4 ms·

I think there's a fundamental conflict of interest allowing corporate-backed editors to slip in photos of their logos like that. I don't think it's something th

I think there's a fundamental conflict of interest allowing corporate-backed editors to slip in photos of their logos like that. I don't think it's something that Wikipedia should endorse (and remove when they find it). I don't have a problem with the logo itself. I have a problem with the motivations behind a corporation having the power to manipulate the information seen on such a global resource like Wikipedia that has almost nothing to do with their company.

logicallee 7y ago
of course, the conflict of interest is obvious. I just don't see it as a big deal if the result is better. if the result is worse I think it would get reverted.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  I think it extremely important to stay distinct from any messages of commercial intent - except only on pages relevant to that - like a page about advertising, or Nestle's and North Face's pages etc. The risk is ruining the whole thing by introducing commercial bias everywhere. The already imperfect mods now have a new, and probably impossible, spam filtering job. It's already imperfect and shows considerable bias on some pages, so you want to explicitly permit more? Where does it stop? Who defines "better"? If you allow ABC Medical to discretely brand the image, do you allow XYZ Medical to replace those with photos with their brand? If not, that's hardly fair, so why not? What if it's ever so slightly less discrete? Are we expected to keep trusting the advice on the pages when an illness page is covered with Pfizer images - who entirely coincidentally just happen to have a drug for that illness? Do they get to bombard Wikipedia with "better" advertising laden photos ad nauseum until there's a can of Brawndo in every article, or every editor gives up and quits? There's far too much advertising, branding, empty PR, and corporate shilling in the world already without proposing more vandalism and allowing idiots to shit adverts and brands all over one of the few spots that remains relatively clean. Everywhere is not a sales opportunity.
  - logicallee 7y ago
    in theory if XYZ Medical and ABC medical get into a war of replacing the image with better and better ones, while making their logos smaller or smaller, the articles win by ending up with the best photos of all. so it's a question of whether the result is objectively better. the shilling concerns you raise about article text are more than real. they're a battleground of socket puppet manipulation. in theory that's why things have to be sourced, original research isn't allowed, neutrality has to be kept, etc. but in practice it's a really bad. so I'm much more concerned about article text than I am about images and you raise a really valid concern.

logicallee 7y ago

of course, the conflict of interest is obvious. I just don't see it as a big deal if the result is better. if the result is worse I think it would get reverted.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago
I think it extremely important to stay distinct from any messages of commercial intent - except only on pages relevant to that - like a page about advertising, or Nestle's and North Face's pages etc. The risk is ruining the whole thing by introducing commercial bias everywhere. The already imperfect mods now have a new, and probably impossible, spam filtering job. It's already imperfect and shows considerable bias on some pages, so you want to explicitly permit more? Where does it stop? Who defines "better"? If you allow ABC Medical to discretely brand the image, do you allow XYZ Medical to replace those with photos with their brand? If not, that's hardly fair, so why not? What if it's ever so slightly less discrete? Are we expected to keep trusting the advice on the pages when an illness page is covered with Pfizer images - who entirely coincidentally just happen to have a drug for that illness? Do they get to bombard Wikipedia with "better" advertising laden photos ad nauseum until there's a can of Brawndo in every article, or every editor gives up and quits? There's far too much advertising, branding, empty PR, and corporate shilling in the world already without proposing more vandalism and allowing idiots to shit adverts and brands all over one of the few spots that remains relatively clean. Everywhere is not a sales opportunity.
- logicallee 7y ago
  in theory if XYZ Medical and ABC medical get into a war of replacing the image with better and better ones, while making their logos smaller or smaller, the articles win by ending up with the best photos of all. so it's a question of whether the result is objectively better. the shilling concerns you raise about article text are more than real. they're a battleground of socket puppet manipulation. in theory that's why things have to be sourced, original research isn't allowed, neutrality has to be kept, etc. but in practice it's a really bad. so I'm much more concerned about article text than I am about images and you raise a really valid concern.