[WikiEN-l] WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 49, Issue 91

[Dick Clark]

People who don't understand our project say all sorts of things. So far as I
can tell, there is no evidence that "Diebold" edited any articles. Now, of
course there is evidence that someone from the Diebold IP range did. We
shouldn't attribute actions to a group when the group is not likely the
responsible party. I mean, do you guys really think that some guy is getting
paid by Diebold to edit entries, from their location no less? C'mon, anyone
that Diebold hired to do such a thing would almost certainly be working
off-site. My guess is that it was just some guy at Diebold doing something
that his superiors didn't even know about.

I would remind my fellow Wikipedians about this passage from WP:COI

COI edits are strongly discouraged. When they cause disruption to the
encyclopedia in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, they may lead to
accounts being blocked and embarrassment for the individuals and groups who
were being promoted.[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:COI#_note-0> Merely
participating in or having professional expertise in a subject is not, by
itself, a conflict of interest.
Editors who may have a conflict of
interest<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:COI#Editors_who_may_have_a_conflict_of_interest>are
not barred from participating in articles and discussion of articles
where they have a conflict of interest, but must be careful when editing in
mainspace.

There is no policy against Diebold employees editing the Diebold article.
There are policies requiring NPOV, RS, etc. Let's not complicate things by
introducing a competing COI standard now. The existing policies work just
fine.

DC

Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 04:37:36 -0600
> From: Daniel Cannon <cannon.danielc at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Tracking ranges of anons
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <46C428F0.7010207 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> David Gerard wrote:
> > I wouldn't bother with a block myself. They haven't edited as the IP
> > in a while, so there's probably no imminent danger ... and you can bet
> > people will be watching like hawks.
> >
> > We may need to start stressing that we have no problem with people
> > editing from the CIA, DIebold or the DNC ... what is problematic is a
> > conflict of interest. A Diebold IP editing well is most welcome; a CIA
> > IP fixing up Buffy The Vampire Slayer is fine.
>
> Most definitely. The concern with Diebold is that they were editing in a
> manner that showed an obvious conflict of interest. While a block isn't
> really going to do anything to stop this in the future--the IP has been
> inactive for months, and after all of this, Diebold will probably block
> all its employees from Wikipedia--yet it gives the impression that we're
> doing something about it :) As you said, they'll be watching like
> hawks--and it's our credibility, moreso than Diebold's reputation, that
> is on the line (at least from where I'm sitting). A block shows that we
> are watching out for our 'pedia and that we don't condone such actions
> taken by corporations. (You've gotta keep in mind that a lot of people
> in the press haven't wrapped their head around this whole
> anybody-can-edit mentality, and assume that if Diebold is editing
> articles about itself, it's because we explicitly allowed them to do so.)
>
> - --
> Daniel Cannon (AmiDaniel)