Metz has a good point regarding WP:COI, though I disagree regarding some of his other thoughts (i.e. trying to control an article through shouting doesn't necessarily work).
When I first read the WP:COI guideline, I thought it was a good recommendation, and have even cited it, but the way I have sometimes seen it used leaves a bitter taste in my mouth at times. The worst is those who, instead of making any attempt to help problematic newbies understand NPOV and verifiability policies, drive them away from the topics they are passionate about with refrains of "WP:COI".
It's easy to see the harm to the encyclopedia if someone is violating WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:CONS, etc. However, what harm is occurring if someone edits with a COI that isn't covered under other policies? WP:COI should be purely cautionary; I see no reason it should ever be enforced.
Matt Jacobs Sxeptomaniac
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 18:55:52 -0800 Quoting "George Herbert" george.herbert@gmail.com
On Dec 19, 2007 6:50 PM, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting "Daniel R. Tobias" dan@tobias.name:
Nobody's mentioned it here yet, but there's been yet another Cade Metz article on Wikipedia in The Register:
Truth, anonymity and the Wikipedia Way http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/18/the_wikipedia_paradox/
This one is closer to being accurate and it does correctly point out the very serious tension between enforcing COI issues and allowing anonymity. Who knows, if Metz keeps this up it might actually turn into real reporting.
I wanted to second this; I read the article roughly when it came out, and didn't have time to comment here but I think this latest one is much more balanced and fairly discussing some of the dynamic tension Wikipedia has made part of our operating philosophy.
We do know the open / responsibility / anonymity tensions. Not everyone internally is happy with the balance we found, much less critics or normal people outside the project, but that those tensions exist between our goals and policies is accurate, fair, etc. Media covering them on an ongoing basis is fair, as they're an ongoing source of trouble for Wikipedia, because they are hard questions.
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com