Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 24 April 2019. The result of the discussion was speedy close. |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||
|
This talk page has been
mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
This is the
talk page of a
redirect that targets the page: Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:Facebook |
The contents of the Caryn Marooney page were merged into Facebook on April 29, 2019 and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
This article was nominated for merging with Facebook in the past. The result of the discussion ( permanent link) was Merge. |
The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE. |
I am an experienced Wikipedia editor but have a conflict of interest on this article because I am a paid consultant to the Outcast Agency, a communications firm employed by Facebook. BC1278 ( talk) 21:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)BC1278
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Hi,
I had a disclosed WP: COI for this article, but I am not being paid for this.
Remove:
"In March 2019, HuffPost reported that Facebook hired Ed Sussman, a "paid Wikpedia editor," to allegedly "create" the Wikipedia page for Marooney. HuffPost alleged that this effort took Sussman "over a year", and that he had gotten around Wikipedia's rules regarding paid editing by replying to "nearly every single bit of pushback with walls of text arguing his case," which HuffPost claims discourages Wikipedia editors from "dealing with Sussman’s arguments," allowing him to usually "get his way." [1]"
Why?
1. WP: Coatrack Discussion of Wikipedia policy in the media is not relevant to the bio of the subject of this article. Most of this paragraph is about Sussman (me), not Malrooney. The editor could try Wikipedia and see how it flies.
2. Administrative Noticeboard has already reviewed this HuffPo article in-depth and found it to be an unreliable source: [1] "The article itself seems to quietly concede that he doesn't actually violate any policies. In fact, it comes across as extremely misleading and obviously written by someone who doesn't understand Wikipedia at all. He "spent over a year lobbying" for the creation of Caryn Marooney? Come on, he created it as a draft and got it approved through the AfC process, not because he's some relentless lobbyist... This article seems to be little more than an unfortunate piece of trumped-up clickbaity garbage, and I actually feel bad for the paid editor here. I hope both the editor and the Foundation will push back in some way." This is from the admin User: Swarm, and was concurred with by Barkeep49. No one disputes in this string disputes these the AN investigative findings.
3. Factually inaccurate summary. None of the following section (poorly summarizing HuffPo) refers to the Maroonet article: "...and that he had gotten around Wikipedia's rules regarding paid editing by replying to "nearly every single bit of pushback with walls of text arguing his case," which HuffPost claims discourages Wikipedia editors from "dealing with Sussman’s arguments," allowing him to usually "get his way."
Aside from the inaccurate attribution of this accusation to this article, it is self-evident, by this Talk page, that there is no "pushback" or "wall of text" leading to its approval. The exact dif showing the approval shows barely any discussion.
4. Contentious material alleging violation of the law. As Wikipedia warns in WP: COI, covert editing potentially violates FTC law, and is certainly a serious violation of Wikipedia policy. WP: COI. Sussman disputes any wrongdoing in the article: "Everything he does is aboveboard." As per BLP policy, weakly sourced contentious material should be removed immediately.
5. Article is also inaccurate in alleging a declared paid editor using AfC can "create" an article in mainspace. Only a reviewing volunteer editor can move a proposed draft to mainspace, as is evident by the above dif above.
6. Undermines WP: COI and WP: Paid Editing. Official policy of Wikipedia is to encourage editors with a COI to disclose and to post to Talk or AfC. Inserting discussion of WP: COI and WP: PAID into a BLP is a great way to undermine anyone ever wanting to abide by these policies. Again, this is a matter for WP: AN, if the editor of this section wishes to report me for more invesigation, and/or for the Wikipedia article. BC1278 ( talk) 22:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC
References
Hi ~Swarm~ -- Noam_Cohen here. What an interesting question for the Wikipedia community, which you set up very well. I'm thinking of writing about the situation, and I wanted to ask a question: does paid editing -- even when it is completely transparent and adheres to the editing rules -- undercut the idea of "assume good faith"? Or is it better to judge by actions, not intentions? Curious to hear yours (and others) thoughts. ( User:Chomsky1) chomsky1 14:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I propose to merge Caryn Marooney into Facebook. I think that the content in the Caryn Marooney article can easily be explained in the context of Facebook, and the Facebook article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Caryn Marooney will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. Additionally Caryn Marooney has not notability and having pages for figures of little public knowledge or importance is unreasonable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.22.92.40 ( talk) 19:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help)
I have removed the merge-from and merge-to tags from the articles, and will leave it to the primary editors of this page to execute the merge. -- DannyS712 ( talk) 07:39, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and redirected the article. After doing a reread of the Marooney article ( last version for reference) and the Facebook article I did not locate any material which made sense to actually incorporate into the Facebook article. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:39, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion of the reliability of Ashley Feinberg's HuffPost article "Facebook, Axios And NBC Paid This Guy To Whitewash Wikipedia Pages" on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at WP:RSN § HuffPost for paid editing at Axios (website), NBC News, Caryn Marooney, and other articles. — Newslinger talk 17:58, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
User: GenQuest, I believe the tag you placed on the article is inaccurate and I'd ask that you remove it. The COI was disclosed from the onset of this as a draft -- it's at the very top of the Talk page and also as a tag. The "Connected Contributor" tag is used when there is no disclosed COI on the Talk page and COI editing is suspected. The resolution of a "Connected Contributor" tag would be for the suspected COI editor to fess up and disclose or, to deny having a COI and explain why. Furthermore, as you can see, there's an active merge discussion just above here, which is mostly about notability, with pro and con arguments. And there is already a merge tag on the article directing people to the discussion. People should express their opinions in the discussion, instead of with tags on the article. Tags are to alert editors what they can do to improve articles. BC1278 ( talk) 19:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Marooney is mentioned only once at Facebook: in a sentence about this (former) article! The sentence and the redirect are each perfectly justified on their own, so I don't think it's an issue, but it's a rather strange situation. jlwoodwa ( talk) 00:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 24 April 2019. The result of the discussion was speedy close. |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||
|
This talk page has been
mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
This is the
talk page of a
redirect that targets the page: Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:Facebook |
The contents of the Caryn Marooney page were merged into Facebook on April 29, 2019 and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
This article was nominated for merging with Facebook in the past. The result of the discussion ( permanent link) was Merge. |
The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE. |
I am an experienced Wikipedia editor but have a conflict of interest on this article because I am a paid consultant to the Outcast Agency, a communications firm employed by Facebook. BC1278 ( talk) 21:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)BC1278
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Hi,
I had a disclosed WP: COI for this article, but I am not being paid for this.
Remove:
"In March 2019, HuffPost reported that Facebook hired Ed Sussman, a "paid Wikpedia editor," to allegedly "create" the Wikipedia page for Marooney. HuffPost alleged that this effort took Sussman "over a year", and that he had gotten around Wikipedia's rules regarding paid editing by replying to "nearly every single bit of pushback with walls of text arguing his case," which HuffPost claims discourages Wikipedia editors from "dealing with Sussman’s arguments," allowing him to usually "get his way." [1]"
Why?
1. WP: Coatrack Discussion of Wikipedia policy in the media is not relevant to the bio of the subject of this article. Most of this paragraph is about Sussman (me), not Malrooney. The editor could try Wikipedia and see how it flies.
2. Administrative Noticeboard has already reviewed this HuffPo article in-depth and found it to be an unreliable source: [1] "The article itself seems to quietly concede that he doesn't actually violate any policies. In fact, it comes across as extremely misleading and obviously written by someone who doesn't understand Wikipedia at all. He "spent over a year lobbying" for the creation of Caryn Marooney? Come on, he created it as a draft and got it approved through the AfC process, not because he's some relentless lobbyist... This article seems to be little more than an unfortunate piece of trumped-up clickbaity garbage, and I actually feel bad for the paid editor here. I hope both the editor and the Foundation will push back in some way." This is from the admin User: Swarm, and was concurred with by Barkeep49. No one disputes in this string disputes these the AN investigative findings.
3. Factually inaccurate summary. None of the following section (poorly summarizing HuffPo) refers to the Maroonet article: "...and that he had gotten around Wikipedia's rules regarding paid editing by replying to "nearly every single bit of pushback with walls of text arguing his case," which HuffPost claims discourages Wikipedia editors from "dealing with Sussman’s arguments," allowing him to usually "get his way."
Aside from the inaccurate attribution of this accusation to this article, it is self-evident, by this Talk page, that there is no "pushback" or "wall of text" leading to its approval. The exact dif showing the approval shows barely any discussion.
4. Contentious material alleging violation of the law. As Wikipedia warns in WP: COI, covert editing potentially violates FTC law, and is certainly a serious violation of Wikipedia policy. WP: COI. Sussman disputes any wrongdoing in the article: "Everything he does is aboveboard." As per BLP policy, weakly sourced contentious material should be removed immediately.
5. Article is also inaccurate in alleging a declared paid editor using AfC can "create" an article in mainspace. Only a reviewing volunteer editor can move a proposed draft to mainspace, as is evident by the above dif above.
6. Undermines WP: COI and WP: Paid Editing. Official policy of Wikipedia is to encourage editors with a COI to disclose and to post to Talk or AfC. Inserting discussion of WP: COI and WP: PAID into a BLP is a great way to undermine anyone ever wanting to abide by these policies. Again, this is a matter for WP: AN, if the editor of this section wishes to report me for more invesigation, and/or for the Wikipedia article. BC1278 ( talk) 22:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC
References
Hi ~Swarm~ -- Noam_Cohen here. What an interesting question for the Wikipedia community, which you set up very well. I'm thinking of writing about the situation, and I wanted to ask a question: does paid editing -- even when it is completely transparent and adheres to the editing rules -- undercut the idea of "assume good faith"? Or is it better to judge by actions, not intentions? Curious to hear yours (and others) thoughts. ( User:Chomsky1) chomsky1 14:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I propose to merge Caryn Marooney into Facebook. I think that the content in the Caryn Marooney article can easily be explained in the context of Facebook, and the Facebook article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Caryn Marooney will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. Additionally Caryn Marooney has not notability and having pages for figures of little public knowledge or importance is unreasonable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.22.92.40 ( talk) 19:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help)
I have removed the merge-from and merge-to tags from the articles, and will leave it to the primary editors of this page to execute the merge. -- DannyS712 ( talk) 07:39, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and redirected the article. After doing a reread of the Marooney article ( last version for reference) and the Facebook article I did not locate any material which made sense to actually incorporate into the Facebook article. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:39, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion of the reliability of Ashley Feinberg's HuffPost article "Facebook, Axios And NBC Paid This Guy To Whitewash Wikipedia Pages" on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at WP:RSN § HuffPost for paid editing at Axios (website), NBC News, Caryn Marooney, and other articles. — Newslinger talk 17:58, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
User: GenQuest, I believe the tag you placed on the article is inaccurate and I'd ask that you remove it. The COI was disclosed from the onset of this as a draft -- it's at the very top of the Talk page and also as a tag. The "Connected Contributor" tag is used when there is no disclosed COI on the Talk page and COI editing is suspected. The resolution of a "Connected Contributor" tag would be for the suspected COI editor to fess up and disclose or, to deny having a COI and explain why. Furthermore, as you can see, there's an active merge discussion just above here, which is mostly about notability, with pro and con arguments. And there is already a merge tag on the article directing people to the discussion. People should express their opinions in the discussion, instead of with tags on the article. Tags are to alert editors what they can do to improve articles. BC1278 ( talk) 19:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Marooney is mentioned only once at Facebook: in a sentence about this (former) article! The sentence and the redirect are each perfectly justified on their own, so I don't think it's an issue, but it's a rather strange situation. jlwoodwa ( talk) 00:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)