User talk:Coretheapple/sandbox

Hi Coretheapple. I'm not sure how this is an improvement over Template:Connected contributor (talk page) and Template:COI (article page). Were you aware of them? Ocaasi^{t | c} 21:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking at this, Ocaasi. The first template seems to go on the talk page only. It would not be visible to readers of the article, the vast majority of whom do not venture into the talk pages. The Template:COI, which is what I'm playing with here, is specifically for articles in which a person with a conflict has edited the article. What I've tried to address here is a situation in which a COI editor, playing by the rules, confines himself to the talk page but nevertheless has a significant and continuing role in the article. It would cover the gaping loophole that currently exists in Wikipedia COI policies. In a sense I'm putting the cart before the horse, but perhaps this notice, which I think is desirable, will spur thought about constructive changes that will bring Wikipedia policies in line with real-world disclosure requirements. Coretheapple (talk) 21:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've made two suggestions to make more explicit what is happening, then reverted myself. Making it explicit may make the box less likely to gain consensus for use -- for reasons I don't understand some Wikipedians don't want the readers to know this is happening, or don't want to acknowledge (or genuinely don't see) how problematic it is. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed that. I think those ideas are worth exploring. Do you think that you could place both your suggested templates on the sandbox page? We can certainly have multiple possible templates. Thanks. Coretheapple (talk) 21:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I think that might work, if the language is broadened. If an editor is a major contributor to the talk page but is not actively drafting text, that too should be disclosed. I hope that WP is capable of changing on this point. My suspicion is that the COI rules were not designed with the BP situation in mind. Rules designed for writing about your uncle the physicist just don't work well for a major corporation that considers Wikipedia a part of its public affairs strategy. I'm just appalled by the naivete that I've seen on display, the total obliviousness. Coretheapple (talk) 22:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One point: Wikipedia is continually evolving, and it is possible that text provided by a COI editor may be removed at some point. Yet that editor could still be actively participating on the talk page. The COI editor would therefore continue to be part of the editorial process. That still needs to be disclosed. Coretheapple (talk) 22:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your point about someone's uncle versus multinationals, I agree. But the backdrop is this. A group of Wikipedians, particularly editors associated with Wikimedia UK (but elsewhere too, I believe) have been giving advice to PR companies about how to engage with Wikipedia. Those PR companies in turn have been giving talks/advice to the companies that are their clients. Companies pay money for this advice, obviously; perhaps the PR companies or Wikimedia UK have paid Wikipedians to give advice too, I don't know. See here for an example of a PR person discussing this.

Part of the advice is that companies should create their own drafts and ask editors to carry them over. This is suggested so that companies do not edit articles directly, which the community is largely opposed to. The people offering this advice mean well, but (in my view) have failed to see that a multinational ghostwriting its own article is going to cause them PR problems. What happened with BP was a PR problem caused by PR, an own goal.

Some of the Wikipedians who have been talking to companies and PR agencies, and the ones adding the drafts, are taking the position that this is a storm in a teacup, that we are "bullying" company reps, etc, because they are partly responsible for companies thinking it's okay to do this in the first place. The problem arises exactly from the point you made: that while no one minds if someone suggests a draft about his uncle, people are going to mind a great deal when a powerful company or a government does it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting on my blog post. I just wanted to clarify that Wikimedia UK hasn't been providing advice to PR companies, but has actually been working with the Chartered Institute of Public Relations which is the professional body for individual public relations practitioners in the UK. As a professional body, governed by Royal Charter, the CIPR has a professional code of conduct that requires members to adhere to strict ethical codes and best practice. The Wikipedia Best Practice Guide was created in public collaboratively on a Wikimedia UK page [1] by both Wikipedians and individual PR professionals (including independents, academics, consultants and in-house practitioners. It was created in response to several well-publicised instances of unethical practice by some PR companies. The CIPR is just about to start working on an update to the guidelines and would welcome your ideas and contributions to a project that is intended to help improve the quality of Wikipedia articles to ensure the maintenance of both neutral point of view and no conflict of interest. Stuart Bruce, corporate communications trainer and consultant (talk) 10:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stuart, thanks for your reply. I can see several points in the "Draft best practice guidelines for PR" that would be problematic, particularly "Draft versions in your userspace and invite feedback. A successful draft may be copied as is or in part into an article by someone else ..." This is fine for issues where there is no public interest aspect, but for larger companies or for anything contentious it's going to lead to ethical concerns about ghostwriting. When our readers come to an article about a powerful multinational, they don't expect to be reading that company's words, unless in quotation marks and attributed. What is the best way for interested Wikipedians to give you feedback? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(to Slimvirgin) If public relations professionals want to have "best practice guidelines" for dealing with Wikipedia that's their business, not mine. But I think that it is foolhardy, and at best shortsighted and naive, to encourage public relations people to submit article drafts and otherwise participate actively on article talk pages. That raises a number of obvious problems, if one believes that article decisions should be made by uninvolved editors.

The chief problem stems from the fact that articles don't necessarily have a lot of editors tending to them. So if you encourage a professional, be it an outside consultant or employee, to contribute heavily to a talk page, you are going to skew the consensus. That person has a far greater impetus to contribute to Wikipedia than the ordinary volunteer. That is his or her livelihood. He or she may even be compensated on the basis of his ability to influence Wikipedia content. That's a grotesquely uneven playing field, and it's amazing to me, and shameful, that such situations are actively encouraged by Wikipedia. You may even have that person dominating the consensus. That appears to have happened in the BP article.

The argument I've seen is that if the doors aren't open to corporations that they will participate anyway. What that ignores is that such sub rosa Wiki editing would be a form of "astroturfing," and would be considered unethical. It would be a major leap for a large company to engage in such nefarious conduct, but no leap at all to assign an employee to deal with Wikipedia. Large companies obviously can afford to do so. Small companies don't have the resources. So this policy is skewed to the biggest companies.

My growing suspicion is that Wikipedia may simply be hopelessly stupid on this issue. I hate to be so blunt, but this seems to be a kind of "bizarro world" that bears no resemblance to real-world conflict of interest standards. Coretheapple (talk) 00:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My attempt

I tried for a shorter, tighter reason. Long templates tend to be ignored, so brevity is key. It would be important in the documentation that this template be used only where there are actual, reasonable questions about neutrality and/or an ongoing review. It shouldn't really stay up indefinitely, which is what our other neutrality templates suggest. Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 16:25, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tried two versions, one for COI editors in general, which will be more controversial to apply. The second for subjects/representatives, which may be easier to get adopted. Ocaasi^{t | c} 16:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think they're all very good, especially the last one, which also received a favorable mention on the COI talk page. I've asked people to weigh in here. Coretheapple (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A next and not insignificant step is to draft the template documentation, primarily when it is appropriate to be used (and when not). For example, this template is suggested specifically for drafts which were proposed on the talk page but added by another editor. Why is that editor's sign-off not sufficient? Would it ever be? How many editors would be sufficient? How long should such a tag remain even if no dispute or review is ongoing? Is this tag designed to taint an article forever or is it geared towards a specific cleanup effort, or a reasonable review period. Such questions are complex and I'm not sure clear answers have been provided yet. Best, Ocaasi^{t | c} 03:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, good points. I guess that as far as the ones I've drafted are concerned, which are the first couple, the templates would be used as long as a COI editor is actively involved in the talk page, and as long as his or her drafts are reflected in the article. Coretheapple (talk) 04:32, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]