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

[Anthony]

On 11/4/06, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com
<charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Ray Saintonge wrote
>
> > Why is it so necessary to have everything spelled out in such detail?
> > You are making "conflict of interest" an issue that is out of all
> > proportion to its importance.
>
> Hmmm. I remember some very long threads of discussion here, quite recently, about corporate interests. Are you just assuming those will go away? Isn't it more natural to assume that with every milestone Wikipedia passes, in terms of its audience, there is a corresponding increase in the number of those who will come to edit Wikipedia, without having WP's best interests at heart, because they put something else ahead of those? Think of the need to go into what we mean by that as part of the price of success in reaching a mass audience.
>
> Charles

It seems to me that the type of people with whom this is an increasing
problem are not the type of people who are even going to read such a
long and complictated guideline, let alone care about following it.

If your relationship with an article's topic might cause someone else
to question your ability to write neutrally about it, then don't be
bold.  Explain your changes, document your additions, and back down
when challenged.  If you believe there are legal issues involved which
necessitate your edits, then contact OTRS.  And if you yourself
question your ability to write neutrally about a topic, then don't
edit the article at all.

I dunno, that seems to me like a common sense guideline to potential
conflicts of interest when it comes to writing Wikipedia articles.
This doesn't seem like a place where spelling out detailed policies is
useful, because the problem isn't one that deals with many
longstanding editors.  It also doesn't seem to be a place where there
is a strong consensus as to what exactly the policies should be.

Anthony