Ray Saintonge wrote
> So a few people recently decided that they wanted a COI policy. Let's
> not pretend that there was suddenly a groundswell in support of this policy.
Let's not pretend that's an accurate history.
Someone WAS BOLD and renamed the old WP:VAIN, which was about vanity editing, to WP:COI. David Gerard appealed for help here in getting the text more compatible with the title. Exit DG for a bit (Gothing it up on the Yorkshire coast, I surmise).
Meanwhile, in another part of the forest, another guideline page (NB none, but none, of this is hard policy) has been created by User:Eloquence. This is the one that lays down how editors on behalf of companies should comport themselves.
I only got involved when DG broadcast his appeal. I resisted the merge (now carried out) that created a composite page, for as long as I could, and until I could see how to fit the bits together.
We now do have a composite guideline, not obviously compatible with absolutely everything elsewhere written about autobiographical writing, not integrating in WP:SPAM, and with other potential weaknesses. It does however fill in gaping holes in previous material in this area, making explicit in particular some aspects of procedure at AfD and the implications if you 'declare an interest'.
While this is all kind of dull, WP:COI is being cited in a current ArbCom case, and a high profile deletion debate.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
"Gregory Kohs" wrote
> I admit, I have been a royal pain since October 5th. But, if you stop and
> think, can you exactly blame me?
Yes. In various email exchanges with you, I have detected nothing but a thoroughly self-centred approach.
>I think most of you feel Wikipedia is a "good
> enough" encyclopedia now, and the new mission is an elaborate game to
> "protect" it from evolutionary forces.
Some of us put in many hours on the project. This does not disqualify us from also wishing to have a steering role, and having a discrinating eye for exactly what type of evolution would marry the best of our 'old school' tradition to the acquisition of ever-wider content.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
>Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 14:16:26 -0500
>From: Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] WP:COI violation
>Gregory Kohs wrote:
> Seriously, I know I'm trolling, but come on -- can anyone else see the
> hypocrisy here?
>Hmm, a user banned for spamming wikipedia with pr puff pieces admits
>that he is trolling in making a silly complaint about nothing? Yeah, I
>think I do see the hypocrisy.
>--Jimbo
I still maintain that the Wikipedia community, in its DRV discussion of the
needless delete of [[Arch Coal]] -- an article that nobody paid for at any
time, since it was just an experiment (ha ha!) in testing Jimmy Wales'
previous agreement with MyWikiBiz that content could be written
off-Wikipedia, then scraped in by independently-acting, volunteer editors
(which is exactly what happened) -- strongly suggests that the article was
NOT a "pr puff piece". Why would independent editors in good standing
describe the original article as:
"The content was legitimate and the article was neutral"
"The article is written in what appear to me to be neutral terms. The
company itself is a shoo-in for WP:CORP, if the article is accurate, and if
this had been posted by any other editor we would surely never have noticed
it"
"It sounds partially like a paragraph at the end of press releases, but
those do not necessarily 'plug' the company, in fact are often quite factual
and NPOV"
"I've seen the article, it was a short informative and neutral article
(didn't exactly have enough length in it to be POV pushing) of an obviously
notable company. ...I thought that for that length, that it covered the
most important aspects of the company. I know I can't have been the only one
to think that the article was adequate"
"I'm not sure I'm even looking at the right article... looks like a
perfectly acceptable Wikipedia article on a company to me. As for spam...
what, am I gonna go out and order a million tons of coal from them to feed
my power station because I've seen this humble piece on Wikipedia? Erm, no."
See for details:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/200…
Are each of the above quotes from people who are temporarily insane, or
something?
Therefore, Jimmy's ban may be illegitimate; but typical, nonetheless, of
someone ruling by fiat and unwilling to listen to the community. In my
estimation, Wales is simply acting pious about Wikipedia being for
non-commercial use only, while he quietly supports all kinds of commercial
exploitation of the domain, as long as it goes into his pocket, or that of
his for-profit company. Citing the various examples here would be a waste
of my energy.
I admit, I have been a royal pain since October 5th. But, if you stop and
think, can you exactly blame me? You may all consider this my parting shot
for the year, because there's apparently no intelligent way of getting most
readers of Wikien-L to see that there has been a very poor handling of a
potentially controversial subject; when, in reality, with some cooperation
and a lot of transparency, MyWikiBiz could have done a great deal to help
Wikipedia become a better encyclopedia. I honestly don't think that's the
main mission any more. I think most of you feel Wikipedia is a "good
enough" encyclopedia now, and the new mission is an elaborate game to
"protect" it from evolutionary forces.
<On a Wikibreak until 2007>
--
Gregory Kohs
Cell: 302.463.1354
What policies/procedures/guidelines on en:wp strike you as just awful?
Please list and elaborate.
This could be in any of purpose, current wording, ineffectuality or
just being a completely bad idea. Or anything else that makes it just
awful.
- d.
Geni is taking a "personally interpretive" look at the actual "rule":
>>> In order to run you will need to have 1000 edits on en.wikipedia.
I asked Geni by private e-mail: "I don't see how you're reading the
words 'only one account counts' in the above statement. I only see
the word 'you', which doesn't mention accounts, but does imply talking
about a person, which I am one."
Geni replied with the usual humorous wit:
"Reading? I wrote it."
Geni might want to look at [[WP:OWN]], and also explain to us why she
wrote the rule with the word "you", when she apparently intended that
it apply to "a single user account". This seems to be yet another
case of "rule creep" to try to address single, uncomfortable
situations that sometimes arise. Just what I was talking about.
Guy, I'll be the Aunt Sally, if you want to throw sticks at a man
who's tied down.
--
Gregory Kohs
Cell: 302.463.1354
> "Gregory Kohs" wrote
>
> > I'm disappointed, but hardly surprised, to see that a legitimate
> > self-nomination for ArbCom was quickly erased by YankSox:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2006/Candidate_
statements&diff=86306336&oldid=86305792
> >
> >
> > When I asked Cyde Weys to lift his block on the "Thekohser", so
that I might
> > post the nomination from a signed-in user account, his rather
preemptive
> > response was:
> >
> > "I don't particularly see the point, you really have no chance in
hell.
> > None of these free volunteers are going to vote for someone who's
> > trying to make money off of it."
>
> [[Screaming Lord Sutch]] would be proud of you. I didn't think that
sort of attitude exported.
In all honesty, at what point is he going to be reined in? Seriously.
-Jeff
--
If you can see this, I'm not at home.
"Gregory Kohs" wrote
> I'm disappointed, but hardly surprised, to see that a legitimate
> self-nomination for ArbCom was quickly erased by YankSox:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_E…
>
>
> When I asked Cyde Weys to lift his block on the "Thekohser", so that I might
> post the nomination from a signed-in user account, his rather preemptive
> response was:
>
> "I don't particularly see the point, you really have no chance in hell.
> None of these free volunteers are going to vote for someone who's
> trying to make money off of it."
[[Screaming Lord Sutch]] would be proud of you. I didn't think that sort of attitude exported.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
I'm disappointed, but hardly surprised, to see that a legitimate
self-nomination for ArbCom was quickly erased by YankSox:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_E…
When I asked Cyde Weys to lift his block on the "Thekohser", so that I might
post the nomination from a signed-in user account, his rather preemptive
response was:
"I don't particularly see the point, you really have no chance in hell.
None of these free volunteers are going to vote for someone who's
trying to make money off of it."
Is it the policy of Wikipedia, or just the bad behavior of over-presumptuous
editors, to delete the nomination of someone for a position of authority,
just because their account has been blocked, or certain key people disagree
with their philosophy? It's not such a far stretch to see how I might
imagine YankSox and Cyde Weys operating from a position of fear, because
they have self-doubt about the legitimacy of their own philosophy and
entitlement to authority. Don't put it to a community vote, because --
gasp! -- what if some in the community take the "wrong" position?!
My realistic expectation is not to "win" the ArbCom election, but I still
feel that it's important to gauge community support of my position,
regardless. Will the vote be 10-to-1 against? Maybe 20-to-1? Or,
possibly, only 2-to-1? If the latter, might it be worth some additional
consideration of the point?
--
Gregory Kohs
Cell: 302.463.1354
G'day folks,
Vnunet reports that security company Sophos claims that De was used to
distribute malware.
http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2167949/hackers-wikipedia-dupe-users
Hackers are using online encyclopaedia Wikipedia
<http://www.wikipedia.com/>to spread malware, according to a security
firm.
Sophos <http://www.sophos.com/> discovered that hackers had created an
article on the German edition of Wikipedia containing false information
about a new version of the Blaster worm, along with a link to a fix.
However, the fix is actually a piece of malicious code designed to infect
visitors' PCs.
Wikipedia is built from user contributions, allowing anyone to create or
edit the content of a page.
The hackers sent spam messages to German computer users, which purported to
come from Wikipedia, and directed recipients to the fraudulent information.
As the emails linked to a legitimate website, they were able to bypass some
anti-spam solutions.
"The good news is that the authorities at Wikipedia quickly identified and
edited the article on their site," said Graham Cluley, senior technology
consultant for Sophos.
"Unfortunately, a version of the page remained in the archive, allowing the
hackers to send spam and continue to direct visitors to the malicious code."
Wikipedia has now confirmed that it has permanently erased all versions of
the page.
"The very openness of websites like Wikipedia, which allow anyone to edit
pages, makes them terrific, but can also make them less trustworthy, "
Cluley added.
"In this case, the article in question was not just misleading, it was
downright malicious.
"Everyone should exercise caution and ensure they have appropriate defences
in place to protect their computer systems.
"Additionally, people should remember that if there really is a new threat
on the internet, you're likely to hear about it first from the security
companies, not an online encyclopaedia."
What do we have in place to minimise the impact of something similar in the
future.
Regards
Keith Old