On 7/15/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/15/07, K P kpbotany@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