Talk:Caryn Marooney

I am an experienced Wikipedia editor but have a conflict of interest on this article because I am a paid consultant to the Outcast Agency, a communications firm employed by Facebook. BC1278 (talk) 21:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)BC1278

good job... checking < Pages that link to "Caryn Marooney" > there is a bunch of unrelevant guy who works for Facebook.. good karma marketing :P 79.32.40.247 (talk) 22:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Request Edit -- Remove Contentious Material re: BLP

Hi,

I had a disclosed WP: COI for this article, but I am not being paid for this.

Remove:

"In March 2019, HuffPost reported that Facebook hired Ed Sussman, a "paid Wikpedia editor," to allegedly "create" the Wikipedia page for Marooney. HuffPost alleged that this effort took Sussman "over a year", and that he had gotten around Wikipedia's rules regarding paid editing by replying to "nearly every single bit of pushback with walls of text arguing his case," which HuffPost claims discourages Wikipedia editors from "dealing with Sussman’s arguments," allowing him to usually "get his way.""

Why?

1. WP: Coatrack Discussion of Wikipedia policy in the media is not relevant to the bio of the subject of this article. Most of this paragraph is about Sussman (me), not Malrooney. The editor could try Wikipedia and see how it flies.

2. Administrative Noticeboard has already reviewed this HuffPo article in-depth and found it to be an unreliable source: [1] "The article itself seems to quietly concede that he doesn't actually violate any policies. In fact, it comes across as extremely misleading and obviously written by someone who doesn't understand Wikipedia at all. He "spent over a year lobbying" for the creation of Caryn Marooney? Come on, he created it as a draft and got it approved through the AfC process, not because he's some relentless lobbyist... This article seems to be little more than an unfortunate piece of trumped-up clickbaity garbage, and I actually feel bad for the paid editor here. I hope both the editor and the Foundation will push back in some way." This is from the admin User: Swarm, and was concurred with by Barkeep49. No one disputes in this string disputes these the AN investigative findings.

3. Factually inaccurate summary. None of the following section (poorly summarizing HuffPo) refers to the Maroonet article: "...and that he had gotten around Wikipedia's rules regarding paid editing by replying to "nearly every single bit of pushback with walls of text arguing his case," which HuffPost claims discourages Wikipedia editors from "dealing with Sussman’s arguments," allowing him to usually "get his way."

Aside from the inaccurate attribution of this accusation to this article, it is self-evident, by this Talk page, that there is no "pushback" or "wall of text" leading to its approval. The exact dif showing the approval shows barely any discussion.

4. Contentious material alleging violation of the law. As Wikipedia warns in WP: COI, covert editing potentially violates FTC law, and is certainly a serious violation of Wikipedia policy. WP: COI. Sussman disputes any wrongdoing in the article: "Everything he does is aboveboard." As per BLP policy, weakly sourced contentious material should be removed immediately.

5. Article is also inaccurate in alleging a declared paid editor using AfC can "create" an article in mainspace. Only a reviewing volunteer editor can move a proposed draft to mainspace, as is evident by the above dif above.

6. Undermines WP: COI and WP: Paid Editing. Official policy of Wikipedia is to encourage editors with a COI to disclose and to post to Talk or AfC. Inserting discussion of WP: COI and WP: PAID into a BLP is a great way to undermine anyone ever wanting to abide by these policies. Again, this is a matter for WP: AN, if the editor of this section wishes to report me for more invesigation, and/or for the Wikipedia article. BC1278 (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC

References

I have removed the paragraph on essentially coatrack terms. But let's be clear: Swarm and I, or really any combination of users at WP:AN do not get to decide that the HuffPo piece is unreliable and can't be used. Further, throwing six things out there to see if any of them stick is not in keeping with community norms. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:04, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@BC1278: Per this and this, may I kindly ask you to be more concise? I agree English is a beautiful language, but requiring other editors to read walls of text from you on every single issue is tad daunting, sorry. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment The author of the article Ashley Feinberg seems to have a solid reputation as a journalist. Had this not concerned Wikipedia itself and one of the paid editors that are here I am not sure that we would be so touchy about including a brief mention of it. The story was picked up by a Spin (magazine) journalist here https://www.spin.com/2019/03/wikipedia-editor-axios-nbc-chuck-todd-jonathan-swan/ and specifically mentions the subject of this article. Spin seems to be a serious publication but maybe someone has a better take on them than me. --Dom from Paris (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment The entire above section demonstrates EXACTLY what the article was critiquing, such as cherry picking comments from one or two people & falsely representing them as a consensus or decision, gish galloping issues, beating up COATRACK (seriously, that's his favorite thing), etc. JamesG5 (talk) 19:01, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• The quote from me is from an AN thread where we are investigating whether the allegations in the article are true. And, to be clear, if those allegations were true, they would be extremely severe policy violations. My statement that was shared here is not some "cherry-picked", favorable response masquerading as a consensus. Eight admins have replied to the thread. All eight appear to be on the same page that the article is exaggerated sensationalism, and that the editor has not actually has done anything wrong. It has been suggested that the user should probably be more concise, but we haven't seen anything to support the notion that they're relentlessly argumentative or engage in "bludgeoning" behavior. This is an unprecedented scenario in which a supposedly-reliable source is making claims about Wikipedia that we can actually weigh and judge from an administrative perspective, not just from a content perspective. And, when the content perspective holds that an RS is an RS, yet the administrative perspective is that we've investigated the claims and determined that the RS is wrong, it creates an incredibly uncomfortable scenario. There's no guidebook on how to deal with this, and it needs additional discussion, probably at RSN. Also, we should most keep in mind that, in this context, BC is addressing this as a BLP subject, and not a paid editor, and they should have their concerns heard fairly and taken seriously, and should be able to state their case without grief about having to be "concise". There is nothing wrong or excessive with their above statement. ~Swarm~ {talk} 21:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose to merge Caryn Marooney into Facebook. I think that the content in the Caryn Marooney article can easily be explained in the context of Facebook, and the Facebook article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Caryn Marooney will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. Additionally Caryn Marooney has not notability and having pages for figures of little public knowledge or importance is unreasonable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.22.92.40 (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Caryn Marooney said in Feb. 2019 she will be leaving Facebook, after right years, to work in 'tech and product'. There were several major articles about her when she said she would be leaving (Wired, Fortune, AdWeek, Re/Code) further establishing her notability. Wired's headline last month said she has had "the toughest job in tech." No one has done an update yet. I'll add the sources. I can't touch the article because of my COI. Marooney had a major career before Facebook and while at Facebook has been one of the most senior women in tech. There is more than adequate RS for GNG. Wikipedia has a bad problem with women being under severely underrepresented in BLP. The "Women in Red" Project, WP:WPWIR, which works hard to get articles like this into WP, should be notified for comment if anyone formalizes this proposal. Only 17.6% of WP bios are about women (March 2019-WP:WPWIR) Anyone influenced by the HuffPo article allegation should know that it is false: My first submission for this article has 11 sources. When I resubmitted an expanded version 14 months later, it had 23 sources, establishing notability. Resubmitting an improved draft is normal practice, not "lobbying for a year." See:[2] User: Ipigott, a Master Editor III, did the review and approved the draft. COI Disclosure above. Not being paid for this now.BC1278 (talk) 21:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

References