Austin Hair, you have very recently publicly stated: "Greg Kohs went beyond being merely critical (which is welcome, and even encouraged) to the point of being antisocial and counterproductive."
This is in follow-up to calling him "completely unable" to keep contributions "civil".
In the past, David Gerard has insinuated that he is a "dick" on the list you moderate. Phoebe Ayers has hinted that "harassment" may be a problem of his. Neither member of the list has been publicly rebuked by any on your moderating team, though their insinuations are offensive to us.
However, you were asked privately, and Samuel Klein as well, to please point out what has been uncivil (and now "antisocial") about any of the last five of Kohs' posts to the Foundation-l mailing list. You have failed to respond to that question. Samuel has failed to respond to that question.
So, I ask here, what has been uncivil or antisocial about any of the most recent five of Kohs' posts to Foundation-l?
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061602.html
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061461.html
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-October/061456.html
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-August/060702.html
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-August/060441.html
This should take no more than 3 or 4 minutes of your time. You refuse to take that time, yet you find the time to label Kohs "antisocial" (which is really quite comical, considering his expansive list of friends on Facebook).
How many hours have already been wasted on Foundation-l, thanks to your recent judgment? How many more hours will be wasted as we move forward with the next steps? (You don't really think this is "over", do you? Kohs will likely return with sockpuppets on the mailing list. He is relentless when prodded.) Or, you could just admit that you've made a mistake, apologize, and then we all move on. He's already gotten bored with Wikisource, Wikibooks, and Wikiversity, where he's been unblocked -- and yet given excellent free content before he faded off.
H.N.
Kohs will likely return with sockpuppets on the mailing list. He is relentless when prodded.)
H.N.
Yes, but he is relentless when not prodded. Unless we chose to open up Wikipedia to paid editing of the sort he does he will probably continue to be relentless.
When I was checking out thekohser on freelancer.com I found a couple of other Wikipedia editors who were bidding on contracts to edit Wikipedia for money.
One, who had completed two contracts and had accepted a third, seems to have given up. The other seems to be an excellent editor, but at this point I have not identified a particular contract of theirs.
The question remains: what do we expect of someone who edits Wikipedia, or any other foundation project, for money. And frankly, why would we make trouble for someone living in Bangladesh that is earning what is a month's salary there, $30, in return for adding an article about some marginally notable business to Wikipedia?
Our policies remain somewhat unclear, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Paid_editing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Paid_editing_%28policy%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Paid_editing_%28guideline%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Paid_editing_%28guideline%29/Noticebo...
And the Reward Board:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reward_board#Money
These examples are from the English Wikipedia, but potentially apply to any foundation project.
Fred
Since the can of worms has been opened...
In my opinion, which ironically is probably similar to Greg Kohs', having any stance on paid editing of Wikipedia is pointless. Most large companies and organizations are already paying people to edit Wikipedia (albeit quietly). The ones we know about and complain about are the companies that are too small to do it in-house and try to outsource it. Any policy we enact is going to be ignored by the people doing it quietly and will only affect the people doing it publicly (like Kohs). The only way we can be effective in this regard is to strengthen our COI, NPOV, OR, and V policies to minimize misuse of Wikipedia (paid or not).
That said, I still believe that Kohs has gone far beyond being a useful critic. Yes, he has points that are worth discussion, but that doesn't mean we have to overlook his disruptive behavior. He clearly has an axe to grind and intends to grind it. We don't have to facilitate that.
Ryan Kaldari
On 10/22/10 2:04 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
Yes, but he is relentless when not prodded. Unless we chose to open up Wikipedia to paid editing of the sort he does he will probably continue to be relentless.
When I was checking out thekohser on freelancer.com I found a couple of other Wikipedia editors who were bidding on contracts to edit Wikipedia for money.
One, who had completed two contracts and had accepted a third, seems to have given up. The other seems to be an excellent editor, but at this point I have not identified a particular contract of theirs.
The question remains: what do we expect of someone who edits Wikipedia, or any other foundation project, for money. And frankly, why would we make trouble for someone living in Bangladesh that is earning what is a month's salary there, $30, in return for adding an article about some marginally notable business to Wikipedia?
Our policies remain somewhat unclear, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Paid_editing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Paid_editing_%28policy%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Paid_editing_%28guideline%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Paid_editing_%28guideline%29/Noticebo...
And the Reward Board:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reward_board#Money
These examples are from the English Wikipedia, but potentially apply to any foundation project.
Fred
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Obviously, the ones who do better at it are the ones we cannot detect. My experience is that some in-house PR people do a very poor and easily detectable job. An expert specialist who knows what is actually wanted will do far better than a PR generalist who approaches it like any other PR. I have, however, seen some PR people from institutions learn the merits of entering a purely factual description and of doing only articles on the notable people there, not the borderline ones.
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 5:38 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
Since the can of worms has been opened...
In my opinion, which ironically is probably similar to Greg Kohs', having any stance on paid editing of Wikipedia is pointless. Most large companies and organizations are already paying people to edit Wikipedia (albeit quietly). The ones we know about and complain about are the companies that are too small to do it in-house and try to outsource it. Any policy we enact is going to be ignored by the people doing it quietly and will only affect the people doing it publicly (like Kohs). The only way we can be effective in this regard is to strengthen our COI, NPOV, OR, and V policies to minimize misuse of Wikipedia (paid or not).
That said, I still believe that Kohs has gone far beyond being a useful critic. Yes, he has points that are worth discussion, but that doesn't mean we have to overlook his disruptive behavior. He clearly has an axe to grind and intends to grind it. We don't have to facilitate that.
Ryan Kaldari
On 10/22/10 2:04 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
Yes, but he is relentless when not prodded. Unless we chose to open up Wikipedia to paid editing of the sort he does he will probably continue to be relentless.
When I was checking out thekohser on freelancer.com I found a couple of other Wikipedia editors who were bidding on contracts to edit Wikipedia for money.
One, who had completed two contracts and had accepted a third, seems to have given up. The other seems to be an excellent editor, but at this point I have not identified a particular contract of theirs.
The question remains: what do we expect of someone who edits Wikipedia, or any other foundation project, for money. And frankly, why would we make trouble for someone living in Bangladesh that is earning what is a month's salary there, $30, in return for adding an article about some marginally notable business to Wikipedia?
Our policies remain somewhat unclear, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Paid_editing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Paid_editing_%28policy%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Paid_editing_%28guideline%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Paid_editing_%28guideline%29/Noticebo...
And the Reward Board:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reward_board#Money
These examples are from the English Wikipedia, but potentially apply to any foundation project.
Fred
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Obviously, the ones who do better at it are the ones we cannot detect.
It is not so much that they cannot be detected, after all their editing has purpose and they are usually both aggressive and persistent. However, adequate demonstration of such patterns of activity to other administrators, or ultimately, to a committee is not trivial.
The essential clue is that they have a strong point of view about something that no ordinary person would be exercised about, some company or product with public relations deficits.
Ultimately, pursuit of any but the most clumsy is hard thankless work. Beating on the clumsy, is, of course, a necessary task if only to correct bad editing.
Fred
No. You underestimate their subtlety and professionalism.. See Durova, at http://searchengineland.com/seo-tips-tactics-from-a-wikipedia-insider-11715 . I am aware of editing by paid editing that is neither aggressive nor inappropriate. Really good PR people can learn to be careful not to express a POV when they know they are not supposed to.
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 6:20 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Obviously, the ones who do better at it are the ones we cannot detect.
It is not so much that they cannot be detected, after all their editing has purpose and they are usually both aggressive and persistent. However, adequate demonstration of such patterns of activity to other administrators, or ultimately, to a committee is not trivial.
The essential clue is that they have a strong point of view about something that no ordinary person would be exercised about, some company or product with public relations deficits.
Ultimately, pursuit of any but the most clumsy is hard thankless work. Beating on the clumsy, is, of course, a necessary task if only to correct bad editing.
Fred
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 23:57, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
Obviously, the ones who do better at it are the ones we cannot detect. My experience is that some in-house PR people do a very poor and easily detectable job. An expert specialist who knows what is actually wanted will do far better than a PR generalist who approaches it like any other PR. I have, however, seen some PR people from institutions learn the merits of entering a purely factual description and of doing only articles on the notable people there, not the borderline ones.
I had, actually, good experiences with PR agencies.
Last two years I had contact with a couple of them. I was explaining to them how to write articles which would stay on Wikipedia. For free, while there were soft pressure to take money.
They are usually much more reasonable than ordinary POV-pushers. They want to do their job and nothing more.
It is our interest to have them as editors and to know that they are editing. They are doing useful job. At last, they are contributing their knowledge to the free knowledge pool.
As Ryan said, many companies are doing that already. Some of them are doing that in-house, some of them are doing that via PR companies. Just the smallest ones are doing that at market. And it is not just about companies, but about politicians and various state structures.
So, the question is not do we want that, as it will be no matter do we want, but how to incorporate them in the best interest of our projects. Explaining to them what the rules are,. what is acceptable and what is not -- should be our first priority in this area.
If we stay where we are, at the top of informational sources on Internet, I think that we would have more and more PR departments and agencies as our editors. And the best way is to build an efficient framework for such environment. I don't know how it should look exactly, but I think that we are already doing a good job, as we are not making witch hunts against them.
The most of our editors are not core ones and the most of them have some interest to edit Wikimedia projects. Interest could be a passion, "showing the truth", self-promotion, but it could be money, too. And we don't want to push away our editors.
I think that the field for professional Wikipedians are exactly PR departments and agencies. And I prefer much more to see two or more professionals who are arguing by using facts, than two or more amateur POV-pushers whose best argument are personal attacks.
I think that the field for professional Wikipedians are exactly PR departments and agencies. And I prefer much more to see two or more professionals who are arguing by using facts, than two or more amateur POV-pushers whose best argument are personal attacks.
So, to take a random example that I have not looked at, what would a public relations firm hired by the maker of Lipitor be trying to accomplish? And what is the result if they are skillful in terms of having collaborative editing skills? Is this now, or could it develop, as a specialized profession?
Is this different from an agent of Meg Whitman, Fruit Loops, the Anglican Church, the government of Iceland? Or are they all just another anonymous editor?
Does disclosure of conflict of interest actually make sense?
Fred
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 00:02, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
So, to take a random example that I have not looked at, what would a public relations firm hired by the maker of Lipitor be trying to accomplish?
Someone working for the company that makes Lipitor would try to stop mainstream media sources being used in the article, because it's the media that has been pointing out problems with these drugs. And that's exactly what happens on these articles, but it's unfortunately Wikipedians who are doing it. Their motives are good -- to keep out nonsense -- but the effect is to turn those articles into something the manufacturers and their PR people would be very happy with.
Look at our article -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atorvastatin There is criticism, no mention of how much money the drug is making for the company, no mention of how widespread and unquestioned the prescription of these drugs is. And I know from experience at another statin article that it would be very difficult to add this material.
Some examples of the criticism available in the media, which you almost certainly won't find on Wikipedia:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/4974840/Wonder-drug-that-stole-my-memory.h...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/5257744/Statins-life-saving-wonder-drugs-o...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/expathealth/4204363/The-worrying-wonder-dr...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2498489.stm
Sarah
On 23/10/2010 08:02, SlimVirgin wrote:
Look at our article -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atorvastatin There is criticism, no mention of how much money the drug is making for the company, no mention of how widespread and unquestioned the prescription of these drugs is. And I know from experience at another statin article that it would be very difficult to add this material.
Some examples of the criticism available in the media, which you almost certainly won't find on Wikipedia:
OK this is going to be controversial but have you ever considered taht maybe you shouldn't have anything on Atorvastatin other than what comes as the medical advice in the packaging? One cannot provide any useful advice on whether someone should use the drug or not that should be between the patient and their doctor. I mean its not as if wikipedia is an expert pharmacopeia as wikipedia doesn't have experts weighing the evidence one way or the other, all you can do is mimic the day to day controversy which of its very nature is going to be conflict ridden.
If there are still any pretensions of being encyclopaedic here then any such articles should only be written once the conflict has been resolved.
Example here is the MMR article from one period in 2004:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MMR_vaccine&oldid=6127791
any parent reading that article at that time is highly unlikely to have opted for the vaccine. Or take the final paragraph here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MMR_vaccine&oldid=6127791#The_...
adding every rumour, statement, or innuendo that someone somewhere in the world might have once said, however wrong, is unencyclopeadic. It is certainly not without consequences. How many children were made ill by those paragraphs? http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/vaxpictures/measles3.htm http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/vaxpictures/measles1.htm http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/vaxpictures/mumps1.htm http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/vaxpictures/mumps2.htm http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/vaxpictures.htm
On 23/10/2010 08:02, SlimVirgin wrote:
Look at our article -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atorvastatin There is criticism, no mention of how much money the drug is making for the company, no mention of how widespread and unquestioned the prescription of these drugs is. And I know from experience at another statin article that it would be very difficult to add this material.
Some examples of the criticism available in the media, which you almost certainly won't find on Wikipedia:
OK this is going to be controversial but have you ever considered taht maybe you shouldn't have anything on Atorvastatin other than what comes as the medical advice in the packaging? One cannot provide any useful advice on whether someone should use the drug or not that should be between the patient and their doctor. I mean its not as if wikipedia is an expert pharmacopeia as wikipedia doesn't have experts weighing the evidence one way or the other, all you can do is mimic the day to day controversy which of its very nature is going to be conflict ridden.
A survey of doctors in the United States showed that about 50% at least occasionally look at Wikipedia while about 5% edit at least a little. Doctors, it turns out, are just smart, grown-up college students who need information in a convenient accessible format. So, it turns out, we're in the business. We had a long discussion about not giving detailed information about appropriate doses of drugs, information that patients might rely on to their detriment.
We are not experts in medicine, what we do is summarize the findings of experts. The difficulty with that is that only brief abstracts of most research are available to most of us.
Fred
On 23/10/2010 13:46, Fred Bauder wrote:
On 23/10/2010 08:02, SlimVirgin wrote:
Look at our article -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atorvastatin There is criticism, no mention of how much money the drug is making for the company, no mention of how widespread and unquestioned the prescription of these drugs is. And I know from experience at another statin article that it would be very difficult to add this material.
Some examples of the criticism available in the media, which you almost certainly won't find on Wikipedia:
OK this is going to be controversial but have you ever considered taht maybe you shouldn't have anything on Atorvastatin other than what comes as the medical advice in the packaging? One cannot provide any useful advice on whether someone should use the drug or not that should be between the patient and their doctor. I mean its not as if wikipedia is an expert pharmacopeia as wikipedia doesn't have experts weighing the evidence one way or the other, all you can do is mimic the day to day controversy which of its very nature is going to be conflict ridden.
A survey of doctors in the United States showed that about 50% at least occasionally look at Wikipedia while about 5% edit at least a little. Doctors, it turns out, are just smart, grown-up college students who need information in a convenient accessible format. So, it turns out, we're in the business. We had a long discussion about not giving detailed information about appropriate doses of drugs, information that patients might rely on to their detriment.
We are not experts in medicine, what we do is summarize the findings of experts. The difficulty with that is that only brief abstracts of most research are available to most of us.
Someone that is familiar with a subject can give appropriate weight to the information presented. I well recall going round to see some one who had just had cancer surgery, when I got there they were absolutely devastated as they'd just read on the internet that the 5 year survival rate was 90% and thought that meant that 90% died within five years. A mistake on their part that was easily put right. However if some one had been vandalizing a wiki page to say that the survival rate was 10% ...
Again go back to the MMR article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MMR_vaccine&oldid=6127791#The_...
the stupid CJD link lasted for 2 years or more. What was a parent that came across that supposed to think?
A stupid PR agency would do just that. A good one , writing for any medium, would try to make sure that positive sources are also included, that the presentation was balanced., and that is was factual, not tabloid hysteria and exaggeration. A really good one that understands Wikipedia would for an article like this do it on the talk p, in order to avoid the likely criticism that would follow no matter how good the edits might be.
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 3:02 AM, SlimVirgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Someone working for the company that makes Lipitor would try to stop mainstream media sources being used in the article, because it's the media that has been pointing out problems with these drugs. And that's exactly what happens on these articles, but it's unfortunately Wikipedians who are doing it. Their motives are good -- to keep out nonsense -- but the effect is to turn those articles into something the manufacturers and their PR people would be very happy with.
Sarah
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
--- On Sat, 23/10/10, SlimVirgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Someone working for the company that makes Lipitor would try to stop mainstream media sources being used in the article, because it's the media that has been pointing out problems with these drugs. And that's exactly what happens on these articles, but it's unfortunately Wikipedians who are doing it. Their motives are good -- to keep out nonsense -- but the effect is to turn those articles into something the manufacturers and their PR people would be very happy with.
Look at our article -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atorvastatin There is criticism, no mention of how much money the drug is making for the company, no mention of how widespread and unquestioned the prescription of these drugs is. And I know from experience at another statin article that it would be very difficult to add this material.
Some examples of the criticism available in the media, which you almost certainly won't find on Wikipedia: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/4974840/Wonder-drug-that-stole-my-memory.h...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/5257744/Statins-life-saving-wonder-drugs-o...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/expathealth/4204363/The-worrying-wonder-dr...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2498489.stm
Sarah
To be sure, information on side effects can be found in the scholarly literature. This is usually where the press gets it from.
Enter simvastatin + "memory loss" in google scholar, and you get 1,950 (!) hits, including this study from 2001:
http://www.atypon-link.com/PPI/doi/abs/10.1592/phco.21.7.767.34577
"Statin-associated memory loss: analysis of 60 case reports and review of the literature" (2003) has 130 scholarly citations, providing ample justification to include the study's findings in the relevant article(s).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12885101
As far as reporting of such scientific results is concerned, scholarly sources are preferable.
What the media add, as in the BBC article you linked, is the socio-economic, current-affairs angle -- pointing out the economies involved, the millions and billions that pharmaceutical companies make off these drugs, and the promotional and propaganda efforts that this necessarily entails.
That is something clinical studies will not address. Articles on such products need something like a "reception" section. Media articles are indispensable for that.
WP:MEDRS specifically allows the use of media sources for such purposes. If editors edit-war this information out, it needs to go to a noticeboard, or to arbitration.
Andreas
--- On Sat, 23/10/10, SlimVirgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Someone working for the company that makes Lipitor would try to stop mainstream media sources being used in the article, because it's the media that has been pointing out problems with these drugs. And that's exactly what happens on these articles, but it's unfortunately Wikipedians who are doing it. Their motives are good -- to keep out nonsense -- but the effect is to turn those articles into something the manufacturers and their PR people would be very happy with.
Look at our article -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atorvastatin There is criticism, no mention of how much money the drug is making for the company, no mention of how widespread and unquestioned the prescription of these drugs is. And I know from experience at another statin article that it would be very difficult to add this material.
Some examples of the criticism available in the media, which you almost certainly won't find on Wikipedia: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/4974840/Wonder-drug-that-stole-my-memory.h...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/5257744/Statins-life-saving-wonder-drugs-o...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/expathealth/4204363/The-worrying-wonder-dr...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2498489.stm
Sarah
To be sure, information on side effects can be found in the scholarly literature. This is usually where the press gets it from.
Enter simvastatin + "memory loss" in google scholar, and you get 1,950 (!) hits, including this study from 2001:
http://www.atypon-link.com/PPI/doi/abs/10.1592/phco.21.7.767.34577
"Statin-associated memory loss: analysis of 60 case reports and review of the literature" (2003) has 130 scholarly citations, providing ample justification to include the study's findings in the relevant article(s).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12885101
As far as reporting of such scientific results is concerned, scholarly sources are preferable.
What the media add, as in the BBC article you linked, is the socio-economic, current-affairs angle -- pointing out the economies involved, the millions and billions that pharmaceutical companies make off these drugs, and the promotional and propaganda efforts that this necessarily entails.
That is something clinical studies will not address. Articles on such products need something like a "reception" section. Media articles are indispensable for that.
WP:MEDRS specifically allows the use of media sources for such purposes. If editors edit-war this information out, it needs to go to a noticeboard, or to arbitration.
Andreas
I added a section on memory loss to that article, and used the source you cited as well as a Wall Street Journal article. I don't much care for the Telegraph myself, and didn't use it. In fact it was an anecdotal account of a single person.
Now, let's see if anyone shows up to remove this black mark... And observe how they go about it.
Fred
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 19:43, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
--- On Sat, 23/10/10, SlimVirgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Someone working for the company that makes Lipitor would try to stop mainstream media sources being used in the article, because it's the media that has been pointing out problems with these drugs. And that's exactly what happens on these articles, but it's unfortunately Wikipedians who are doing it. Their motives are good -- to keep out nonsense -- but the effect is to turn those articles into something the manufacturers and their PR people would be very happy with.
To be sure, information on side effects can be found in the scholarly literature. This is usually where the press gets it from.
WP:MEDRS specifically allows the use of media sources for such purposes. If editors edit-war this information out, it needs to go to a noticeboard, or to arbitration.
Andreas
I added a section on memory loss to that article, and used the source you cited as well as a Wall Street Journal article. I don't much care for the Telegraph myself, and didn't use it. In fact it was an anecdotal account of a single person.
Now, let's see if anyone shows up to remove this black mark... And observe how they go about it.
I tried to add the BBC report a few months ago to [[Statin]], along with the study the report was based on, but it was removed several times and I gave up in the end.
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 08:02, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
So, to take a random example that I have not looked at, what would a public relations firm hired by the maker of Lipitor be trying to accomplish? And what is the result if they are skillful in terms of having collaborative editing skills? Is this now, or could it develop, as a specialized profession?
What I find to be easy to explain to any reasonable PR person is to read the rules and not to go outside of them. The vast majority of PR needs in relation to Wikipedia (and some other Wikimedia projects, most notably Wikinews) is visibility, not PR crisis management.
From my experience, it was easy to explain to them that Wikipedia
shouldn't and can't be used for spreading false information and POV in any way. Usually, I tell them to send to me the text and then I mark problematic parts. Sometimes, texts need just basic redaction, sometimes they are PR junk. But, at the end, they are usually much better than regular articles at Wikipedia: those texts have sources for every claim. Yes, I had one negative experience, but I had five or more good.
Note that PR agencies (and freelancers) are the most useful (not PR departments of various companies). After one set of explanations, they learn how to do it next time, for another client.
It is already regular practice that PR courses are covering marketing on Wikipedia as important part of online PR. The courses are not giving the most of necessary details for editing Wikipedia, but they explain importance of Wikipedia in contemporary PR.
I would like to see a couple of PR agencies dealing exclusively and openly with Wikimedia projects, as contractors of other companies and PR agencies. They would learn our rules and they would be the filter for PR junk and unreasonable wishes of companies inside of the PR crisis.
Is this different from an agent of Meg Whitman, Fruit Loops, the Anglican Church, the government of Iceland? Or are they all just another anonymous editor?
Does disclosure of conflict of interest actually make sense?
Not so strictly speaking, it is highly likely that a random inhabitant of Iceland is in COI with texts related to Iceland. 300.000 of monoethnic inhabitants don't give much of diversity. Strictly speaking, any adherent of Anglicanism, any member of Democratic Party of USA and any inhabitant of Serbia are in COI if articles are about Anglican Church, DP and Serbia, respectively.
I think that COI should be redefined. It is better to have them visible. It is our consistency which matters. COI exists disclosed or not.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org