Since this thing is attracting some outside attention and discussion, I have moved comments from parties outside the case to a dedicated talk page. Naturally I will read such comments, but I hope all three of us can remain focused on what is going on in here, and not get dragged into conversations outside in the "lobby". I will address and summarize concerns as I feel it is appropriate, and you may do the same if you really feel you must. Likewise, pertinent information from the outside can be brought in, but I think it will be most productive for the case to remain focused on the issues you two are working through, and we can tackle larger issues involving other editors once we find some workable solutions here. As the saying goes, "How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time." If we want real resolution, we have to start somewhere, and this case seems like the most appropriate place to start. --Willscrlt (Talk|Cntrb) 10:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I think that things are actually pretty close to ready to proceed with a review. I agree with Will_B that a complete re-write is not something that is likely to be a good idea. However, reviewing each article, section by section, might make a lot of sense. Naturally, we would have to come to terms with everyone interested in how to go about the review process. If anyone has experience with other similar reviews, so much the better. I dislike reinventing wheels.
The thing that concerns me is the ongoing cloud of uncertainty with respect to Conflict of Interest, Ignore All Rules, and Neutral Point of View. I do not feel that we have sufficiently worked out that hitch. I'm sure that it will come up again during the edit. So, I think rather than airing it in the middle of a review, we should get very clear and focus on these three topics.
Some questions I would like to see both of you answer. Then, respond how you feel about the other person's responses. Please remember to be civil. No calling things stupid, stubborn, or whatever. If you feel the other person is totally missing a key point, politely explain the point and why you feel its pertinent in this case. After that, I think we will have a better idea of where exactly everyone stands, and then look to see where we go from there. Ok?
1. Assuming for the sake of this question that everyone editing an A/Q article has some bias or conflict of interest, ranging simply from knowing someone involved (for good or bad) with either organization, all the way to being on the payroll of Alticor or N21 as a "plant" to foist POV onto the article, how do you see WP:COI as it applies to such editors in articles such as these. (And if the Jossi view is your view, please describe that view in your own words with your own emphasis where you see fit).
2. Should someone with a self-professed non- or minimally- financial tie to A/Q be treated differently, or rather should the edits of such a person, be treated differently from someone with a large financial tie to them, as opposed to someone who has made no claims one way or the other? Why and how?
3. Assuming for the sake of this question, that an article about any subject is strongly skewed to an extreme POV, such that the entire article appears to be NPOV to someone who does not really know the topic well. Further, there are several sources (some of which both sides would agree are reliable sources) that support the extreme POV due to a recent blitz of media coverage concerning a few recent high-profile cases (again, this could be any article, not specifically A/Q). What criteria should be used to evaluate new edits, especially ones that run contrary to the article's current POV (i.e., they would seem to be introducing a new POV rather than correcting a strong POV back to center)? What criteria should be used to evaluate sources used to document information? Should there be a difference in standards between those that support the current article's findings as opposed to ones that dispute it? In short, how would you tell if an article is slanted and how should someone successfully bring the article back to center?
4. Assume that Tom is a reasonably successful A/Q IBO that has first-hand knowledge and evidence, including notarized documents, of certain facts about A/Q (it does not matter if the issue is positive or negative). Tom has attempted to get the word out, but the media does not appear to be interested in airing the report. Tom publishes the information, along with scans of the documents, audio recordings with transcripts from meetings, and more to his Blogger.com account (no ads other than Blogger's). (a) How would you view linking to the evidence in the A/Q articles, bearing in mind that Tom is an IBO with financial interest? (b) Same question, but Tom quit A/Q several months prior to all of this and has not had financial COI in all that time, and not even an axe to grind, but is releasing the information out of a sense of duty in doing "the right thing". (c) If the Phoenix Sun picked up the story and ran it in their newspaper, how would you view linking to the news story, which is essentially a recap of the information on the blog, but did not print the actual documentation available on the blog? (d) If both the NY and LA Times picked up the story, along with some of the networks? In short, at what point does newsworthiness and media coverage overcome concerns (if any) of WP:COI from Tom being the source of the information?
5. During the review, a particular proposed edit seems split 50-50, and you are aware that your opinion is likely to sway the consensus clearly one way or the other. What (roughly in order) would you consider the primary factors in making your decision concerning the edit?
Insider201283's Answers | Will_Beback's Responses |
---|---|
1. IN: | 1. WB: |
2. IN: | 2. WB: |
3. IN: | 3. WB: |
4a. IN: | 4a. WB: |
4b. IN: | 4b. WB: |
4c. IN: | 4c. WB: |
4d. IN: | 4d. WB: |
5. IN: | 5. WB: |
Will_Beback's Answers | Insider201283's Responses |
1. WB: | 1. IN: |
2. WB: | 2. IN: |
3. WB: | 3. IN: |
4a. WB: | 4a. IN: |
4b. WB: | 4b. IN: |
4c. WB: | 4c. IN: |
4d. WB: | 4d. IN: |
5. WB: | 5. IN: |
Are the questions too tough? Or have both of you just been very busy this weekend? --Willscrlt (Talk·Cntrb) 10:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost had an interesting and relevant article on the topic of COI today. It linked to a blog article with the following statements:
“ | What exactly are Wikipedia’s guidelines relating to conflict of interest and professional editing? Looking at their policy pages, it actually seems to bear little resemblence to some of the comments floating around. From what I can gather, here is a summary:
This seems quite reasonable and workable.[1] |
” |
“ | As someone who helped write the Conflict of Interest guideline, I'd like to first note that your summary of nine bulleted points is an entirely accurate summary of the various related guidelines and policies. On the other hand, every single person who we have had a COI problem with insists for various reasons similar to yours that they can edit without adding bias and should be allowed to make Wikipedia better. The problem arises when other editors disagree with that assessment. So long as you accept that your opinion is not the opinion that counts on your own COI, meaning that you don't fight over what goes in the articles but are content to offer suggestions on the talk page (or in the articles if no one protests) than we don't have a problem. Anyone can add an edit. Anyone can delete an edit. People who fight about it get banned. People who play well with others are encouraged to help even more. I hope you, like me, get addicted to helping create a wonderful free resource for all mankind. Anonymous • January 27, 2007 05:36 AM [2] |
” |
“ | Clarification: "No one protests" refers to the other respected editors editing that article. So long as the main authors of an article are playing nice together and improving Wikipedia, its all good. When conflicts arise, the guidelines and policies become important, but the interpretation of them should be in the hands of uninvolved editors (mediators). If mediation fails, administrators can ban or block people who insist on continuing to fight. If administrators disagree among themselves or a contributor insists on it, Arbcom holds a sort of trial to resolve the situation. This is very roughly how its supposed to work. Anonymous • January 27, 2007 05:51 AM [2] |
” |
I thought that the second excerpt was especially pertinent to this case, because it almost exactly describes the situation involving Insider ("insists for various reasons ... that they can edit without adding bias and should be allowed to make Wikipedia better. The problem arises when other editors disagree with that assessment."). That is apparently what has happened here. Insider is welcome to edit, but he's not in a good position to judge his own COI. In fact, none of the primary editors are at this point, because they all have some degree of "interest" in the portions of the page they edited.
It still leaves the big question mark always left behind after these statements concerning COI: what about the other side? If the non-interested parties are able to edit freely, and the interested parties are not permitted to do so, then how can you ever have a truly neutral point of view article? It would appear that the answer is simply that you can't. WP:COI does not take into account how it inadvertently leads to POV-slanted articles, and the general editing public of Wikipedia (as evidenced by the notation that this guideline is generally accepted) do not seem to find that matter worrisome.
Applying that to this case then, it would appear that Insider, due to his obvious and self-admitted COI (the financial issue may be debatable, but not that there is some degree of COI), is subject to the general consensus opinion of the majority of non-interested editors who will act as moderators (whomever such people might be). If they are convinced that Insider's COI is imposing POV on the article, then his edits should be removed. The fact that other major contributors might have COI (though it would have to be proven through self-statement or repeated actions consistent with having COI) should not even be factored into this decision, since WP:COI appears to trump common sense when it comes to POV. If only common sense were a little more common.
I'm going to try to exercise a little common sense here and say what makes sense to me, at least in this case.
Is all of that found in WP:COI? Not hardly. But it is how I interpret WP:COI making the most sense, especially in this particular case.
Are any parties involved in the wrong? No. As long as all parties agree going forward to be equally bound to WP:COI based on apparent COI as well as stated COI (and also assuming that a clear, consistent history of POV editing has been established before name calling gets thrown about), then I think that this might be a workable solution. It seems true to the spirit of WP:COI, without getting bogged down in the one-sided illogic that literally following WP:COI would seem to almost mandate.
I would be very interested to hear everyone's feedback on this matter. Everyone including outsiders to the case. --Willscrlt (Talk·Cntrb) 04:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello again. I just wanted to mention that while Will Beback and I appear to have somewhat different views concerning WP:COI (as has come to light in recent discussion concerning that policy on its talk page), I feel that I can remain a fairly neutral mediator on this topic. I do not have to fully agree with a policy or guideline to see its overall wisdom, or to compare actions taken and compare it to the actions the policy or guideline prescribes in a given situation. In other words, just because I think the policy could use revision, does not mean that I cannot fulfill my obligations with this case. Anyway, the point will probably be moot in a few hours, because it does not look like Insider will return to the discussions before the case closes tomorrow. If he does, though, I will be happy to continue mediating the case, unless either party feels I can no longer remain neutral. If so, then I understand, and I we can request a different mediator to continue the discussions.
This has been an interesting first Mediation Cabal case for me. I hope that it was productive for both parties (and the people watching from the outside, too). I know I learned a lot in the process. I think that both parties have made good points along the way. I truly respect Will Beback's patience and commitment to safeguarding and improving Wikipedia. I also respect Insider's desire to see the articles in question be brought to a neutral POV, and I can appreciate his frustration with certain processes. I also admire both parties for seeking to come together and reconcile their differences. I hope that you each feel something good came out of these discussions. I imagine it is a little anticlimactic for the discussions to fizzle out instead of concluding on a happy note. It is for me, at least. But hopefully it will all turn out for the best in the end. Again, I hope that all is well with Insider and his family. Thank you everyone for your participation and decorum. Will and Insider, feel free to add your thoughts, too. --Willscrlt (Talk·Cntrb) 12:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)