Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Smallbones (talk | contribs) at 17:55, 14 October 2013 (→‎Bright line rule: minor wording again). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Listing directors, trustees, officials, and such for an organization

I was under the impression that an article about an organization should not include a list of its board of directors or of its staff other than, usually, the top one or two people, especially if the others are not notable. I was close to deleting such a list but I couldn't find the authority to cite for why I was deleting it. Was this an old policy/guideline that no longer exists? Or is it somewhere else and perhaps we should link to it from this policy? Nick Levinson (talk) 19:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything like that at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). In fact, WP:ORGDEPTH seems to encourage such lists in order to help expand an organization's page beyond a simple stub. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 20:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I must be reading a different ORGDEPTH because I don't see any such encouragement. To the initial question I would say that such content would fall under WP:NOTDIR as an absolute no-no. A clear example being film articles, we list major cast and major players in production, we don't list every stunt actor and the key grip--Jac16888 Talk 20:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether there is such a content guideline or not, I don't see how WP:NOT is the place for it. Jclemens (talk) 06:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTDIR would cover egregious cases of this. --erachima talk 09:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
True, however, I would argue that WP:ORGDEPTH would allow for minimal lists on pages of notable organizations where the source material doesn't provide much more than a stub's worth of information about the organization. But I'm a fan of filler material for stubs that might not be appropriate for FA status, not all editors are. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 23:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, where the source material provides little more than a lit of members of the board, then the organization can only be barely notable, and the way to improve it is not to add minor content. Indeed, for the most important organization, the members of the board of directors and the highest executive ranks are relevant content--in a very large and important organization they have a major role to play in the world in a minor organization , very little. There's one special case that concerns me: for political lobbying groups, think tanks, and politically oriented publications, the members of the board can be a very relevant indication of the actual nature and intent of the organization. DGG ( talk ) 03:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. The CEO and certain other chairs/vice-presidents are likely notable because they are the face of the company, but the board members are rarely that afront. Add to the fact that these can change day to day. If reliable sources (not just ones that document the company in routine coverage like SEC filings) go into details on the board members then it would be reasonable to document them for that company, but I wouldn't do it across the board. (using the arbitrary point of "very large and important organization" would lead to edit war inclusion). --MASEM (t) 04:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm against filler that is only for stubs. Content should be appropriate under policies and guidelines regardless of whether the article is a stub or not, unless a policy or a guideline makes that kind of an exception. (At the other end of the length scale, if an article is getting close to being too long, an option is to delete content that is less appropriate than content that would be kept, but that judgment is not appropriate for stubs.)
Weight applies to whether to list board members for political organizations and the like, including the largest and most effectual, and weight is to be determined from sourcing; otherwise we would be engaging in original research. Notability probably justifies weight; if a notable person is on the board or in the staff, that might justify inclusion in the article on the organization. A comparable situation is of articles about neighborhoods that list notable residents or about schools that list notable alums; in those cases, for the articles I've noticed if not by policy or guideline, notability and sourcing seem to be required for listing a person in such a list, and I think are so required. In a hypothetical case of a U.S. Republican lobbying organization having on its board of directors a former Republican President, the notability and a source might be enough; if also on the board was a non-notable Republican ideologue who turned out to be important to the organization's ideological direction, an independent source discussing the ideologue's role could justify weight for inclusion in the article about the organization (and might even establish notability for the ideologue as well), but the organization's annual report being the only source would not justify the listing. Organizations' own websites and annual reports that list board members typically give no one's qualifications or everyone's qualifications (in my observation) and are not independent sources; even if they give everyone's qualifications, we should not use that alone to write those qualifications into Wikipedia's organizational article.
Notability alone as justifying inclusion in a list of people related to an organization is justified by an analogy. Consider if we compiled a list of U.S. Presidents including those Vice Presidents who served for even the shortest time as President (e.g., VP Gore was the acting President for 7 minutes, according to him in a reported campaign speech, and I think that happens because the VP-Elect is inaugurated before the Presdident-Elect is and the former President's term by law ends regardless of a new President having been inaugurated). I think all of them would be notable. We would list them. To my knowledge, they were/are not in one organization. If they were, I think we'd still list them.
On the other hand, for a membership, if it is too large, I don't think even notability would be an adequate ground. For example, if we compiled a list of all notable Republicans, I think there'd likely be at least a million. However, if a membership is very small, listing those members who are both notable and independently sourced as members might be justified.
Nick Levinson (talk) 19:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree that a guideline should apply to both stubs and articles. I'm just not in agreement that there needs to be a guideline on this that trumps: "Each article on Wikipedia is standalone." If an notable organization has limited coverage, we don't have to include every detail, but we also don't have to write the article with the same limited-space considerations that we do with a large article. For example: with small towns and villages, editors include town councils and lists of notable people. When the article is about a big city with lots of source materiel to write about, the council gets deleted and the list of notable people becomes a stand alone list. I'm not trying to make a Wikipedia:Other stuff exists argument, I'm just highlighting that guidelines ably to both stub and A list article, but size of the article can determine some of the content. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 20:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, just out of curiosity, how large do you think is "too Large" before you "don't think even notability would be an adequate ground" (See: List of people from New York City and List of people from California).--Dkriegls (talk to me!) 20:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Our articles should have coverage of the basic aspects of the topic that approximate the weight given to those aspects in independent/third-party/secondary sources. This is an idea that is represented in WP:NOT#PLOT - just because we can build a lot out of primary and dependent sources and meet WP:V, sometimes that's just not appropriate for an encyclopedia and puts undue weight on that coverage. So in the cases of those small towns that list out who is on town councils, that's not appropriate at all, as rarely who these people are are of interest outside the local coverage of the town. Same thing with board members and the management of a company. --MASEM (t) 20:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, except that weight is determined on an article by article basis, given that each subject has varying coverage. Weight should roughly equal the board's coverage divided by total coverage of the organization. For example, the same length of coverage about Citi Bank's board of directors would be measured as less weight than the exact same length of coverage for the board of directors at a notable animal shelter, simply because the total coverage of Citi Bank is huge, while coverage of a famous local animal shelter is likely to be very small. So if the animal shelter's board gets mentioned in a paper, we are not providing undue weight by including it in our small article about them. If we made the article about the board, that would be providing undue weight. I agree, primary sources should not be the only source mentioning that board. But if it is mentioned in a local paper, and the notability of the organization is established with sources that aren't a local paper, then per: "not everything in an article has to be notable", we should include it after properly weighing the impact. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 22:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article length is under the guideline on article size. If an article gets to be too long, an option is to split it, which allows preserving content and adding more. If an article is at the length limit specified by the Wikipedia guideline and it is not to be split, then more than notability would be a good minimum. A comparison might be to an article about a scientific subject that has been much investigated; some older studies that used to be cited many times and thus were notable might no longer deserve weight in recent years and so would be deleted in favor of more important studies.
For stubs, their guideline does not suggest lowering editorial standards to increase content.
Legislatures are different because even for the smallest notable governmental units (including towns, etc.) legislatures are probably notable, if a local news medium covers its proceedings from time to time, and the local news outlet may well name its members with some regularity. The chances are that if the locality is notable then so are many of the members of its legislature and many of its judges.
My understanding of boards is that even when composed of prominent people those people are rarely important because of their board membership, because typically they pick a CEO and set or approve an overarching plan to be carried out by the CEO and then don't much interfere as long as there's no major trouble, because they have other things to do, with other organizations and elsewhere. Exceptions exist, such as if an organization entered a crisis and board members became publicly active in a rescue. The proposal allows for exceptions.
Local consensus controls articles unless our experience with Wikipedia shows an advantage to setting a future direction for consistency through a policy or a guideline, and that's what I'm suggesting for this situation.
Nick Levinson (talk) 22:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC) (Clarified reply & corrected indentation: 22:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]
But you completely missed the point about sourcing. It's not about size of company vs size of board members, or the like. If I took all the available sources on Citibank, excluding those that were primary or dependent (press releases, corporate brochures, SEC filings), and looked through the rest of the available sources and found not one mention of the boardmembers, then we should not be including that information, even though it could be verified via the primary sources. It doesn't matter if it is the biggest bank in the world (I don't know if that's true), if no one else besides themselves talks about the board, it's not appropriately encyclopedic to include. --MASEM (t) 23:12, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I basically agree. (I think MASEM's post was responding to Dkriegls's last and not my last.) Nick Levinson (talk) 17:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Er, yes, that was to Dkriegls' point. --MASEM (t) 17:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

propose to add restriction on lists of directors, officers, staff, members, et al.

I propose to add text like the following to the policy, into the the section Encyclopedic Content, into the subsection Wikipedia is Not a Directory, after the list item for "directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business"; I'll wait a week for any response. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC) (Corrected format & sig block placement & conformed punctuation: 19:45, 28 September 2013 (UTC)) (Edited proposed text: 17:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC) (adding the "17:56" UTC time stamp at 18:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)))[reply]

# Directors, officials, staff, owners, members, and other people in comparable positions, past or present, usually shall not be listed in an article about an organization, except for the chief executive officer (regardless of anyone's title), the majority or controlling owner or ownership family, and notable people strongly associated with the organization. For a membership, if it is large, members shall not be listed even if notable, unless an additional ground supports the weight for someone's inclusion. Usually, only one or two people would be due weight. For those who are listed, information should be from independent sources and limited mainly to information relevant to the organization, that being the subject of the article; for example, someone's sports and family interests outside of the organization usually should be omitted. A person may be associated with another organization, but that would usually be due weight only if their position with the organization the article is about is ex officio based on the other organization. If the person is notable, a separate article about them can state their relationship with the organization and provide other biographical content. If many notable people are or were associated with the organization, it may be useful to create a category for people who are or were "with" the organization.

Disagree I don't think this needs to be codified. We should leave it up to the editors of each article to determine if this content is necessary or not. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 20:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally agree, but.... There is often too much corporate cruft that I've noticed seems to be more common with lesser-known entities, but some editors list the boards of major listed companies too. Compounding the issue is that there are often also management boards and supervisory boards. Whilst I frequently remove such lists, including staff lists (such as production credits, of for radio stations, football clubs), it's not always easy to draw the line. I would support the above modification, up to but not including "Someone who is not notable...", with due emphasis on "usually shall not be listed in an article". -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 03:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the sentence "Someone who is not notable but who is associated with another organization which is notable normally does not thereby acquire personal notability, except where the other organization (usually a small one) is almost synonymous with the person.", because it needs clarifying so it's easier to read and because the situation it's meant for may not arise often enough to worry about (if it does, it can be proposed after clarification). Did you also object to what came after the quoted sentence? Nick Levinson (talk) 17:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC) (Deleted redundant word & corrected excess indent: 18:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]
  • Oppose No reason to put this into NOT, broadly per Drkiegls. Jclemens (talk) 03:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose- I can see this going either way depending on the article, sometimes appropriate, other times not. It will vary for each circumstance. No need for a hardline rule.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not censored

This states that Wikipedia servers are in Virginia and thus governed by Virginia law. I swear that just this week I just saw on a legal page somewhere that our servers were in Florida and we were governed by Florida law. I tried to find that reference, but couldn't follow my footsteps back to find the right page. The Wikimedia servers page says both states, but doesn't make reference to what law governs them. Just trying to get clarity. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 06:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The change was made in February 2013 with this edit, and was based on this article at the Wikimedia site -- "Wikimedia sites to move to primary data center in Ashburn, Virginia". It says that our main operation is now in Virginia near DC. I don't know what the legal implications of this are, but since this is our primary data center I suppose it's reasonable that jurisdiction would devolve there. (Don't know the ins and outs of this; the Foundation lawyers would know for sure.) Herostratus (talk) 11:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pulling that up. I asked over at Wikilegal. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 01:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are probably some small state law issues that could come into play between Florida and Virginia but I suspect these will already involve edge case issues (without looking, I'm thinking on definition of a minor, etc.) but it's a CYA-language in case Virginia or whatever state passes new legislation that would affect WP's performance. --MASEM (t) 01:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTCHANGELOG

I think it's time to revisit this policy, and try to improve it to allow useful and notable software version histories. Consider, for example, Android version history. It had 350,000 page views in September, and was ranked #340 on en.wikipedia.org, so it's clearly popular and useful, yet it technically doesn't comply with this policy.

Why should we allow some changelogs? For commercial reasons the release dates of software and the introduction of features have become quite significant, and such milestones in the software's history can be notable and are worth documenting. Major, complex pieces of software like operating systems usually have thousands of changes between versions, and obviously listing every single change is inappropriate, but a condensed list selected by editors and sourced from reliable third-party sources provides a valuable reference by showing a condensed history that is (ideally) free from marketing gloss and hype. Such a single-page history is usually not available from software developers, which tend to produce big marketing pages for each current release (example).

I suggest the following changes:

  1. Require changelog items to have reliable third-party sources. This will still effectively ban changelogs for minor software packages, but allow significant changes in more notable software to be included.
  2. Use common sense to decide what level of detail to include, since third-party sources will usually detail every single change for major software releases.
  3. Remove the ban on tables. This is just a formatting issue best left to the MOS. Personally I think the info could be better presented as a simple list, but it's an odd thing to ban in this policy. If you want to ban particular types of content, ban the content, not the formatting. Converting the tables to prose would make it harder to find information quickly.
  4. Move WP:NOTCHANGELOG back under the "indiscriminate collection of information" heading. A changelog is clearly not a directory (OED: a book or website listing individuals or organizations alphabetically or thematically with details such as names, addresses, and telephone numbers).

To try to forestall the usual arguments:

  • WP:ITSUSEFUL says "If reasons are given, "usefulness" can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how a non-trivial number of people will consider the information "useful".
  • WP:POPULARPAGE: I included the pageview stats in the above argument both to support the usefulness argument, and because the argument has been made in support of the current WP:NOTCHANGELOG policy that "Nitty-gritty changes will not be of interest to our average reader" when clearly they are to some extent, and I think I have presented arguments to show how software version histories can be in scope. Dcxf (talk) 21:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You just used arguments against why we should not include detailed change logs. Our coverage of the aspect of a given topic should be covered at a level that is representative of what secondary, third-party, and independent sources give that topic, using primary/first-party sources to back up specific details. Most detailed changes do not get extensive coverage in these outside sources, particular on minor revision number changes. Major feature changes, such as has happened with both iOS and Android sytsems, can be documented, but not at the level of a running changelog. This information can be found elsewhere. --MASEM (t) 22:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The point is to document significant changes in notable software, rather than to include verbatim dumps of lists of minor changes. The prohibition on changelogs makes sense when we're talking about software that has a lot of minor patch releases that do not introduce drastic changes, where the changelogs are only of the interest to the users of the software and otherwise not notable.
However, recently we've seen more software that sees relatively frequent incremental releases that introduce notable changes. Examples include Android, certain Linux distros, iOS, etc. Such software does not necessarily have huge major releases that would warrant separate articles (as in Windows Vista and Windows 7), but it nevertheless can have changes that are major enough that in the long run the software changes drastically, and so its history should be noted in some way. In addition, the incremental changes are often notable in themselves and covered by tech press, which will highlight, for example, the new major features in the latest release of Android.
Prohibiting the latter kind of content should not be within the spirit of NOTCHANGELOG, yet because such a release history can be said to be a changelog, it has been a subject of some debate. If we agree that in such a situation coverage of the history of the piece of software should be included, then, as Dcxf said, this is no longer a WP:NOT issue but rather a matter for the MoS.  — daranz [ t ] 22:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there is a difference between a true changelog, and what the current Android article is (baesd on doing a quick review of sources that talk about 4.3). The two distinquishing factors are a good reliance on secondary sources that are not simply parroting the marketspeak from Android, and that these are high level, broad features and not like "made border 1 pixel wider"-type documented changes. There is room for something like the current Android article here. But, to avoid it being the change log, it seems almost better to present these as prose, with a table to summarize the releases, dates, etc. involved here. Most of these secondary articles go into detail what such changes mean to the end user, which is important, and we should capture that aspect in prose, not a straight-up table. --MASEM (t) 23:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To me the examples of android and Ubuntu are far from a dry list of low level changes which is what is typically meant by a changelog. These list high level feature changes. Perhaps the policy can reflect "high level feature" changes as not being what is meant by a change log. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 23:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support points 2 and 3; indifferent about points 1 and 4. (3rd party sources are unlikely to be more reliable than a primary changelog in the case of software; also, the change can typically be verified by examining the software itself.) --greenrd (talk) 05:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly support points 2 + 3, support point 1, neutral on point 4. This argument has been bought up numerous times, usually just to (attempt to) delete one article rather than all. It's clearly open to abuse from fanboys on all sides and we need a clear policy change. This would be a step in the right direction again and avoid inconveniencing thousands of visitors and users, forcing them to another site, and damaging editor retention. Make Wikipedia an encyclopaedia again and put the user experience above the bureaucracy for once. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 09:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Notified WikiProject Computing about this discussion for a bigger response. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 11:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support 2,3 and 4. There's an agreement in the comments above that documenting software changes that have attracted attention by third parties provide encyclopedic value. The policy should reflect this, that changelogs are not forbidden for being changelogs (just like WP:PLOT is not forbidden merely for being plot, but for being plot only), but for being trivial and without commentary. Treating it as WP:IINFO would signal that they are forbidden only when changes are included in an indiscriminate way, and not when they are supported by third party sources that are evaluating their impact. Diego (talk) 12:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a suggestion, the problem with an article like Android version history is that it does not put the changes in any context for a non-Android user to readily understand. It is not that the table format is bad (that actually helps to standards things like version #s and release dates), but the straight-up bullet-by-bullet listing of even high-level features that are recognized in sources doesn't aid that reader is what make people think this is a change log. What separates these feature lists from the usual changelog is that, through sources, the end impact of what these features provide can be summarized by paraphrasing and use of sources to expand on, while the usual changelog is more targeted to a power user and rarely can be rephrased cleaning for the end user. Perhaps it would be more helpful if there was lead discussion about the topic - take, for example, PlayStation, which the first half of the article is prose discussing the history of the units in the PlayStation line, and then breaks into the specification table. For, say, Android, it would seem reason to have a brief prose section on each of major release sets (like Jelly Bean) and broad overview of new features. (Eg: the section on "Update Schedule" in the main OS article could be brought to here to explain that. The key is to set the stage for the layreader before getting into the nitty gritty, something you typically can't do with the more typical changelog approach. --MASEM (t) 14:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all, for reasons by proposer. This seems an excellent change of policy in that it explicitly stems from asking "what do our readers want/need?". Wikipedia needs more of this open mindset. --cyclopiaspeak! 15:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "What readers want" is not always encyclopedic, however (going off what I see in reader feedback). It's a balance to give what the average reader needs in the broadest terms for an encyclopedia, and if they need to know more, provide them sources where they can find more. --MASEM (t) 15:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • "What readers want" is not always encyclopedic, however - Absolutely. There are many instances where we must not bow to popular demand (WP:NOTCENSORED is an example), because such demand can contrast our goal of providing encyclopedic knowledge. But given that this project is at service of readers, when one can accomodate the demand without going against the project goals, we should consider that. --cyclopiaspeak! 23:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all these sound very reasonable to me. Major releases like Android or Red Hat do get third party coverage. What needs to be removed is the uncited litany of details that tends to inflate articles on otherwise minor subjects (except perhaps to a very devoted small community). The other point to add is that prose might be a better way to discuss release history in context with other history in many cases. Tables seem better than bullet lists in most other cases I would guess. Tables that merely repeat what is in prose only are needed in rare cases where a summary of a long and detailed prose history would call for it. Bullet lists that repeat prose never seem appropriate that I can think of. A final idea is to delegate more of the computer-specific guidelines to the computer-specific manual of style, which is somewhat bare-bones right now. I can think of other guidelines specific to computer technology articles that could use some consensus building. For example, the over-use of dated language like "currently" or "new" (every release is "new" when it first comes out"), better guidelines to discourage the articles on "two kids and an app", the usual issues with marketing terms like "solution", "platform", "launch", "worldwide", etc. W Nowicki (talk) 18:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Change the name

It was discussed in the 5P talk page that, to make it more logical to link to in the 5P statements, this page be moved to the name WP:What Wikipedia is and is not. I agree that is logical and will stop the perennial attempt to delink this page and put in its place wp:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which by title makes more sense but is an essay instead of policy/guideline.Camelbinky (talk) 19:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. There are lots of articles with guidelines about what Wikipedia is. Adding that to the title here would create a false impression of coverage of the materiel here. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 22:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This page is all what WP is not and has nothing about what it is. There is no reason that a separate page (not what the current 5P is, as there's more than just what WP is listed there) for what WP is can't be created on its own to contrast this one. --MASEM (t) 22:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose - that would be a fundamentally different page than this is (and probably twice as long and this is on the long end of the spectrum already) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand. What are these "perennial attempt[s] to delink this page and put in its place wp:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" that you speak of? Is there an ongoing discussion to do this or is that edit regularly made, or what? I haven't heard of this before. That page just basically points to this page anyway, so I'm not sure what's being asked here.

Herostratus (talk) 03:04, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK, something from Wikipedia talk:Five pillars, I see. OK, I read it. My vote is meh. "What Wikipedia is and is not" is little less wieldy than the current title and kind of misstates what the thrust of this page is. To correct a link from another page, probably not worth doing. Is this an actual problem that is causing confusion, or more a pedantic type thing? If it's actually causing readers to be confused, maybe just unlink it at 5P? Or change the link there to go to Internet encyclopedia? Or WP:ENC? Or something. I don't see how changing the name of this page is helpful. Herostratus (talk) 05:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- it would be nice if everyone who commented here took the time to read the talk page at the 5P and the relevant thread to realize why the people who work on the 5P came to a consensus that they'd like the title of this page changed. But instead you've all decided to comment and/or oppose based on... well i'm still trying to figure that out from the "comments".Camelbinky (talk) 04:04, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • One page can't come to a consensus on what to do to another page which has been longstanding as policy (particularly a page that isn't policy). And I'm not convinced by the weak arguments there. --MASEM (t) 04:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Moreso, the problem with the rationale there is that because the one lead sentence in NOT is "WP is an online encyclopedia" does not translation to saying this page is describing what WP is and is not. NOT is strictly what WP is not, the first sentence only an affirmative to explain why we have all these NOT statements. --MASEM (t) 04:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bright line rule

More central discussion taking place at RFC at Wikipedia Talk:No paid advocacy. --MASEM (t) 17:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There is a new proposed policy at Wikipedia:No paid advocacy and an RfC on its talk page. As the proposer here, I'll suggest that we close this discussion here and all move (and re-!vote) there, as it seems to be cleaner and avoids the technical problem pointed out by User:Masem that WP:NOT is about content, not behavior. There shouldn't be any technical issues involved, so let's at least get a clean up-or-down decision on making the Bright Line Rule policy.

I'll note that the minor issue on wording in the next section should still be decided in that section, and that the !votes here were a very slight majority in favor of the Bright Line Rule. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • User:Jimmy Wales's "Bright line rule" is widely accepted by Wikipedia editors and by ethical PR firms, and PR organizations. With the current PR-sockpuppet scandal, it's clear that not all PR firms recognize the concept. We need to make this crystal clear to everybody and part of Wikipedia policy, not just a guideline as in WP:NOPAY. Accordingly, I have added the following under the "Not Promotion" section
6. Writing for profit. Businesses and other organizations, their major owners, officers, employees, and contractors must not write or edit articles on their organization, their competitors, their products or similar topics. They may write proposed articles or corrections on talk pages and user pages if they identify their conflict of interest and their employers or clients near the proposed changes on those pages. Paid interns working with recognized Wikipedia projects such as WP:GLAM in roles such as Wikipedian-in-Residence may contribute to article pages, provided that they are supervised by unpaid Wikipedia volunteers as part of the project.

This is, as I understand it, Jimmy's bright line rule

I've also added "marketing or public relations" to:

5 Advertising, marketing or public relations.

PR people seem to make a very fine distinction between "promotion" (which is forbidden) and "advertising" (which is forbidden) and what they do. Normal people do not make this distinction, so this is just filling in the blanks. I suppose "Advertising (broadly defined)" might do the same thing, but is not clear. Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As suggested in the next section - I believe this section from "I've also added" on should be covered separately in the next section.
All this is covered by WP:COI, there's no need to make a new line in NOT for it. --MASEM (t) 23:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is actually very different from WP:COI and much stronger. It is already widely accepted as a rule on Wikipedia, where practice sometimes outruns actual written policy. It clearly needs to be written down as policy now. Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:59, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right, it's widely accepted because it's already documented at WP:COI which goes into much more detail on how to write about articles where COI might exist. (Also, arguably, how COI is dealt with is not always bright-line, and thus calling it policy with more rigorous handling is not a great idea, hence why COI is a guideline and rightly so.) Adding it here is basically instruction creep. --MASEM (t) 00:08, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And a few other points: First, just because Wales says something does not make it WP policy. He has no authority beyond being another well-reasoned voice in discussion, and we are under no requirement if Wales, in his own personal statements, wishes for en.wiki to do something. (On the other hand, if the Foundation said something, that's different.) Second, there's a current threat at WP:ANI in regards to the PR issue, which is affirming they can block the site using COI guidelines (see [1]), so no new policy is needed for this. --MASEM (t) 00:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose while I am absolutely opposed to PR hacks interfering with Wikipedia articles, I don't think that the proposed wording and insertion will do what the proposer suggests it will (or do it any more effectively than can be done with the current wording of policies and guidelines) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:25, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is a step in the right direction. A further step would be to give the policy some teeth to enforce the ban on paid editing. Binksternet (talk) 00:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except there is no ban on paid editing. It is highly frowned upon, but not outright banned. Hence why COI is a guideline. --MASEM (t) 01:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly what makes this proposal different from the current COI guideline. This is a clear statement of what type of paid editing would be banned as part of a policy, which can be enforced by a block. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - policy should reflect actual practice. Adding this text would make our stance on paid editing clearer and more prominent, possibly helping to deter those considering it. (By the way, has Jimbo Wales been notified of this discussion? He probably should be.)Never mind, I see he has been. Robofish (talk) 01:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose COI covers it. Also, the need for some case by case assessment (vs. an outright rule) is needed as not all COI conflicts are malicious or done by editors who are fully aware of our COI guidelines. I agree paid editing should be challenged, but is there something not happening that this policy would add? Or is this just adding more words to an already lengthy text, just increasing the learning curve necessary for new editors?Dkriegls (talk to me!) 01:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Note there is a discussion regarding demoting/deleting WP:COI here --NeilN talk to me 01:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose anything that smacks of thoughtcrime, rather than judging editor's contributions based on their compliance to our content policies. In my time on the arbitration committee, I saw nearly as many complaints of attempted outing trying to root out COIs as I did between various other nationalist or political partisans. If an editor's behavior is OK to do unpaid, it's OK to do paid. If an editor's behavior is not OK to do while paid, then it's not OK to do for free either. This approach is shamelessly stolen from the GPL, which does not restrict anyone using any so-licensed software for profit. Jclemens (talk) 02:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about making advertising or public relations or anything else a "thought crime," any more than the prohibitions here on writing up original research or opinion pieces make original research or having an opinion a thought crime. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is just not the place to do such activities. Feel free to write up your original research, opinions, ads, and pr someplace else. Smallbones(smalltalk) 12:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What do you call it, then, when the proposal intends to discriminate against editors not on the basis of their behavior or quality of their contributions, but solely on the basis of paychecks? More to the point, how can we continue to have a pseudonymous and open editing community, when one way to remove editors from contentious topic areas is to out their private relationships? That quickly turns ugly and uncollaborative, as we saw at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy ban appeal. Jclemens (talk) 04:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens I don't know where you work, but almost every workplace, and every nonprofit, has a COI policy. They are not about thought, they are about action -- about doing things that take advantage of access for private inurement. Additionally, for institutions where credibility is of great importance, they also serve as a crucial tool to maintain credibility. I work at a university. Our COI policy's primary goal is to drive public disclosure of potential conflicts of interest, and then manage those potential conflicts -- usually by requiring public disclosure, and then putting certain boundaries in place to ensure that potential conflict doesn't become actual. At wikipedia with the brightline policy, the management of conflicts, would be to prohibit editing articles where someone has a COI. With respect to enforcement, we already have procedures and tools to pierce anonymity, and people empowered to use them under confidentiality, to investigate socks and other abuses of anonymity. I am unaware of those tools being abused. I don't understand the concerns you are raising. Do you see why Wikipedia needs a COI policy, especially in light of the recent paid-editing scandal? Jytdog (talk) 04:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Yes exactly. We need more efforts to keep Wikipedia independent from conflict of interest. Those who are paid will support their products, often in a many that is had to detect. We have excellent evidence that who funds a study has a major effect on whether it comes on positive or negative.
  • One of many papers on the topic Heres, S (2006 Feb). "Why olanzapine beats risperidone, risperidone beats quetiapine, and quetiapine beats olanzapine: an exploratory analysis of head-to-head comparison studies of second-generation antipsychotics". The American journal of psychiatry. 163 (2): 185–94. PMID 16449469. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are a medical professional and presumably are paid for your work. This therefore gives you a potential conflict of interest when writing about medical matters and so you would be forbidden to write here upon them with a broad-brush reading of "similar topics". Perhaps you suppose that the rule would only apply to other people, not yourself, but see the golden rule. And, in practise, enforcement of such rules would be in the hands of amateurs too. Naturally they will tend to focus on those who are open about their credentials, like yourself. Warden (talk) 10:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as a step in the right direction, though it would not address many abuses (paid editors planting articles or dominating talk pages). Coretheapple (talk) 05:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This would forbid professors and researchers from writing about their area of expertise. Warden (talk) 07:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying you would support if "similar topics" were struck? Is that the part that you think forbids academics? Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. The bit that made me blench most was "Wikipedian-in-Residence may contribute to article pages, provided that they are supervised by unpaid Wikipedia volunteers". I've met several Wikipedians in Residence and they seem typically to be highly competent editors who should be supervising the amateurs. Warden (talk) 11:21, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, how about "Wikipedian-in-Residence may contribute to article pages, provided that their resident status is openly documented on their User page"? Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Qualified support - I would prefer an exemption for academics and genuine researchers. --greenrd (talk) 09:00, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This would stop editors from contributing on most organisations of which they had close knowledge or involvement. Of course there is a problem of conflicting interests, but what some Wikipedians conveniently forget is that almost all information actually originates from within an organisation, especially factual. The fiction that because it has been published by a third party that is somehow not true is convenient, but of course absurd if we examine it closely. If the argument is that only senior management and things officially sanctioned by the officials of an organisation (and I am talking about societies, churches, government bodies etc, not just commercial corporations) will be caught, and disgruntled junior staff or whatever can write so long as management or leaders do not approve of it that is also unsatisfactory. If we wanted to say that every factual statement had to be submitted through an uninvolved editor not only would that be impracticable, but it could not rely on volunteer effort. We would need paid editors to do it. --AJHingston (talk) 10:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Part of the problem, as I see it is that anyone participating in this discussion could be a paid editor, and thus be skewing this discussion because of their conflict of interest. So, yes this is a step in the right direction. Knowledge will still be accumulated through the usual channels of research and documentation, if this passes, so there is no downside. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do want to point out that another problem with this is that this proposed change is describing behavior, but WP:NOT is purely a content page. This is another problem with the above proposal, even if the idea of enforcing bright line is agreed on. It's the wrong page for it. Really, what should be happening is what changes should be done to WP:COI, the core guideline that goes on for this, should be changed. --MASEM (t) 14:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The practice has generally been, in my experience,that factual, non-controversial changes may be made directly even by editors with clear COI. For example, if a company's CEO retires and someone new is appointed t the position, a company employee may change the article to reflect the updated facts without going through an edit request. The proposal should be altered to include this sort of thing, in my view. DES (talk) 14:21, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, there's so, so, much trash created at WP:AfC about small companies. Very often we find out that the authors are employees. As Wikipedia's status has grown a great many people and organisations see editing Wikipedia not as a volunteer effort but as a self-promotional platform, and this is only going to increase. WP:COI, as it stands and is currently enforced, simply doesn't have the teeth to prevent the sort of mendacious and burdensome COI editing. Put this in the policy (work out common-sense caveats for academics and Wikipedians in residence), then work out a way to enforce it. --LukeSurl t c 23:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose- Already covered by WP:COI guidelines.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the proposed language in new paragraph 6 is unclear and misses the boat. The bold short title is "Writing for profit" but the text immediately says "Businesses and other organizations..." So... what about owners/employees of nonprofit organizations? Think, Cato Institute or think Greenpeace, as you will. Also, it says nothing about "writing for profit" when you are someone like Wiki-PR - where you are writing on behalf of a third party that is paying you, which is a big problem. I would support a modified paragraph 6 being added to the text above or below, pointing to the COI guideline (which should be a policy) and explaining it. Jytdog (talk) 02:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)(striking a bit, as I am changing to support Jytdog (talk) 02:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]

* Oppose paragraph 6 - as others have commented, this proposed addition is not about content, but is about contributor. It is unlike everything else in this policy. I support making the COI guideline a policy, and having the brightline in it. Every organization I know has a clear and actionable COI policy that is easy to find; it is crazy to me that WIkipedia does not have a COI policy. I acknowledge some ignorance here - if there is some strange thing that keeps us from having a COI policy and in the real world this is the only way to get it done, I would consider supporting.Jytdog (talk) 02:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC) (striking as I am changing to support Jytdog (talk) 02:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]

  • Jytdog, we've been unable to promote the relevant parts of COI to policy because people in favour of paid advocacy have in the past objected. Promoting the whole guideline to policy is hard because it's too long-winded for policy, but getting consensus on a rewrite would be difficult because 1,000 editors will arrive with 1,000 different views. So even though it seems clear that the community wants the bright line, the lack of cohesion about wording, etc, has meant no progress. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but I'd remove the part about GLAM interns and Wikipedians-in-residence needing to be supervised. As I understand it, these are experienced Wikipedians and there is no profit motive. Better to focus exclusively on the real problem, which is paid advocacy and companies promoting themselves. It will be easier to gain consensus if the focus is narrow. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to somebody modifying or even eliminating the sentence on Wikipedians-in-Residence as long as it is understood that this program originated from Wikipedia and is monitored and accepted by Wikipedians. It is a clumsy situation, however, and I expect some folks might ask "why is it ok for these folks to get paid and not others. Brief answer to that involves a) non-profit educational institutions, b) short-term internship type position c) monitoring, d) loyalty to Wikipedia's mission, and e) it was our idea, not an outside profit motivated corporation's. Smallbones(smalltalk) 05:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - with caveats in my comment above and with SlimVirgin's strike too. Since this is the way to get it done, let's get it done.Jytdog (talk) 02:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Mostly to those that support - note that I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea, but that I really really don't think NOT is the right place for behavior and editing patterns, as it is a content guideline. If WP:COI is not going to move, perhaps this means we need a new policy WP:Paid editing that can go in the detail of what is and isn't allowed, but this advice simply is wrong to fit into the content policy of NOT. --MASEM (t) 02:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am with you that it is a bit awkward here, but what is do-able is more important perhaps than what is elegant. How about we do this, and we work on a WP:Paid editing policy that would expand on it? If we are able to get the WP:Paid editing policy done, this new #6 could possibly then come out of NOT, and we would end up with something done and elegance. Jytdog (talk) 02:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem right now is that there's at least 3 different places this convo is going: here, COI, and the AN thread about banning these ppl. There probably needs to be an RFC about what policy or guideline should be changed and now, so that we're not massively changing policy that doesn't need changing. --MASEM (t) 03:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(e.c) Agree with Jytog. It is moreover an extension of content, if you read it as 'WP does not display unmediated/un-independently reviewed content to readers that is subject to financial COI creation.' -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Masem I just withdrew (for now) the suggestion to promote COI guideline to policy. So that's out. I don't quite agree that this is a "massive change" - it is adding a few sentences to policy that (as I understand it) most everybody finds reasonable and treats almost as policy anyway. It is the do-able thing, yes?Jytdog (talk) 04:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If moving COI to policy was opposed at COI, you cannot stick it in here and submarine consensus that way. This is why we need a central discussion of exactly what step should be done. --MASEM (t) 05:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After I wrote that, I regretted it as I thought "people might think I am opposing the suggestion for RfC" Which you indeed did think. Sorry about that. RfCs are always good. I was just trying to reduce the clutter of conversations - the RfC is the wikipedia way. Sorry about that. Jytdog (talk) 12:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as proposed. WP:COI could use some teeth, but this is extremely broad, vague, and doesn't reflect what I've seen happen here. Ultimately it needs to address intent and NPOV - people with a CoI should not be editing the encyclopedia to advance their point of view nor using the encyclopedia for a competitive advantage. They're really no different from the activists - they have an axe to grind and they want to use Wikipedia to help them in their scheme. CoI is fundamentally built on WP:N and WP:UNDUE, conflict itself is not the problem, it's the lack of neutrality that's the problem. Presumptive assumptions of bad faith on the part of contributors don't really help. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 05:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Er, WP:N and WP:UNDUE have nothing to do with COI - those are just about sources. --MASEM (t) 05:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we ban CoI editors, then? Spite? The purpose of CoI control is to make sure that people don't use Wikipedia as a marketing tool, soapbox, etc..., not to stop people with a conflict of interest from editing just because we don't like them. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 06:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First, we don't ban (yet) COI editors - we discourage it but if they must do so, they need to identify themselves in relation to the topic they are editing. And the reason is more to assure neutrality in articles, per NPOV. --MASEM (t) 13:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. If the WMF or the chapters think it is a good idea to create GLAM projects for touristic purposes (or to take another example, "The goal of this project is to promote Mexican culture and identity as it is found on both sides of the Mexico-US border" is the actual purpose of a now defunct GLAM project!), then they shouldn't be pushing a bright line rule at all. We are not here to promote anything, we are here to spread knowledge. If Jimbo Wales and / or the WMF want a bright line rule, they should start to lead by example. Fram (talk) 08:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Wikipedia shouldn't be policing this when it's run by volunteers. It doesn't matter what suspected or announced COI a person has, it's the quality of their additions that matter. We shouldn't deter people being honest about this stuff or you'll quickly see specialist subjects deteriorate and stunted. It will deter editors, lead to "thought crime" (as someone else said), and tell those with in depth knowledge of a topic that their input is not wanted, or worse, banned. When Wikipedia is already haemorrhaging users this just makes the problem worse and speeds up the decline. There's not a single way this can help Wikipedia except for a smaller AfC cue. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 08:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1)How does this deter honesty, isn't it expecting that they will be honest about financial COI? How is expecting disclosure thought crime? What "in depth" knowledge would be lost, given that all sources have to be publicly published, already? Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting you're an idiot, but no one could possibly believe everything a source says is true and argue that point. Even reliable sources don't always know what they're on about. Could you edit articles on particle physics using only references to learn the topic? I couldn't. We need people who know the topic. We don't need more reasons to exclude people.
If you punish people for being honest about a COI then you have to expect more with a COI to stay quiet for their editing. I'd announce a financial COI on my userpage. It wouldn't stop me editing, but i would at least announce it. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 13:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Particle physics is not going to be hiring anyone to write a wikipedia article about it, so your concern seems unfounded. And yes, disclose, thanks. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My point appears to have alluded you. I look forward to your version of Wikipedia, where the Wikimedia Foundation will inevitably be paying people to write in a few years as membership has declined to an unsustainable point. It becomes a possibility more and more with added regulation and bureaucracy. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 14:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your point is that volunteer financial conflict of interest disclosure and expectations, will cause the Foundation to hire people? That's a "future" that seems most improbable. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jenova, couple of things... first, I do hear you, that fewer editors are an issue, and I understand that WMF is working to address that. But I look at that as part of Wikipedia's maturation, not a crisis. With respect to COI, in my view, this glorious Wikipedia project with its open nature, leaves itself vulnerable to manipulation by conflicted editors. And it has matured a lot since the early days - this has changed a lot of things, including the level to which the public has come to rely on us. That is a responsibility we need to rise to. Conflicted editing hurts our credibility and our name and nonprofits must have the public's goodwill, or they die. Rather than putting barriers to entry (like some kind of application to get editing privileges) which is the common way to weed out bad eggs, I would prefer making it more clear to editors, via clear and enforceable policy, that they are responsible to avoid editing articles where they have a financial COI. I am not a purist - I do not think companies or financial interests are evil per se; but at minimum, COI must be declared by editors and managed by Wikipedia. Its a basic governance issue. Do you not agree with any of that? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, decline of users aside, Wikipedia has a big problem with reliability. Even people on the help desks will routinely tell people Wikipedia is a starting point for research and not a reliable source. That won't ever change for some topics with a deterrent to people with a COI who understand the topic. Some of this is covered under Wikiproject Editor Retention. I'm not convinced at all that this is a positive for the project. It's easily a negative to force more people out, who can't be proven to be harmful by normal means. This just strikes me as a way to sweep them under the rug and pretend they don't exist because there's a strict policy in place. Be clear and honest here, this policy change won't eliminate paid editing and COI, it will hide it. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 15:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very much my concern as well. We all know that many (most?) articles are written by people with little knowledge of the topic. In the case of organisations, by and large only those connected with it will know whether the article is accurate and up-to-date. Just in the same way as those on academic subjects will be best if they are contributed to by people familiar with the best and current RS and in many cases will have done research in the field. We will not get a better WP if we ignore those problems, and rules discouraging such participation beg the question of how else we can substitute for it. --AJHingston (talk) 15:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Having no financial conflict of interest does not seem to be a reliability problem for the rest of the world, quite the opposite, it fosters reliability. (See, eg. [2]) Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look on the help desk on any day and it's full of COI editors and IPs complaining their articles are out of date. What are they told? Bring it up on the talk page...Where if it's a low traffic article their concerns will be ignored. So they edit the article instead, and guess what? They're either reverted by someone who knows less on the topic and doesn't agree with the change for whatever reason, or under this policy, they're blocked, and Wikipedia continues to be an unreliable source. At least if they edit the articles themselves, they may eventually go onto other topics and become learned editors. I started in a similar way, only without a paid COI. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 15:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and the language in the COI "guideline" should be revised. As long as there is a policy somewhere that makes nondisclosure a policy violation that is subject to sanction, then some of the problems should be preventable. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Um, guy, if you actually read WP:CANVASSING you will see that posting in the three places you link to is not canvassing but is actually encouraged. Jytdog (talk) 11:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Read the message accompanying each invite to the discussion. They're not the most neutral. They read more like, "quick, support me before i'm outnumbered or all the opposing opinions get in". See Campaigning for more information. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 11:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, that can be counterproductive. It certainly did not make me more willing to support the proposition, but it did set up alarms bells causing me to contribute. --AJHingston (talk) 12:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's the difference between Campaigning and Canvassing with the intention of Votestacking I believe. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 12:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you on the less-than-neutral language. It appears to be working, in any case, to attract people on all sides, as it was posted in the right places.Jytdog (talk) 13:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose our processes for allowing those with a COI to propose an edit, and have it made by an independent editor, are so broken and backloged (with requests dating back 6 months), that prohibiting direct edits will do nothing but drive editors with a COI underground. We will create more incidents like the current one, not fewer with this sort of a rule. We want to bring COI editors into the fold, so that their work receives appropriate scrutiny, but that requires compromise, and creating a system that allows productivity. We need to create such a system first, and not create a situation where COI editors feel forced to work around us, rather then with us. Monty845 15:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Add "marketing or public relations"

As proposer, I agree with the comments below that say this should be dealt with separately. I've taken the liberty of changing the section name from "convenience break". Just to repeat the proposal:

"I've also added "marketing or public relations" to:
5 Advertising, marketing or public relations.

PR people seem to make a very fine distinction between "promotion" (which is forbidden) and "advertising" (which is forbidden) and what they do. Normal people do not make this distinction, so this is just filling in the blanks. I suppose "Advertising (broadly defined)" might do the same thing, but is not as clear."

  • Comment - nobody has opposed the minor change about adding "marketing or public relations" to Advertising. This is just a clarification that marketing and PR don't fall in between the cracks between "promotion" and "advertising" (as suggested by many PR people). So, I've put it back in the policy. Smallbones(smalltalk) 12:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That I believe is reasonable. --MASEM (t) 14:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wait until RfC has closed. No need to jump the gun if there is gonna be a whole paragraph like you want. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 18:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • This change is completely separate from full paragraph addition. It is to clarify a term that can be misused by PR firms, and only adding a couple related terms without changing the intent of policy, so it is completely reasonable and can be done separately from the above change. --MASEM (t) 18:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I support the addition of "marketing or public relations" Jytdog (talk) 02:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More central RFC

A more central RFC has been started on Wikipedia talk:No paid advocacy on whether the bright line rule suggested here should be made policy via that page. I would recommend that we close this section as to centralize the discussion there. --MASEM (t) 17:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just put up a notice at the top of the section (as proposer here) suggesting the same thing. The only thing I ask is the section immediately above on the minor change of words be kept here. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add "marketing or public relations" (again)

I moved this discussion from the above closed discussion, as I did not propose that this part be closed. As proposer, I agree with the comments below that say this should be dealt with separately. I've taken the liberty of changing the section name from "convenience break". Just to repeat the proposal:

"I've also added "marketing or public relations" to:
5 Advertising, marketing or public relations.

PR people seem to make a very fine distinction between "promotion" (which is forbidden) and "advertising" (which is forbidden) and what they do. Normal people do not make this distinction, so this is just filling in the blanks. I suppose "Advertising (broadly defined)" might do the same thing, but is not as clear."

  • Comment - nobody has opposed the minor change about adding "marketing or public relations" to Advertising. This is just a clarification that marketing and PR don't fall in between the cracks between "promotion" and "advertising" (as suggested by many PR people). So, I've put it back in the policy. Smallbones(smalltalk) 12:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That I believe is reasonable. --MASEM (t) 14:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wait until RfC has closed. No need to jump the gun if there is gonna be a whole paragraph like you want. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 18:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • This change is completely separate from full paragraph addition. It is to clarify a term that can be misused by PR firms, and only adding a couple related terms without changing the intent of policy, so it is completely reasonable and can be done separately from the above change. --MASEM (t) 18:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I support the addition of "marketing or public relations" Jytdog (talk) 02:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not&oldid=577163559"