User talk:Katie.shaweureka

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Katie.shaweureka. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. GermanJoe (talk) 09:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020

Hello Katie.shaweureka. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Katie.shaweureka. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Katie.shaweureka|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. 331dot (talk) 12:25, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

In response to your message: I originally stated I had a conflict of interest on first requesting a minor edit on the page a few months ago and believed this was in line with guidelines. I am not paid directly for updating the page, but the information on Wikipedia is factually outdated (quite substantially so). I cited several sources (www.eurekanetwork.org and the latest annual report: https://issuu.com/eurekaassociation/docs/annual_report_2019 in particular), which confirm this. To clarify further: my intention was to provide consistent and correct information.

I'm new to Wikipedia, so I have only now understood (after further research) that I should have used the talk function to request edits. I wasn't aware of this possibility, and I believed I had sufficiently stated my conflict of interest. How do I rectify this error to ensure that the information is up to date? I would appreciate your advice on this subject. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.

Katie.shaweureka (talk) 14:17, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Katie.shaweureka (talk) 14:04, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the edit where you declared a COI, but as long as you do so on your user page (User:Katie.shaweureka} that should address things. Please follow the instructions at WP:PAID to do so. You don't have to be specifically paid to edit as long as doing so conceivably could fall within your job duties. You may find it helpful to read about how to make formal edit requests(click for instructions) so that your proposed changes on the talk page are seen by other editors who can review them. 331dot (talk) 15:17, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I declared a COI when uploading Eureka's new logo to commons - my mistake. My COI is now declared on my user page too. I'll request edits on the talk page now.

Katie.shaweureka (talk) 08:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The notice you put on your user page won't work there (even after I removed the wikicode suppressing its display, the "nowiki" tags) because it is meant for article talk pages, not user pages. There is formatting available for user pages, but you may just type a simple statement declaring the COI, there is no requirement to use the formatting. You could just say "I am Katie.shaweureka and I am employed by Eureka" or something like that. 331dot (talk) 08:27, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Do you know how long it might be before request changes are made? The information on Eureka's wikipedia page is outdated at the moment, and considering some of it is related to government research ministries, it's important that it's accurate.

Katie.shaweureka (talk)

So there's two parts to this answer. The first is that Wikipedia is not necessarily meant as a place for up to the minute current information. This is because Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state, and as such it is behind the curve compared to more direct sources of information, like an organization's website. That does not mean Wikipedia does not strive to be accurate- we do- but we to be frank are not concerned with helping out government ministries or people interested in a particular organization's activities. Our primary goal is to build a repository of human knowledge.

The second is that this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, so actions that require someone else to look at them sometimes require patience. As noted in the edit request box on your request, there are 97 requests waiting. There is also no particular order to the requests, they get reviewed if a volunteer sees one and for whatever reason is motivated to help. That said, I do see that the request was made in September. In my opinion, I would give it another week or so, and then you can carry out the changes yourself with either an edit summary or explanation on the article talk page that you made your request and waited for a long time before editing.

I notice that most of your proposed edits are sourced to the organization's website itself; Wikipedia greatly prefers independent reliable sources. There are some situations where a primary source is acceptable(such as the logo and basic information like location, number of employees, etc.) but in terms of what an organization does, Wikipedia is primarily interested in how others unrelated to the organization describe it, not in how the organization describes itself. 331dot (talk) 10:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]