Copy of User talk conversation preceding this page
|
---|
Hi Robert. At an MfD you asked me about my proposal to quarantine UPE product. See Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_69#An_alternative_solution. I was quite surprised to read the breadth of opinion against deleting Terms Of Use violating Undeclared Paid Editor pages. It surprised me, but the opposers have some point. So I proposed another solution. No one answered, then the discussion was archived. What do you think? Good idea? Bad idea? Just say no to everything? Try nothing new without proof of community consensus? The inertia of Wikipedia backrooms I think is the root problem. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Robert wrote: “blanking strikes me as somewhere on the scale between vandalism and back-door deletion“. It depends what it is to be blanked. Hugely. Do you want to talk about UPE product, or everything at once? — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 08:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
|
Jytdog, you wrote:
In my comment above, I said that I make the judgement of UPE based on 1) subject matter; 2) content/sourcing; 3) qualities of the creator. That is exactly what you just laid out there. putting it my buckets: 1) "A for-profit new company product."... "The topic was in parallel being promoted on many fora outside Wikipedia" 2) " WP:Reference bombed the article," 3) "WP:SPA, immediately competent." Do you see that? I am interested to hear what else about the content and sourcing (bucket (2)) you found suspicious... Jytdog ( talk) 02:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Jytdog, I think we are in close agreement.
"The content and sourcing (bucket (2)) you found suspicious"? The content was describing a product for sale in non-critical terms. There was no, or virtually no, comparison with similar products. It was not merely that it was all positive. Sources? The sources similarly contained no, or virtually no, comparison with similar products, but instead contained material derived directly from the CEO/founder or his company. Much of the source material was undisguised interview, the rest could easily be read as interview material converted to a third-person presentation. This was on top off, but not just merely, that everything was glowing and the clear message was to go buy some. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
The list of valid reasons for deletion are at WP:NOT or WP:UPNOT.
The list of valid reasons for deletion are at WP:NOT or WP:UPNOT.
The community has repeatedly rejected it in a CSD form. We delete UPE via PROD or XfD frequently (the COIN archive is full of examples.) My concern with the quarantine proposal is 1) that is already what draft space is supposed to be for COI articles. 2) Adding more bureaucracy tends to make it harder to deal effectively with the issue, and it often gets thrown in our face (I call this tactic TOU bludgeoning: I’ve declared so you have to do what I say being the general sentiment from the native anglophones who aren’t freelancers in my experience.) On this point, I philosophically agree with Jytdog that independent review is important (hence AfC), but I think the quality of review on COI drafts is low and that once something is approved, it tends to have a defender for life in the form of the reviewer.
While I do agree that there is a lot that we can do to improve our handling of this phenomenon, I consider most of it to be s cultural thing rather than a systems thing. I think we have the systems in place already to deal with article spam/UPE. The problem being that culturally we are often still in a 2003 Wikipedia mindset where we think we need to take everything, no matter how bad, to grow and improve. The only problem being 2003 Wikipedia wasn’t the default reference work for the world. We have to effect a cultural shift in realizing that as our role has changed, so to should our outlook on dealing with new content. I think these changes are happening, slowly, but surely, and the best thing we can do now is educate about the problem and form many local consensus in XfDs, user talks, article talks, village pump discussions, etc. a consensus based organization charged approach most easily when done this way rather than through large proposals about new processes. That’s why my focus has always been about laying out logical arguments in individual discussions. That’s how we build a larger consensus on how to deal with this. TonyBallioni ( talk) 03:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
{{
Request edit}}
template (with disclosure). This is the fundamental COI management process in WP. It is not a question of "wanting" conflict of interest editing; it is a question of how to manage it.
Jytdog (
talk)
13:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)I suggest modifying the section "Only promotional topics" as follows:
A topic may be considered promotional for the purpose of quarantine if it falls in one of the following categories:
- a company or organization, or any of its products or services
- an executive or founder of (1)
- persons with notable abilities or credentials, or any of their creative works (for example, social media personalities)
Personally, I think non-profits should be included as eligible (some non-profits have hefty advertising budgets). I think YouTubers should be covered under persons, rather than under companies. isaacl ( talk) 03:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
The copyvio process is blank in place, delete in seven days if it can't be fixed. Would that be appropriate here? Did anyone ask WMF Legal about the FTC regulation on undisclosed native advertising (this would be a justification for the blanking)? The junk must get deleted somehow. MER-C 20:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Blank in place would allow G13 to sweep up anything not addressed - lots of editors are one day or even one post wonders Legacypac ( talk) 20:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
This proposal involves far too much work for reviewers compared to the work to draft up the promo article. Twinkle makes SPAM management pretty easy bit move, blank, add a template, notify, notofy other reviewers, deal with appeals (who will appeal when they can recreate?) and eventually delete. That is just too much work. If it is SPAM use G11. If it is notable and can be fixed, fix it. What we should be doing is getting tougher on spam drafts. Just G11 them on sight like we G12 copyvio. Legacypac ( talk) 06:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Copy of User talk conversation preceding this page
|
---|
Hi Robert. At an MfD you asked me about my proposal to quarantine UPE product. See Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_69#An_alternative_solution. I was quite surprised to read the breadth of opinion against deleting Terms Of Use violating Undeclared Paid Editor pages. It surprised me, but the opposers have some point. So I proposed another solution. No one answered, then the discussion was archived. What do you think? Good idea? Bad idea? Just say no to everything? Try nothing new without proof of community consensus? The inertia of Wikipedia backrooms I think is the root problem. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Robert wrote: “blanking strikes me as somewhere on the scale between vandalism and back-door deletion“. It depends what it is to be blanked. Hugely. Do you want to talk about UPE product, or everything at once? — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 08:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
|
Jytdog, you wrote:
In my comment above, I said that I make the judgement of UPE based on 1) subject matter; 2) content/sourcing; 3) qualities of the creator. That is exactly what you just laid out there. putting it my buckets: 1) "A for-profit new company product."... "The topic was in parallel being promoted on many fora outside Wikipedia" 2) " WP:Reference bombed the article," 3) "WP:SPA, immediately competent." Do you see that? I am interested to hear what else about the content and sourcing (bucket (2)) you found suspicious... Jytdog ( talk) 02:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Jytdog, I think we are in close agreement.
"The content and sourcing (bucket (2)) you found suspicious"? The content was describing a product for sale in non-critical terms. There was no, or virtually no, comparison with similar products. It was not merely that it was all positive. Sources? The sources similarly contained no, or virtually no, comparison with similar products, but instead contained material derived directly from the CEO/founder or his company. Much of the source material was undisguised interview, the rest could easily be read as interview material converted to a third-person presentation. This was on top off, but not just merely, that everything was glowing and the clear message was to go buy some. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
The list of valid reasons for deletion are at WP:NOT or WP:UPNOT.
The list of valid reasons for deletion are at WP:NOT or WP:UPNOT.
The community has repeatedly rejected it in a CSD form. We delete UPE via PROD or XfD frequently (the COIN archive is full of examples.) My concern with the quarantine proposal is 1) that is already what draft space is supposed to be for COI articles. 2) Adding more bureaucracy tends to make it harder to deal effectively with the issue, and it often gets thrown in our face (I call this tactic TOU bludgeoning: I’ve declared so you have to do what I say being the general sentiment from the native anglophones who aren’t freelancers in my experience.) On this point, I philosophically agree with Jytdog that independent review is important (hence AfC), but I think the quality of review on COI drafts is low and that once something is approved, it tends to have a defender for life in the form of the reviewer.
While I do agree that there is a lot that we can do to improve our handling of this phenomenon, I consider most of it to be s cultural thing rather than a systems thing. I think we have the systems in place already to deal with article spam/UPE. The problem being that culturally we are often still in a 2003 Wikipedia mindset where we think we need to take everything, no matter how bad, to grow and improve. The only problem being 2003 Wikipedia wasn’t the default reference work for the world. We have to effect a cultural shift in realizing that as our role has changed, so to should our outlook on dealing with new content. I think these changes are happening, slowly, but surely, and the best thing we can do now is educate about the problem and form many local consensus in XfDs, user talks, article talks, village pump discussions, etc. a consensus based organization charged approach most easily when done this way rather than through large proposals about new processes. That’s why my focus has always been about laying out logical arguments in individual discussions. That’s how we build a larger consensus on how to deal with this. TonyBallioni ( talk) 03:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
{{
Request edit}}
template (with disclosure). This is the fundamental COI management process in WP. It is not a question of "wanting" conflict of interest editing; it is a question of how to manage it.
Jytdog (
talk)
13:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)I suggest modifying the section "Only promotional topics" as follows:
A topic may be considered promotional for the purpose of quarantine if it falls in one of the following categories:
- a company or organization, or any of its products or services
- an executive or founder of (1)
- persons with notable abilities or credentials, or any of their creative works (for example, social media personalities)
Personally, I think non-profits should be included as eligible (some non-profits have hefty advertising budgets). I think YouTubers should be covered under persons, rather than under companies. isaacl ( talk) 03:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
The copyvio process is blank in place, delete in seven days if it can't be fixed. Would that be appropriate here? Did anyone ask WMF Legal about the FTC regulation on undisclosed native advertising (this would be a justification for the blanking)? The junk must get deleted somehow. MER-C 20:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Blank in place would allow G13 to sweep up anything not addressed - lots of editors are one day or even one post wonders Legacypac ( talk) 20:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
This proposal involves far too much work for reviewers compared to the work to draft up the promo article. Twinkle makes SPAM management pretty easy bit move, blank, add a template, notify, notofy other reviewers, deal with appeals (who will appeal when they can recreate?) and eventually delete. That is just too much work. If it is SPAM use G11. If it is notable and can be fixed, fix it. What we should be doing is getting tougher on spam drafts. Just G11 them on sight like we G12 copyvio. Legacypac ( talk) 06:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)