Conflict of Interest on WP:COI, the rules apply to all (except Durova and Jehochman) Options

[thekohser]

So over on the WP:COI circle-jerk, there was a series of edits made, culminating in this one.

It occurs to this analyst that Durova and Jehochman are now enhancing their real-world careers with guest columns, speaking engagements, and meet-and-greets covering the topic of "Conflict of Interest in Wikipedia". Therefore, is it not a conflict of interest for them to continue guiding the development of policy at WP:COI?

True, they haven't been paid for anything they've done yet -- but the exposure and expertise-enhancing properties of these real-world engagements is personally valuable to these two. Especially Hochman, who is an Internet marketing specialist who has made "Wikipedia policy" one of his most pronounced calling cards in business.

As you'll see by reading that thread, the usual response from Wikipediots, when challenged, is to muzzle the critic with a ban.

Greg

[AB]

Looking for something good to say about Ms. D's approach to COI,
I find this:

I am blocking all three for one month, semiprotecting the relevant
articles, and I strongly recommend the user make use of this site's
right to vanish

So at least she isn't opposed to them vanishing and not having their
names/pseudonyms/whatever dragged through the dirt on top of
Google.

Of course, given the general culture at WP, I doubt they would be
permitted to vanish, but maybe she doesn't know that.

Disclaimer: Nothing in this posting should be taken as evidence with
regards to whatever personal feelings or lack there of I might have
toward Ms. D.

This post has been edited by AB: Sat 3rd November 2007, 8:26pm

[Jonny Cache]

So over on the WP:COI circle-jerk, there was a series of edits made, culminating in this one.

It occurs to this analyst that Durova and Jehochman are now enhancing their real-world careers with guest columns, speaking engagements, and meet-and-greets covering the topic of "Conflict of Interest in Wikipedia". Therefore, is it not a conflict of interest for them to continue guiding the development of policy at WP:COI?

True, they haven't been paid for anything they've done yet — but the exposure and expertise-enhancing properties of these real-world engagements is personally valuable to these two. Especially Hochman, who is an Internet marketing specialist who has made "Wikipedia policy" one of his most pronounced calling cards in business.

As you'll see by reading that thread, the usual response from Wikipediots, when challenged, is to muzzle the critic with a ban.

Greg

The thing you have to ask yerself, Punk, is which fate is crueler:

1. Being Banned For All Time From Wikipedia ?
2. Being Mentored By Learned Wiki-Pharisees ?

I know not what course others may take …

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Sat 27th October 2007, 3:38am

[thekohser]

Nothing is complete until the one with the Conflict of Interest erases the discussion about her conflict of interest.

[Jonny Cache]

Nothing is complete until the one with the Conflict of Interest erases the discussion about her conflict of interest.

I'm guessing that DFTT means Don't Fess The Truth ???

Yes, it is what it is, but once again you are making the mistake of trying to win a point on their board, and there is no way that's gonna succeed.

The reason is that you have no leverage for your effort, and they can always block and cover a finite message.

Demoral Of Destory?

• You have to forget the message and look at the nature of the medium.
• You have to find remediations that fight virus with virus, exponentially.

Ergo, the PACMAN protocol.

It's the Power of Swiss Cheese !!!

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Sat 27th October 2007, 4:02am