On 18 February 2021, it was proposed that this page be moved from Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (organizations) to User:CorporateM/Advice for editing articles on organizations. The result of the discussion was moved. |
I enjoyed reading this essay. My questions would be: *Should there be a small section on COI (or a see also at the bottom wikilinking to it)? * Stock symbol/price info for companies? *MOS We don't want a directory, should the top execs generally be listed only in the infobox? Capitalismojo ( talk) 20:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Pretty solid, on the whole. I think you could hammer on avoiding fancruft and product lists a little harder. -- Orange Mike | Talk 02:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
A couple editors keep changing "coatrack" to the verb "coatracking" which I thought was odd because the essay is WP:COATRACK (not a verb) and the other terms in the sentence are nouns (ie "promotion" rather than "promoting" etc.). Am I missing something? CorporateM ( Talk) 00:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
John Cline's Talk page brought me to the Badoo page, which made me think this essay needs a Style section covering the use of quotes and anecdotes. CorporateM ( Talk) 19:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
There is consensus to include this essay as a "Wikipedia essay" including using the appropriate template. This discussion does not, however, reflect whether or not there is a consensus that supports the essay or its viewpoints itself, rather just that it should be the status of a "Wikipedia essay." Cheers, TLSuda ( talk) 00:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Should this document be:
Pinging user:OrangeMike, User:Smartse, user:Drmies and user:Capitalismojo who have provided feedback on the document previously. Also interested in general feedback on the document.
I have a COI with a large number of articles about organizations where I bring their pages up to GA status in a PR/marketing role. Like the WP:COIMICRO essay, which I also wrote, a document like this would be very useful in my work to link to as a way to explain the rationale of my edits/suggestions in both my COI and volunteer roles. I am happy with keeping it as a user essay if it makes the community uncomfortable that I wrote it. CorporateM ( Talk) 21:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
WP essay I agree that the originator must make the final decision. I think it will be most useful if it is a Wikipedia essay. Joja lozzo 16:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
WP essay So others can edit it as well - Essays can be very helpful in making those tricky little determinations during article creation - but are often less used than WP:MOS for information. I notice there isn't an article for Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Organization, maybe this shows we could use one and or this should be expanded into one?
We have these;
Tinkermen Talk 18:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
WP essay although Tinkermen almost has it right - shouldn't it be part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Organizations which is pretty dormant, maybe revise Wikipedia:WikiProject Organizations/Guidelines to include it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller ( talk • contribs) 05:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
WP essay. It's not a user essay since it's in Wikispace. It's not a guideline until it's proposed and adopted, I think the usual way is to mark it with a proposed-rule template and have a lengthy and large discussion. I'd be surprised if it could be adopted as a guideline, although it's a decent page and there's not really much to object to.
FWIW, not to make a mountain out of a molehill, but: @ Damotclese re "if there are minor style questions, the originating editor should decide" isn't true, at least not formally and not practically in all instances. And not sure what you mean by "there is an expectation that if there are issues of contention, the originating editor should decide the resolution of contentions for user-created essays" depending on what you mean by "user-created". None of our essays are created by bots (yet) I don't think. If you mean userspace essays, I think the user pretty much doesn't just decide the resolution but simply makes any changes he likes and deletes any he doesn't, period. If you mean Wikispace essays that were first created by a user (which I guess is pretty much all essays, since the initial edit creating a page can't be made by a group), nuh-uh. A Wikispace page is editable by all; the page creator has no special standing whatsoever except to the extent that he's able to convince other editors that he does, which is essentially of a political question hinging on how persuasive he is and so forth. Herostratus ( talk) 19:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Of which the essay says either "Articles about organizations should not include an indiscriminate list of... lawsuits, even when reliably sourced" (if you wanted to elide differently, you could quote it as, or at least argue it as an authority for, "Articles about organizations should not include... lawsuits, even when reliably sourced" which is not the spirit of the essay but people do do stuff like that).
The lawsuit question is a vexing one. All sufficiently large organizations get sued, and even some fairly low-merit ones get settled, which doesn't necessarily prove anything. You do hear about people grousing about editors putting in cruft about low-merit or run-of-the-mill lawsuits (although I've never seen this personally, which doesn't prove anything). At the same time, we don't want to create a chilling effect on reporting lawsuits. There're an important line of sight into an organization. What an organization tends to be sued for, how often, and what the outcomes are can be quite important in answering the question "What is this entity?".
Here's a good quote from Kevin Drum, just today: "All large organizations have large numbers of problems. That's inevitable. The only way to judge them properly is to compare them to other large organizations doing the same thing." [4]
Sounds spot-on to me. I don't really have a suggestion for an actual edit. There's nothing wrong with the actual text; it does proscribe only the "indiscriminate list" which nobody could object to... but sometimes those details get lost in the rush of things. Quotes spice up a page, and Drum's quote might be a good one to include, though. Herostratus ( talk) 20:46, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
One of the pieces of feedback I got when I wrote this essay is that it focuses almost exclusively on avoiding promotion, and not on avoiding coatrack. The BLP policy has a section called "Balance" that I think could be adapted here with some tweaks, shown below. CorporateM ( Talk) 22:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Balance
Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, in a disinterested tone and in a matter that is representative of the total body of literature. Do not give
disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with
article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on
guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content. The idea expressed in
WP:Eventualism – that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape – does not apply to biographies should be balanced with the need to represent the article-subject fairly. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times.
This is an essay, but its' title sounds like "What Wikipedia is Not" which is policy. I suggest that it be changed so as to not confuse editors. Coretheapple ( talk) 20:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. The dispute over whether the essay should be in RM or MfD is recognized, but a fairly minor note. ( non-admin closure) Vaticidalprophet ( talk) 02:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (organizations) →
User:CorporateM/Advice for editing articles on organizations – Per
this discussion at COIN, this article has been mostly written by CorporateM, an editor with multiple conflicts of interest. The current title suggests this is endorsed or supported by the Wikipedia community, even with the banner at the top saying it is an opinion piece. Moving it to CorporateM's userpage makes it clearer that this essay is an editor's advise and has not been assessed by the wider community.
Z1720 (
talk)
02:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
On 18 February 2021, it was proposed that this page be moved from Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (organizations) to User:CorporateM/Advice for editing articles on organizations. The result of the discussion was moved. |
I enjoyed reading this essay. My questions would be: *Should there be a small section on COI (or a see also at the bottom wikilinking to it)? * Stock symbol/price info for companies? *MOS We don't want a directory, should the top execs generally be listed only in the infobox? Capitalismojo ( talk) 20:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Pretty solid, on the whole. I think you could hammer on avoiding fancruft and product lists a little harder. -- Orange Mike | Talk 02:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
A couple editors keep changing "coatrack" to the verb "coatracking" which I thought was odd because the essay is WP:COATRACK (not a verb) and the other terms in the sentence are nouns (ie "promotion" rather than "promoting" etc.). Am I missing something? CorporateM ( Talk) 00:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
John Cline's Talk page brought me to the Badoo page, which made me think this essay needs a Style section covering the use of quotes and anecdotes. CorporateM ( Talk) 19:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
There is consensus to include this essay as a "Wikipedia essay" including using the appropriate template. This discussion does not, however, reflect whether or not there is a consensus that supports the essay or its viewpoints itself, rather just that it should be the status of a "Wikipedia essay." Cheers, TLSuda ( talk) 00:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Should this document be:
Pinging user:OrangeMike, User:Smartse, user:Drmies and user:Capitalismojo who have provided feedback on the document previously. Also interested in general feedback on the document.
I have a COI with a large number of articles about organizations where I bring their pages up to GA status in a PR/marketing role. Like the WP:COIMICRO essay, which I also wrote, a document like this would be very useful in my work to link to as a way to explain the rationale of my edits/suggestions in both my COI and volunteer roles. I am happy with keeping it as a user essay if it makes the community uncomfortable that I wrote it. CorporateM ( Talk) 21:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
WP essay I agree that the originator must make the final decision. I think it will be most useful if it is a Wikipedia essay. Joja lozzo 16:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
WP essay So others can edit it as well - Essays can be very helpful in making those tricky little determinations during article creation - but are often less used than WP:MOS for information. I notice there isn't an article for Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Organization, maybe this shows we could use one and or this should be expanded into one?
We have these;
Tinkermen Talk 18:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
WP essay although Tinkermen almost has it right - shouldn't it be part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Organizations which is pretty dormant, maybe revise Wikipedia:WikiProject Organizations/Guidelines to include it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller ( talk • contribs) 05:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
WP essay. It's not a user essay since it's in Wikispace. It's not a guideline until it's proposed and adopted, I think the usual way is to mark it with a proposed-rule template and have a lengthy and large discussion. I'd be surprised if it could be adopted as a guideline, although it's a decent page and there's not really much to object to.
FWIW, not to make a mountain out of a molehill, but: @ Damotclese re "if there are minor style questions, the originating editor should decide" isn't true, at least not formally and not practically in all instances. And not sure what you mean by "there is an expectation that if there are issues of contention, the originating editor should decide the resolution of contentions for user-created essays" depending on what you mean by "user-created". None of our essays are created by bots (yet) I don't think. If you mean userspace essays, I think the user pretty much doesn't just decide the resolution but simply makes any changes he likes and deletes any he doesn't, period. If you mean Wikispace essays that were first created by a user (which I guess is pretty much all essays, since the initial edit creating a page can't be made by a group), nuh-uh. A Wikispace page is editable by all; the page creator has no special standing whatsoever except to the extent that he's able to convince other editors that he does, which is essentially of a political question hinging on how persuasive he is and so forth. Herostratus ( talk) 19:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Of which the essay says either "Articles about organizations should not include an indiscriminate list of... lawsuits, even when reliably sourced" (if you wanted to elide differently, you could quote it as, or at least argue it as an authority for, "Articles about organizations should not include... lawsuits, even when reliably sourced" which is not the spirit of the essay but people do do stuff like that).
The lawsuit question is a vexing one. All sufficiently large organizations get sued, and even some fairly low-merit ones get settled, which doesn't necessarily prove anything. You do hear about people grousing about editors putting in cruft about low-merit or run-of-the-mill lawsuits (although I've never seen this personally, which doesn't prove anything). At the same time, we don't want to create a chilling effect on reporting lawsuits. There're an important line of sight into an organization. What an organization tends to be sued for, how often, and what the outcomes are can be quite important in answering the question "What is this entity?".
Here's a good quote from Kevin Drum, just today: "All large organizations have large numbers of problems. That's inevitable. The only way to judge them properly is to compare them to other large organizations doing the same thing." [4]
Sounds spot-on to me. I don't really have a suggestion for an actual edit. There's nothing wrong with the actual text; it does proscribe only the "indiscriminate list" which nobody could object to... but sometimes those details get lost in the rush of things. Quotes spice up a page, and Drum's quote might be a good one to include, though. Herostratus ( talk) 20:46, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
One of the pieces of feedback I got when I wrote this essay is that it focuses almost exclusively on avoiding promotion, and not on avoiding coatrack. The BLP policy has a section called "Balance" that I think could be adapted here with some tweaks, shown below. CorporateM ( Talk) 22:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Balance
Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, in a disinterested tone and in a matter that is representative of the total body of literature. Do not give
disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with
article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on
guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content. The idea expressed in
WP:Eventualism – that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape – does not apply to biographies should be balanced with the need to represent the article-subject fairly. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times.
This is an essay, but its' title sounds like "What Wikipedia is Not" which is policy. I suggest that it be changed so as to not confuse editors. Coretheapple ( talk) 20:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. The dispute over whether the essay should be in RM or MfD is recognized, but a fairly minor note. ( non-admin closure) Vaticidalprophet ( talk) 02:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (organizations) →
User:CorporateM/Advice for editing articles on organizations – Per
this discussion at COIN, this article has been mostly written by CorporateM, an editor with multiple conflicts of interest. The current title suggests this is endorsed or supported by the Wikipedia community, even with the banner at the top saying it is an opinion piece. Moving it to CorporateM's userpage makes it clearer that this essay is an editor's advise and has not been assessed by the wider community.
Z1720 (
talk)
02:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)