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

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_conf… 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