I created a couple of articles about local Catholic churches (of outstanding architecture). I have been away on campus for a while and have not been able to check my articles. I will admit that my original wasn't great but it has now been transformed into an advert for the current order running the church see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Church_of_the_Holy_Name_of_Jesus%2... - the new text is very dodgy but definately compliments my original text. Should I be bold and delete the text which offends me? I am unfortunately a congregant of the church and I know that the person who has written most of the new text is a cleric in the order. From both sides there is a conflict of interest. comments?
I got a lot out of it despite the obvious lack of references, which is what sometimes happens when people well acquainted with a subject write about it, a very good detailed article with few references. As long as you don't start fighting one another, I see little harm in some "puffing". Who better than someone acquainted with a subject to look up the appropriate references?
Conflict of interest is more than involvement. It is seeking, and attempting to maintain advantage, through skewing the content of the article. Insisting on it; thus saddling the encyclopedia with an inferior article which is strongly defended. As to the Oratory of Saint Philip Neri, who objectively comments on it? I ask because I do not know. Such objective comments are the appropriate source. What is the proper content of objective comments about a religious order or a congregation? Who studies either and measures them? What can you say that is useful or sensible to the rest of the world, who is neither English, Irish, nor Catholic?
Fred
I created a couple of articles about local Catholic churches (of outstanding architecture). I have been away on campus for a while and have not been able to check my articles. I will admit that my original wasn't great but it has now been transformed into an advert for the current order running the church see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Church_of_the_Holy_Name_of_Jesus%2...
the new text is very dodgy but definately compliments my original text. Should I be bold and delete the text which offends me? I am unfortunately a congregant of the church and I know that the person who has written most of the new text is a cleric in the order. From both sides there is a conflict of interest. comments? _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
michael west wrote:
I created a couple of articles about local Catholic churches (of outstanding architecture). I have been away on campus for a while and have not been able to check my articles. I will admit that my original wasn't great but it has now been transformed into an advert for the current order running the church see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Church_of_the_Holy_Name_of_Jesus%2...
the new text is very dodgy but definately compliments my original text. Should I be bold and delete the text which offends me? I am unfortunately a congregant of the church and I know that the person who has written most of the new text is a cleric in the order. From both sides there is a conflict of interest. comments?
Hi Michael,
As you are both personally involved in the church concerned, suggested that in order to avoid 'conflict of persons' (perhaps more serious than CoI) to try and think out an 'encyclopedic' wording that you will all find OK. Is this anything to do with the Roman Rite and transubstantiation, by the way? Thanks -- luke
On 12/22/07, michael west michawest@gmail.com wrote:
Should I be bold and delete the text which offends me? I am unfortunately a congregant of the church and I know that the person who has written most of the new text is a cleric in the order. From both sides there is a conflict of interest. comments?
It's a question of priority. I think we'd rather have a mediocre article than no article. I think we'd rather have an ok article with "conflict of interest" than no article. Don't get too worked up: the "conflict of interest" rules are there to provide guidance when there is both someone from a company writing about the company, and someone who's objecting. In your small case, it sounds like there's a decent article, which probably mildly violates NPOV and V, but save your hand-wringing for more serious cases.
Steve