This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
What about an image of the scales of justice where the scales are uneven because there is money on one of the scales, with a magnifying glass above. I am not very good at photoshopping, so we will have to find somebody else to make it. Paolo Napolitano 09:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/COI – Given this project's premise, I feel that members of this project should be made aware of and encouraged to participate in this RfC discussion. -- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 13:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Been watching over this one for awhile. Vector Marketing is a MLM company that seems interested in blanking the controversy section off the page, and removing sourced content critical of it. It also targeted by disgruntled former contractors for disparaging vandalism. Propose adding to article watchlist. Phearson ( talk) 02:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:PAIDWATCH – Template:PAIDWATCH is up for deletion. Feel free to participate in the discussion. -- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 23:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Moved this here from the main page:
This is the discussion area about section #Tasks (above), until the WikiProject is formalized, to then have separate project-talk pages.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Herostratus ( talk • contribs) 04:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I have proposed a log be kept of poorly behaving paid editors who become subject to administrative action: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Log_of_sources_of_poor_paid_advocacy_editing Fifelfoo ( talk) 01:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
The Article, LifeLock, has been scrubbed clean of ALL negative "press" and references thereof. What should I do? Rollback? Report somewhere? Please advise.``` Buster Seven Talk 15:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I've thought of an idea that might break our current logjam with paid editing. I'd love your sincere feedback and opinion.
Feel free to circulate this to anyone you think should know about it, but please recognize that it hasn't agreed upon by either PR organizations or WikiProjects or the wider community. It's also just a draft, so any/many changes can still be made. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 14:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I support efforts to make it easier for PRs that are helpful in improving Wikipedia's coverage through corrections, assistance and quality contributions. In fact, many company articles are blatantly unfair to the point that it's disappointing the company has to get involved to prevent overt bias, uncited criticisms and personal opinions.
However, I'm continually gaining perspective on just how prolific the COI problem is and how softball Wikipedians are about the issue. Even after repeated, overt and sockpuppet using, bad-faith censorship attempts, I have seen Wikipedians invite the COI user to the Talk page and make unfair concessions. Everywhere I turn are articles clearly written by the company, university, individual, etc. and readers have told me this diminishes Wikipedia's credibility in their eyes. Speaking of editor retention, it's also a huge, frustrating problem for editors.
Looking at the scope of the issue, I think detection, investigation, etc. are helpful, but could only reasonably pursue 1% of poor COI editing, which is already handled on thousands of individual articles and the COIN board. I think what's important for Wikipedia and where a project like this would be ideally suited is working on deterrence rather than detection. It's impossible to play wack-a-mole to thousands of COI edits, instead of deterring those edits in the first place.
I thought I would start a discussion string on how we can deter poor, bad-faith COI edits instead of police them. User:King4057 ( EthicalWiki) 04:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't particularly mind being on this list, but I do feel a bit slighted that only disclosed paid editors are targeted. It makes it difficult to convince companies to do the right thing, using request edits, discussions, COIN, sandboxes, etc. when it's much easier and more effective to spam and censor Wikipedia anonymously.
My suggestion would be to add another list of "non-disclosed single purpose accounts with advert editing behavior" like this. Note that I didn't out them as paid editors, but identified several parameters that make their edits likely to be problematic. Also click on the link on the page and you'll see that you can use the toolserver to create an actual watchlist so you can get a scrolling list of edits by those on the list like you would see in your private watchlist. If a link to the watchlist was added to the promotion tag or if articles with that tag were sorted through, you could probably easily rack up hundreds of accounts suspected of paid editing, rather than focusing exclusively on a handful of disclosed ones.
As a paid editor myself, I have a COI with the subject. Like many members of this project, I support both initiatives in at least some form. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 18:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
This seems like honest people allowing baddies into a party with the plan of keeping an eye on them, fixing what they break, prosecuting them, booting them after they're caught, and keeping the door open for more.
Cheaper and safer is a guard at the door of this tiny percentage of articles. Editing is a privilege, right? So, VIP only. Guests to that party of articles [we should] know who they are, and if they're paid[..]
This seems like honest people allowing baddies into a party with the plan of keeping an eye on them, fixing what they break, prosecuting them, booting them after they're caught, and keeping the door open for more.
Cheaper and safer is a guard at the door of this tiny percentage of articles.
shouldn't we be as defensive as they are offensive?
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 01:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
You have a senior position and can get articles in without having them deleted a few weeks later.We have over 25 articles to submit. This shows why a functionary should never be allowed to do paid editing.Unlike paid writing this involves use of Admin Tools to protect the articles. The advertisement is more for the admin services than the writing.They are really looking here Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 16:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
WP:COI says: "If you have a financial interest in a topic (either as an employee, owner or other stakeholder) it is advised to provide full disclosure of your connection". Does this mean that a paid editor should state the nature of their COI in the talk page of the article in being edited, e.g. "I am being paid by ABC to write about XYZ in Wikipedia"? I get the feeling that some folks will admit COI but won't admit who's paying them to write about (or favour) what. Wildfowl ( talk) 22:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Someone mentioned at AfC that someone from PAIDWATCH might be interested in helping with the {{request edit}} queue. (draft instructions here) It's actually not a bad idea to have editors that may have a critical lean against paid COI to review content submissions and edit requests. If anyone is interested in helping, we spent a bit of time improving the templates and creating a process. I've been helping where I can without implementing edits of other COIs. User:King4057 ( EthicalWiki) 01:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, it's me, Herostratus. I started this page, and wanted to check in on a couple things.
As I noted above, a Wikipedia Review person (who is now blocked, or at any rate was blocked and has been so in the past also) moved this page on her own initiative, and one reason that was a bad idea is that I'm not sure that this is the best name and I wanted to discuss this first.
Considering that the folks at that other project named their project "cooperation". This was a smart move politically (who can be against cooperation?) and better (in a political sense) than some more accurate name they might have chosen. Well, but of course; they're professionals. Anyway, in the same vein, this page should probably be named "integrity" or something like that. Maybe something else -- "corruption watch" or "reputation management watch" or "Wikipedia defense" or something. "Treachery watch" maybe. But I think "WikiProject Integrity" the best I can think of for now. Any objections or other suggestions or thoughts? Herostratus ( talk) 12:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Does this wikiproject have an IRC channel? Gigs ( talk) 01:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Of interest: An RfC on our COI guideline for editors with an "intractable" conflict of interest. -- Ocaasi t | c 18:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
What about an image of the scales of justice where the scales are uneven because there is money on one of the scales, with a magnifying glass above. I am not very good at photoshopping, so we will have to find somebody else to make it. Paolo Napolitano 09:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/COI – Given this project's premise, I feel that members of this project should be made aware of and encouraged to participate in this RfC discussion. -- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 13:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Been watching over this one for awhile. Vector Marketing is a MLM company that seems interested in blanking the controversy section off the page, and removing sourced content critical of it. It also targeted by disgruntled former contractors for disparaging vandalism. Propose adding to article watchlist. Phearson ( talk) 02:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:PAIDWATCH – Template:PAIDWATCH is up for deletion. Feel free to participate in the discussion. -- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 23:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Moved this here from the main page:
This is the discussion area about section #Tasks (above), until the WikiProject is formalized, to then have separate project-talk pages.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Herostratus ( talk • contribs) 04:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I have proposed a log be kept of poorly behaving paid editors who become subject to administrative action: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Log_of_sources_of_poor_paid_advocacy_editing Fifelfoo ( talk) 01:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
The Article, LifeLock, has been scrubbed clean of ALL negative "press" and references thereof. What should I do? Rollback? Report somewhere? Please advise.``` Buster Seven Talk 15:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I've thought of an idea that might break our current logjam with paid editing. I'd love your sincere feedback and opinion.
Feel free to circulate this to anyone you think should know about it, but please recognize that it hasn't agreed upon by either PR organizations or WikiProjects or the wider community. It's also just a draft, so any/many changes can still be made. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 14:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I support efforts to make it easier for PRs that are helpful in improving Wikipedia's coverage through corrections, assistance and quality contributions. In fact, many company articles are blatantly unfair to the point that it's disappointing the company has to get involved to prevent overt bias, uncited criticisms and personal opinions.
However, I'm continually gaining perspective on just how prolific the COI problem is and how softball Wikipedians are about the issue. Even after repeated, overt and sockpuppet using, bad-faith censorship attempts, I have seen Wikipedians invite the COI user to the Talk page and make unfair concessions. Everywhere I turn are articles clearly written by the company, university, individual, etc. and readers have told me this diminishes Wikipedia's credibility in their eyes. Speaking of editor retention, it's also a huge, frustrating problem for editors.
Looking at the scope of the issue, I think detection, investigation, etc. are helpful, but could only reasonably pursue 1% of poor COI editing, which is already handled on thousands of individual articles and the COIN board. I think what's important for Wikipedia and where a project like this would be ideally suited is working on deterrence rather than detection. It's impossible to play wack-a-mole to thousands of COI edits, instead of deterring those edits in the first place.
I thought I would start a discussion string on how we can deter poor, bad-faith COI edits instead of police them. User:King4057 ( EthicalWiki) 04:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't particularly mind being on this list, but I do feel a bit slighted that only disclosed paid editors are targeted. It makes it difficult to convince companies to do the right thing, using request edits, discussions, COIN, sandboxes, etc. when it's much easier and more effective to spam and censor Wikipedia anonymously.
My suggestion would be to add another list of "non-disclosed single purpose accounts with advert editing behavior" like this. Note that I didn't out them as paid editors, but identified several parameters that make their edits likely to be problematic. Also click on the link on the page and you'll see that you can use the toolserver to create an actual watchlist so you can get a scrolling list of edits by those on the list like you would see in your private watchlist. If a link to the watchlist was added to the promotion tag or if articles with that tag were sorted through, you could probably easily rack up hundreds of accounts suspected of paid editing, rather than focusing exclusively on a handful of disclosed ones.
As a paid editor myself, I have a COI with the subject. Like many members of this project, I support both initiatives in at least some form. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 18:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
This seems like honest people allowing baddies into a party with the plan of keeping an eye on them, fixing what they break, prosecuting them, booting them after they're caught, and keeping the door open for more.
Cheaper and safer is a guard at the door of this tiny percentage of articles. Editing is a privilege, right? So, VIP only. Guests to that party of articles [we should] know who they are, and if they're paid[..]
This seems like honest people allowing baddies into a party with the plan of keeping an eye on them, fixing what they break, prosecuting them, booting them after they're caught, and keeping the door open for more.
Cheaper and safer is a guard at the door of this tiny percentage of articles.
shouldn't we be as defensive as they are offensive?
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 01:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
You have a senior position and can get articles in without having them deleted a few weeks later.We have over 25 articles to submit. This shows why a functionary should never be allowed to do paid editing.Unlike paid writing this involves use of Admin Tools to protect the articles. The advertisement is more for the admin services than the writing.They are really looking here Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 16:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
WP:COI says: "If you have a financial interest in a topic (either as an employee, owner or other stakeholder) it is advised to provide full disclosure of your connection". Does this mean that a paid editor should state the nature of their COI in the talk page of the article in being edited, e.g. "I am being paid by ABC to write about XYZ in Wikipedia"? I get the feeling that some folks will admit COI but won't admit who's paying them to write about (or favour) what. Wildfowl ( talk) 22:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Someone mentioned at AfC that someone from PAIDWATCH might be interested in helping with the {{request edit}} queue. (draft instructions here) It's actually not a bad idea to have editors that may have a critical lean against paid COI to review content submissions and edit requests. If anyone is interested in helping, we spent a bit of time improving the templates and creating a process. I've been helping where I can without implementing edits of other COIs. User:King4057 ( EthicalWiki) 01:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, it's me, Herostratus. I started this page, and wanted to check in on a couple things.
As I noted above, a Wikipedia Review person (who is now blocked, or at any rate was blocked and has been so in the past also) moved this page on her own initiative, and one reason that was a bad idea is that I'm not sure that this is the best name and I wanted to discuss this first.
Considering that the folks at that other project named their project "cooperation". This was a smart move politically (who can be against cooperation?) and better (in a political sense) than some more accurate name they might have chosen. Well, but of course; they're professionals. Anyway, in the same vein, this page should probably be named "integrity" or something like that. Maybe something else -- "corruption watch" or "reputation management watch" or "Wikipedia defense" or something. "Treachery watch" maybe. But I think "WikiProject Integrity" the best I can think of for now. Any objections or other suggestions or thoughts? Herostratus ( talk) 12:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Does this wikiproject have an IRC channel? Gigs ( talk) 01:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Of interest: An RfC on our COI guideline for editors with an "intractable" conflict of interest. -- Ocaasi t | c 18:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)