Re-Write Using More Standard Indentation for Clarity
In a message dated 3/4/2007 4:42:06 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
william(a)scissor.com writes:
>Just to be clear, I'm not against paying honest and conscientious
>Wikipedians to edit. What I am opposed to is accepting editorial
>conflicts of interest.
So if, say, the Ford Foundation wants to pay a dozen historians to write
historical articles, I'm all for it. Right up to the point where they
edit anything on the Ford Foundation or its funders.
Current rules remain unclear about policies. I only hear about paid
corporations and nonprofits that also edit pages. However, one criticism involves
Wikipedia being too commercial and actually asking corporations to put their
logos on articles about them.
>From what I see about my present circumstances, unfairly blocked by a senior
in high school who can't even spell when I provide higher-level concepts on
a subject that I have had a major interest, something's very wrong.
Moreover, I people use the ad hominems on me, but I get the extension to the block,
and I've been reading Wikipedia for years, started the editing account in late
'05, even began articles such as the GuideStar article. Am I in COI because
I began the GuideStar article but also was a major founder of a nonprofit?
No, but I'm in COI because I talk knowledgeably about a subject. The
article's ruined right now.
>I understand you're saying that with people of sufficient honor, we can
>hopefully get away with it. It's plausible to me, but I can't see any
>clear revision to the COI guidelines that will keep only the honorable
>people doing this, and -- just as important -- keep them from being
>eventually corrupted. We don't have the mechanisms to enforce honesty
>that a major research institution does, and I don't think we'll be able
>to afford to build them for a decade or more.
Well, Wikipedia's gotten a good deal of public support. Now it's coming at
me not only with anarchy, my complaint from before, but totalitarianism.
LOL!
<snip>
>>>> More similar, I think, would be to compare historians who write works
on
>>>> commission. These are generally paid for by an interested party,[...]
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'd be intrigued to read more about this, but my guess is that it would
>>> require several conditions for it to work:
>>>
>>> 1. The company would have to have a clear and special interest in
>>> being seeing as completely forthright.
>>> 2. The historian would have to be somebody with an established
>>> reputation and solid credentials.
>>> 3. The historian would do a relatively small amount of work for the
>>> commissioning party. (E.g., they would not be a staff historian.)
>>> 4. The historian would not primarily do commissioned work.
>>>
>>
>> The last three at least seem to be the case here---an established and
>> well-respected contributor is asking if writing the occasional article
>> for a paid commissioner would be okay. I think the first is actually
>> better to avoid having to decide, since the motives of companies are
>> rather difficult to discern---so long as the writer is not a staff
>> historian, and doesn't do this as their main living, then whether the
>> company is interested in forthrightness or not matters little.
>>
>No slight intended to Jaap or any of our contributors but I don't think
>the comparison is even close. A professional historian with an
>established reputation and solid credentials has put, what, two decades
>into getting there? And getting caught distorting the truth means they
>throw that and their professional future away. Even our very best
>editors don't have anything like that on the line. For those who are
>pseudonymous, there is even less penalty for ethical missteps.
>Historians are human too. I've had problems with them before, but I still
end up with Bs in college history, >not higher, not lower. I'm planning to
go back to college even, but in World War II, I should have done >better.
I've studied it, along with the Civil War, since I was a kid.
Why, there's complaint about the article on the American Civil War being
"long," and it bothers me. There's not even a definition of "First Defender" I
can find yet.
What about pseudonyms when you reveal your real name on your user page then?
I use that of my grandfather, John Wallace Rich, for example, who was KIA
in World War II.
>And those historians work in a field where academic norms of
>intellectual independence and honesty have been built up over centuries,
>with detection and enforcement mechanisms to match. Not to mention years
>of training in research and writing for every person involved. We aren't
>even close to having that kind of infrastructure.
As far as I'm concerned, there's too much of a lack of ethics in school as
well. I've seen it firsthand, and though I've only read half of _The Closing
of the American Mind_, I still think we need more checks and balances.
>As to item 1, again it comes back to conflict of interest. If Intel pays
>some professional technology journalist to expand our computer science
>articles, more power to them, as I don't see them as having an interest
>in distorting them. But as soon as they want changes to anything where
>there is a conflict of interest, we should say no.
Yes, but then you see the slippery slope. Something's wrong here, and I
think it's selfishness somewhat. Moreover, I've seen problems with Wikipedia
for a long time. People troll articles, and provide sleeping-dog information.
I can see them yawn in their pajamas on the last Monday in May. LOL!
What about the truth for the readers besides just writing for them? I don't
think writing for Nazis in 1941 would have been a good approach.
Vincent
____________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from
AOL at _AOL.com_
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/1615326657x4311227241x4298082137/aol?redir=ht…) .
<BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free
email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at
http://www.aol.com.
In a message dated 3/4/2007 4:42:06 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
william(a)scissor.com writes:
Just to be clear, I'm not against paying honest and conscientious
Wikipedians to edit. What I am opposed to is accepting editorial
conflicts of interest.
So if, say, the Ford Foundation wants to pay a dozen historians to write
historical articles, I'm all for it. Right up to the point where they
edit anything on the Ford Foundation or its funders.
Current rules remain unclear about policies. I only hear about paid
corporations and nonprofits that also edit pages. However, one criticism involves
Wikipedia being too commercial and actually asking corporations to put their
logos on articles about them.
>From what I see about my present circumstances, unfairly blocked by a senior
in high school who can't even spell when I provide higher-level concepts on
a subject that I have had a major interest, something's very wrong.
Moreover, I people use the ad hominems on me, but I get the extension to the block,
and I've been reading Wikipedia for years, started the editing account in late
'05, even began articles such as the GuideStar article. Am I in COI because
I began the GuideStar article but also was a major founder of a nonprofit?
No, but I'm in COI because I talk knowledgeably about a subject. The
article's ruined right now.
I understand you're saying that with people of sufficient honor, we can
hopefully get away with it. It's plausible to me, but I can't see any
clear revision to the COI guidelines that will keep only the honorable
people doing this, and -- just as important -- keep them from being
eventually corrupted. We don't have the mechanisms to enforce honesty
that a major research institution does, and I don't think we'll be able
to afford to build them for a decade or more.
Well, Wikipedia's gotten a good deal of public support. Now it's coming at
me not only with anarchy, my complaint from before, but totalitarianism.
LOL!
<snip>
>>> More similar, I think, would be to compare historians who write works on
>>> commission. These are generally paid for by an interested party,[...]
>>>
>>>
>> I'd be intrigued to read more about this, but my guess is that it would
>> require several conditions for it to work:
>>
>> 1. The company would have to have a clear and special interest in
>> being seeing as completely forthright.
>> 2. The historian would have to be somebody with an established
>> reputation and solid credentials.
>> 3. The historian would do a relatively small amount of work for the
>> commissioning party. (E.g., they would not be a staff historian.)
>> 4. The historian would not primarily do commissioned work.
>>
>
> The last three at least seem to be the case here---an established and
> well-respected contributor is asking if writing the occasional article
> for a paid commissioner would be okay. I think the first is actually
> better to avoid having to decide, since the motives of companies are
> rather difficult to discern---so long as the writer is not a staff
> historian, and doesn't do this as their main living, then whether the
> company is interested in forthrightness or not matters little.
>
No slight intended to Jaap or any of our contributors but I don't think
the comparison is even close. A professional historian with an
established reputation and solid credentials has put, what, two decades
into getting there? And getting caught distorting the truth means they
throw that and their professional future away. Even our very best
editors don't have anything like that on the line. For those who are
pseudonymous, there is even less penalty for ethical missteps.
Historians are human too. I've had problems with them before, but I still
end up with Bs in college history, not higher, not lower. I'm planning to go
back to college even, but in World War II, I should have done better. I've
studied it, along with the Civil War, since I was a kid.
Why, there's complaint about the article on the American Civil War being
"long," and it bothers me. There's not even a definition of "First Defender" I
can find yet.
What about pseudonyms when you reveal your real name on your user page then?
I use that of my grandfather, John Wallace Rich, for example, who was KIA
in World War II.
And those historians work in a field where academic norms of
intellectual independence and honesty have been built up over centuries,
with detection and enforcement mechanisms to match. Not to mention years
of training in research and writing for every person involved. We aren't
even close to having that kind of infrastructure.
As far as I'm concerned, there's too much of a lack of ethics in school as
well. I've seen it firsthand, and though I've only read half of _The Closing
of the American Mind_, I still think we need more checks and balances.
As to item 1, again it comes back to conflict of interest. If Intel pays
some professional technology journalist to expand our computer science
articles, more power to them, as I don't see them as having an interest
in distorting them. But as soon as they want changes to anything where
there is a conflict of interest, we should say no.
Yes, but then you see the slippery slope. Something's wrong here, and I
think it's selfishness somewhat. Moreover, I've seen problems with Wikipedia
for a long time. People troll articles, and provide sleeping-dog information.
I can see them yawn in their pajamas on the last Monday in May. LOL!
What about the truth for the readers besides just writing for them? I don't
think writing for Nazis in 1941 would have been a good approach.
Vincent
<BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free
email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at
http://www.aol.com.
Marc Riddell wrote
>I have been
> doing minor editing in WP for a year now and, time permitting, would like to
> participate more actively in the project. And, like anything a person is
> considering becoming a part of, I want to get a sense of its beliefs and
> values.
>
> My work and passion has been, is now, and probably always will be, persons
> and their interactions. That is why this issue is so important to me.
An argument I have produced before, is that bad language and aggressiveness as a routine form of interaction appeals mostly to the young and male. It happens that males 20 to 25 might be the most significant group here. I think it is also the case that such forms of verbal interaction and self-assertion are likely to put off many other demographic groups. So civility policy is one way of trying to broaden the base of contributors, or to retain people who profile is not a good match to those who think freedom of speech is mostly about the right to be f****** rude all the time.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
This has to be the first time someone nominates an article for
deletion and at the same time begs and pleads that it not be deleted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/August_Donnelly
"DO NOT DELETE This page is most certainly of a notable artist for which
I can vouch. I created this entry at his request from an article written by the
signed author. Albeit true that he is up and coming and certainly not widely
known yet, it is indeed very petty and immature to make unfounded
commentary simply because you may not be familiar with the artist in
question"
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Stephen Park [mailto:stephenpark15@gmail.com]
>Sent: Sunday, March 4, 2007 01:32 PM
>To: 'English Wikipedia'
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] a final word on Essjay
>
>On 3/4/07, Sam Blacketer <sam.blacketer(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Apart from a public lynching, what else do people want from him?
>>
>>
>> The really depressing thing about the episode is that so many editors did
>> seem to want a public lynching, and thought it would be for the good of us
>> all. All it was was just a childish joke by Essjay when he first signed up,
>> that ran away with him and only caught up when he was well-known enough to
>> really harm him. Not to say that I approve of what he did but I do have
>> immense sympathy for him.
>
>Public lynchings are a regular feature of wikipedia. Just look at
>WP/ANI and especially the method of having a community ban
>(essentially a wikilynching) instead of a trial by ArbComm.
We can stop that if we want to. Do you think there are community bans which are inappropriate? There are obvious problem with public hangings but even more with private hangings.
Fred
In a message dated 3/4/2007 11:17:00 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net writes:
Pay is completely irrelevant. You added links to, and content in
support of, an organisation in which you play a leading role. Conflict
of interest. I don't think I have ever edited the articles on
Wikipedia or Jimmy Wales, by the way.
I edited an article and began a corporation to benefit fellow families of
killed in action. The article involves life-long learning about the concept,
something my faculty advisor, a Stanford-graduated Ph.D., also thought I would
be good at because of the courses I took. Foundations and other credible
organizations even provide information and research about topics, and our
nonprofit is legally incorporated as an educational institution.
I see citations of other educational institutions in here all of the time.
Moreover, it did not cite anything. I provided outside links on the subject,
including our "competition," as I said. It's only information on a topic I
have interest in, not that I get paid for. I volunteer my work with the
organization and currently support myself by other means. It does however, allow
deferment of my student loans, and I plan to return to school full time in
the fall, where I have financial aid lined up.
WikiProject Military history rated the work I did to a "start-class" on the
article, but an 18-year-old senior in high school blocked my account, one of
your fellow admins, whereas I have much more of an education and experience
and know a lot more about the topic, "killed in action" or KIA. He didn't even
spell properly in describing the reason for the block, and he also has a lot
of spelling errors on his user page.
Lastly, another admin edited the article down to just include our nonprofit,
for some strange reason, and I reverted, including the work I had done. I
felt I deserved a bit of credit and also provided links to other organizations
regarding killed in action, including The White House Commission on
Remembrance's National Moment of Remembrance, a program by a bipartisan committee to
honor the fallen of the United States of American. That, too, was removed,
and they also provide links to our organization.
I don't see how, with good conscience, you can condone or approve of editing
for profit whereas you disapprove of editing an article you care about.
That policy would have a lack of justice to say the least, though I still
haven't seen the Wikimedia Foundation's approved Form 1023 goals, something I've
requested and the IRS requires you provide; an organization seeking official
determination as tax deductible and tax exempt by the federal government
submits this form, which also requires public information be disclosed.
All of this so far indicates how consensus should not override authority.
Consensus has its place and makes authority, but it should do it for knowledge
and truth here, not just the majority or for someone's joke about topics
others take seriously. Lack of seriousness occurs somewhat when you get burned,
and certainly two sides of the issue are better than censorship or even
types of vandalism that Wikipedia describes.
Vincent Bartning
UN: John Wallace Rich
<BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free
email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at
http://www.aol.com.
In a message dated 3/4/2007 2:31:40 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net writes:
All of which is, as you have been told numerous times, COMPLETELY
IRRELEVANT because when YOU write about it YOU have a conflict of
interest. Is that so very hard to understand? That is not a judgment
on the merit of your organisation, it's about the appropriateness of
YOU adding links to it and YOU adding content about it.
And that, I think, had better be my last word on the subject, at least
on this list.
Anyone who takes it properly can see the how you don't cite Wikipedia policy
properly. Besides your shouting, you say I can't write about a topic that
interests me because of an inappropriate claim of a conflict of interest.
It's worse than telling someone he can't write in a Wikipedia entry about him
because it's not an autobiography. It's like saying a father who has lost a
son to a drunk driver can't talk about drunk driving on Wikipedia.
I feel attacked here. I can't block and don't have a clear view on how to
involve WP:Arbitration but want help with it. I want help in the situation as
I have been unfairly treated, blocked unfairly, and an article I care about
has been vandalized by Wikipedia definitions as a result of ignorance.
Vincent
UN:John Wallace Rich
<BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free
email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at
http://www.aol.com.
In a message dated 3/4/2007 9:08:15 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net writes:
Although to be fair you were editing with a very clear conflict of
interest, adding links to your own sites, and using Wikipedia to
advance your external agenda. You were also distinctly rude when
called on it. So it's not *terribly* surprising that you were
blocked, and not actually unfair, as such. Which is not to say there
are *no* unfair cases, just that yours does not seem to be one of
them.
There was no pay involved. I added other nonprofit foundations besides. I
have a personal interest in the topic. I don't think you could claim that
Frederick Douglass couldn't talk about blacks or Jim Wales online encyclopedias
for that matter. You're making an inappropriate argument, and it's an
attack because of my over concern about it: I was also blocked.
I suppose you'd call donating blood a conflict of interest too - "because
the American Red Cross keeps your name." Claiming conflicts of interest for
whatever reason does not provide good policy.
Vincent
<BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free
email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at
http://www.aol.com.
Sam Blacketer wrote:
> The really depressing thing about the episode is that so many
> editors did
> seem to want a public lynching, and thought it would be for the
> good of us
> all. All it was was just a childish joke by Essjay when he first
> signed up,
> that ran away with him and only caught up when he was well-known
> enough to
> really harm him. Not to say that I approve of what he did but I do
> have
> immense sympathy for him.
It probably *began* as a joke, but it was Essjay's own actions that
made it snowball out of control. He went beyond fabricating
credentials and actually cited them in support of editorial
decisions. When he took the job at Wikia, he failed to anticipate
that the disparity between his pretend bio and his real one would
become publicly known. When it *did* become known, he gave an
explanation ("I had to use disinformation so people wouldn't hunt me
down and kill me") that is both implausible and inconsistent with the
public record about when and how he began calling himself a
professor. Each of these decisions contributed further to erosion of
trust.
Personally, I have nothing against Essjay. I can empathize with the
situation he's in, because I've done some stupid, wrong things in my
own life too. (Fortunately for me, my worst errors didn't happen on
the internet.) I think the mistakes he made were mostly due to youth
and lack of experience.
Awhile back I dealt with some problems on our website that were
caused by operator error at our web hosting service. To make matters
worse, the operator who made the error didn't come clean at first,
which further delayed our efforts to fix the problem. I was livid and
wanted to get the guy fired until our webmaster (who is sometimes
wiser than me) said, "He's probably young. When you're young and
screw up, you're more likely to try to bluff your way through. When
you're old like we are and screw up, you know the truth is going to
come out anyway, so you just admit to it." I remembered some of my
own past errors, and my anger cleared. I think this is pretty much
what happened with Essjay too. He's young, did something stupid, and
what probably began for him as an amusing little fiction blew up into
something worse because he tried to bluff his way through instead of
coming clean. That's wrong, but it's also forgiveable. His
transgression was not that major. No one died, no money was stolen.
The damage that this incident has done to Wikipedia's (and Jimbo's)
reputation is manageable.
I think Essjay still has the ability to regain his position of trust
within the Wikipedia community if he wishes to do so. He simply has
to demonstrate candor, contrition, and an understanding of what he
did wrong. It's unfortunate that he seems to have decided to simply
leave the project. I know that what he's been through is unpleasant
and embarrassing, but there is a way back if he wants to take it.
The actor Hugh Grant, by the way, is often cited in by PR "crisis
management" experts as a model for how people should handle
embarrassing situations. After Grant was arrested with a prostitute
in 1995, he didn't duck or deny, didn't go into seclusion, didn't
make excuses. He went on the talk-show circuit and faced the jokes
and criticism. His answer to Jay Leno was a model of what someone
ought to say when they get caught in a screwup: "I did a bad thing...
and there you have it.” His self-deprecating humor won him quick
forgiveness, and his career never suffered.
http://arts.guardian.co.uk/filmandmusic/story/0,,1982587,00.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/09/movies/09cris.html?
ex=1312776000&en=2de709e8500c2501&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
The corollary is that Essjay's defenders haven't really done him any
favors by excusing his actions or (worse) praising them, as some have
done. Accepting his excuses or calling his critics a "baying mob"
didn't answer anyone's concerns. If anything, they simply prolonged
the "denial" stage of his crisis and made it harder for him to do
what he would have to do to recover the trust that he has lost.
--------------------------------
| Sheldon Rampton
| Research director, Center for Media & Democracy (www.prwatch.org)
| Author of books including:
| Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
| Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
| Mad Cow USA
| Trust Us, We're Experts
| Weapons of Mass Deception
| Banana Republicans
| The Best War Ever
--------------------------------
| Subscribe to our free weekly list serve by visiting:
| http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html
|
| Donate now to support independent, public interest reporting:
| https://secure.groundspring.org/dn/index.php?id=1118
--------------------------------
On 3/4/07, wikien-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org <
wikien-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 12:48:55 EST
> From: daniwo59(a)aol.com
>
> It is my sincere hope that people will just stop discussing this whole
> Essjay episode ad nauseum.
>
> Here is someone who made a mistake. You may even say a big mistake.
> For that
> mistake he lost his credibility, he lost his community, he lost his job
> at
> Wikia, and he is the subject of disparaging articles and opinions both
> online
> and in print.
>
> Apart from a public lynching, what else do people want from him?
The really depressing thing about the episode is that so many editors did
seem to want a public lynching, and thought it would be for the good of us
all. All it was was just a childish joke by Essjay when he first signed up,
that ran away with him and only caught up when he was well-known enough to
really harm him. Not to say that I approve of what he did but I do have
immense sympathy for him.