COI Request for Comment Options

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Has anyone started a thread on this yet? (link to RfC) I am struck by the fact that there is plenty of highly intelligent discussion there. I like this comment by Jclemens:

Likewise, editors who violate our content guidelines can do so just as easily out of personal ideology as they can for direct or indirect monetary gain.

I think also that people who have a genuine problem with COI are not likely to disclose it, so there is no point in penalizing the honest editors who do disclose it. The "View by Hipocrite" backs up my hunch that he is a significant dick. He says that "Wikipedia, the community, does an incredibly poor job of protecting its editors who attempt to stem the tide of this torrent of disinformation" -- and of course, it's always the other guy who is making a torrent of disinformation, and it's always you and your crew trying to stem the tide with your own torrent of "correct" information.

This post has been edited by It's the blimp, Frank:

[EricBarbour]

View by Nobody Ent

Says here "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." so anyone should be allowed to edit.

Support

Nobody Ent 02:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

Sure, it says that, but we also refer to policies and guidelines. At a simplistic level, anyone can edit but not if you're blocked... Babakathy (talk) 09:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

That is no more of an absolute than WP:AGF. If that was a hard-and-fast rule we could never protect or semiprotect pages. Saying "most people can edit most pages" would be the most accurate way to put it, but is much more clumsy than "anyone can edit" so the latter expression is used. -- Atamaé ­ 16:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I certainly hope that we're not going to let a slogan override ten years of reasoned discussion, and tens of thousands of selective blocks, regarding who we don't want to allow to edit. Or is this a proposal to do away with the Arbitration Committee, whose job is essentially to decide who won't be allowed to edit, under which specific circumstances? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

While I embrace the spirit of that statement, it is without context a dangerous oversimplification. I doubt that the proposer means 'unblock all our banned editors', but in all realism, certain people have to be excluded from "anyone". The purpose of this RfC is to see if paid editors and editors with strong COI in the areas they edit are to be excluded from "anyone" and to what extent. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

We regularly stop people from editing, for many issues, including vandalism and disruption. If we held the "freedom to edit" to the absolute standard this implies, Wikipedia would never work as we could never stop vandals from editing either. See Shouting fire in a crowded theater and Schenck v. United States for an anlogous restriction on another important freedom, that being speech. --Jayron32 19:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose per a number of comments above. Pinetalk 04:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. Anyone that follows the rules can edit. Anyone can walk thru my gangway as long as they follow the rules. ```Buster Seven Talk 09:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Where does WP:COI say that someone is not allowed to edit? And if someone is using WP:COI to disallow someone to edit, WP:AN/I is thataway. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

That is a slogan, not meant to be taken literally out of context; there is a difference between freedom and anarchy. Miniapolis (talk) 00:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Yes any one can but no not everyone may. Banned editors may not edit WP. Editors who are blocked may not edit WP. Editors who attempt to subvert our articles to do something other than present neutral well sourced information (for what ever reason) may not either.--Cailil talk 14:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I can't tell which is more stupid, Nobody Ent or the "block them! punish them!" gang.

As long as they're arguing about this, why aren't they also making up a "policy" that defines what a "banned editor" is?
(Well, you all know why, it just invalidates this entire RFC. As usual.)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: