Beauchamp (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Business Ethics, Oxford University Press, 2012, pp. 441–470.
Jobs and Farrow
On the guidelinepage are two yellow boxes with links to examples of COI-declarations, but the links just take you to the talkpages, not that helpful. Some sort of permalink would be good, if anyone knows what examples were intended. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:45, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Proposal for new limitation
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Propose to add to the main advice box, as in this dif
- If you are paid to edit articles, do not edit policies, guidelines, templates, help documents, etc.
This has not come up before that I am aware of, but then this happened followed by this. There was pretty clear consensus on both noticeboards for this principle. If we agree to add here, the same change should be made to WP:PAID, I reckon. Jytdog (talk) 10:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support proposal I am strongly opposed to paid editors changing guidelines/policies/help pages. First, because there has been a previous case where a longtime (undisclosed) paid editor actually influenced certain guidelines and later used it to defend their own stance in certain articles (See this). My second reason is because paid editing is a form of Systemic bias. I find it ethically wrong that certain individuals and companies can hire editors and have a nice puffed up article on Wikipedia. At the same time, volunteer editors also spend time trying to trim the articles and reduce promotional content. The encyclopaedia gradually gets slanted towards these articles. Although I dislike it, I can live with it as long as paid editing is properly disclosed. However, when paid editors start changing guidelines/policies/help pages, it risks introducing the bias into the very functioning of Wikipedia itself. This is much more critical. If the notability barriers for companies are brought down, it becomes easier to slip in articles and use Wikipedia for promotion. If it is made harder to tag articles for problems, editors may refrain from pointing out problems altogether, which serves the purpose of COI editors. If it is made easier to remove maintenance templates, then COI editors can simply remove the tags without fixing problems. On a long term, this risks transforming a free encyclopaedia to a platform hosting information about people who can pay for it (something like a paid web-host, with free volunteer customer service). Since I don't want that to happen, it is best that paid editors are not allowed to edit policies/guidelines/help pages directly. The problem needs to be nipped in the bud right now. Support adding this diff to WP:COI and consequently to WP:PAID as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support. This plugs an obvious loophole. Additionally, paid and COI editors should not be participating in AfD discussions, where they can be disruptive and tenacious. Note too the template help discussion here regarding removal of article maintenance templates by COI editors generally. Coretheapple (talk) 17:20, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- No. This is far too broad, especially given that many people who are "paid" to edit (e.g., Wikipedians in residence) are longterm community members with significant knowledge and experience. Risker (talk) 18:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- I think this can be cured by simply referencing the TOU. That is, editors paid as defined by the TOU. A tweak would do it. Coretheapple (talk) 20:15, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Risker, If I may, you have previusly advocated tightening Notability-business rules to alternatively address paid editing, and now when a paid editor has been blocked in part for trying to edit the Notability-business rules, your response is just 'no'. What can we do? Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:27, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- User:Risker about that, please see this about a GLAM editor editing this guideline with respect to GLAM, to make it less restrictive for him/herself. In my view if someone is GLAM and is very well respected, if they make a proposal to change a policy etc it will surely be well heard. Also, would love to hear what would make to sense to you to prevent problems in the future. Jytdog (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Important, broad policies and guidelines should not be changed as a result of one-off situations. Having re-read the sections that Jytdog has referenced, what we had here was an individual who was completely inappropriately changing policies without proper disussion. The fact he was a paid editor was irrelevant: people who change policies without proper discussion are almost always making changes that reflect their editorial preferences. We already have a policy about changing policies. The substantive sentence is:
Editing a policy to support your own argument in an active discussion may be seen as gaming the system, especially if you do not disclose your involvement in the argument when making the edits.
Let's not duplicate things.Alanscottwalker, I'm not sure why you'd link my belief that more stringent notability requirements for businesses with the longstanding procedures for modification of guidelines and policies. I don't see anyone rushing to even have the discussion about tightening notability. Jytdog, Wikipedia is becoming extremely overburdened by intertwining and often contradictory or out-of-step rules. They aren't working. I believe that your assessment of the discussion on ANI is actually quite wrong, and reflects your own point of view. I want to stop seeing people propose modifications to important policies and guidelines based on their own viewpoints. I'm not persuaded that your proposal here is any less problematic than that which just got someone else indeffed. Risker (talk) 20:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- That person was indeffed for battleground behavior, not for proposing changes. Hm. In any case, thanks for making your opposition to this clear. This may take an RfC but we'll see how this goes. But what you mention there about WP:PAG is super helpful and may be all we need. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)(redact Jytdog (talk) 22:06, 5 June 2016 (UTC))
- Important, broad policies and guidelines should not be changed as a result of one-off situations. Having re-read the sections that Jytdog has referenced, what we had here was an individual who was completely inappropriately changing policies without proper disussion. The fact he was a paid editor was irrelevant: people who change policies without proper discussion are almost always making changes that reflect their editorial preferences. We already have a policy about changing policies. The substantive sentence is:
- Risker, why do I link it, because the link should be obvious: 1) you have a paid editor editing the buisness notability rule in ways the community found against wikipedia's interest due to conflict; 2) you have a business notability rule, which you argue should be tightend to address the conflict of paid editing. Ergo. It's not going to be tightened with paid editors editing it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment The editor who prompted discussion of this problem is now indef blocked.[1]. Did that resolve the problem for now, or is this a broad enough problem to require policy changes? In general, editors probably should avoid editing policy pages where they are close to violating that policy. That's a "discuss on talk first" kind of issue. John Nagle (talk) 05:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- That editor was already indeffed and unblocks had been refused when I first proposed this. It was to avoid future such situations that I did it. (It is bad form to try to change policies/guidelines to win an argument; the argument was indeed already over.) I am unaware of this happening before. Consensus was strongly against what this editor was doing at COIN and ANI so it seemed reasonable to see if there was consensus to add it to the guideline.Jytdog (talk) 11:49, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose as instruction creep. Changes to policy and guidelines already requires consensus and no one should be editing them without seeking consensus for their change first.--v/r - TP 18:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- the less paid editors do the better. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose as instruction creep. It's not usually a good idea to expand a guideline to address a one-time problem; WP:Nobody reads the directions anyway (and if they did, then they would have discovered that gaming guidelines is already named as a bad idea in WP:Policy), so uncommon problems are almost never solved thereby. Separately, I oppose including the Help: and Template: namespaces. I'm having trouble seeing how one could re-write, say, Help:Edit summary, to benefit a client. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
NPP / AfC
Just a reminder that in just over a week at Wikimania there's going to be a cross-Wiki discussion about the systems of control of new pages. This is a round-table rather than a presentation or a lecture. On the agenda are reforms to the new article reviewing systems and ways to help new users better understand our content policies. If you are going to Italy and would like to take part, please check out the conference schedule, and I look forward to seeing you there. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Section on working with conflicted editors
The following was added at some point
Responding to requests
Editors should exercise caution when responding to edit requests from COI and paid editors, particularly when commercial interests are involved. When large amounts of text are added on behalf of the article subject, it means that the article has, in effect, been ghostwritten by them, without the readers' knowledge.
Editors responding to edit requests should carefully check the proposed text and sources. That an article has been expanded does not necessarily mean that it is better. Be on the lookout for unnecessary detail that may have been added to overwhelm something negative. In particular, editors should determine whether anything important is missing and whether the text complies with WP:DUE. If the proposed new text is added to the article, the edit summary should include full attribution; see WP:COIATTRIBUTE below.
This is problematic on a bunch of levels including redundancy. I have proposed the following, which is tighter and more clear:
Responding to requests
Wikipedia has been criticized for allowing articles to become ghostwritten by company representatives complying with this guideline.
Editors should carefully review content proposed by conflicted and paid editors to ensure that the proposed content complies with the content policies, particularly with regard to whether negative information has been omitted in the proposal and whether aspects of the proposal would be WP:UNDUE if implemented.
If proposed content is added to the article, the edit summary should include full attribution including any changes made by the implementing editor; see WP:COIATTRIBUTE below.
That was reverted, so I'm bringing all this to Talk for discussion. Jytdog (talk) 00:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC) (redacted per new proposal below Jytdog (talk) 03:04, 21 June 2016 (UTC))
- When someone reverts a change, it doesn't mean you can remove the whole section. The writing in your version is not so good; there are several grammatical issues. It omits that more doesn't necessarily mean better, which is a common mistake editors make when they carry over paid editors' work. It omits the PR tendency to add words to hide negative material. It omits the need to check sources. It implies that only company articles suffer from this problem. It tells edtors to add their own changes to the edit summary, which is not possible when dealing with entire drafts. If you believe the current text is problematic "on a bunch of levels," please list them. SarahSV (talk) 00:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- When you boldly make changes to this guideline, it doesn't mean that they stick either. Please point out the grammatical issues with my version that were so horrible that they all had to be deleted. My content is very clear - more clear than the original - the negative material may be omitted. More is not better is a general problem in WP and not at all specific to paid editing. You are correct that my version doesn't mention sources in particular but it does mention all content policies which brings in ... all content policies. That of course includes V/RS and also OR (which the original leaves out all together) as well as all aspects of NPOV (which includes non-neutral language as well as omissions/UNDUE). I would have been happy to collaborate but since you made it all or nothing, here we are. My changes fixed those issues in the version you added. Jytdog (talk) 00:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Your version is a significant weakening of the guideline. I couldn't help but notice that you yanked it out at the same time as this discussion in Talk:The Hollywood Reporter, in which a paid editor is seeking to sub an entire section with text of his own. That discussion indicates to me that some editors can't seem to grasp the undesirability of ghostwriting by paid editors even under the stronger (and in my view fairly unanmbiguous) language. If anything, it needs to be strengthened, not watered down. Coretheapple (talk) 00:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- How is it weaker? You pointed to what you are doing at that Talk page - I just looked in on what you are doing on there and wow are you pushing it; you are going to get TBANed from discussing COI if you keep behaving disruptively on article Talk pages like that. Jytdog (talk) 00:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Can you please explain this edit summary: moving this to talk. I didn't notice this when it was added and it is not OK? That section has been there for a very long time. You take out sections of the COI guideline that you think are "not OK" no matter how long they have been there? Coretheapple (talk) 00:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- it was added somewhere in this huge slew of edits made by SV. Jytdog (talk) 01:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- So you "didn't notice it" last fall so out it goes on the first day of summer. Gotcha. Coretheapple (talk) 01:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know exactly when it was added and neither apparently do you. It was never discussed and is flawed; I tried to improve it but was straight up reverted. So we can discuss it and decide what this should say, which was never done. Jytdog (talk) 01:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- No, how long it has been there is immaterial. What matters is that it has been there for months and months, and you just took it out. Whether the number of months is six or seven doesn't really matter but if it does to you I'll go back and take a look. Coretheapple (talk) 01:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- As for how it has been weakened, that was explained to you already by SV. Why did you weaken it? Coretheapple (talk) 01:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- The lack of discussion is the problem that is now being addressed. I did not weaken it; I made it more clear and stronger as it brings in all content policies, which the original didn't. Jytdog (talk) 01:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- You weakened it to make it stronger? Why not deal with SlimVirgin's objections waaaaaaaay up top. Specifically. You want to discuss, so discuss, point by point. Coretheapple (talk) 01:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oh just to be clear, I am referring to the reply at 00:24, 21 June 2016. Coretheapple (talk) 01:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yes I addressed that, right below there.Jytdog (talk) 01:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- No, you didn't. You wrote that the current version is "problematic on a bunch of levels," so please list them, so we can discuss them. SarahSV (talk) 01:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I was just about to say that there was no response whatsoever to the points raised in that post. Yes, pleasd do enumerate your problems with that section of the guideline. I'm still not clear on why you weakened it. Coretheapple (talk) 01:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC) And by the way, just an aside: your weakening and removal of that section right after I cited it at the Hollywood Reporter talk page has got to be one of the most fascinating coincidences I've ever encountered here on Wikipedia! Coretheapple (talk) 01:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yes I addressed that, right below there.Jytdog (talk) 01:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- The lack of discussion is the problem that is now being addressed. I did not weaken it; I made it more clear and stronger as it brings in all content policies, which the original didn't. Jytdog (talk) 01:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know exactly when it was added and neither apparently do you. It was never discussed and is flawed; I tried to improve it but was straight up reverted. So we can discuss it and decide what this should say, which was never done. Jytdog (talk) 01:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- So you "didn't notice it" last fall so out it goes on the first day of summer. Gotcha. Coretheapple (talk) 01:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- How is it weaker? You pointed to what you are doing at that Talk page - I just looked in on what you are doing on there and wow are you pushing it; you are going to get TBANed from discussing COI if you keep behaving disruptively on article Talk pages like that. Jytdog (talk) 00:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Your version is a significant weakening of the guideline. I couldn't help but notice that you yanked it out at the same time as this discussion in Talk:The Hollywood Reporter, in which a paid editor is seeking to sub an entire section with text of his own. That discussion indicates to me that some editors can't seem to grasp the undesirability of ghostwriting by paid editors even under the stronger (and in my view fairly unanmbiguous) language. If anything, it needs to be strengthened, not watered down. Coretheapple (talk) 00:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- When you boldly make changes to this guideline, it doesn't mean that they stick either. Please point out the grammatical issues with my version that were so horrible that they all had to be deleted. My content is very clear - more clear than the original - the negative material may be omitted. More is not better is a general problem in WP and not at all specific to paid editing. You are correct that my version doesn't mention sources in particular but it does mention all content policies which brings in ... all content policies. That of course includes V/RS and also OR (which the original leaves out all together) as well as all aspects of NPOV (which includes non-neutral language as well as omissions/UNDUE). I would have been happy to collaborate but since you made it all or nothing, here we are. My changes fixed those issues in the version you added. Jytdog (talk) 00:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
See here; Here I will copy/paste it for you: "My content is very clear - more clear than the original - the negative material may be omitted. More is not better is a general problem in WP and not at all specific to paid editing. You are correct that my version doesn't mention sources in particular but it does mention all content policies which brings in ... all content policies. That of course includes V/RS and also OR (which the original leaves out all together) as well as all aspects of NPOV (which includes non-neutral language as well as omissions/UNDUE). I would have been happy to collaborate but since you made it all or nothing, here we are. My changes fixed those issues in the version you added." To be even more painfully clear:
- Omits reviewing for OR
- Omits reviewing for neutral language
- Repeats itself.
I'll add now:
- Bias comes into articles through advocacy. COI is the kind of advocacy that this article deals with. Whether someone's COI is driven by them getting paid, or because the article is about their dad, or about themselves their editing can be terribly biased and their behavior disruptive; there is no need to be more particularly cautious when dealing with a paid editor.
- I moved the criticisms about ghostwriting to the top of the section to show why being careful when reviewing and implementing proposed content matters; we manage COI to protect the integrity of WP and its reputation.
In any case both of you have made it clear that you are not open to improvements. Let's see what others have to say. Jytdog (talk) 02:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- You're just repeating your previous non-response, but at greater length. Also you misstate the nature of COI, but that is neither here nor there. I guess you just don't want to explain why you are intent on weakening the guideline. Coretheapple (talk) 02:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
IMO opinion both versions are bad. First of all, I dislike the idea that the very fist line of the section redirects to an essay. IMO the proper place of essays is in "See also". If the essay is of generic importance, suggest the expansion of the guideline.
Second, "Responding to requests" is a serious item here. I've seen cases when not very seasoned editors are all too helpful (which is probably OK) to address such requests without really having experience with all sneaky ways of COI editors. Therefore IMO this section must be of two parts: (a) a general word of caution and (b) a checklist of most common tricks to watch for.
Third, what the heck is is supposed to mean: "<been ghostwritten> without the readers' knowledge"? What kind of crime is this? And why 'ghostwritten'? A PR lady can write PR babble all by herself, but this doesn't become any more suspicious. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- ack, yes I meant to remove the ghostwriting essay from my version. It is badly written and violates policy in a few ways, and I don't see it cited except by the people who authored it. It should not be cited in this guideline. The criticism about ghostwriting got really hot around the BP article, which was controversial here in WP when two groups of editors clashed over the way content proposed by a disclosed BP employee was handled; the controversy made press as in here. We do want to protect WP from that kind of criticism, so it is important that this section be clear and useful. I agree with that. Coretheapple was hot in that controversy as was SV; I was for a while but bailed when it got too... unpleasant. That is some of the background here. Jytdog (talk) 02:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- <edit conflict>P.S. Oh, I got it. The linked essay effectively introduced a yet another newspeak word wikipedia-specific interpretation of a common word. Bad idea. I have read thru the essay and I thoroughly disagree the way it was written. I understand the intentions, but the way it written it makes the COI submission as something illegitimate. If the process has holes, fix them in the guideline, not in some snarky essays on how volunteer editors copy something either brainlessly or being ass-kissed. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yep. Jytdog (talk) 03:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- <edit conflict>P.S. Oh, I got it. The linked essay effectively introduced a yet another newspeak word wikipedia-specific interpretation of a common word. Bad idea. I have read thru the essay and I thoroughly disagree the way it was written. I understand the intentions, but the way it written it makes the COI submission as something illegitimate. If the process has holes, fix them in the guideline, not in some snarky essays on how volunteer editors copy something either brainlessly or being ass-kissed. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Revised proposal
Based on Staszek Lem's suggestion above
Responding to requests
Wikipedia has been criticized for allowing articles to become ghostwritten by company representatives who are complying with this guideline.[1]
Editors should carefully review content proposed by conflicted and paid editors to ensure that the proposed content complies with the content policies before implementing it. When implementing, the edit summary should include full attribution including any changes made by the implementing editor; see WP:COIATTRIBUTE below.
In particular, please make sure that that content and sources:
- Complies with WP:NPOV both in the language that is used and the WP:WEIGHT given to positive and negative information. Please be aware that a conflicted editor will tend to leave negative information out altogether, or may downplay it in various ways. You should do your own search to see what topics independent, reliable sources raise with regard to the subject
- Complies with WP:OR and WP:VERIFY - there should be no unsourced content.
- Complies with WP:RS and WP:MEDRS as is relevant; be especially cautious about accepting content based on self published sources like personal or company websites and press releases.
References
- ^ Natasha Lennard for Salon. March 21, 2013 BP edited its own environmental record on Wikipedia
-- Jytdog (talk) 03:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oh I get it. What you're doing is ignoring the points that SlimVirgin made rather than addressing or responding to them. It just dawned on me. Coretheapple (talk) 03:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- One of the issues Jytdog keeps removing is:
- "That an article has been expanded does not necessarily mean that it is better. Be on the lookout for unnecessary detail that may have been added to overwhelm something negative."
- This is important because it's commonly done by PR editors. Wikipedians often glance at the old and new versions, see the new one is longer and seems well-sourced, and swap it without realizing that the rewrite is a kind of Trojan horse designed to remove or overwhelm certain items, and perhaps just one item. SarahSV (talk) 17:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- I don't mind keeping that bit. Jytdog (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- In that case it's unclear why you keep removing it. SarahSV (talk) 18:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- My apologies. It is still unclear to me why you wholesale reverted my changes. Jytdog (talk) 18:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- I explained above at 00:24, 21 June 2016. The way BRD normally works is that someone makes an edit and is reverted. That person goes to talk with "I would like to make this edit because A and B are good in the proposed text and C and D are bad in the current one." Other people respond: "But the proposal omits X, Y and Z." First person responds to those points, perhaps modifying the proposal, and so on. SarahSV (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- You don't have to explain BRD to me. You BOLDLY made extensive' changes to this guideline without discussion. This passage was never discussed and then you reverted the changes I made wholesale with handwavy "grammar" answers. There is nothing special or better about your version. Your behavior here demonstrates WP:OWN and I suggest you tread more lightly. Jytdog (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- I believe you've now violated 3RR. Please revert yourself. SarahSV (talk) 20:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Per WP:BRD we are actively trying to work toward consensus via editing. In any case I have now removed this entirely per WP:PGCHANGE. You were bold when you added this but it was not discussed then and now that it is being discussed, there is no consensus on what to say. I have opened a section below for discussion of it. Jytdog (talk) 20:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- I believe you've now violated 3RR. Please revert yourself. SarahSV (talk) 20:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- You don't have to explain BRD to me. You BOLDLY made extensive' changes to this guideline without discussion. This passage was never discussed and then you reverted the changes I made wholesale with handwavy "grammar" answers. There is nothing special or better about your version. Your behavior here demonstrates WP:OWN and I suggest you tread more lightly. Jytdog (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- I explained above at 00:24, 21 June 2016. The way BRD normally works is that someone makes an edit and is reverted. That person goes to talk with "I would like to make this edit because A and B are good in the proposed text and C and D are bad in the current one." Other people respond: "But the proposal omits X, Y and Z." First person responds to those points, perhaps modifying the proposal, and so on. SarahSV (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- My apologies. It is still unclear to me why you wholesale reverted my changes. Jytdog (talk) 18:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- In that case it's unclear why you keep removing it. SarahSV (talk) 18:09, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- I don't mind keeping that bit. Jytdog (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- This is important because it's commonly done by PR editors. Wikipedians often glance at the old and new versions, see the new one is longer and seems well-sourced, and swap it without realizing that the rewrite is a kind of Trojan horse designed to remove or overwhelm certain items, and perhaps just one item. SarahSV (talk) 17:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Attribution record: Keeping article drafts created by conflicted editors
So if a conflicted editor (heck any editor) makes a draft of an article or section elsewhere that ultimately gets incorporated into the article, where should that ultimately reside so that WP retains the record of the work done on it? I think it should maybe become a subpage of the article's talk page, rather than residing in userspace, where it is really under that user's control.
here is an example - I worked with a paid editor in their sandbox here and ultimately incorporated that collaboratively created draft into an article in this dif. So should this be moved to Talk:Memorial_Sloan_Kettering_Cancer_Center/sandbox/Memorial_Sloan_Kettering_Cancer_Center, and should this guideline advise that this happen generally so we keep that record? Jytdog (talk) 00:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Well here's one idea: don't work with paid editors on drafts and you won't have to put them anywhere. Coretheapple (talk) 01:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think this kind of reply was called for. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- I think this topic is uncalled-for. The guideline should not be providing mechanisms or procedures related to ghostwriting by paid editors. Coretheapple (talk) 02:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think this kind of reply was called for. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Jytdog: please explain what problems you see with user's control. I see only one, and it is rather admin's control: an admin can delete user subpages upon users' request and this may lead to hiding the history of the actual article. Therefore your suggestion makes sense. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- You nailed it; the risk of it the user tagging it for deletion (e.g WP:U1) has been raised elsewhere and this would prevent that... Jytdog (talk) 02:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't see any problem that isn't overcome by Jtydog's edit summary "(import article from User_talk:FacultiesIntact/sandbox/Memorial_Sloan_Kettering_Cancer_Center - see Talk)"
In any case changing the guideline should be done collaboratively. Please don't just put in new text without cheching it out here first. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- That is why I posted here. To the point, if that user sandbox gets deleted then the edit note is useless. You have missed the point completely Jytdog (talk) 02:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- It's better not to move drafts to a subpage of the article or talk page, in part because we often have several of them from different paid editors. But anyone worried about a user draft being deleted can move it to draft space (with permission) or copy it with attribution in the edit summary. SarahSV (talk) 02:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- There can be several subpages; there is no limit to that as far as I know. this will not fit in an edit note. You are the one who wrote this, and this proposal actually addresses that concern. So is it a valid concern that should be addressed as a part of regular process or not? Jytdog (talk) 02:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- It's better not to move drafts to a subpage of the article or talk page, in part because we often have several of them from different paid editors. But anyone worried about a user draft being deleted can move it to draft space (with permission) or copy it with attribution in the edit summary. SarahSV (talk) 02:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- The way I've handled the draft issue when dealing with paid editors is by using the {{connected contributor (paid)}} template on the talk page, and adding a link to the draft under
|otherlinks=
. If that link goes red, any editor can ask an admin for a copy, which can be copied to draft space or that editor's userspace. In my experience paid editors usually don't ask that their drafts be deleted, because they want them to be preserved; offhand I can think of only one who has routinely requested deletion. SarahSV (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Would love to see a couple examples where you did that. Jytdog (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
removed usage of "ghostwriting" term
When I read it first time it thew me off and I spent some time to figure it out.
The way a Wikipedian uses this term is upside down w.r.t. to common parlance. I real world a ghostwriter is a slave toiling for the glory of the author name on the book cover. If a PR person wrote a PR piece and a wikipedian submitted it under their name, then formally the 'ghostwriter' is the PR guy, right? But the abused side is the wikipedian and Wikipedia as a whole. Wikipedia has long been criticized for its argot incomprehensible to the outsiders (WP:CONSENSUS is not really, NPOV is is fact CLUMSYMELDOFALLPOVS, etc.). The guidelines are for fresh meat. Let's not confuse them. I understand the attractiveness of the term "ghostwriter". But I would suggest to coin a neologism for "devil's ghostwriters" in wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- P.S. How about "devilwriter" or "daemonwriter"? A 'satanwriter' moving a wikipedian's arm, isn't it the correct imagery for the issue at hand ? Staszek Lem (talk) 03:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- "Ghostwriter" means that the author is not who it seems to be. In this case, not Wikipedia, but the subject. It is actually a mild term. "Fraudulent editing" or "Misleading readers" describes the same concept. In any event, I think that we need to form a consensus before changing the guideline. We don't take it out because you don't like the term. Coretheapple (talk) 03:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- I'd go with "fraudulent editing" though, if you want a different term. But "ghostwriting" is accurate. Coretheapple (talk) 03:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- No it is not. Wikipedia say: "A ghostwriter is a person who is hired to author books <...> or other texts that are officially credited to another person". Even if you are right, the term does not correctly describe the situation we are dealing with and does not add extra understanding. Also, please address my other criticism of the text, if you want consensus. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- I don't much care what Wikipedia says. What do you think of my alternative proposal "fraudulent editing"? Coretheapple (talk) 03:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Well, if you don't care what wikipedia says, what are you doing here?[1] As for "fraudulent editing", this is too general. As I see it from your essay, there are two guilty parties: the COI guy and the "useful idiot" wikipedian. My tongue-in-cheek suggestion addresses this. How about a more neutral-language imagery: "rubberstamping editing"? Staszek Lem (talk) 03:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a reliable source, but anyway you're disregarding that there is another article that addresses your concern about the "ghostwriting" term, as noted below. Coretheapple (talk) 03:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- "Wikipedia is not a reliable source" is really bad mantra when taken out of context. We know that and that's why we are here: to strive for an inachievable perfection. And I have already answered below that "another article" is not really. Staszek Lem (talk) 04:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- The "medical ghostwriting" term all comes down under the general category of astroturfing, in the sense of giving the reader an incorrect impression. I don't much care what it is called as long as it is explicitly and unambiguously discouraged. The idea should not be to discourage such conduct only if it violates policy, but to discourage that conduct as undesirable in its own right for several reasons, not the least of which is the burden it places on volunteer editors and the inherent undesirability of subjects writing their own articles. Coretheapple (talk) 04:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- "Wikipedia is not a reliable source" is really bad mantra when taken out of context. We know that and that's why we are here: to strive for an inachievable perfection. And I have already answered below that "another article" is not really. Staszek Lem (talk) 04:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- And it's not my essay. "Rubberstamping"? That's a possibility. Coretheapple (talk) 03:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a reliable source, but anyway you're disregarding that there is another article that addresses your concern about the "ghostwriting" term, as noted below. Coretheapple (talk) 03:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Well, if you don't care what wikipedia says, what are you doing here?[1] As for "fraudulent editing", this is too general. As I see it from your essay, there are two guilty parties: the COI guy and the "useful idiot" wikipedian. My tongue-in-cheek suggestion addresses this. How about a more neutral-language imagery: "rubberstamping editing"? Staszek Lem (talk) 03:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Staszek, that section addresses the problem of a reader expecting to find a Wikipedia article, but instead finding an article written by or for the subject of the article, as though this is the subject's website. The subject may have achieved this by editing the article himself, or by proposing a draft and having another editor carry it over for him, or by hiring a PR firm. That is ghostwriting. If you look at medical ghostwriter, it's explained there:
- I don't much care what Wikipedia says. What do you think of my alternative proposal "fraudulent editing"? Coretheapple (talk) 03:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- No it is not. Wikipedia say: "A ghostwriter is a person who is hired to author books <...> or other texts that are officially credited to another person". Even if you are right, the term does not correctly describe the situation we are dealing with and does not add extra understanding. Also, please address my other criticism of the text, if you want consensus. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Medical ghostwriters are employed by pharmaceutical companies and medical-device manufacturers to produce apparently independent manuscripts for peer-reviewed journals, conference presentations and other communications. Physicians and other scientists are paid to attach their names to the manuscripts as though they had authored them. The named authors may have had little or no involvement in the research or writing process.
- With certain types of paid or COI editing, Wikipedia publishes articles that are only "apparently independent," because they have actually been written by or for the article subject. SarahSV (talk) 03:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- This is not what we are discussing here . Pharmas hire "real" ghostwriters, in common meaning of the term. In our case who wrote the text is not essential; the issue remains the same even if the Big Boss himself scribed it. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Putting aside the name of the activity at issue here for a moment, my concern is that this section not be watered down so as to in any way sanction the practice. The guideline strongly discourages direct article editing. Ghostwriting (or rubberstamping) is a form of gaming the system. It is functionally identical to direct article editing. It just means that the editors have to know how to work the system better, how to kiss butt, etc. The goal is the same. The method is functionally identical. Smart COI editors know that. The current wording strongly discourages that practice without saying so. Perhaps it should be made more explicit. If it was explicitly said "rubberstamping (or ghostwriting or whatever) is strongly discouraged," it would assuage my general concern. Coretheapple (talk) 04:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- I am with you here. However simply saying "Rubberstamping is Verboten" is not enough. I was suggesting above to expand this section with a checklist of actions which, when missing, are indicatve of rubberstamping. Staszek Lem (talk) 04:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- I have added a few words to the text that I think might clarify things. If they don't, feel free to remove (or I can self-rev if requested). What checklist did you have in mind? Coretheapple (talk) 04:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- See, rubberstamping/ghostwriting is either taking place or it isn't. I don't understand what a checklist would say. Also all this guideline can do is "strongly discourage" conduct. As a guideline that's all it can do. Coretheapple (talk) 04:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- I am with you here. However simply saying "Rubberstamping is Verboten" is not enough. I was suggesting above to expand this section with a checklist of actions which, when missing, are indicatve of rubberstamping. Staszek Lem (talk) 04:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Putting aside the name of the activity at issue here for a moment, my concern is that this section not be watered down so as to in any way sanction the practice. The guideline strongly discourages direct article editing. Ghostwriting (or rubberstamping) is a form of gaming the system. It is functionally identical to direct article editing. It just means that the editors have to know how to work the system better, how to kiss butt, etc. The goal is the same. The method is functionally identical. Smart COI editors know that. The current wording strongly discourages that practice without saying so. Perhaps it should be made more explicit. If it was explicitly said "rubberstamping (or ghostwriting or whatever) is strongly discouraged," it would assuage my general concern. Coretheapple (talk) 04:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- This is not what we are discussing here . Pharmas hire "real" ghostwriters, in common meaning of the term. In our case who wrote the text is not essential; the issue remains the same even if the Big Boss himself scribed it. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- With certain types of paid or COI editing, Wikipedia publishes articles that are only "apparently independent," because they have actually been written by or for the article subject. SarahSV (talk) 03:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- User:Staszek Lem the "ghost writing" term is actually useful here in my view; the criticism is that the company is the "hidden hand" behind the content that appears in the WP article. In my experience this does not happen a lot when editors follow the COI guideline (it does happen when reps directly edit articles) but the key thing here is that we acknowledge the criticism and have a guideline that clearly teaches against the rubberstamping that leads to a ghostwritten article. Jytdog (talk) 04:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think it matters too much whether it is called "rubber-stamping" or "ghostwriting" as long as the concept is discouraged. That was my point this edit doesn't address them, and your series of edits is contrary to consensus. In this edit you direct the language solely at commercial editing when other types of COI editors engage in this practice. There is no consensus for your changes; only you want all this. You should not be inserting them in the guideline until there is consensus here for them. Also I find your practice of saying you are making a change to reflect an editor's concerns, and then adding material that does nothing of the kind, to be troublesome and disruptive. If you were serious about reflecting my concern you'd have added that adding blocks of text proposed by COI editors is discouraged, to make it consistent with the rest of the guideline, which appears to have a consensus in this discussion. There is no consensus for an enumeration of site policies that need to be checked, or for removal of the fact that some paid editors work by the hour. Coretheapple (talk) 11:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- I made edits to restore Jytdog's edits that were not supported by consensus, but self-reverted. We should not be going back and forth and making changes in this guideline without consensus. Coretheapple (talk) 12:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
References
- ^ This is not the first time our policies are discussed in terms which are in disagreement not only with wikipedia itself, but even with disregard of major dictionaries. The last such case was when the guideline about fringe theories introduced its own definition without paying attention that the wikipedia article "Fringe science" sucks. This is a mockery of the spirit of wikipedia: instead of improving the encyclopedia itself people are effectively engaging in original research when writing policies for wikipedia.
"Responding to requests" : "Editors should exercise caution"
I suggest to replace a vague term 'caution' with a more instructive one: "Editors should exercise due diligence". Staszek Lem (talk) 17:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
ghostwritten
"been ghostwritten by them, without the readers' knowledge."
IMO this statement does explain the true trouble: the real problem is not who wrote it, but whose POV is being pushed. Of course, a smart one may infer this, but IMO better spell it in plain view: "been ghostwritten by them to reflect their point of view, without the readers' knowledge." Staszek Lem (talk) 17:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
To justify their salaries or fees, paid editors may submit billable hours, along with evidence of their talk-page posts.
What is the basis for the claim above? This seems made up to me and goes against my experience of dealing with paid editors, who are generally paid by the job or are company employees that have actual company duties. I am not aware of any paid-by-the-hour paid editors. In my view this makes the guideline look frankly ignorant and degrades the credibility of the guideline. Jytdog (talk) 20:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- What is the basis for your removing it other than that you're "not aware" of it? There is no consensus to remove this text. You're being disruptive. Coretheapple (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- It is a claim about reality that as far as I can see has no basis and degrades the credibility of the guideline. A guideline should not have assertions about reality that are not supportable, which is an argument that SV makes regularly. Jytdog (talk) 20:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Again, it is the consensus version per WP:EDITCONSENSUS. As with the other parts of this guideline that you've yanked out, it was there since Dec. 8. [2] Please self-revert. Or not, as you please. Coretheapple (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, added boldly without prior discussion. What is the source for this claim about reality? (see the argument made by SV here for example. It is a valid argument) Jytdog (talk) 21:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- You know perfectly well what the policy is on consensus through editing, even if it hadn't been pointed out to you multiple times. You haven't just fallen off the turnip truck, and you've been through the mill more than most for just this kind of behavior. I'm done repeating myself with an editor as intent on disruption as you are. There needs to be a new consensus before it is changed, and you don't get to take it out in the interim. But like I said, go ahead, make yourself happy. I won't revert you. Coretheapple (talk) 21:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- No, this is more serious. Jytdog (talk) 21:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- You know perfectly well what the policy is on consensus through editing, even if it hadn't been pointed out to you multiple times. You haven't just fallen off the turnip truck, and you've been through the mill more than most for just this kind of behavior. I'm done repeating myself with an editor as intent on disruption as you are. There needs to be a new consensus before it is changed, and you don't get to take it out in the interim. But like I said, go ahead, make yourself happy. I won't revert you. Coretheapple (talk) 21:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, added boldly without prior discussion. What is the source for this claim about reality? (see the argument made by SV here for example. It is a valid argument) Jytdog (talk) 21:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Again, it is the consensus version per WP:EDITCONSENSUS. As with the other parts of this guideline that you've yanked out, it was there since Dec. 8. [2] Please self-revert. Or not, as you please. Coretheapple (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- It is a claim about reality that as far as I can see has no basis and degrades the credibility of the guideline. A guideline should not have assertions about reality that are not supportable, which is an argument that SV makes regularly. Jytdog (talk) 20:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Jtydog, your position here seems to be that everything in the guideline must have your permission. If something was added two years ago, was discussed, and the guideline has since been edited many times, including by you, it must nevertheless be removed immediately if you notice it and don't like it. If anyone objects and restores it, you revert and accuse them of OWN. SarahSV (talk) 22:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- That is not a reasonable statement; the same could go for you. So you should strike that. Please be consistent in your arguments per here. This sort of thing needs a source. Again, in my view it is so out of touch with reality that it discredits this guideline for the very people we want most to accept and follow it. Jytdog (talk) 22:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- That link refers to something a person had just added. You're removing material that has been in the guideline for six months in the case of the "ghostwriting" section, and I believe (without having looked) around two years in the case of the WP:COITALK words. But the broader point is this: wherever you turn up, articles or guidelines, editors always end up having to deal with these kinds of exchanges involving red herrings and straw men. Being straightforward and less aggressive, at least to start with, would make a most welcome change. SarahSV (talk) 22:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- This is a complete red herring; Jytdog could have spent five minutes going through
UpworthyUpwork, which has loads of paid editors out there in the marketplace charging by the hour. This is not acceptable behavior. Coretheapple (talk) 22:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)- SV, yes and this refers to something you added without discussion and the substantial objection is exactly the same. Would you please address the objection? It is a very explicit claim about what generally goes on between paid editors and their clients to the extent that it is worth discussing - what is the basis for this claim? thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Core, there is no such thing as "Upworthy". Yes paid editors list a by-hour rate (the site makes you do that) but if you look at actual jobs there they are all at a set fee. Please do your homework carefully. If you think it through a buyer there would be an idiot to agree to pay some random freelancer by the hour; people are loathe to do that with the attorneys who they meet with face to face. Freelancing is mostly commodity work, done on a piecework basis. Jytdog (talk) 23:04, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- That is not a reasonable statement; the same could go for you. So you should strike that. Please be consistent in your arguments per here. This sort of thing needs a source. Again, in my view it is so out of touch with reality that it discredits this guideline for the very people we want most to accept and follow it. Jytdog (talk) 22:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
'Careful review'
There is no consensus to weaken the guideline so as to give its blessing to addition of large amounts of text if there is "careful review," whatever that means. Lets not make this already weak guideline totally meaningless, please. Ghostwriting is ghostwriting. Coretheapple (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- see below. Jytdog (talk) 20:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Ghostwriting passage
There is no conseensus for how to word this. Adding versions below for discussion:
Editors should exercise caution when responding to edit requests from COI and paid editors, particularly when commercial interests are involved. When large amounts of text are added on behalf of the article subject, it means that the article has, in effect, been ghostwritten by them, without the readers' knowledge.
Coretheapple's version created here:
Editors should exercise caution when responding to edit requests from editors with a COI. When large amounts of text are written by the subject or their representatives, it means that the article has, in effect, been ghostwritten by them, without the readers' knowledge.
- Jytdog's version made here:
Editors should exercise caution when responding to edit requests from editors with a COI. When large amounts of text are added on behalf of the article subject without careful review, it means that the article has, in effect, been ghostwritten by them, without the readers' knowledge.
- Staszek Lem's version from here:
Editors should exercise caution when responding to edit requests from COI and paid editors, particularly when commercial interests are involved.
Those are four key ones, I think. Jytdog (talk) 20:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC) (redacted Jytdog (talk) 20:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC))
- Uh, no.
- What you personalize as "Coretheapple's version" is a tweak of the preexisting version that you weakened in this edit. The earlier version was this. It is the consensus, stable version, not "my" version:
- Editors should exercise caution when responding to edit requests from COI and paid editors, particularly when commercial interests are involved. When large amounts of text are added on behalf of the article subject, it means that the article has, in effect, been ghostwritten by them, without the readers' knowledge.
- You then removed the paragraph entirely. Not good. Please self-revert. Coretheapple (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- There is no consensus for what to say here; there is a range of views on this content that was BOLDLY added and it is completely normal for BOLD changes to stay out of policies and guidelines until there is consensus to include them. If you do not want the version you made considered above that is fine; I struck the listing above - feel free to pose one of your own then. Jytdog (talk) 20:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- The key points of contention are whether to emphasize paid editing or make this general for all conflicted editors, whether it matters that content has actually been reviewed by independent editors, and whether to use the "ghostwriting" term at all. Jytdog (talk) 20:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hello? You've been repeatedly weakening/removing a portion of this guideline that has been there since December 8 [3]. You're acting as if someone shoved it in yesterday.
- Since it has been there since December 8, it is the consensus version per WP:EDITCONSENSUS.
- You've actively edited this guideline many times since Dec. 8, and you claim that only now are you "noticing" this "bold" thing. Give me a break. The key point of contention is that you are intent on weakening the guideline and are only too happy to edit-war over it. Haven't you gone down this road before, without very good consequences for you? Please self-revert. Or not. Your choice, but you are clearly acting against consensus. Coretheapple (talk) 20:56, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- if there has been prior discussion of this passage here on Talk, please provide a link to it. Thanks. Also thanks for making clear which version you support. Now we can see what other folks say and try to reach consensus on language for this passage, which is important. Jytdog (talk) 21:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- You've actively edited this guideline many times since Dec. 8, and you claim that only now are you "noticing" this "bold" thing. Give me a break. The key point of contention is that you are intent on weakening the guideline and are only too happy to edit-war over it. Haven't you gone down this road before, without very good consequences for you? Please self-revert. Or not. Your choice, but you are clearly acting against consensus. Coretheapple (talk) 20:56, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Re your edits against consensus, you're into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory now and it is going to be a solitary journey. Coretheapple (talk) 21:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Nope. There are only four of us discussing now. You and SV support her BOLD edit; neither Staszek Lem nor I are OK with it. More folks will chime in with time and we will see where consensus ends up, now that this is being discussed. Jytdog (talk) 21:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Staszek's editing and his comments in colloquies with me above indicate basic agreement with my position on "ghostwriting," though he prefers a different term. Of course, he is here and can state otherwise obviously. I see you've self-reverted. Good. One down, one to go. Coretheapple (talk) 22:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- I am not exactly "here". I am a "random passer-by" and I don't grasp exactly what exactly is your disareement. I just poked my nose into here and I believe my first comment was that I dislike both versions (and you have right to dislike my dislikes). Staszek Lem (talk) 01:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- Staszek's editing and his comments in colloquies with me above indicate basic agreement with my position on "ghostwriting," though he prefers a different term. Of course, he is here and can state otherwise obviously. I see you've self-reverted. Good. One down, one to go. Coretheapple (talk) 22:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Nope. There are only four of us discussing now. You and SV support her BOLD edit; neither Staszek Lem nor I are OK with it. More folks will chime in with time and we will see where consensus ends up, now that this is being discussed. Jytdog (talk) 21:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Re your edits against consensus, you're into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory now and it is going to be a solitary journey. Coretheapple (talk) 21:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- "More folks will chime in with time" - this seems ripe for an RfC, I think the wider community would want to be aware of these proposed changes. To me this seems far too important to be left to a small handful of random passers-by. petrarchan47คุก 23:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Eventually. This just started yesterday and its not yet clear what the range of views are that we should get feedback on. Jytdog (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- "More folks will chime in with time" - this seems ripe for an RfC, I think the wider community would want to be aware of these proposed changes. To me this seems far too important to be left to a small handful of random passers-by. petrarchan47คุก 23:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Staszek Lem's take 2 on Ghostwriting
I understand the attractiveness of the term "ghostwriting", but I stay that its usage in fact obfuscates the situation at hand. The correct term for this problem would be "editing by proxy" or, in extreme case "rubberstamping". We need to state that something bad is happening. But this "bad" is not "ghostwriting" per se. There are plenty of legit reasons for ghostwriting in wikipedia: fear of persecution, being jailed, blindness, computerophobia, etc,.
At the same time I understand in your brains this term is already associated with what you mean in this context. Therefor here is a trade-off version of the first passage:
- When a volunteer wikipedian responds to edit requests from editors with a COI, the volunteer is essentially "editing by proxy". If large amounts of text written by the subject or their representatives are added without due diligence, then the point of view of the subject is de-facto rubber-stamped by the volunteer, but the readers are usually not aware of this ghostwriting and may take the COI POV for Wikipedia's NPOV.
In this phrasing thee sides of the "counterfeit dice" are explained: (a) PR concealed POV-pushing, (b) wikipedian's role in enabling this concealment, (c) gullible readers. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- Except that POV-pushing is not the only concern. The overriding issue is the expectation that readers have that the content of Wikipedia is not authored or drafted by the subject. Even without POV pushing, it is still editing by proxy/ghostwriting/whatever you want to call it. Thus this is a significant change from the current language. Coretheapple (talk) 02:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- Except to the except that in fact (if you care to read what I wrote) there are whole 3 (three) concerns addressed, including yours. And there is no expectation in readers you think. Reader don't know and care who wrote it: for all their purposes it is anonymous wikipedia, where PFY and Bill Gates have same editing rights. The expectation the readers have is that the information is true and non-partisan (or at least verifiable) (even if wikipedia rules say that Wikipedia is not a reliable source :-). Finally, Yes it is a change, and we are discussing it, because the current version is contested. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- If all they care about is that material be written "true and nonpartisan" then we can just throw out this whole COI guideline because all that stuff is covered by policy. When the BP situation arose it was an immense reputational hit for WPedia and BP. http://www.salon.com/2013/03/21/bp_edited_its_own_environmental_record_on_wikipedia/http://www.cnet.com/news/bp-accused-of-rewriting-environmental-record-on-wikipedia/ Coretheapple (talk) 02:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- We all agree that we want this guideline to be clear so that people inside and outside of WP better understand how we actually manage conflicted editors. Jytdog (talk) 02:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- Exactly. And my intention is for the policy to help people understand that we do this not because we leftist wikipedia hate corporations, but because we want the quality of information. The rest is secondary, means towards the main goal. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- Please don't look only at the surface of the events. BP scandal was not because they edited, but because they were whitewashing. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- To be clear, the claim was whitewashing. There was an NPOV dispute there among the independent WP editors discussing the BP employee's proposals and that dispute got very, very bitter and feelings are still raw about it. The claims in the press that BP was controlling that discussion were unhelpful and inaccurate in my view; the dispute was among WP editors. Like I said above I bailed because it got too unpleasant.Jytdog (talk) 18:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- We all agree that we want this guideline to be clear so that people inside and outside of WP better understand how we actually manage conflicted editors. Jytdog (talk) 02:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- If all they care about is that material be written "true and nonpartisan" then we can just throw out this whole COI guideline because all that stuff is covered by policy. When the BP situation arose it was an immense reputational hit for WPedia and BP. http://www.salon.com/2013/03/21/bp_edited_its_own_environmental_record_on_wikipedia/http://www.cnet.com/news/bp-accused-of-rewriting-environmental-record-on-wikipedia/ Coretheapple (talk) 02:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- Except to the except that in fact (if you care to read what I wrote) there are whole 3 (three) concerns addressed, including yours. And there is no expectation in readers you think. Reader don't know and care who wrote it: for all their purposes it is anonymous wikipedia, where PFY and Bill Gates have same editing rights. The expectation the readers have is that the information is true and non-partisan (or at least verifiable) (even if wikipedia rules say that Wikipedia is not a reliable source :-). Finally, Yes it is a change, and we are discussing it, because the current version is contested. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- fwiw the content as it stands now, here, is ok by me. there is more that could be said, for example there is no need to accept all of what is proposed, or any of it.... but this is much better than what was. Jytdog (talk) 06:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be useful to state that editors responding to an edit request are taking personal responsibility for any changes they make. If the edits fail concerns about due weight, give minority views inappropriate coverage, are not sufficiently impartial, or exhibit any other shortcomings, whoever actually made the changes bears the onus of any criticism and subsequent discussion. isaacl (talk) 16:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- I'd rather say "... are sharing the responsibility". Staszek Lem (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- Sure, all editors participating in a discussion share responsibility for the resulting consensus. From the tenor of the thread, though, I'm assuming the concern is with edit requests for which there hasn't been a lot of discussion, and one editor has both determined the best course of action and implemented it. In this case, the single editor bears a larger responsibility for failing to follow Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and best practices, as the one who decided what changes to make to the article in question. isaacl (talk) 18:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- The person who makes the edit owns it. We take action against editors if they consistently make content-violating edits, and that would apply to people who establish a pattern of implementing edit requests that violate content policies. I am unaware of anyone who has been doing that. Jytdog (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- Sure, all editors participating in a discussion share responsibility for the resulting consensus. From the tenor of the thread, though, I'm assuming the concern is with edit requests for which there hasn't been a lot of discussion, and one editor has both determined the best course of action and implemented it. In this case, the single editor bears a larger responsibility for failing to follow Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and best practices, as the one who decided what changes to make to the article in question. isaacl (talk) 18:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- I just want to point out that this passage is really important. Compare this to this, the latter after I went out looking for more sources and revised, removed crappy press release sourcing and using stronger sourcing. The former is what happens if edit requests are not vetted with a search for independent sources.... Jytdog (talk) 18:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- That's why I think it is important to impress upon those responding to edit requests that they are taking responsibility for any changes they make. There are a litany of editing polices, practices, and so forth that they should be following. While it can be useful to list some of the highly relevant ones on this page, in general all usual guidance remains in effect. isaacl (talk) 19:28, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Lede: accent shifted
After I expressed some thoughts about "Ghostwriting" I have reread the lede and I am afraid this policy slides down the slippery slope of Parkinson's laws. The lede does not focus on the primary goal: delivering reliable information. Instead, it dwells at lengths on reputation. This the point of view of a bureaucrat covering their ass no matter what, rather than of an encyclopedist.
I edited the lede to fix this a bit, but I would ask for a stronger statement which says what is primary and what is secondary, something like: "Any COI is prone to introducing bias, intentional or unintentional. Since it is a well-known fact, failure to handle potential COI undermines confidence in Wikipedia's ability to provide reliable and non-partisan information". Staszek Lem (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- In the "real world" it's not even reputation as much as it is property rights. If a writer for a publication has a conflict of interest, he is abusing his position in one field (in this case Wikipedia editor), effectively stealing from it, "misappropriating" its bandwidth and prestige for the benefit of a third party (the subject of the article) in which he has a direct personal interest. This current approach expresses that fundamental problem with COI indirectly but I think is generally on target. It says that COI hurts the project's reputation, which is not because of bias but because it means the project is manipulated by a third party. The outside world isn't going to say "oh gee, the text is fine, it is NPOV, it is balanced, so it is OK for Donald Trump to write his article." Coretheapple (talk) 19:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- I am with you here. However we are going to allow Donald Trump to submit his pieces, right? And diligent wikipedians are going to accept it after careful vetting, right? And we have this policy in place, so that outside world will say: "oh gee, the text is fine, it is NPOV, it is balanced, they did not allow Donald Trump to write his article the way he wants." Therefore my suggestion specifically speakd about failure to handle potential COI. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- The guideline is flipping back and forth, being weakened in places and strengthened in others, and some of the writing isn't ideal (and some of it doesn't make much sense). Much of the guideline has been written carefully over the years, even if it doesn't look that way, to accommodate issues and nuances that people care about. Sometimes particular wording was the only way to gain consensus. Sometimes it reflects academic texts that explain what COI is. We have to guard against weakening it to the point that it supports what it's warning of, or making it so extreme that it's used as a weapon against good editors.
- For example, regarding the recent proposal that "if you are paid to edit articles, do not edit policies, guidelines, templates, help documents, etc," I understand the spirit of it, but it would mean that a Wikipedian of 10 years standing who had done some paid editing for GLAM, would not be able to edit Infobox person, while someone who edits with an unpaid COI could do what they wanted.
- The paid editing the community is concerned about is commercial and PR editing. Editors care about the pharmaceutical industry talking up its own products. They care much less when someone edits an article about her notable mum. And they support or don't mind when GLAM people write carefully for the institutions they work with. The guideline ought not to mix those things up, though I know that finding the right words isn't easy. SarahSV (talk) 21:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- Sarah, your comment is applicable to each and every our policy. However it does not answer whether my concern was valid or serious. The concern was that the current wording of the lede seems to protect the apparent Wikipedia's reputation rather than to protect the quality of information. IMO exactly this shift of the perception of our work have led to the recent WMF disaster. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- The paid editing the community is concerned about is commercial and PR editing. Editors care about the pharmaceutical industry talking up its own products. They care much less when someone edits an article about her notable mum. And they support or don't mind when GLAM people write carefully for the institutions they work with. The guideline ought not to mix those things up, though I know that finding the right words isn't easy. SarahSV (talk) 21:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- This guideline covers all COI editing, and if you watch ANI or AN, you will see that by far the most disruption comes from people writing about themselves or their mum. I understand that some editors have a bias against the pharma industry but that is those particular editors' axes to grind/fixation; but in the world of people who actually edit health content and who work in WP:MED, we see very little presence from big pharma in WP:MED. We see way more conflicted editing from alt med/dietary supplements and their advocates, actually. The medical device industry is bad, for sure. There was just a discussion about that at WT:MED here. Jytdog (talk) 21:40, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
COI management
I've been meaning to add content to this guideline for a while, explaining clearly and concisely how we manage COI in Wikipedia. Just did that here, which was reverted less than a minute later here. Anyway, the diff is there. Jytdog (talk) 20:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps you can explain why your proposed changes in this long-established consensus language are necessary or desirable. Coretheapple (talk) 21:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- No where in the current guideline do we concisely and clearly explain the two step COI management process. Jytdog (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- What about your other changes? You made significant changes to two other paragraphs. Coretheapple (talk) 21:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know what you are specifically referring to. Jytdog (talk) 21:48, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- The changes that you made in the second and fourth paragraphs visible in this diff. Coretheapple (talk) 21:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- The edit left the lead making no sense. SarahSV (talk) 21:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- And that is not a credible response, Sarah. It explains what COI is, why we manage it, and how we manage it. It is better than it was. People can read that and know what to do. This is the second time you have made this kind of blanket claim instead of actually working to improve the guideline. Jytdog (talk) 21:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- It was a material weakening of a significant part of the guideline, essentially turning it into a how-to manual for COI editors, apart from being verbose and mealy-mouthed. Coretheapple (talk) 22:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- (e/c)Well, your edit only addresses part of it, a very important thing is that readers can know about the COI (we do that with templates on the talk page, while outside Wikipedia, it is often a note at the bottom). Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- Core this is about the third time you have accused me of weakening the guideline; your assumption of bad faith is getting in the way of working. There is no way you could even have read and considered my changes in the 1 minute you took to revert. So please explain exactly how I have weakened the guideline in that edit. Jytdog (talk) 22:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Alanscottwalker: just to be clear, do you mean that readers don't know about COI editing as it is not usually noted in the article proper but only on the talk page? This is true, and perhaps should be mentioned. Coretheapple (talk) 22:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- it is an interesting suggestion. generally policies and guidelines are for editors are not intended for readers. But i could see adding something about that. Jytdog (talk) 22:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- And that is not a credible response, Sarah. It explains what COI is, why we manage it, and how we manage it. It is better than it was. People can read that and know what to do. This is the second time you have made this kind of blanket claim instead of actually working to improve the guideline. Jytdog (talk) 21:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- The edit left the lead making no sense. SarahSV (talk) 21:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- The changes that you made in the second and fourth paragraphs visible in this diff. Coretheapple (talk) 21:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know what you are specifically referring to. Jytdog (talk) 21:48, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- What about your other changes? You made significant changes to two other paragraphs. Coretheapple (talk) 21:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- No where in the current guideline do we concisely and clearly explain the two step COI management process. Jytdog (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Replying to Jytdog's point at 21:54, 22 June, the lead says:
Conflict of interest is not about actual bias introduced into Wikipedia's articles. It is about a person's roles and relationships, and the tendency to bias that we assume exists when roles conflict.[3] That someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation. It is not a judgment about that person's state of mind or integrity.
Jtydog changed it to:
Conflict of interest is managed in Wikipedia and other knowledge-producing organizations because people's external roles and relationships tend to bias judgement.[3] That someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation. It is not a judgment about that person's state of mind or integrity.
The current lead explains the difference between actual bias and how we assume a tendency to bias exists when there is a COI. It is sourced to an academic reference. It does not say there is a tendency to bias. It talks about other people making that assumption, which is an important distinction. It is the public's perception of an issue that is harmed by COI, even when the issue itself might not be harmed by it. That distinction explains the next part: that someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgment about that person's state of mind.
Jytdog's version removed that explanation and that distinction. It said that people's roles and relationships do tend to bias their judgment. It then contradicted itself by saying that pointing out someone's COI does not involve making a judgment about that person's state of mind. SarahSV (talk) 22:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- A couple things. I was in the middle of working when I was reverted, so I wasn't done. That bit could be improved maybe. But your blanket condemnations are making efforts to improve this hopeless as is Core's continued assumption of bad faith. Sarah - I mentioned I wanted to add this sort of content about managing COI here - see your response there. That was a different era for sure. You are really, really acting like you WP:OWN this guideline. Jytdog (talk) 22:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- Rather than attacking other editors, why don't you explain why you made the edits to those two paragraphs? First you said you didn't know what paragraphs I was talking about. Then I supplied a diff. So now you know what paragraphs I'm talking about. Why did you make those changes? Coretheapple (talk) 22:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
- A couple things. I was in the middle of working when I was reverted, so I wasn't done. That bit could be improved maybe. But your blanket condemnations are making efforts to improve this hopeless as is Core's continued assumption of bad faith. Sarah - I mentioned I wanted to add this sort of content about managing COI here - see your response there. That was a different era for sure. You are really, really acting like you WP:OWN this guideline. Jytdog (talk) 22:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)