On 7/24/07, C.J. Croy <cjcroy(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/19/07, admnyc <admspam(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
Sorry if this is the wrong place for this. I
noticed the issue this morning
and was wondering if anyone had an opinion about it.
Someone will probably point you to the Conflict of Interest
I haven't watched the video, but I personally don't have a problem
with the idea. We're, collectively, way too touchy about conflicts of
interest. If the folks behind Michael's or the Waverly Inn want to
add articles on their restaurants to Wikipedia, I'm certainly not
going to try and stop them. Worst case scenario, they'll write an
overly positive article about a notable subject.
They're also probably right about proactive solutions to Seigenthalish
problems. I haven't done a systemic study, but I've noticed that the
better the article, the less vandalism it tends to get. Vandalism
also tends to get caught and reverted faster on good articles because
it stands out more.
Most articles wtih serious COIs are rather crappy. If someone knows
of a good article with a COI, point it out to me. And people with
COIs don't take kindly to suggestion they read WP:MOS, study English
grammar, and allow people who can spell words in English to edit
their, uh, prose. And, they own the crap, oh do they own the crap,
and nothing else will make them see it.
But, yes, I guard the best articles I've contributed to more than the
lesser ones. I think a lot of people do. And people with COIs can't
see their own crap, and they don't really need to be doing a
disservice to someone or thing just because they're connected.