On 7/15/07, Charlotte Webb <charlottethewebb(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/15/07, K P <kpbotany(a)gmail.com> wrote:
(I've found that if there is a COI involved
offering to improve the
article backfires seriously--no one with a COI can see their own
crap.)
if it's good crap, nothing else matters. I never liked the "COI"
buzzword any more than the "notability" one.
Overheard on Wikipedia (name the song and performer, be the sixth caller):
"in a nutshell: Comment on content, not on
the contributor."
But if you try telling that to the self-appointed "COI police" and
yes, you will most certainly be called a troll (not that most of them
would recognize the above quotation).
—C.W.
The problem with the COI police is they don't understand that having a
COI doesn't make the article's topic non-notable--I have to comment on
about 20% of the AfDs I participate in with the quote from the COI
page about it not being a reason for deletion, yet many deletionists
do offer up COI.
One reason they do wind up on AfD all the tim, is COI articles are
oftentimes some of the most poorly written crap on Wikipedia.
It's all this extremism. I can't say to someone, look your COI makes
this article pure crap, can you back off and let someone competenet
write the article, because the COI cops will say, "See it should be
deleted." What I want to be able to do is delete the COI editor for
long enough to get the article up to snuff.
And when the contributor's content is pure-unadorned crap, they're not
really able to understand comments like, "your article needs rewritten
for a general audience, the content needs arranged in a logical and
flowing manner for the reader, words should be spelled with a variant
of the English language, you should use complete sentences (they must
have subjects it's often difficult information to impart), this is a
general audience, just because you wrote the technical paper on the
subject doesn't mean you should be allowed to publish on Wiki, please
use paragraphs, a set of 7 different lists does not an article make,
the sources have to be related to what you claim they say, even if you
can read the author's mind...."
I've had serious problems with COI editors, like the Leah01 Daniel
Rodriguez sock-puppet family. It's a good article, I'd like it to
stay that way, and it can, as long as this family of sock puppets
keeps their mitts off of it.
COI isn't just a buzzword, it's a real problem with a lot of people
intent on using Wikipedia as their promotional venue.
But the COI police aren't helping.
KP