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

[charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com]

Ray Saintonge wrote

> Conflicts of interest are a fact of life, and should not in themselves 
> bar a person from editing a subject.  It's more important that potential 
> conflicts of interest be declared so that the person's perspective is 
> clear. 

The WP:COI page Geoffrey Kohs is attacking has had wording added recently, to cover just that feature of 'declarations of interest'. It would be pleasant to have some credit given for this, rather than the blanket condemnation.

I don't think WP should actually advise people whether to declare an interest or not. The consequences are not calculable, and the onus is on a person to decide on pros and cons. That is how the page treats the issue.

 While neutrality is important, and articles should clearly 
> approach neutrality more closely with each edit, no-one can completely 
> divorce himself from his own perspective on a controversial issue.  A 
> person directly connected with a company may very well quote from the 
> company's PR material; that's fine because he can very well be an 
> authority on what the company's point of view really is.  Editing that 
> should not distort what the company is trying to say.  If the company's 
> statements differ from what it actually does that needs to be expressed 
> too, but this is in addition to rather than instead of the company's 
> propaganda.

We don't really have problem with informed people fact-checking and providing citations. As I think would be common ground, it rarely stops there. If people battle over prominence of criticism, over reliability of sources, over balance of material appropriate to NPOV, then one gets the everyday debates. And, as WP:COI says, proper Wikipedians edit from both sides. Hired flacks may well not.

> The contrast that you make between the band manager and the climate 
> change crusader is interesting.  There is a lot of controversy about 
> climate change, but you seem to support a lighter application of the 
> rules in this case than with the band manager in an article that is of 
> more limited importance.  In the absence of further information why not 
> let the band manager's comments stand if they are not of a controversial 
> nature?

I think we do. But this doesn't remove the conflict, as such. For a band, the absence of fans who would add verifiable material is a prima facie argument that the band is not too notable. For academic areas, there is no such argument. Conflicts of interest are defined in terms of interests cutting across WP's interests. Academia's model is broadly in line with WP's: make information public. Academics hit conflict of interest mainly if they try to skew the relative importance of their sub-area relative to other areas.

> The advice of other editors is to be considered, but a claim that 
> someone is in a conflict of interest is often a personal attack.  It can 
> too often be used as a bullying tactic to make the opposing POV dominant.

The new WP:COI advises specifically against introducing COI as an adversarial tactic in POV disputes. Again, some acknowledgement from Geoffrey Kohs that this improves the guideline would be welcome.

Charles

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