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:

[Fusion]

Actually the most awkward people to deal with are often those who have some delusional theory like the "Chariots of the gods" enthusiasts. I think that they are not CoI or in it for any obvious gain. They just believe thsy have uncovered some conspiracy and it is their duty to warn others.

[Guido den Broeder]

Most Wikipedia users are cluesless when it comes to the meaning of 'conflict of interest'.

For instance, a scientist writing about stuff they know and adding their own publication to the references, will typically not have a conflict of interest. Rather, their interest as a scientist supports Wikipedia's interest.

[Peter Damian]

Actually the most awkward people to deal with are often those who have some delusional theory like the "Chariots of the gods" enthusiasts. I think that they are not CoI or in it for any obvious gain. They just believe thsy have uncovered some conspiracy and it is their duty to warn others.

In another words, they have a conflict of interest. Their interest is to warn others about a conspiracy. This conflicts with the interests of a reliable and neutral reference source.

Wikipedians imagine this can only happen when people are paid to edit.

[thekohser]

I'm not trying to give myself any big ups here, but I do find it interestingly ironic that such a discussion would be had on Wikipedia without so much as reaching out for an outside comment from the founder of the world's first and longest-running enterprise dedicated specifically to editing Wikipedia in exchange for payment.

[Vigilant]

I'm not trying to give myself any big ups here, but I do find it interestingly ironic that such a discussion would be had on Wikipedia without so much as reaching out for an outside comment from the founder of the world's first and longest-running enterprise dedicated specifically to editing Wikipedia in exchange for payment.

"Pay attention to meeeEEEeeeEEEeee"

[thekohser]

I'm not trying to give myself any big ups here, but I do find it interestingly ironic that such a discussion would be had on Wikipedia without so much as reaching out for an outside comment from the founder of the world's first and longest-running enterprise dedicated specifically to editing Wikipedia in exchange for payment.

"Pay attention to meeeEEEeeeEEEeee"

Well, that's exactly what I was trying not to say here, but your taunt is duly humorous. I really don't need to weigh in on their process, nor do I need any more exposure for my business -- I'm chock full of clients right now. I was just pointing out what seemed to be a bit odd. It would be like hosting a page discussing "the origins of Wikipedia", but not inviting Sanger to say a few words.

Does anyone else find it odd, or am I off-base here?

[Guido den Broeder]

Actually the most awkward people to deal with are often those who have some delusional theory like the "Chariots of the gods" enthusiasts. I think that they are not CoI or in it for any obvious gain. They just believe thsy have uncovered some conspiracy and it is their duty to warn others.

In another words, they have a conflict of interest. Their interest is to warn others about a conspiracy. This conflicts with the interests of a reliable and neutral reference source.

If, however, their interest is merely telling the world about their theory, then there is no conflict with Wikipedia's interest.

[melloden]

I'm not trying to give myself any big ups here, but I do find it interestingly ironic that such a discussion would be had on Wikipedia without so much as reaching out for an outside comment from the founder of the world's first and longest-running enterprise dedicated specifically to editing Wikipedia in exchange for payment.

"Pay attention to meeeEEEeeeEEEeee"

Well, that's exactly what I was trying not to say here, but your taunt is duly humorous. I really don't need to weigh in on their process, nor do I need any more exposure for my business -- I'm chock full of clients right now. I was just pointing out what seemed to be a bit odd. It would be like hosting a page discussing "the origins of Wikipedia", but not inviting Sanger to say a few words.

Does anyone else find it odd, or am I off-base here?

I don't think it's odd at all. They've all been told that you're a "long term abusive user" or whatever they call people they dislike.

Only a rational group of people would ask you for a comment Gregory.

[thekohser]

I don't think it's odd at all. They've all been told that you're a "long term abusive user" or whatever they call people they dislike.

Only a rational group of people would ask you for a comment Gregory.

Oh, to clarify... I agree with you 100%, that it's not odd for WIKIPEDIOTS to not even consider gathering my opinion on this matter. I am not of the body, so I am a non-person to them.

I guess what I really meant to ask was, "Wouldn't it be odd for a normal, educational, non-profit charity to have a public discussion on a key subject, but not even consider soliciting the input of the longest-acting player in the subject field?"

[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:

[Fusion]

I'm not trying to give myself any big ups here, but I do find it interestingly ironic that such a discussion would be had on Wikipedia without so much as reaching out for an outside comment from the founder of the world's first and longest-running enterprise dedicated specifically to editing Wikipedia in exchange for payment.

How do you know you were the first? When did you start? My understanding is that more than one such an enterprise began in the very early days indeed of Wikipedia.

[Vigilant]

I'm not trying to give myself any big ups here, but I do find it interestingly ironic that such a discussion would be had on Wikipedia without so much as reaching out for an outside comment from the founder of the world's first and longest-running enterprise dedicated specifically to editing Wikipedia in exchange for payment.

"Pay attention to meeeEEEeeeEEEeee"

Well, that's exactly what I was trying not to say here, but your taunt is duly humorous.

*snip*

Does anyone else find it odd, or am I off-base here?

I try to please my audience with my humor.

You are odd, wikipedia is odd, WR is odd.

You are off-base.

Happy to help

This post has been edited by Vigilant:

[SB_Johnny]

I'm not trying to give myself any big ups here, but I do find it interestingly ironic that such a discussion would be had on Wikipedia without so much as reaching out for an outside comment from the founder of the world's first and longest-running enterprise dedicated specifically to editing Wikipedia in exchange for payment.

How do you know you were the first? When did you start? My understanding is that more than one such an enterprise began in the very early days indeed of Wikipedia.

Wikia? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[thekohser]

How do you know you were the first? When did you start? My understanding is that more than one such an enterprise began in the very early days indeed of Wikipedia.

I registered the business as an entity in Pennsylvania in June 2006.

If you can find me an enterprise launched before that, dedicated exclusively to writing Wikipedia content for payment, I will send you a $20 prize and my apology.

Until then, better that you not muse about publicly with your "understanding", because I'm quite certain it's wrong.

[Guido den Broeder]

Note by the way, Facebook's claim that COI editing does not occur on Wikipedia, ever. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Note by the way, Facebook's claim that COI editing does not occur on Wikipedia, ever. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Link, please?

[Fusion]

I registered the business as an entity in Pennsylvania in June 2006.

If you can find me an enterprise launched before that, dedicated exclusively to writing Wikipedia content for payment, I will send you a $20 prize and my apology.

Until then, better that you not muse about publicly with your "understanding", because I'm quite certain it's wrong.

I think we are into a complex matter of definitions here. If you are saying that there is no legally registered company founded before June 2006, which has no other function than to slant Wikipedia content for payment, I know nothing to the contrary. What I was trying to say, and no doubt putting it badly so that I was misunderstood, is that companies had staff engaged as Wikipedia editors. These were earning their salaries and of course the clients were reimbursing the companies so it was editing for indeed money. I cannot give a precise date when this started because nobody will ever know who was the first, but undoubtedly it preceded June 2006.

Still, such companies doubtless did not set up new subsidiaries specifically for that purpose, for obvious reasons, so if you go by the strict rigorously literal interpretation of the words then technically you may well be right. After all, why would anyone want it as a separate company?

[thekohser]

What I was trying to say, and no doubt putting it badly so that I was misunderstood...

Yes, you did put it badly, as you're wont to do.

Of course other larger companies and individuals were dabbling in paid editing of Wikipedia, many months or perhaps years before I came onto the scene. But, I was the first to set up the practice as a specific business and to market it as such to prospective clients. I am doubtful that before June 2006 there was even a single page on any large PR company website touting a Wikipedia editing service component of their overall offering. But, had a client specifically requested it of them, sure, they would have come up with some impromptu plan to edit Wikipedia in exchange for payment.

(Do you think that in April and May 2006 I did not research extensively for the presence of potential competitors in the marketplace?)

This post has been edited by thekohser:

[Jon Awbrey]

Greg,

Here's a clue —

“Republicans Are Idiots And Arguing With Them Is A Waste Of Time!”

mutatis mutandum …

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)