Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-09-03/WikiScanner
Vatican[edit]
I suggest changing "the Vatican was found to have removed" to "a computer at the Vatican was used to remove" since several people have pointed out that the Vatican Library had public computers or at least network access during the time of the edits in question. The library Rules seem to confirm this, as they prohibit "download from the internal network of the Library onto personal computers any data from the electronic or digital collections of the Library."
I'm going to be bold and apologize in advance if making this correction is against Signpost editorial rules. ←BenB4 05:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment[edit]
This article seems to assume that the edits from IP addresses owned by organisations were made by these organisations in line with a deliberate policy of planting missinformation (eg, "The Prince and Princess removed" "The CIA was found to have edited" and "major U.S. military contractor SAIC edited"). Do you have proof that this was the case? - what about the possibility that the edits were made by staff members surfing the internet and don't reflect the organisation's views or policies? --Nick Dowling 01:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- That's perfectly true, however, it does violate COI for a Princess to edit her own article, the CIA to be editing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (as they are involved in Iran), and an anti-ACLU organization to be editing the ACLU article. Thanks for pointing that out! Cheers, Neranei (talk) 01:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes I agree it is a COI for the Princess or any of her employees to be editing an article, but calling SAIC an "anti-ACLU organization" seems a reach unless you have evidence I am not aware of. SAIC is a big corporation with hundreds of employees. It seems to me far more likely to me that an employee with a strong POV (lots of ACLU haters out there especially among right wingers) happened to use a computer at work to do his/her editing. WikiScanner is a nifty tool, but you need to apply a little commonsense in interpreting the results. I have edited Wikipedia from an employer's computer from time to time over the years because it was convenient for me at the time. That doesn't make the company I was working for responsible for my edits. Rusty Cashman 19:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well, considering that they wrote such things about the ACLU, and that they are a U.S. military contractor, I don't think it's much of a stretch. And you have a valid point, do you think it should be worded differently? The only reason I'm calling it a COI edit is that it was an edit commenting on political issues that were in line with the political leanings of that company, made from that company's computer. Neranei (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- You seem to be working from the starting point that any edits from an organisation were made delibererly as a corporate decision. I don't think that this is approach is justified - it would be edited and removed in 'article space'. Do you have a source for SAIC opposing the ACLU? --Nick Dowling —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Dowling (talk • contribs) 01:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- No, I'm not saying that at all, I'm just reasoning that if someone works for an anti-ACLU company, it is very likely that they agree with that viewpoint, and that may be a violation of COI. How would you like that worded? Love, Neranei (talk) 01:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- That seems to involve you assuming that a) the company having a beef with ACLU b) the company deciding to do something about it and c) all individual employees of the company agreeing with this action - it's hardly unknown for people to have different views from their employer! Why not just use the wording which was proposed for the Vatican and state that 'a computer at X' was used for COI edits unless you have some evidence of a deliberate policy which you can cite? --Nick Dowling 04:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- No, I'm not saying that at all, I'm just reasoning that if someone works for an anti-ACLU company, it is very likely that they agree with that viewpoint, and that may be a violation of COI. How would you like that worded? Love, Neranei (talk) 01:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- You seem to be working from the starting point that any edits from an organisation were made delibererly as a corporate decision. I don't think that this is approach is justified - it would be edited and removed in 'article space'. Do you have a source for SAIC opposing the ACLU? --Nick Dowling —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Dowling (talk • contribs) 01:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well, considering that they wrote such things about the ACLU, and that they are a U.S. military contractor, I don't think it's much of a stretch. And you have a valid point, do you think it should be worded differently? The only reason I'm calling it a COI edit is that it was an edit commenting on political issues that were in line with the political leanings of that company, made from that company's computer. Neranei (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes I agree it is a COI for the Princess or any of her employees to be editing an article, but calling SAIC an "anti-ACLU organization" seems a reach unless you have evidence I am not aware of. SAIC is a big corporation with hundreds of employees. It seems to me far more likely to me that an employee with a strong POV (lots of ACLU haters out there especially among right wingers) happened to use a computer at work to do his/her editing. WikiScanner is a nifty tool, but you need to apply a little commonsense in interpreting the results. I have edited Wikipedia from an employer's computer from time to time over the years because it was convenient for me at the time. That doesn't make the company I was working for responsible for my edits. Rusty Cashman 19:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, having worked for large and mid sized companies such a couple of times over the years I would hate to see Wikiscanner result in corporate IT departments adopting "no editing allowed" policies for Wikipedia. I suspect that would be a bummer for some contributors.Rusty Cashman 03:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)