Hi folks!
Two Community Fellowship Proposals you might be interested in:
The Wikipedia Adventure is a dynamic, interactive learning game about how to use Wikipedia (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Fellowships/Project_Ideas/The_Wikip...).
The Wikipedia Library is a single point of access for donated resources like HighBeam, Credo and JSTOR (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Fellowships/Project_Ideas/The_Wikip...).
Feedback on either would be great!
Jake Orlowitz Wikipedia editor: Ocaasi http://enwp.org/User:Ocaasi wikiocaasi@yahoo.com
Hi, I would love feedback about a proposal to help improve the relationship between COI editors and Wikipedia.
The idea is to guide paid/PR/Corporate participants--who follow a list of ethics and best practices--to success in their editing. I've detailed the concept here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COI_certification
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts, Jake Orlowitz Wikipedia editor: Ocaasi http://enwp.org/User:Ocaasi wikiocaasi@yahoo.com
On 28 July 2012 17:47, Ocaasi Ocaasi wikiocaasi@yahoo.com wrote:
Hi, I would love feedback about a proposal to help improve the relationship between COI editors and Wikipedia. The idea is to guide paid/PR/Corporate participants--who follow a list of ethics and best practices--to success in their editing. I've detailed the concept here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COI_certification
Immediately strikes me as a way too heavyweight approach to a not-bad idea. Does it need to be that big a thing? (Perhaps it does.)
- d.
Hello,
Conflict of Interest (CoI) is a much bigger issue than paid editing. I have seen several serious CoI within Wikipedia where the editors are not strictly paid because they edit WP, nevertheless they do not respect the basic NPOV rules: allowing other opinions to be heard, balancing sources from various organisations (medias / professional / non profit organisations, etc.). I have suggested some basic rules about this on the French WP, but not only they were blankly rejected, but I was barred from mentioning the whole subject. The first step against CoI is making the editors conscious that, because of their profession, background, culture, etc., they may have a bias on a subject.
Yann
2012/7/28 Ocaasi Ocaasi wikiocaasi@yahoo.com:
Hi, I would love feedback about a proposal to help improve the relationship between COI editors and Wikipedia.
The idea is to guide paid/PR/Corporate participants--who follow a list of ethics and best practices--to success in their editing. I've detailed the concept here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COI_certification
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts,
Jake Orlowitz Wikipedia editor: Ocaasi http://enwp.org/User:Ocaasi wikiocaasi@yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Yann Forget, 01/08/2012 13:13:
I have suggested some basic rules about this on the French WP, but not only they were blankly rejected, but I was barred from mentioning the whole subject. The first step against CoI is making the editors conscious that, because of their profession, background, culture, etc., they may have a bias on a subject.
We regularly discuss this in the Italian community about the so called subject matter experts, reegularly coming to the conclusion that we surely make it clear that their opinions/original research is not welcome (it regularly gets deleted), the question is whether thay can find a way to contribute or they're unrecoverable.
Nemo
On 8/1/12 1:51 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
Yann Forget, 01/08/2012 13:13:
I have suggested some basic rules about this on the French WP, but not only they were blankly rejected, but I was barred from mentioning the whole subject. The first step against CoI is making the editors conscious that, because of their profession, background, culture, etc., they may have a bias on a subject.
We regularly discuss this in the Italian community about the so called subject matter experts, reegularly coming to the conclusion that we surely make it clear that their opinions/original research is not welcome (it regularly gets deleted), the question is whether thay can find a way to contribute or they're unrecoverable.
I think it can work well, if the Wikipedia manages to develop a core of "expert" editors in an area who also understand Wikipedia norms, and can spread that culture. On the English Wikipedia this works reasonably well in some of the scientific and mathematical areas, where most of the involved academics understand that they need to cite third-party reliable sources for statements (increasingly true in the history editing as well, I believe). On the other hand, there is still some CoI that goes on now and then, with people writing articles to promote their own findings (or even an article on their lab, university, or themselves).
-Mark
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org