User talk:CorporateM

COI declarations and ToU

I was wondering whether you think your COI declarations have been sufficiently close to the requirements of wmf:Terms of Use. For example at Nestlé Purina PetCare you say "I have a COI/financial connection/affiliation with Nestle Purina Petcare", which I understand to be saying you have a financial connection (rather than that your COI may either be financial or non-financial). Maybe you are not being paid in which case it is for you to decide the nature of the declaration. However when you are being paid you should be explicit in stating your "employer, client, and affiliation". meta:Terms of use/FAQ on paid contributions without disclosure is possibly a bit more helpful: "If you are editing an article on Wikipedia on behalf of your employer, for example, you must disclose your employer's details. If you have been hired by a public relations firm to edit Wikipedia, you must disclose both the firm and the firm’s client". If Hill's Pet Nutrition started paying someone else to edit Nestlé Purina PetCare we'd really want to know that! Please understand that I am commenting here because I think you may well be willing to help towards improving our standards of transparency in this area and I do think your recent editing concerning Juniper Networks has been closer to the ToU requirements. Thincat (talk) 09:34, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@Thincat: The "/" is intended to mean both disclosures are relevant. Naturally anyone with a financial connection with the article-subject also has a conflict of interest. However, you may find some articles where I have only disclosed a COI, because of the pro-bono work I do or for other circumstances.

I avoid the words "on behalf of", because while the article-subject does have input into my work, I exercise independent editorial control over the content. I am not their proxy and often make edits that do not support their interests.[1] IMO "on behalf of" a corporation is a Group Account intended to advocate for the article-subject's best interest.

I explicitly and knowingly do not comply with the requirement to disclose any marketing agencies involved, when there is one. Many of the agency partners I have worked with are small firms, where I would be disclosing a specific individual and violating our principles of privacy. Even larger firms often have confidentiality agreements with their clients. I also can't possibly fathom why Wikipedians would need this information. It's disclosure carpet-bombing. I think I comply with the principles of the Terms of Use[2] to avoid "deception" and "misrepresentation of affiliation" and when I asked a WMF staffer if this kind of thing was a problem, they said not to worry about it.

I would encourage you to temper the idea that more transparency is necessarily better. Transparency often comes at the sacrifice of privacy. We are not transparent in that most of us hide behind anonymous usernames, with good reason. Excessive disclosures often lead editors to be overly sympathetic to the article-subject when face-to-face with their representative on a personal level, or lead the disclosing party to take it personally when their proposed edits are rejected. What I think we should advocate against unconditionally is deception, which often goes hand-in-hand with an extreme lack of transparency.

CorporateM (Talk) 16:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

When I first came across you, Corporate, a few months back, you were the first editor I'd discovered that had disclosed a COI and continued to edit but I'd like to weigh in here just for @Thincat:'s benefit and say that I've always seen you working within the bounds on Wikipedia policy and I've now reviewed two of your major edits associated with Juniper Networks and there's never been evidence of anything other than actually improving Wikipedia's content on the company. I agree with your statement that we should work on preventing deception, and not go as far as "disclosure carpet-bombing". SamWilson989 (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

It's a great topic of discussion; my arguments are intended to be presented with the same respect and civility as Thincat has offered in his original post and are just a drop in the bucket of a site-wide spirited discussion on the issue. I'm certainly open to making modifications to my COI disclosures if there is a compelling case for it as well. In my opinion the bigger issue is the lack of disclosure to readers. CorporateM (Talk) 18:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, yes, and thank you both. I was well aware of CorporateM's ethical approach and that is why I came here. There is no suggestion from me that any of the editing has been deceptive, etc. Biassed editing of WP is often done by people who are obsessed, ignorant and so on, and COI declarations do nothing in these areas. I agree that declared paid editing is far better than undeclared paid editing (and, I regret to say, may be better than a lot of run-of-the-mill editing). However, I am also aware of the requirements of the WMF ToU which are rather categorical and, so far as I know, enwp has not adopted any alternative policy. I would be interested in seeing whether CorporateM could help us towards a "better practice" than perhaps we have at the moment. For example, for paid editing, {{Connected contributor|declared=yes}} seems utterly useless if used by itself. Thincat (talk) 18:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I do think the Connected Contributor template is useful. My userpage says "Articles where I have a COI should have a Connected Contributor tag"; editors that are not certain about whether I have a volunteer or COI role on a particular article can check for a disclosure tag to verify, without having to dig through the Talk page archives to find my initial disclosure.

I have not seen as-of-yet any compelling argument for why we would need to distinguish between a paid editor and other forms of COI. For example, I don't see for what purpose we would need to know if a BLP was requesting corrections on the Talk page, or whether it was actually their PR agency or a paid editor. Would we respond differently in each case? And if so, why? Any information we insist someone discloses, should be because we have a specific use of that information and/or because it is necessary to avoid deception.

Excessive disclosure actually corrupts the principles of focusing on the content, not the editor, because other editors will most likely support or oppose their edits based on their personal POV about that category of motivations for editing. This is followed by a debate about whether we are being too accommodating or too hostile to a disclosed COI and pretty soon nobody is actually talking about content and sources.

Regarding the Terms of Use, I think they were intended primarily to avoid any possible loophole to prevent WMF from suing Wiki-PR, which they never did anyway. Compared to WP:COI, which is a hot mess, they are much better, but could use refinement through a community-accepted alternative. Whether that refinement is possible though.... most editors have given up on any attempt to reach consensus on these kinds of issues. CorporateM (Talk) 19:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to think about all this and that may take a while partly because I'll need to do some (re-)reading. Most of the enwp COI discussions predated the change in the WMF ToU and the notorious very recent discussions with ArbCom had a background of accusations of undisclosed (and deceptive) paid editing. None of that is directly applicable but some aspects might be relevant. Meanwhile, best wishes! Thincat (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@Thincat: I interact from time to time with CM. I have no need to know more about them, and would consider it difficult if rules meant they had to identify themselves more than they have. I have no idea what part of the world they are in, nor their sex, hobbies, likes, dislikes, and so much more. I have no need to know the names of the people or organisations who pay them to edit, I just need to be sure I can rely on their declaring that they have a COI in an article, and to watch them manage it well. I use them as an example of best practice.

I support well executed paid editing and I despise bad editing from whatever source. Fiddle Faddle 22:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I've heard that the Signpost could use an op-ed[3] to balance-out all the coverage of covert practices. Writing is a good way to get your thoughts together. CorporateM (Talk) 22:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Juniper Networks

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Juniper Networks you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Curly Turkey -- Curly Turkey (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bob Muglia

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bob Muglia you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Esquivalience -- Esquivalience (talk) 01:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Juniper Networks

The article Juniper Networks you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Juniper Networks for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Curly Turkey -- Curly Turkey (talk) 02:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Juniper Networks early stock price chart.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Juniper Networks early stock price chart.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of McKinsey & Company

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article McKinsey & Company you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ugog Nizdast -- Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Please look at Valentine Richmond History Center in light of WP:CORP and WP:GNG

CorporateM, given your skill and creativity in suppressing content from entities subject to WP:CORP, I'd like you to take a look a Valentine Richmond History Center. Here's an article that clearly hasn't demonstrated that it meets WP:GNG, has been subject to COI editing in the past (evident from the article's history) and the only source used for all the promotional content is the organization's website. Since 100% of the article's content is attributable to the organization's website, it clearly doesn't meet WP:CORP guidelines. Shouldn't that promotional content be severely cutback until notability can be established through independent, reliable sources? Thanks --Mike Cline (talk) 23:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done Sent to AfD, but I believe this article falls into one of those categories like Linux, open-source, academics, etc. where it is very difficult to get the article deleted, because it appeals to the interests of our editor demographics. CorporateM (Talk) 09:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

alt-med

I am so disappointed by this. Jytdog (talk) 15:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog: If it was any other topic, it would be obvious that a source that claims to have information that is "difficult or impossible to get elswhere" and shows "[concern] about...."[4] is obviously not an NPOV source. NPOV sources do not show concern and they do not claim to have some secret information not available elsewhere, which ironically is what quackery-type companies claim themselves.

Does it even have full-time staff? I don't think it's any different than stuff like Corpwatch, which has a clear editorial agenda to "expose corruption". Certainly we have legitimate sources available for any topic of significance and the only excuse to use a source like this is where absolutely no others exist for something that is clearly quackery and should be identified as such.

We should insist on strong sources, especially for exceptional claims, everywhere, not just where it suits our POV. If a similar source was used to add promotion about a company, it would be removed in a heart-beat. CorporateM (Talk) 15:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

before going on... i know you have been around a pretty long time, but i don't know how much you have worked in articles related to health or how familiar you are with the day-to-day grind of dealing with the relentless advocacy that goes on in Wikipedia about health stuff - everything from people freaking out about GMOs to people believing that boatloads of vitamin C can stave off cancer, and all of them insisting that WP is censoring content that is vital to public health. how much have you dealt with that? Jytdog (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

The existence of POV pushing is not a good justification for us to legitimize their complaints, or return the favor with our own poorly-sourced content.

No, I primarily edit on business topics. With 1 small exception, I have not done any paid work in alternative medicine either (my website states that I do not accept them as clients). But every topic has similar problems with advocacy; our response is to aggressively delete poorly-sourced exceptional claims, whether they be BLP issues, promotion or something else. I don't see any reason to treat medicine differently, whereby we codify the use of low-quality sources in response to advocates, adopting similar NPOV problems ourselves.

Personally I dislike both doctors and alternative medicine and don't necessarily see one as less corrupt than the other. CorporateM (Talk) 16:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

thanks for answering the question and more. two responses. the level of self-righteousness that comes with advocacy in health (This Is Really Important for The Public To Know) is perhaps different than other fields, as are the actual public health implications of WP articles (see the intro to WP:MEDRS). Quackwatch and SBM are both authoritative, reliable, and solidly science-based. They do speak directly to things that the biomedical literature doesn't otherwise do. (see for example SBM on the "food babe") Like it or not, the line you are pursuing is aligned with the advocates who would turn WP into a woo-filled wonderland, mislead the public, and frustrate our mission. Jytdog (talk) 16:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why you would characterize my position as supporting quackery, whereas all I said is we should use better sources where they exist and insist on high-quality sources for exceptional claims everywhere. If something is indeed quackery, we should have peer-reviewed journals and other MEDRS sources to support the statement. In cases where those higher-quality sources do not exist, the proposal allows the use Quackwatch in those cases. This kind of comment that I'm pursuing a woo-filled wonderland is the kind of baseless ad-hominem attacks that are used to bully anyone that doesn't support the majority agenda to attack alternative medicine. I have no agenda to support or attack it - only to use strong sources. Whether an editor has an agenda to attack or promote alternative medicine, weak sources are the tools of POV pushers and the method of weeding out POV pushing is by insisting on high-quality sources, not the opposite. CorporateM (Talk) 16:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

i didn't say you support quackery. i was afraid you would miss the point, and you did. really - i was not saying you support quackery. your response perhaps also demonstrates the strong feelings around this. i really am trying to talk with you. Jytdog (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I don't mind continuing the discussion, but I'd probably rather spend time actually editing the article in question. I don't even know if Quackwatch is used on this page. Neither of us are likely swing votes. CorporateM (Talk) 23:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I never really encountered Quackwatch before. Researching their site reveals that they are recruiting plaintiffs for lawsuits. That's pretty much of a red flag, IMHO. Lou Sander (talk) 01:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

as you will then; i don't want to take you away from what you want to do. Jytdog (talk) 03:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Ramsay Health Care UK

Hi, is there any chance of you taking a look at Ramsay Health Care UK ? It is pretty close paraphrasing of the company's website, lacks other sources and seems very promotional to me ... but then I think most articles about businesses are and thus I am not best placed to edit neutrally. - Sitush (talk) 16:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush: I've stubbed it as unsourced original research and promotion. Including awards is a common WEIGHT issue that is promotional, unless the awards meet the criteria at WP:ORGAWARDS. A comprehensive list of individual products and services is also promotional; guidance on that is available at Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not_(organizations)#Products. They provide medical services; we do not need to list them all out individually like a product brochure, unless we want to wikilink to sub-articles, or for other reasons called out at the guideline. CorporateM (Talk) 18:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Those are very useful links. Thanks for pointing me to them and for doing the necessary with the article. - Sitush (talk) 18:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Heh, I've just looked at the creator's contributions. Aside from a possible COI, from a random sample of the other articles they have edited it seems that the problems are widespread. - Sitush (talk) 19:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of McKinsey & Company

The article McKinsey & Company you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:McKinsey & Company for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ugog Nizdast -- Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

@Ugog Nizdast: Thanks so much for your time reviewing my work and providing feedback! That one had been in the queue for quite a while; probably because it is quite a bit longer and more complex than most of my noms. Here's to GA number 36! CorporateM (Talk) 06:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

New discussions on Portal:Capitalism

Here, your input is appreciated Lbertolotti (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

@Lbertolotti: Is there a specific discussion string you wanted me to respond to? CorporateM (Talk) 22:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Right now, the most pressing matter is discussing the selected portal picture box, but it's an invitation to discuss all portal issuesLbertolotti (talk) 23:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Today's articles for improvement

• Hello CorporateM:

This week's voting for TAFI's upcoming weekly collaboration has begun at Week 24 of 2015. Thanks for participating!

Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 09:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

About this

this, that is. I emailed you to keep this private, but since you twisted what I wrote, I will just write it here: "I thought you were a pretty clueful editor. I am really blown away by this and this. How can you let yourself get involved in a health-related article, much less a controversial one, when you are this clueless (and I mean that) about how we source health content in Wikipedia? You are destroying your credibility, in my eyes at least. I can only imagine that other Project Med editors are thinking the same thing. I am at least telling you."

That email had nothing to do with any position you have taken, but rather with your (to me, very surprising) lack of understanding of MEDRS. I really thought you were more competent than that. I also that you had more class than to misrepresent a private communication in public, in that way.

In the past I had actually referred new editors to you for guidance. I won't be doing that anymore, that's for sure. Jytdog (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments about other editors' competence, credibility are really unnecessary. We could certainly take every single editor on WP and find areas of incompetence. An editor's lack of knowledge in a certain area is no reason to question credibility either. For all of us, people in glass houses.... and that is all of us. Think a minute everyone. Who here is perfect. Who here understands every nuance of the policies and guidelines. The Acupuncture talk page was criticized by an editor not even involved for its vitriolic tone. Is that something to be proud of? And no we can't pin that on Dr Chrissy. (Littleolive oil (talk) 16:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC))

CorporateM and I formerly had a pretty good relationship, and I really did think he was more clueful (and decent) than his behavior here. This is a private matter that CorporateM chose to make public in an ugly way. Shit happens. I won't be replying to more comments from the peanut gallery. Jytdog (talk) 16:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

You're not making any statements about a specific position I have taken, just expressing "disappointment" in my taking it and you think I'm incompetent for taking it. Oh but you're not bullying me, you're just expressing "disappointment" and "competence concerns" if I take a position that differs from yours. I will AGF the case that maybe you just didn't realize how inappropriate your conduct is. This type of thing can often happen when someone is too invested in the subject and in obtaining a specific outcome. This is especially threatening given all the block threats going around allegedly for "competence".

It would be useful if you would disclose if you have sent similar emails to other participants, but I suppose such information will not be forthcoming, which makes it impossible for us to evaluate the integrity of the discussion and how many editors were canvassed or bullied by you or other editors. This type of conduct is in-fact what is destructive to Wikipedia.

How any discussion about acupuncture is a "private matter" I have no idea. CorporateM (Talk) 16:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)