Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote
david@election.demon.co.uk wrote:
Hello! Politician discussing what gory details should be in the article about another politician! Conflict of interest, anyone?
Now that really does annoy me. Whatever happened to "This user is a Wikipedian and seeks to eschew other ideologies while building an encyclopedia"?
Yes, you've said that before. But the fact remains that you are a party political activist editing articles on politicians, and frequently in a way which causes conflict with other editors, and this is not the first time the criticism has been levelled at you either, so perhaps you do have biases and are unable to discern them in your own writing (which would only be human, after all).
This area is covered in outline by [[WP:COI]]. Conflicted editors should back off (i.e. not press the point) in POV arguments. However potential conflict of interest should not be used as an argument in such disputes: it is not proper behaviour to bring it up and attempt to bludgeon other editors (with either declared or suspected COI). These points simply reflect our commitment to both of NPOV and AGF; whch are idealistic standards, maybe, but are thereby written into the COI guideline.
Understatement and being nice to people aren't wasted on Wikipedia.
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 11:27:54 +0000, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
This area is covered in outline by [[WP:COI]]. Conflicted editors should back off (i.e. not press the point) in POV arguments. However potential conflict of interest should not be used as an argument in such disputes: it is not proper behaviour to bring it up and attempt to bludgeon other editors (with either declared or suspected COI). These points simply reflect our commitment to both of NPOV and AGF; whch are idealistic standards, maybe, but are thereby written into the COI guideline.
Absolutely. If we excluded people on the basis of potential conflict of interest we would have no encyclopaedia, but in my experience, David presses the point long and hard, and that is precisely the point Alphax was making, I think.
Understatement and being nice to people aren't wasted on Wikipedia.
For sure. And aggression and bluster are much less useful. Especially when combined with forcefully pressing a point in a case where there is a potential conflict of interest.
Guy (JzG)