[WikiEN-l] Bad And Wrong Policy/Procedure/Guideline

[charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com]

"Gregory Kohs" wrote

> I think that WP:COI (or Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest) is botched.  The
> basic notion is that if you really intimately know about or care
> passionately about a topic that might have some impact on your career,
> even in some tangential way, you are either "strongly encouraged" or (just
> in case you are dense) "very strongly encouraged" to avoid editing Wikipedia
> on that topic.

Well, only if you have interests that 'conflict' with Wikipedia's.

> Following this policy means that:
> 
> In the article about the theory of general relativity, Wikipedia would
> reject the submissions of Albert Einstein, but encourage those of a talented
> high school physics student.

We would reject the edits of anyone claiming to be Einstein! We would have rejected edits from AE himself, if he had not been able to edit neutrally on the Copenhagen interpretation.
 
> In the article about Microsoft, Wikipedia would reject the submissions of
> Bill Gates, but encourage those of an amateur computer enthusiast, or
> (heaven forfend!) accept those of Steve Jobs editing anonymously.

I think we might have some problems with Mr. Gates's POV on, for example, the EU's fining of Microsoft. I think we'd have many problems with Microsoft's legal office slanting the articles about Micrsoft's litigation. Don't you?

> In the article about the Pokemon character, "Brock", Wikipedia would reject
> the submissions of conceptual creator Satoshi Tajiri, but encourage those of
> an 8-year-old kid in his underpants on his mom's computer.

Depends whether Tajiri was providing verifiable, neutral edits or not.

> In summary, regardless of whether the authoring agent can prove Notability,
> use excellent independently-sourced Citation skills, and civilly engage in
> the Editing/Discussion process, if the author stands to make any personal
> money in the process, their edits must be "strongly"
> avoided/discouraged/deleted.

Yes, I think that's right. We do think that people editing for free and without ulterior motive has made 'the house that Jimbo built' what it is. 
 
<snip>

> When you peel away all the layers of excuses and hypocrisy, let's face it,
> EVERYONE has some personally-beneficial agenda when they choose to edit one
> topic in Wikipedia over any of the 1.3 million other ones at their disposal.

Hmmm ... did it say at WP:COI that Buridan's Ass came into it? AFAIK, people who attack that guideline or say it is unworkable actually _want_ WP not to have a workable policy in this area. They find weaselly ways to get round the point: WP is quite entitled to say that those who edit and not for the good of WP, but to some other end, are to be discouraged.

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software 
Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information