Phil Sandifer wrote
Conflicts of interest seem the more sensible ones to rule out. Our rules against POV pushing already go against the worst problems of conflicts of interest, making the CoI rule something that mostly forbids good editing.
It's a guideline. I have constantly emphasised how good a piece of advice it is not to get into COI editing. People without WP experience really have no idea what a daily rund of edit war will do to them. We are not going to withdraw that advice. Let alone say paid PR people on the site are OK.
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
On Oct 12, 2007, at 11:05 AM, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Phil Sandifer wrote
Conflicts of interest seem the more sensible ones to rule out. Our rules against POV pushing already go against the worst problems of conflicts of interest, making the CoI rule something that mostly forbids good editing.
It's a guideline. I have constantly emphasised how good a piece of advice it is not to get into COI editing. People without WP experience really have no idea what a daily rund of edit war will do to them. We are not going to withdraw that advice. Let alone say paid PR people on the site are OK.
It's great advice. And paid PR people are not OK. But, frankly, they're not OK in the same way sockpuppets aren't OK. It's not that you're not allowed to do it, it's just that you're not allowed to do it so badly that we notice and go "Oh for fuck's sake."
-Phil
On 10/12/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 12, 2007, at 11:05 AM, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Phil Sandifer wrote
Conflicts of interest seem the more sensible ones to rule out. Our rules against POV pushing already go against the worst problems of conflicts of interest, making the CoI rule something that mostly forbids good editing.
It's a guideline. I have constantly emphasised how good a piece of advice it is not to get into COI editing. People without WP experience really have no idea what a daily rund of edit war will do to them. We are not going to withdraw that advice. Let alone say paid PR people on the site are OK.
It's great advice. And paid PR people are not OK. But, frankly, they're not OK in the same way sockpuppets aren't OK. It's not that you're not allowed to do it, it's just that you're not allowed to do it so badly that we notice and go "Oh for fuck's sake."
Right, COI editing, POV pushing, sockpuppetry, it's all fine as long as it doesn't annoy certain people.
That's precisely the problem being pointed out by so many of the so called attack sites.
On Oct 12, 2007, at 12:28 PM, Anthony wrote:
Right, COI editing, POV pushing, sockpuppetry, it's all fine as long as it doesn't annoy certain people.
That's precisely the problem being pointed out by so many of the so called attack sites.
Anthony, you're smarter than this. The message and the mechanism of its delivery are, in this case, separate. Yes, valid objections can be raised to things that happen on Wikipedia. No, revealing people's names, calling their employers, and conspiring to have them thrown out of school is not a valid way of raising those objections. No, I (and most other reasonable people) are not inclined to take anything Brandt says seriously, since he's so utterly discredited himself as a pernicious fuckwit.
You are smart enough to know this, and so I can only assume you've returned to needlessly trolling the list. In which case, I feel obliged to point out the moderation queue in which your messages can cheerily reside.
-Phil
On 10/12/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 12, 2007, at 12:28 PM, Anthony wrote:
Right, COI editing, POV pushing, sockpuppetry, it's all fine as long as it doesn't annoy certain people.
That's precisely the problem being pointed out by so many of the so called attack sites.
Anthony, you're smarter than this. The message and the mechanism of its delivery are, in this case, separate. Yes, valid objections can be raised to things that happen on Wikipedia. No, revealing people's names, calling their employers, and conspiring to have them thrown out of school is not a valid way of raising those objections.
Revealing people's names is a necessary step in pointing out instances of COI editing, and is generally quite helpful when pointing out instances of POV pushing and sockpuppetry. I'm not sure if that justifies it or not. Personally I've decided to take the safe road and not engage in such public "outing", but the fact that you lump such a thing in with all the rest is not helpful.
As for calling employers to try to get someone thrown out of school, I assume you're referring to a single incident. Were all the proprietors of the so called attack sites involved in that incident?
No, I (and most other reasonable people) are not inclined to take anything Brandt says seriously, since he's so utterly discredited himself as a pernicious fuckwit.
The thing is, I can't see any time when he has outright lied about anything. And on a number of occasions he's been downright correct. If he says something I'm apt to check further - not take his word for it, but also not dismiss it completely.
You are smart enough to know this, and so I can only assume you've returned to needlessly trolling the list. In which case, I feel obliged to point out the moderation queue in which your messages can cheerily reside.
Sounds like McCarthyism to me. Just like the BADSITES policy.
On 12/10/2007, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
It's great advice. And paid PR people are not OK. But, frankly, they're not OK in the same way sockpuppets aren't OK. It's not that you're not allowed to do it, it's just that you're not allowed to do it so badly that we notice and go "Oh for fuck's sake."
Heh.
"You're not allowed to do it so blatantly that I notice, because then I'd have to stop you. Also, don't tell me about it, because then I'd have to stop you. You know I don't approve, right? Just don't make a noise, I'm trying to work."
Wikipedia users and over-enthusiastic thirteen-year-olds: not so different after all.
charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Phil Sandifer wrote
Conflicts of interest seem the more sensible ones to rule out. Our rules against POV pushing already go against the worst problems of conflicts of interest, making the CoI rule something that mostly forbids good editing.
It's a guideline. I have constantly emphasised how good a piece of advice it is not to get into COI editing. People without WP experience really have no idea what a daily rund of edit war will do to them. We are not going to withdraw that advice. Let alone say paid PR people on the site are OK.
It seems to be brought up somewhat selectively, though. For example, many of our nationalistic disputes are more or less conflicts of interest: someone of nationality (or ancestry) X doing POV editing of an article related to country X. It is not at all surprising to find an edit war over an article with a title like [[X-Y conflict]] and find that the two sides are, respectively, of nationalities X and Y (or descended from them, or otherwise personally tied to them).
On the other hand, people living in or otherwise connected with a country are sometimes a valuable source for digging up cited information about the country, when not engaged in edit wars about it. So we don't generally make blanket rules like, "if you're from Sweden, you cannot edit Sweden-related articles." And so with COIs in general, IMO.
-Mark