3 ms·

The discussion there shows the viewpoints of the participants and the suggestions going forward in dealing with PR, and they are for the most part naive. Here

The discussion there shows the viewpoints of the participants and the suggestions going forward in dealing with PR, and they are for the most part naive. Here is an actual example how PR has been dealt with: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy_ban_appeal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/.... The protagonists are "TimidGuy", a person affiliated with Maharishi University of Management engaging in advocacy for Transcendental Meditation, and "Will Beback", the fellow who attempted to put a lid on the PR. The outcome: a siteban for Will Beback and no consequences for TimidGuy. A weak performance.

tptacek 14y ago
Did you actually read this case? An editor is topic-banned from editing pages about Indian religions after a pattern of advocacy is detected. The ban expires, and the editor resumes contributing to pages on those topics, but without the advocacy; for instance, the user adds negative material about topics he'd previously advocated for. Another Wikipedia editor notices the resumption in editing and goes nuts, trying to out the user, appealing for the user to be banned, and picking intractable fights. What conclusion was this case supposed to come to? Is it your belief that the whole of ArbCom are secretly in the tank for commercial transcendental meditation? Also, look at how much time Wikipedia sunk into trying to resolve this case carefully. How do you find a way to make that a bad thing?
- HarryHirsch 14y ago
  > What conclusion was this case supposed to come to? I said this already: in the real world companies send press releases to trade journals, who then turn those into editorial content. The equivalent on Wikipedia would be that the PR professional makes his suggestions on the talkpage but is banned from the main article. It this even a question? What alternative do you suggest? Neither Harvard nor Maharishi University get to write their own pages in US News & World Report College Rankings Issue. I can understand well how someone can go mad and eventually become completely out of order when faced with a history of ethically questionable behaviour. Unfortunately Wikipedia isn't very lenient with mad people. > Is it your belief that the whole of ArbCom are secretly in the tank for commercial transcendental meditation? They are just inexperienced and clueless. But that isn't an excuse, clue is required when in a visible position at one of the world's top websites. Did you ever read the Conflict-of-Interest RfC? Actually it is a product of that TM Arbcom case. There are some real howlers in there: Jclemens: Whether an editor is directly paid to edit Wikipedia is irrelevant to the quality of their contributions Sandstein: Conflict of interest (COI) is a problem only where it leads to the production of non-neutral (or unverifiable, or otherwise policy-noncompliant) content Sven Manguard: We should not treat paid editors differently from unpaid editors. Elen of the Roads: ... to be clear that the problem is not working for Acme PR, being Prof Elk or having a lifelong interest in debunking astrology. It is breaching the contract with the reader that articles will be fair, balanced, neutral, give due weight to all the current thinking. All of these are prominent Wikipedians with very, very muddled thinking.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    The one example you've managed to provide is of Wikipedia going through tedious and extensive efforts to prevent conflict-of-interest edits. Maybe you could provide a more convincing example than this one? I simply don't care what you read on some Wikipedia discussion page about what random people on the Internet think about conflict-of-interest edits. The project has rules; cite those, or cite instances where the rules weren't followed.

tptacek 14y ago

Did you actually read this case? An editor is topic-banned from editing pages about Indian religions after a pattern of advocacy is detected. The ban expires, and the editor resumes contributing to pages on those topics, but without the advocacy; for instance, the user adds negative material about topics he'd previously advocated for. Another Wikipedia editor notices the resumption in editing and goes nuts, trying to out the user, appealing for the user to be banned, and picking intractable fights. What conclusion was this case supposed to come to? Is it your belief that the whole of ArbCom are secretly in the tank for commercial transcendental meditation? Also, look at how much time Wikipedia sunk into trying to resolve this case carefully. How do you find a way to make that a bad thing?

HarryHirsch 14y ago
> What conclusion was this case supposed to come to? I said this already: in the real world companies send press releases to trade journals, who then turn those into editorial content. The equivalent on Wikipedia would be that the PR professional makes his suggestions on the talkpage but is banned from the main article. It this even a question? What alternative do you suggest? Neither Harvard nor Maharishi University get to write their own pages in US News & World Report College Rankings Issue. I can understand well how someone can go mad and eventually become completely out of order when faced with a history of ethically questionable behaviour. Unfortunately Wikipedia isn't very lenient with mad people. > Is it your belief that the whole of ArbCom are secretly in the tank for commercial transcendental meditation? They are just inexperienced and clueless. But that isn't an excuse, clue is required when in a visible position at one of the world's top websites. Did you ever read the Conflict-of-Interest RfC? Actually it is a product of that TM Arbcom case. There are some real howlers in there: Jclemens: Whether an editor is directly paid to edit Wikipedia is irrelevant to the quality of their contributions Sandstein: Conflict of interest (COI) is a problem only where it leads to the production of non-neutral (or unverifiable, or otherwise policy-noncompliant) content Sven Manguard: We should not treat paid editors differently from unpaid editors. Elen of the Roads: ... to be clear that the problem is not working for Acme PR, being Prof Elk or having a lifelong interest in debunking astrology. It is breaching the contract with the reader that articles will be fair, balanced, neutral, give due weight to all the current thinking. All of these are prominent Wikipedians with very, very muddled thinking.
- tptacek 14y ago
  The one example you've managed to provide is of Wikipedia going through tedious and extensive efforts to prevent conflict-of-interest edits. Maybe you could provide a more convincing example than this one? I simply don't care what you read on some Wikipedia discussion page about what random people on the Internet think about conflict-of-interest edits. The project has rules; cite those, or cite instances where the rules weren't followed.