I don't know how common this is:
# 01:30, June 19, 2006 RadioKirk blocked "Shout magazine (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (username, existing company) # 01:02, June 19, 2006 RadioKirk blocked "Shi star entertainment (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (username, existing company) # 21:04, June 18, 2006 RadioKirk blocked "ParsInternet (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (Username (name of existing company)) # 00:59, June 19, 2006 RadioKirk blocked "Hammond Publishing (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (username, existing company)
Given that we probably want people to identify who they work for, especially when editing articles where this is relevant, is it a good idea to block company accounts without any edits on sight? If so, perhaps we should at least modify the talk plage template to indicate to the user how they can put the company information on their user page? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammond_Publishing for an example of the current template.
Erik
Uhh. If someonoe wants volunteer to identify their POV in their username, that doesn't bother me one whit.
Ryan
On 6/18/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
I don't know how common this is:
# 01:30, June 19, 2006 RadioKirk blocked "Shout magazine (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (username, existing company) # 01:02, June 19, 2006 RadioKirk blocked "Shi star entertainment (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (username, existing company) # 21:04, June 18, 2006 RadioKirk blocked "ParsInternet (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (Username (name of existing company)) # 00:59, June 19, 2006 RadioKirk blocked "Hammond Publishing (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (username, existing company)
Given that we probably want people to identify who they work for, especially when editing articles where this is relevant, is it a good idea to block company accounts without any edits on sight? If so, perhaps we should at least modify the talk plage template to indicate to the user how they can put the company information on their user page? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammond_Publishing for an example of the current template.
Erik _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Ryan Delaney wrote:
Uhh. If someone wants volunteer to identify their POV in their username, that doesn't bother me one whit.
[[User:Ryan Delaney is a <expletive deleted>]] would normally be blocked on sight, but if you want to make an exception, I'm sure there's somewhere you can record your name as a legitimate target for such attacks...
HTH HAND
Erik Moeller wrote:
I don't know how common this is:
# 01:30, June 19, 2006 RadioKirk blocked "Shout magazine (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (username, existing company) # 01:02, June 19, 2006 RadioKirk blocked "Shi star entertainment (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (username, existing company) # 21:04, June 18, 2006 RadioKirk blocked "ParsInternet (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (Username (name of existing company)) # 00:59, June 19, 2006 RadioKirk blocked "Hammond Publishing (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (username, existing company)
Given that we probably want people to identify who they work for, especially when editing articles where this is relevant, is it a good idea to block company accounts without any edits on sight?
Yes. Firstly, it's an unacceptable username; secondly, it could be seen as a "group account"; thirdly, it could be being used for impersonation.
If so, perhaps we should at least modify the talk plage template to indicate to the user how they can put the company information on their user page? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammond_Publishing for an example of the current template.
People identifying the company they work for shouldn't be editing the article on that company, per [[WP:AUTO]] and [[WP:CORP]].
Also, we have no way to know if that person is indeed from that company - it could be someone trying to give them a bad reputation. I think the blocks were completely in order.
mboverload
On 6/18/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
I don't know how common this is:
# 01:30, June 19, 2006 RadioKirk blocked "Shout magazine (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (username, existing company) # 01:02, June 19, 2006 RadioKirk blocked "Shi star entertainment (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (username, existing company) # 21:04, June 18, 2006 RadioKirk blocked "ParsInternet (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (Username (name of existing company)) # 00:59, June 19, 2006 RadioKirk blocked "Hammond Publishing (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (username, existing company)
Given that we probably want people to identify who they work for, especially when editing articles where this is relevant, is it a good idea to block company accounts without any edits on sight?
Yes. Firstly, it's an unacceptable username; secondly, it could be seen as a "group account"; thirdly, it could be being used for impersonation.
If so, perhaps we should at least modify the talk plage template to indicate to the user how they can put the company information on their user page? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammond_Publishing for an example of the current template.
People identifying the company they work for shouldn't be editing the article on that company, per [[WP:AUTO]] and [[WP:CORP]].
-- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/19/06, mboverload mboverload@gmail.com wrote:
Also, we have no way to know if that person is indeed from that company
As I responded to Alphax, the same can be said about virtually any identity that occurs somewhere else in the real world or on the Internet. And don't you think that if the user makes edits that harm this company's reputation, it will become obvious pretty quickly?
Erik
On 6/19/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Yes. Firstly, it's an unacceptable username;
Wikipedia:Username only speaks of usernames explicitly advertising a company:
Accounts with usernames that advertise a particular website, company, etc. (e.g. "visit [name of url]" ) are discouraged and may be blocked.
secondly, it could be seen as a "group account";
True. This would be a reason to use a username like "Some Guy (Some Company)".
thirdly, it could be being used for impersonation.
That can be said about virtually any name. I suspect we probably have a few undetected cases of users impersonating people they don't like, ex-girlfriends, etc. Normally we assume good faith until impersonation is brought to our attention.
People identifying the company they work for shouldn't be editing the article on that company
I would make an exception for obvious errors. They also have every right to comment on the talk page.
I'm not saying these user accounts shouldn't be blocked -- I think they just may warrant a slightly more refined treatment than a commented version of the same template that we use for people who call themselves "YOU ARE ALL DICKHEADS11!!" A friendly notice how companies are allowed to contribute to Wikipedia would work better, I think.
It would also be nice to be able to turn off the IP autoblocker in those cases.
Erik
Erik Moeller wrote:
On 6/19/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Yes. Firstly, it's an unacceptable username;
Wikipedia:Username only speaks of usernames explicitly advertising a company:
Accounts with usernames that advertise a particular website, company, etc. (e.g. "visit [name of url]" ) are discouraged and may be blocked.
I don't see how "company" or "[name of url]" are any different.
<snip>
thirdly, it could be being used for impersonation.
That can be said about virtually any name. I suspect we probably have a few undetected cases of users impersonating people they don't like, ex-girlfriends, etc. Normally we assume good faith until impersonation is brought to our attention.
For "public figures" we generally don't take the chance. A company counts as a "public figure".
People identifying the company they work for shouldn't be editing the article on that company
I would make an exception for obvious errors. They also have every right to comment on the talk page.
Ok.
I'm not saying these user accounts shouldn't be blocked -- I think they just may warrant a slightly more refined treatment than a commented version of the same template that we use for people who call themselves "YOU ARE ALL DICKHEADS11!!" A friendly notice how companies are allowed to contribute to Wikipedia would work better, I think.
Yes.
It would also be nice to be able to turn off the IP autoblocker in those cases.
It would be nice to turn off the IP autoblocker in a *lot* of cases. Unfortunately nobody seems willing to implement any of the propsed fixes for bug 550.
On 6/19/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
That can be said about virtually any name. I suspect we probably have a few undetected cases of users impersonating people they don't like, ex-girlfriends, etc. Normally we assume good faith until impersonation is brought to our attention.
For "public figures" we generally don't take the chance. A company counts as a "public figure".
What do you think about the compromise of suggesting to them that they identify their company affiliation on their user page, as in the block template I just posted?
Erik
Erik Moeller wrote:
On 6/19/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
That can be said about virtually any name. I suspect we probably have a few undetected cases of users impersonating people they don't like, ex-girlfriends, etc. Normally we assume good faith until impersonation is brought to our attention.
For "public figures" we generally don't take the chance. A company counts as a "public figure".
What do you think about the compromise of suggesting to them that they identify their company affiliation on their user page, as in the block template I just posted?
Yes, that looks like an acceptable solution.
On 6/19/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
A friendly notice how companies are allowed to contribute to Wikipedia would work better, I think.
Here's an example what such a notice could look like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:UsernameBlockedCompany
Feedback welcome.
Erik
On 6/18/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
People identifying the company they work for shouldn't be editing the article on that company, per [[WP:AUTO]] and [[WP:CORP]].
If that's what those articles currently say, they're wrongheaded. WP:AUTO, last I looked, discouraged (but did not ban) editing an article on oneself.
One should exercise caution when editing articles on subjects one has a personal stake in, yes. Newbies should be discouraged from doing so, although not too forcibly. There are many problems with editing such an article, of which POV-pushing is the least of it. More of a problem is verifiability: if you work at a company, you are likely to write using non-public sources about it, including personal experience.
An experienced editor familiar with sourcing can do good work on an article on a subject they are associated with.
-Matt
On 6/19/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
One should exercise caution when editing articles on subjects one has a personal stake in, yes. Newbies should be discouraged from doing so, although not too forcibly. There are many problems with editing such an article, of which POV-pushing is the least of it. More of a problem is verifiability: if you work at a company, you are likely to write using non-public sources about it, including personal experience.
An experienced editor familiar with sourcing can do good work on an article on a subject they are associated with.
Would it be fair to say that good faith edits on an article are to be treated with caution, and bad faith edits are outright banned? That is, if one accepts that one has a stake in an article, and agrees to edit subject to the supervision of others, one can. If, however, one insists that one has a right to edit no matter what - then one can go and jump.
Steve
On 6/19/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Would it be fair to say that good faith edits on an article are to be treated with caution, and bad faith edits are outright banned? That is, if one accepts that one has a stake in an article, and agrees to edit subject to the supervision of others, one can. If, however, one insists that one has a right to edit no matter what - then one can go and jump.
Certainly. One should understand that it's HARD to write good stuff if one's too involved.
On the other hand, someone closely involved can have valuable insight and a good knowledge of published sources, too.
-Matt
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 16:02:24 -0700, "Matt Brown" morven@gmail.com wrote:
Certainly. One should understand that it's HARD to write good stuff if one's too involved. On the other hand, someone closely involved can have valuable insight and a good knowledge of published sources, too.
I offer as an example [[User:Stephen B Streater]], a model editor in almost every respect save for his creation of an article on his own product. However, he understands enough of policy to make a good job of stating only that which is verifiable.
Guy (JzG)
On 6/19/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
Given that we probably want people to identify who they work for, especially when editing articles where this is relevant, is it a good idea to block company accounts without any edits on sight? If so,
That sounds like the opposite of what we want. Considering that it's so hard to identify sneaky editors, those that come forth and declare their POV ought to be encouraged. Also, contrary to some ideas expressed in this thread, we do not discourage companies from editing articles about themselves - we just want to supervise the process, and steer it where necessary.
Steve
<quote who="Erik Moeller">
I don't know how common this is:
# 01:30, June 19, 2006 RadioKirk blocked "Shout magazine (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (username, existing company) # 01:02, June 19, 2006 RadioKirk blocked "Shi star entertainment (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (username, existing company) # 21:04, June 18, 2006 RadioKirk blocked "ParsInternet (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (Username (name of existing company)) # 00:59, June 19, 2006 RadioKirk blocked "Hammond Publishing (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (username, existing company)
Given that we probably want people to identify who they work for, especially when editing articles where this is relevant, is it a good idea to block company accounts without any edits on sight? If so, perhaps we should at least modify the talk plage template to indicate to the user how they can put the company information on their user page? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammond_Publishing for an example of the current template.
Erik _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
To start a bit of a different thread, are corporate accounts bad per se? Individuals posing as corporations are unacceptable, but what about corporations acting/editing under an official capacity? Corporations are not automatically "POV pushers", as they may come in good faith just as other contributors do. Bad apples would be obvious and would damage corporate reputation, thus mitigating abuse of Foundation projects.
Implementation may be as simple as linking the userpage to an official online statement from the corporation. I envision such accounts to be attractive to spokespersons interested in editing articles to remove or challenge unfair statements, without the need to create anonymous proxy accounts or to contact the OTRS team. Any additional editing would be a bonus.
I am interested in hearing a variety of thoughts on this issue. It is no secret that corporations are increasingly monitoring information about them on Foundation projects, and I hope a process such as this might alleviate some of the anxiety about corporate image. As a special-circumstance example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dannyisme
Also see: http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-June/049195.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:UsernameBlockedCompany http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Username#Policy_may_be_too_weak
Thanks, George Chriss [[User:GChriss]]
On 21/06/06, George Chriss GChriss@psu.edu wrote:
<quote who="Erik Moeller"> > I don't know how common this is: > > # 01:30, June 19, 2006 RadioKirk blocked "Shout magazine (contribs)" > with an expiry time of indefinite (username, existing company) > # 01:02, June 19, 2006 RadioKirk blocked "Shi star entertainment > (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (username, existing > company) > # 21:04, June 18, 2006 RadioKirk blocked "ParsInternet (contribs)" > with an expiry time of indefinite (Username (name of existing > company)) > # 00:59, June 19, 2006 RadioKirk blocked "Hammond Publishing > (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (username, existing > company) > > Given that we probably want people to identify who they work for, > especially when editing articles where this is relevant, is it a good > idea to block company accounts without any edits on sight? If so, > perhaps we should at least modify the talk plage template to indicate > to the user how they can put the company information on their user > page? See > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hammond_Publishing > for an example of the current template. > > Erik > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l >
To start a bit of a different thread, are corporate accounts bad per se? Individuals posing as corporations are unacceptable, but what about corporations acting/editing under an official capacity? Corporations are not automatically "POV pushers", as they may come in good faith just as other contributors do. Bad apples would be obvious and would damage corporate reputation, thus mitigating abuse of Foundation projects.
Implementation may be as simple as linking the userpage to an official online statement from the corporation. I envision such accounts to be attractive to spokespersons interested in editing articles to remove or challenge unfair statements, without the need to create anonymous proxy accounts or to contact the OTRS team. Any additional editing would be a bonus.
A post on the Village Pump has just noticed this:
http://www.prsa.org/viewNews.cfm?pNewsID=197
"The wide world of Wikipedia, and why PR practitioners should take note"
Pretty sensible stuff.