I'm not sure what you mean when you say that "a group with direct personal connections to Flickr staff who had received financial inducements to attempt to control the user reaction. [1] At least one of this group has been extremely active here in editing this article section." (that link is just an unrelated comment, and a lower "seem to have been bought and paid for" comment links to a locked iPernity gallery) but if you suspect that there is a conflict of interest or some paid advocacy going on, this is serious stuff and you should raise this clearly with the user rather than giving an enigmatic "one of us here in this drawing room is... the murderer" that casts an aspersion on everybody. (You should be careful to avoid outing them by name, as this is against policy, but politely questioning another editor's possible conflict of interest is fine.) -- McGeddon ( talk) 10:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Since COI is becoming a hot topic on my talk page with regard to the WP/Flickr article, I feel I ought to declare my own involvement with Flickr before I make any edit (greater than the minor date correction I have previously made), or contribute more to the WP/Flickr talk page.
I was previously a customer of the Flickr web site. I have ended my membership. I did make some contributions to the debate on Flickr's forums about the 2013 change. I am not a fan of Yahoo/Flickr's customer relationship style. I hope I wouldn't let my personal POV distort my judgement on matters of fact. Inevitably my perspective might tend to colour my judgement as to which facts are relevant. I will guard against letting that happen. But if anyone thinks that personal prejudice is distorting my judgement, I am always prepared to listen to any reasoned argument. If you've read this far, you now know where I'm coming from.
I come here and read this extended investigation in my online life, with some strange mix of half truths, whole inventions and total falsehoods. I want no further involvement with you, and do not appreciate being libeled on this page. Jakerome ( talk) 04:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Hey Boot Minor, thanks for your work on the Flickr page, unfortunately, other editors are extremely tenacious about this whole thing, they just don't get it. Largely the fact that the mainstream media completely missed the fact that Flickr was F***ed up by the new redesign... I'm growing tired of defending my original inclusion of the controversy. CaffeinAddict ( talk) 19:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi, there is a new discussion going on still about the Redesign inclusion. I suggest you weigh in. It's come down to more of a "Voting" style thing unfortunately... CaffeinAddict ( talk) 18:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean when you say that "a group with direct personal connections to Flickr staff who had received financial inducements to attempt to control the user reaction. [1] At least one of this group has been extremely active here in editing this article section." (that link is just an unrelated comment, and a lower "seem to have been bought and paid for" comment links to a locked iPernity gallery) but if you suspect that there is a conflict of interest or some paid advocacy going on, this is serious stuff and you should raise this clearly with the user rather than giving an enigmatic "one of us here in this drawing room is... the murderer" that casts an aspersion on everybody. (You should be careful to avoid outing them by name, as this is against policy, but politely questioning another editor's possible conflict of interest is fine.) -- McGeddon ( talk) 10:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Since COI is becoming a hot topic on my talk page with regard to the WP/Flickr article, I feel I ought to declare my own involvement with Flickr before I make any edit (greater than the minor date correction I have previously made), or contribute more to the WP/Flickr talk page.
I was previously a customer of the Flickr web site. I have ended my membership. I did make some contributions to the debate on Flickr's forums about the 2013 change. I am not a fan of Yahoo/Flickr's customer relationship style. I hope I wouldn't let my personal POV distort my judgement on matters of fact. Inevitably my perspective might tend to colour my judgement as to which facts are relevant. I will guard against letting that happen. But if anyone thinks that personal prejudice is distorting my judgement, I am always prepared to listen to any reasoned argument. If you've read this far, you now know where I'm coming from.
I come here and read this extended investigation in my online life, with some strange mix of half truths, whole inventions and total falsehoods. I want no further involvement with you, and do not appreciate being libeled on this page. Jakerome ( talk) 04:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Hey Boot Minor, thanks for your work on the Flickr page, unfortunately, other editors are extremely tenacious about this whole thing, they just don't get it. Largely the fact that the mainstream media completely missed the fact that Flickr was F***ed up by the new redesign... I'm growing tired of defending my original inclusion of the controversy. CaffeinAddict ( talk) 19:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi, there is a new discussion going on still about the Redesign inclusion. I suggest you weigh in. It's come down to more of a "Voting" style thing unfortunately... CaffeinAddict ( talk) 18:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)