Ray Saintonge wrote
> charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com wrote:
>
> >Ray Saintonge wrote
> >
> >
> >>Why is it so necessary to have everything spelled out in such detail?
> >>You are making "conflict of interest" an issue that is out of all
> >>proportion to its importance.
> >Hmmm. I remember some very long threads of discussion here, quite recently, about corporate interests. Are you just assuming those will go away?
> There was indeed the long thread that you mention. I am not a supporter
> of the corporatist agenda, but the best way to keep an eye on it is to
> have it right out there in the open. Let them have their paragraph
> (sometimes more depending on the topic), and there will still be room
> for rebuttals or criticisms of their agenda. The real neutrality will
> often be somewhere in between. If they parrot the company's PR line it
> will be evident that it is exactly that.
But there is and was more to it. One of my 'tedious' additions to the guideline was to make it plain that 'declaring an interest' is not a quid pro quo, in the sense that it gives no 'locus standi' (to adopt the lawyers' term). The point is still there, in a muffled form.
That is, you might have thought, coming from outside, that if you declare your interest, you can then behave as a 'proponent', a 'defender', an 'advocate', whatever you might wish to call it. Basically people from outside WP who want to be hired guns may well think that it would be OK, provided thay are open about it.
Well, it ain't OK. Declaring an interest, saying you work for IBM and will be looking after articles for them, is not OK. Imagine this from the other side: does IBM hire one clerical assistant for this, an office of three or four? It's a money thing for them, isn't it? But if it gets professionalised like that, there will be essentially no chance that someone who edits WP of an evening will be able to track all the editorial activity.
We might be flattering ourselves right now, to think that it matters so much to corporations. Come 2010, we absolutely do not want to be told that we have flacks like termites in the foundations.
WP has experienced exponential growth (I'm a mathematician, I don't the term lightly). This is a rare thing, in the real world. Because things do _not_ scale; the scaling issues cannot be ignored with impunity. The hubbub caused by Danny a little while is a symptom. The relationship WP-corporate world is precisely the sort of thing that can exhibit a tipping point.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Robth wrote
> Academic experts are uniquely qualified to judge the relative notability of
> subjects within their area of expertise. They are also, in general, probably
> not the people we would want to have judging the overall notability of their
> entire area of expertise. (I do not think I have ever known an academic
> whose estimation of his or her own field's importance was not substantially
> higher than the outside world's estimation of the same.)
Relevant quote from [[G. H. Hardy]], about a professor's duty to exaggerate his subject's importance, and his importance within it. (Professor here is aimed at a traditional 19thC model.)
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=V_for_Vendetta_%28film%29&action=…
People keep restoring a section with a number of supposed references in
the film to the number 5 and the letter V, claiming that just because it
appears to be deliberate it must be. I've probably passed 3RR; block me
for trying to remove original research.
I should have noted that the hyperbole might apply to Fred's position as
well, not just Chip Berlet's. My point was intended to comment on the
general situation, not any one person's involvement.
--Michael Snow
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Bad And Wrong Policy/Procedure/Guideline
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 05:27:56 -0700
From: Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net>
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
CC: Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net>, Michael Snow
<wikipedia(a)earthlink.net>
References: <mailman.1134.1162588000.25378.wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
<454C3843.9090606(a)earthlink.net>
On Nov 3, 2006, at 11:50 PM, Michael Snow wrote:
> Rob wrote:
>
>> On 11/3/06, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Have a look at the arbcom pages some time. Fred Bauder seriously
>>> proposed some time last year that Chip Berlet should not be
>>> allowed to
>>> edit articles about the LaRouchians because - hah! - his
>>> expertise on
>>> the subject meant he was too involved.
>>
>> Did he actually say that "expertise" should be a disqualification
>> from
>> editing or did he say that due to his experience Berlet may have a
>> preconceived notion that the LaRouchians were all nuts and should
>> thus
>> be disqualified?
>
> After allowing for some hyperbole in this description of Berlet's
> views
> regarding LaRouche supporters--at some point, when all the experts
> have
> reached the conclusion that the earth orbits the sun, you can't
> disqualify them from writing articles that describe the solar system,
> simply on account of their vehemence in making that argument in the
> past. In particular, when people show that they can write neutral
> prose
> in articles, it should matter very little that they express strong
> views
> on the talk pages.
>
> --Michael Snow
I don't think I said any such thing in the first place.
Fred
This will have to be forwarded to the mailing list if it is to appear
there.
Angela wrote
> Because the policy didn't exist then. [[WP:COI]] was a guideline about
> not making vanity pages until October 10th.
It is still just a guideline. I think that implies that it is the behavioural issues arising that matter most, for policy; and that these are dealt with under regular policy that is nothing new.
That being said, it is apparent to me that we need at the very least a clear, tough guideline on 'conflict of interest'. As much as anything else, in its absence people are going to come here and impale themselves on policy, just because they are completely ignorant of what editing entails. There needs to be a place where the issues are spelled out.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
jf_wikipedia(a)mac.com wrote
> There is no consensus for the section on COIs and close relationships
> as only a very few editors have engaged in the discussions.
Sure, it is contentious. It speaks to the root cause of many POV disputes. That means that it is near the knuckle, for many editors. I expect discussion of 'conflict of interest' to run and run.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
jf_wikipedia(a)mac.com wrote
> There is some opposition to this wording on the basis that it is "too
> soft", but IMO it captures the spirit of what this guideline wants to
> say about editing articles in which one may have a COI based on a
> "close relationship".
My opposition is on the Talk page, not only on those grounds. It is also muddling to insert advice in the definition section. I don't think that can stand.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Forwarded. Looking for URL.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net>
Date: 04-Nov-2006 12:38
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Bad And Wrong Policy/Procedure/Guideline
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
Cc: Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net>, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
On Nov 3, 2006, at 11:22 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> Have a look at the arbcom pages some time. Fred Bauder seriously
> proposed some time last year that Chip Berlet should not be allowed to
> edit articles about the LaRouchians because - hah! - his expertise on
> the subject meant he was too involved.
>
>
> - d.
How about a url for this? I don't recall any such proposal.
Fred
This will have to be forwarded to the list if it is to appear there.
Ray Saintonge wrote
> After reading through that article and its talk page I can only regard
> it as so much excess verbiage to be cut severely.
The page was created by amalgamating two, one of which was the old 'vanity' guideline, the other a page on COI created in September and with obvious gaps. The result has had several drastic haircuts since. More concision work required? Yes, but satisfying the need to have a comprehensive guideline comes before boiling it right down. People do dicker on so, making ridculous extrapolations, if you make it very simple.
>The problem with my
> getting involved in such a page is that I would waste a lot of time
> arguing over things that have little bearing on what I prefer to do.
Better stick to wikien then.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
jf_wikipedia(a)mac.com wrote
> > It's more important that potential
> > conflicts of interest be declared so that the person's perspective is
> > clear.
> That was also discussed in talk page at [[WP:COI]]. I agree with you
> that declaration of COIs is important as it encourages transparency.
> But other editors are of the opinion that such declarations are
> meaningless in this context. I would appreciate your comments in talk.
No. They are not meaningless: they have a big social impact. To quote the WP:COI page on two points:
- Most editors will appreciate your honesty.
- You lay the basis for requesting help in having others post material for you.
It also says there that they don't justify an assumption that your hands are free to be an 'advocate' on one side of an argument. NPOV editing requires more than that.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information