Jimbo wrote:
At a very minimum, it seems most tasteful for anyone about whom we do have an entry to recuse themselves from working on it.
Um...I've done some edits to the Wikipedia article about me (which was originally created by Ed Poor).
I don't see how this is inappropriate. I arguably have a "conflict of interest" in what I write about myself, but on the other hand, I know quite a bit about the topic. Anyway, there's nothing in the Wikipedia rules to prohibit people with conflicts of interest from contributing. We don't ask people who work for drug companies to recuse themselves from posting information about health-related topics. The ethos here is that people are allowed to have their own POV but are expected to work constructively with others in arriving at articles that are NPOV (insofar as that is attainable).
In the case of the article about myself, both Ed Poor and I have strong (and differing) opinions on the topic, but I don't have any problem with the role he has played in editing my bio, and I haven't seen him express any objections to the role I've played myself.
I'm mentioning this now partly as a heads-up so that if anyone DOES object to the way I've contributed to my own article, they should feel invited to fix it the usual wiki way -- by making whatever revisions they feel are appropriate. Here's the URL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheldon_Rampton
Sheldon Rampton wrote:
At a very minimum, it seems most tasteful for anyone about whom we do have an entry to recuse themselves from working on it.
Um...I've done some edits to the Wikipedia article about me (which was originally created by Ed Poor).
Yes, and I think this is a good case-in-point about the problems that can easily arise from the practice.
1. POTENTIAL FOR PERSONAL CONFLICT
You added:
PR Watch monitors deceptive and manipulative public relations firms, such as the creation of "front groups" -- organizations that purport to represent a popular public agenda, when in fact their message is tailored to serve the specific interests of a client whose sponsorship of the organization is hidden.
Ed Poor removed that line with the comment "(moved self-serving ... text to talk)". And of course since then, famously, you two have been at each others throats. I'm not suggesting a direct causal connection, but just showing how articles about ourselves are fraught with the possibility of conflict.
(You wisely chose to let that one go, it seems.)
You're well-liked around here. I like you. But in my local newspaper, I read an editorial you wrote (an excerpt from _Weapons of Mass Deception_, I believe) that almost made my head explode. :-) I thought it wasn't just mistaken, but deeply misleading. And I think that your posture in that piece as some kind of neutral arbiter exposing PR spin was absurd -- the piece itself was a masterpiece of spin.
And yet the article reads like pure hagiography. It's a perfectly appropriate self-biography for PR purposes, but it completely fails as encyclopedia material. And I think that most people will naturally, and rightly, refrain from adding criticism of your work there, _as a matter of personal courtesy_, because you edit it yourself, and you are known and liked here.
2. UNVERIFIABLE INFORMATION
You are an expert on yourself, to be sure. So, who could possibly challenge you on such statements as "At the age of three, his family moved to Las Vegas, Nevada, where his father worked as a musician"?
3. GOOD TASTE
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a reference work, not a tool for our own self-promotion. I can easily envision a mocking criticism of us as a non-serious work if we all start writing entries about ourselves. "Of the 1,234 page-length biographies in wikipedia, fully 10% of them are of Wikipedia contributors writing about themselves." Ick.
I don't see how this is inappropriate. I arguably have a "conflict of interest" in what I write about myself, but on the other hand, I know quite a bit about the topic. Anyway, there's nothing in the Wikipedia rules to prohibit people with conflicts of interest from contributing. We don't ask people who work for drug companies to recuse themselves from posting information about health-related topics.
Nor do we prohibit left-wing anti-corporate book authors to recuse themselves from those articles, either. You're right of course that although conflict-of-interest is a critical problem in autobiographical material, it isn't in and of itself persuasive as a reason to refrain from the practice.
What I think is that the things I've outlined above -- potential for personal conflict, unverifiable information, and good taste -- all build on the conflict-of-interest problem in such a way as to argue persuasively against the practice.
Let me say it another way -- it isn't so much the conflict-of-interest that's a problem, it's that personal courtesy prevents people from editing an article about you that you've edited yourself, with the result being an entry that is not encyclopedic.
I'm mentioning this now partly as a heads-up so that if anyone DOES object to the way I've contributed to my own article, they should feel invited to fix it the usual wiki way -- by making whatever revisions they feel are appropriate. Here's the URL:
And I should emphasize that although I think the practice is questionable and tacky, I don't think we should ban it outright.
--Jimbo
Jimmy-
PR Watch monitors deceptive and manipulative public relations firms, such as the creation of "front groups" -- organizations that purport to represent a popular public agenda, when in fact their message is tailored to serve the specific interests of a client whose sponsorship of the organization is hidden.
With some changes in wording, that paragraph would be reasonably neutral.
Ed Poor removed that line with the comment "(moved self-serving ... text to talk)". And of course since then, famously, you two have been at each others throats.
Ed and Sheldon come from completely different political persuasions, and both are strongly convinced that they are correct. That is more than enough to explain their difficulties (see also the similar difficulties with William Connelly), just as your own near-head-explosion is enough to explain the following paragraph:
You're well-liked around here. I like you. But in my local newspaper, I read an editorial you wrote (an excerpt from _Weapons of Mass Deception_, I believe) that almost made my head explode. :-) I thought it wasn't just mistaken, but deeply misleading. And I think that your posture in that piece as some kind of neutral arbiter exposing PR spin was absurd -- the piece itself was a masterpiece of spin.
And yet the article reads like pure hagiography.
So add the criticisms you have, I don't see a problem with that. As a matter of fact, I find it less courteous to bring these criticisms up on the list, from your position as benevolent dictator, than to simply edit the article. [And please let's not get off-topic on this issue, I know you have to rant sometimes, but if you want to discuss this, it should be done privately.]
And I think that most people will naturally, and rightly, refrain from adding criticism of your work there, _as a matter of personal courtesy_, because you edit it yourself, and you are known and liked here.
Actually, the main problem would be the lack of published material that directly criticizes Sheldon's work, as attributions of the type "some critics feel .." are rightly frowned upon. This has little to do with whether he edits the article or someone else uses an author biography as a source.
You are an expert on yourself, to be sure. So, who could possibly challenge you on such statements as "At the age of three, his family moved to Las Vegas, Nevada, where his father worked as a musician"?
Sheldon has a reputation to lose. As such, we should extend some trust to him when it comes to non-controversial statements of fact about himself. After all, that's what any biographer would do as well.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a reference work, not a tool for our own self-promotion. I can easily envision a mocking criticism of us as a non-serious work if we all start writing entries about ourselves. "Of the 1,234 page-length biographies in wikipedia, fully 10% of them are of Wikipedia contributors writing about themselves." Ick.
The best rule, in my opinion, is to only allow contributors to make additions/modifications, not to start articles about themselves.
It would be dangerous if someone who is directly opposed to Sheldon's work, such as Ed, could write all the negative things he wants, while Sheldon had no way to directly defend himself. To be sure, it is difficult to write in a balanced fashion about oneself, but is it more difficult than to write balanced about issues like abortion, global warming or pedophilia? As a matter of fact, the conflict of interest is so obvious here that it would be difficult for someone writing about themselves to defend anything which is remotely considered POV, as the disputed paragraph from Sheldon's bio demonstrates. In other words, it would be much easier for someone else to write a hagiography about Sheldon than for himself.
Starting articles about oneself is another matter, because of the whole importance/relevance issue. Obviously, many people would like to have an encyclopedia article about themselves. I seem to recall a rather long debate about a certain surrealist artist on that matter. But Sheldon clearly deserves an article, and I see no reason why he shouldn't contribute to it.
Regards,
Erik
Erik Moeller wrote:
So add the criticisms you have, I don't see a problem with that. As a matter of fact, I find it less courteous to bring these criticisms up on the list, from your position as benevolent dictator, than to simply edit the article. [And please let's not get off-topic on this issue, I know you have to rant sometimes, but if you want to discuss this, it should be done privately.]
Sure, well, my point was not to bring onto the list a discussion of Sheldon Rampton's politics, nor mine, but rather to point out that his editing the article about himself is likely to give rise to people refraining from editing it, as a courtesy to him because we all want to get along here.
You are an expert on yourself, to be sure. So, who could possibly challenge you on such statements as "At the age of three, his family moved to Las Vegas, Nevada, where his father worked as a musician"?
Sheldon has a reputation to lose. As such, we should extend some trust to him when it comes to non-controversial statements of fact about himself. After all, that's what any biographer would do as well.
Yes, of course, and I don't mean to say that I doubt him on such facts. But saying that also reveals the particular danger here, which is that out of respect for each other, out of courtesy to each other, out of our very reasonable trust for each other, we aren't likely to challenge autobiographical entries.
The best rule, in my opinion, is to only allow contributors to make additions/modifications, not to start articles about themselves.
That's an interesting twist, to be sure. But I'm not proposing any rule here, because I think it's far too individualized for a general rule to be of sufficient value.
It would be dangerous if someone who is directly opposed to Sheldon's work, such as Ed, could write all the negative things he wants, while Sheldon had no way to directly defend himself.
I agree that this is a potential problem. The way I would recommend handling it would be to comment on the talk page, or to ask a few independent parties to assist.
But let me say again and again, I'm here expressing a personal preference, not promoting a rule. I do recognize that there are reasonable arguments on all sides of this matter, there are a lot of pro's and con's to be balanced.
--Jimbo
On Wednesday 05 November 2003 16:45, Jimmy Wales wrote:
- GOOD TASTE
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a reference work, not a tool for our own self-promotion. I can easily envision a mocking criticism of us as a non-serious work if we all start writing entries about ourselves. "Of the 1,234 page-length biographies in wikipedia, fully 10% of them are of Wikipedia contributors writing about themselves." Ick.
I think that I've found a loophole: criteria for inclusion of biographies state that anyone who writes for a publication with circulation higher then 5,000, could be included. And when Wikipedia 1.0 gets published... So, perhaps the rule should be changed to "a publication except Wikipedia" ;)
From: Nikola Smolenski
On Wednesday 05 November 2003 16:45, Jimmy Wales wrote:
- GOOD TASTE
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a reference work, not a tool for our
own
self-promotion. I can easily envision a mocking criticism of us as
a
non-serious work if we all start writing entries about ourselves.
"Of
the 1,234 page-length biographies in wikipedia, fully 10% of them
are
of Wikipedia contributors writing about themselves." Ick.
I think that I've found a loophole: criteria for inclusion of
biographies
state that anyone who writes for a publication with circulation higher then 5,000, could be included. And when Wikipedia 1.0 gets published... So, perhaps the rule should be changed to "a publication except Wikipedia"
;)
We should assume common sense and respect among our membership, rather than legalistic numbskullery.
We don't need to try to close loopholes--nor should we consider the criteria for inclusion anything more than suggestions to guide the informed decision-making of our intelligent, reasonable members.
The Cunctator wrote:
We don't need to try to close loopholes--nor should we consider the criteria for inclusion anything more than suggestions to guide the informed decision-making of our intelligent, reasonable members.
I agree completely. I certainly don't mean for my comments here to be taken as rule-making, nor even as proposing a rule of any kind. I'm just saying that I encourage people to be modest in such matters, and I encourage people to recuse themselves whenever there might be an appearance of impropriety.
--Jimbo