I got a lot out of it despite the obvious lack of references, which is what sometimes happens when people well acquainted with a subject write about it, a very good detailed article with few references. As long as you don't start fighting one another, I see little harm in some "puffing". Who better than someone acquainted with a subject to look up the appropriate references?
Conflict of interest is more than involvement. It is seeking, and attempting to maintain advantage, through skewing the content of the article. Insisting on it; thus saddling the encyclopedia with an inferior article which is strongly defended. As to the Oratory of Saint Philip Neri, who objectively comments on it? I ask because I do not know. Such objective comments are the appropriate source. What is the proper content of objective comments about a religious order or a congregation? Who studies either and measures them? What can you say that is useful or sensible to the rest of the world, who is neither English, Irish, nor Catholic?
Fred
I created a couple of articles about local Catholic churches (of outstanding architecture). I have been away on campus for a while and have not been able to check my articles. I will admit that my original wasn't great but it has now been transformed into an advert for the current order running the church see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Church_of_the_Holy_Name_of_Jesus%2...
the new text is very dodgy but definately compliments my original text. Should I be bold and delete the text which offends me? I am unfortunately a congregant of the church and I know that the person who has written most of the new text is a cleric in the order. From both sides there is a conflict of interest. comments? _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l