One of MyWikiBiz's client's articles has been picked up by AfD. It's obviously going to be a pretty significant test case for the future of this kind of business, so it's worth while discussing it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Norman_Technolo...
My position is that Wikipedia's mission is absolutely not served by deleting this (or similar) articles. It's informative (could be more so!), it's neutral, and there are people out there looking for this kind of article. I would like to hear any arguments for deleting it.
Now, is it just me, or do we have a serious bias against corporations?
Steve
On 8/9/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
One of MyWikiBiz's client's articles has been picked up by AfD. It's obviously going to be a pretty significant test case for the future of this kind of business, so it's worth while discussing it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Norman_Technolo...
My position is that Wikipedia's mission is absolutely not served by deleting this (or similar) articles. It's informative (could be more so!), it's neutral, and there are people out there looking for this kind of article. I would like to hear any arguments for deleting it.
Now, is it just me, or do we have a serious bias against corporations?
Well, there's a natural reaction to anything that looks like corporate advertising, but I wouldn't call it a "bias against corporations".
I don't see anything inherently wrong with MyWikiBiz, esp. since they are pretty open about what they're doing. But I also don't think Wikipedia's mission is served by cluttering up the place with articles on every small consulting firm in the US. This corporation has only 26 employees and the only citations are a local business journal. Is this really a significant enough company to make it into an encyclopedia?
On 8/9/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
Well, there's a natural reaction to anything that looks like corporate advertising, but I wouldn't call it a "bias against corporations".
I don't see anything inherently wrong with MyWikiBiz, esp. since they are pretty open about what they're doing. But I also don't think Wikipedia's mission is served by cluttering up the place with articles on every small consulting firm in the US. This corporation has only 26 employees and the only citations are a local business journal. Is this really a significant enough company to make it into an encyclopedia?
That definitely depends on what your definition of "significant enough" is. If we had room for only 10 corporations, I would say no. But we're not pressed for space, and unlike pure vanity articles (my name is Jim and I have a dog called Nelly!), this type of article meets a genuine need.
I think there is a valid viewpoint that says "Wikipedia is the sum of human knowledge, except for a bit of total dross that doesn't interest anyone". However, a genuine company with 26 full time employees that has been around for 5 years and does some interesting things at the global level is not such dross.
Purely and simply, is Wikipedia better off *with* this information than *without* it? If the answer is "without", then why? Because we saved a couple of kilobytes?
Steve
On 8/9/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/9/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
Well, there's a natural reaction to anything that looks like corporate advertising, but I wouldn't call it a "bias against corporations".
I don't see anything inherently wrong with MyWikiBiz, esp. since they are pretty open about what they're doing. But I also don't think Wikipedia's mission is served by cluttering up the place with articles on every small consulting firm in the US. This corporation has only 26 employees and the only citations are a local business journal. Is this really a significant enough company to make it into an encyclopedia?
That definitely depends on what your definition of "significant enough" is. If we had room for only 10 corporations, I would say no. But we're not pressed for space, and unlike pure vanity articles (my name is Jim and I have a dog called Nelly!), this type of article meets a genuine need.
I think there is a valid viewpoint that says "Wikipedia is the sum of human knowledge, except for a bit of total dross that doesn't interest anyone". However, a genuine company with 26 full time employees that has been around for 5 years and does some interesting things at the global level is not such dross.
Purely and simply, is Wikipedia better off *with* this information than *without* it? If the answer is "without", then why? Because we saved a couple of kilobytes?
A case could be made that this is just as much a vanity article as a personal bio. It's not just the number of employees that makes it insignificant for encyclopedic purposes. If it was indeed doing things interesting enough to be of encyclopedic note, someone other than the local Charlotte Business Journal would be writing about them.
I have indef banned MyWikiBiz from English Wikipedia.
If he wants to do something like this, he should write his articles independently, post them on his website, and see if interested Wikipedians who are willing to vouch for the articles... WITHOUT FINANCIAL COMPENSATION... want to include them.
Getting paid to add entries to Wikipedia by the subject of the entries is a serious serious no-no because of the obvious conflict-of-interest issues.
--Jimbo
On 8/9/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I have indef banned MyWikiBiz from English Wikipedia.
If he wants to do something like this, he should write his articles independently, post them on his website, and see if interested Wikipedians who are willing to vouch for the articles... WITHOUT FINANCIAL COMPENSATION... want to include them.
Getting paid to add entries to Wikipedia by the subject of the entries is a serious serious no-no because of the obvious conflict-of-interest issues.
--Jimbo
He put in a request for {{unblock}} on his talk page. Since it is highly unlikely someone would want to undo your official action, I reviewed the unblock and asked him to contact you instead.
I have his phone number and will try to talk to him today.
Death Phoenix wrote:
On 8/9/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I have indef banned MyWikiBiz from English Wikipedia.
If he wants to do something like this, he should write his articles independently, post them on his website, and see if interested Wikipedians who are willing to vouch for the articles... WITHOUT FINANCIAL COMPENSATION... want to include them.
Getting paid to add entries to Wikipedia by the subject of the entries is a serious serious no-no because of the obvious conflict-of-interest issues.
--Jimbo
He put in a request for {{unblock}} on his talk page. Since it is highly unlikely someone would want to undo your official action, I reviewed the unblock and asked him to contact you instead. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 8/9/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I have indef banned MyWikiBiz from English Wikipedia.
If he wants to do something like this, he should write his articles independently, post them on his website, and see if interested Wikipedians who are willing to vouch for the articles... WITHOUT FINANCIAL COMPENSATION... want to include them.
Getting paid to add entries to Wikipedia by the subject of the entries is a serious serious no-no because of the obvious conflict-of-interest issues.
--Jimbo
(Note that this screed is independent of any deal Jimmy and MyWikiBiz may've come to).
This is an absurd block. He was writing perfectly fine, well-written, *referenced* articles and has so far as I know scrupulously followed the notability guidelines; would to God that we had a thousand more like him, and could ditch the bottom thousand editors. And you are banning him because the conflict of interest *might* lead to POV? Have the project abandoned AGF and the notion that one can write in a NPOV fashion even if POV oneself?
Over Wikipedia's existence, there've been how many articles submitted by people being paid or who might conceivably have a conflict of interest?
Then let's get rid of anything politics related by Katefan0 (who you'll remember is a professional journalist covering politics - clear conflict of interest there) or any of our resident academics who edits articles relating to their expertise (I'd mention Carl Hewitt here, but he's already banned for being incorrigibly self-centered). Or closer to home, let's get rid of [[Fujiwara no Teika]], as the Encyclopedia Project paid me to edit that article, or [[Encyclopedia of the Brethren of Purity]] and [[Brethren of Purity]] (ditto). If we require yet more victims for this witch-hunt and to feed our paranoia, any article ever listed on the Bounty Board is suspect.
What I see here is a double standard: there's a tiny wiff of a problem and a user is indef banned, while vastly worse problems like vandals and copyright violators at least get the courtesy of the {{test}} templates.
~maru
On 8/9/06, maru dubshinki marudubshinki@gmail.com wrote:
This is an absurd block. He was writing perfectly fine, well-written, *referenced* articles and has so far as I know scrupulously followed the notability guidelines; would to God that we had a thousand more like him, and could ditch the bottom thousand editors. And you are banning him because the conflict of interest *might* lead to POV? Have the project abandoned AGF and the notion that one can write in a NPOV fashion even if POV oneself?
I would argue that this goes back to that whole "bringing the project into disrepute" thing that's come up a few times now. It may very well be that his articles are perfectly fine (although I suspect that many are quite borderline in terms of either reliable outside sources or notability); but the issue is the *appearance* of impropriety more so than the contents of the articles themselves. We cannot afford to leave the public with the impression that certain articles are in Wikipedia only because money has changed hands to keep them there; the way MyWikiBiz was being advertised gave precisely that impression -- regardless of whether he was actually following notability guidelines or not! (Indeed, promises like "If your organization is deemed non-notable, your payment will be immediately refunded" are probably *more* problematic, as they are likely to be interpreted as giving a pretty obvious motivation to make sure that the article sticks around.)
On 8/9/06, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
I would argue that this goes back to that whole "bringing the project into disrepute" thing that's come up a few times now. It may very well be that his articles are perfectly fine (although I suspect that many are quite borderline in terms of either reliable outside sources or notability); but the issue is the *appearance* of impropriety more so than the contents of the articles themselves. We cannot afford to leave the public with the impression that certain articles are in Wikipedia only because money has changed hands to keep them there; the way MyWikiBiz was being advertised gave precisely that impression -- regardless of whether he was actually following notability guidelines or not! (Indeed, promises like "If your organization is deemed non-notable, your payment will be immediately refunded" are probably *more* problematic, as they are likely to be interpreted as giving a pretty obvious motivation to make sure that the article sticks around.)
-- Kirill Lokshin
But this is a poor argument for indef blocking a user, appearances is. If we cared about appearance more than substance, Wikipedia'd never have been a wiki in the first place. I really doubt that the public cares whether certain articles may've been kept because of money when they are more concerned about the quality of articles to begin with (and then about stability and then about features or aspects of the community or then... heck, when it comes to appearances, people are far more concerned about vandalism - now there's something that really can change the apperance of Wikipedia, quite literally).
~maru
On 8/10/06, maru dubshinki marudubshinki@gmail.com wrote:
What I see here is a double standard: there's a tiny wiff of a problem and a user is indef banned, while vastly worse problems like vandals and copyright violators at least get the courtesy of the {{test}} templates.
Then let's not have a double standard, but a general mechanism to submit new articles where conflicts of interest may exist for community review prior to publication, and ask editors (including yourself) to follow that process. Here's a quick proposal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflicts_of_interest
Erik
On 10/08/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/10/06, maru dubshinki marudubshinki@gmail.com wrote:
What I see here is a double standard: there's a tiny wiff of a problem and a user is indef banned, while vastly worse problems like vandals and copyright violators at least get the courtesy of the {{test}} templates.
Then let's not have a double standard, but a general mechanism to submit new articles where conflicts of interest may exist for community review prior to publication, and ask editors (including yourself) to follow that process. Here's a quick proposal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflicts_of_interest
Or they could, um, note it on the talk page? Rather than put yet another procedure in place which will have the effect of "why bother." Unless that's the purpose.
- d.
On 8/10/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Or they could, um, note it on the talk page? Rather than put yet another procedure in place which will have the effect of "why bother." Unless that's the purpose.
On what talk page? This is for articles which do not yet exist. How would you bring those to the attention of the community without posting them directly?
Erik
On 8/10/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
On what talk page? This is for articles which do not yet exist. How would you bring those to the attention of the community without posting them directly?
AfC.
Steve
On 10/08/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/10/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Or they could, um, note it on the talk page? Rather than put yet another procedure in place which will have the effect of "why bother." Unless that's the purpose.
On what talk page? This is for articles which do not yet exist. How would you bring those to the attention of the community without posting them directly?
Write the article and note involvement on the talk page. I've done this for articles where I have some link to the references. This lets the article stand if it's OK and there's a flag on the talk page for an NPOV check.
- d.
On 8/10/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Or they could, um, note it on the talk page? Rather than put yet another procedure in place which will have the effect of "why bother." Unless that's the purpose.
On what talk page? This is for articles which do not yet exist. How would you bring those to the attention of the community without posting them directly?
Write the article and note involvement on the talk page. I've done this for articles where I have some link to the references. This lets the article stand if it's OK and there's a flag on the talk page for an NPOV check.
That doesn't seem to work, given that MyWikiBiz has just been told by Jimmy not to do this.
Erik
On 8/9/06, maru dubshinki marudubshinki@gmail.com wrote:
(Note that this screed is independent of any deal Jimmy and MyWikiBiz may've come to).
This is an absurd block. He was writing perfectly fine, well-written, *referenced* articles and has so far as I know scrupulously followed the notability guidelines; would to God that we had a thousand more like him, and could ditch the bottom thousand editors.
[snip]
Are we so sure?
How do we know that he doesn't use multiple accounts with the role account attached to his orgs name on good behavior?
On 10/08/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/9/06, maru dubshinki marudubshinki@gmail.com wrote:
(Note that this screed is independent of any deal Jimmy and MyWikiBiz may've come to).
This is an absurd block. He was writing perfectly fine, well-written, *referenced* articles and has so far as I know scrupulously followed the notability guidelines; would to God that we had a thousand more like him, and could ditch the bottom thousand editors.
[snip]
Are we so sure?
How do we know that he doesn't use multiple accounts with the role account attached to his orgs name on good behavior?
For one thing, we've seen the account in *his* name. It's on good behaviour.
Hi folks,
MyWikiBiz (Greg) is willing to abide by Wikipedia policies, but has second thoughts about what he agreed upon with Jimbo. He has some alternate proposals (and opinions) on his talk page at [[User talk:MyWikiBiz]].
Thanks,
DP
On 8/9/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I have indef banned MyWikiBiz from English Wikipedia.
If he wants to do something like this, he should write his articles independently, post them on his website, and see if interested Wikipedians who are willing to vouch for the articles... WITHOUT FINANCIAL COMPENSATION... want to include them.
Oh, dear. We have just sent out a clear message: "If you wish to get paid to write on Wikipedia, please do not use a transparent process. Please do not attempt to engage with the community, and please, whatever you do, do not tell us that you actually got paid for the article. If anyone asks, deny, deny, deny".
This guy was approaching this in exactly the right way, and the outcome was good.
Meanwhile, I'm sure lots of big companies *do* edit their own articles, but they *don't* tell us what they're doing, and we're ok with that?
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 8/9/06, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
Well, there's a natural reaction to anything that looks like corporate advertising, but I wouldn't call it a "bias against corporations".
I don't see anything inherently wrong with MyWikiBiz, esp. since they are pretty open about what they're doing. But I also don't think Wikipedia's mission is served by cluttering up the place with articles on every small consulting firm in the US. This corporation has only 26 employees and the only citations are a local business journal. Is this really a significant enough company to make it into an encyclopedia?
That definitely depends on what your definition of "significant enough" is. If we had room for only 10 corporations, I would say no. But we're not pressed for space, and unlike pure vanity articles (my name is Jim and I have a dog called Nelly!), this type of article meets a genuine need.
Does it? How are they unique? The following,
"Norman Technologies is the only U.S.-based private-sector I.T. consultancy focused solely on global trade initiatives. The company is also unique in that it provides the only non-bank representative to the International Chamber of Commerce's Committee on Banking Technique & Practice. The firm is also a member of the International Financial Services Association."
uses a heap of weasel words/buzzwords/business jargon ("global trade initiatives") which don't really mean much; and what is the International Chamber of Commerce's Committee on Banking Technique & Practice anyway?
I think there is a valid viewpoint that says "Wikipedia is the sum of human knowledge, except for a bit of total dross that doesn't interest anyone". However, a genuine company with 26 full time employees that has been around for 5 years and does some interesting things at the global level is not such dross.
You're wrong. /Nobody cares/ about J. Random Company, manufacturer of Gnomovision, which makes passes about compilers, even if Gnomovision is notable[0].
Purely and simply, is Wikipedia better off *with* this information than *without* it? If the answer is "without", then why? Because we saved a couple of kilobytes?
Because it's just one more article which people are going to edit war and email OTRS about, and it's not particularly interesting or informative; the aim of an encyclopedia is to be factual, informative and interesting.
[0] Guess the reference...
On 8/10/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Does it? How are they unique? The following,
"Norman Technologies is the only U.S.-based private-sector I.T. consultancy focused solely on global trade initiatives. The company is also unique in that it provides the only non-bank representative to the International Chamber of Commerce's Committee on Banking Technique & Practice. The firm is also a member of the International Financial Services Association."
uses a heap of weasel words/buzzwords/business jargon ("global trade initiatives") which don't really mean much; and what is the
I agree. I'm curious as to what they actually do :)
International Chamber of Commerce's Committee on Banking Technique & Practice anyway?
"The Commission on Banking Technique and Practice comprises 400 members from 42 countries, including partners in trade finance institutions and international organizations.
Membership of the ICC Commission on Banking Technique and Practice provides unique benefits and strategic advantages for companies of all sizes and all parts of the w orld. Membership in the Banking Commission allows participants to attend Banking Commission meetings and to make a personal input into the development of ICC rules on documentary credits, bank-to-bank reimbursements, collections and demand guarantees."
http://www.iccwbo.org/policy/banking/id3681/index.html
You're wrong. /Nobody cares/ about J. Random Company, manufacturer of Gnomovision, which makes passes about compilers, even if Gnomovision is notable[0].
Really? What do companies do when they're trying to work out whether or not to do business with another company? Do they just visit their website and hope for the best? There must be some resources to allow one to research another company - and why shouldn't Wikipedia be that resource?
Because it's just one more article which people are going to edit war and email OTRS about, and it's not particularly interesting or informative; the aim of an encyclopedia is to be factual, informative and interesting.
There's no shortage of boring article topics, including most counties in the US (or communes in France for that matter). If it's not informative enough, mark it {{stub}}. Or do you think that no decent article could ever be written on a company of only 26 employees? I'm sure that's not the case, we must have articles on companies of only 1 or 2 that have some amazing product...
[0] Guess the reference...
Failed.
Steve
On 8/10/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Really? What do companies do when they're trying to work out whether or not to do business with another company? Do they just visit their website and hope for the best? There must be some resources to allow one to research another company - and why shouldn't Wikipedia be that resource?
Ok, chances are they end up at a page like this: http://www.zoominfo.com/search/CompanyDetail.aspx?CompanyID=73779439&cs=...
We could easily be more informative than this site, and we wouldn't charge people money to click on the "Show competitors to Norman Technologies" link.
*shrug*
Steve
On 8/10/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
uses a heap of weasel words/buzzwords/business jargon ("global trade initiatives") which don't really mean much; and what is the
I would have said "corporate wankery".
On 8/10/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
I agree. I'm curious as to what they actually do :)
Something to do with "value transfer systems" apparently.
This article makes an interesting test case, because it is well written and structured, using references and an infobox. The problem is it's essentially nothing more than what one would expect to find on the "about" page of any corporate website.