Hi,
There's a company operating in the UK that has a large number of
controversies attached to it.
Because this mail will be publicly viewable/searchable (and for other
reasons that may become clearer as you read on) I shan't name them.
The article for the company already has a substantive
controversy/criticism section. It needs much better referencing. I am
able to do this; I have a good source (The Guardian) and I'm sure
there are others. I'm good at identifying acceptable and unacceptable
sources.
The trouble is that this company could have a profound impact on my
life and they have shown themselves willing to play hardball with
internet critics. One site - which supports a vulnerable section of
society - was closed down just today, and it's that which has got me
fired up. But frankly, the company scares me. I'm finding it hard to
even hint at how they could effect me without giving too much away, so
I apologise for being vague.
So, my questions are:
1. Is it ever acceptable to purposely edit an article when logged out
(ie, as an IP) if one has an account of long standing?
2. If I did this IP editing, would I have [ complete / little / no ]
protection from being traced as the source of the (perfectly sourced)
information I place in the article?
3. Provided my edits are all perfectly sourced, will the WMF defend my
anonymity? (I do know that the WMF has a good track record here).
4. If you would advise against me pursuing this as you feel I cannot
adequately mitigate risks to myself, perhaps you could put yourself in
an imagined similar situation: imagine you have a powerful sense that
a company is acting unjustly but that company has a hold on you. You
know that Wikipedia could reflect some of the injustice (all sourced
from WP:RELIABLE) but that you are placing yourself under threat. What
would you do to get this information into an article?
A couple more points: I guess some of you may be thinking "well, hang
on, you have a Conflict of Interest here, so you should go nowhere
near it." It's difficult to argue against that without revealing
details that begin to bring my edifice of protection tumbling down.
I would liken my situation to someone living on the coast of the Gulf
of Mexico who chooses to write about the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
[1] I may be personally effected by mistakes/negligence on the part of
this company. But I'm not employed by them. My relationship with them
is akin to your relationship with the company that provides your
water. My relationship with the company is that they provide an
infrastructure that I rely on and that they are proving themselves to
be increasingly unreliable and opposed to free speech (according to
reliable sources). If writing about the oil spill as a Gulf resident
would be COI, then mea culpa: I'll take note and back off.
I'm interested to hear your views,
With high regard for my fellow Wikipedians,
Bodnotbod
-----
[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill