User talk:Kimberlyfloresguzman

This user, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, discloses that they have been paid by Columbia Law School for their contributions to Wikipedia.

Bernard Harcourt

Welcome!

Hello, Kimberlyfloresguzman, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Jytdog (talk) 18:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Writing about academics

Please be aware of WP:BOOSTER and please be sure to read and follow WP:BLP. If you have a connection with subjects you write about, please read WP:PAID and WP:COI If you have questions about any of that please feel free to ask me! You can drop me a note just below. 18:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Yes, I have already read the WP:PAID and WP:COI pages. I need to add {{Kimberlyfloresguzman (paid)}} to the end of the article after adding the infobox template and image and new information about Bernard E. Harcourt's new book. As for stating conflict of interest, disclosing my payment status at the Columbia Law School would suffice, as I do not personally know Bernard Harcourt. Please advise. Kimberlyfloresguzman (talk) 20:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is User:ColumbiaLaw you? Jytdog (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: Hello Jytdog, my supervisor Pam Kruger at Columbia Law created that account in order to upload the image Bernard-E-Harcourt.jpg as to approve the Creative Commons License Kimberlyfloresguzman (talk) 20:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please reply here, so I can help you learn the groundrules here? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: I'm new to this, so I apologize if the formatting is incorrect. Yes, I would be happy to find out more about the rules. Thanks! Kimberlyfloresguzman (talk) 20:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, and for making the disclosure that you are being paid by Columbia, and for being open to some orientation. COI stuff first, and then the more general topics.

So COI -- as a paid editor, you have a COI for topics related to Columbia, as we define that in Wikipedia.

To finish the disclosure piece, would you please add the disclosure to your user page (which is User:Kimberlyfloresguzman - a redlink, because you haven't written anything there yet). Just something simple like: "I work for Columbia Law School and have a conflict of interest with regard to that topic" would be fine. If you want to add anything else there that is relevant to what you want to do in WP feel free to add it, but please don't add anything promotional about the company (see WP:USERPAGE for guidance if you like).

I added a tag at Talk:Bernard Harcourt page, so the disclosure is done there. Once you disclose on your user page, the disclosure piece of this will be done.

There are two pieces to COI management in WP. The first is disclosure. The second is a form of peer review. This piece may seem a bit strange to you at first, but if you think about it, it will make sense. In Wikipedia, editors can immediately publish their work, with no intervening publisher or standard peer review -- you can just create an article, click save, and voilà there is a new article, and you can go into any article, make changes, click save, and done. No intermediary - no publisher, no "editors" as that term is used in the real world. So the bias that conflicted editors tend to have, can go right into the article. Conflicted editors are also really driven to try to make the article fit with their external interest. If they edit directly, this often leads to big battles with other editors.

What we ask editors to do who have a COI and want to work on articles where their COI is relevant, is:

a) if you want to create an article relevant to a COI you have, create the article as a draft through the WP:AFC process, disclose your COI on the Talk page, and then submit the draft article for review (the AfC process sets up a nice big button for you to click when it is ready) so it can be reviewed before it publishes; and

b) And if you want to change content in any existing article on a topic where you have a COI, we ask you to propose content on the Talk page for others to review and implement before it goes live, instead of doing it directly yourself. You can make the edit request easily - and provide notice to the community of your request - by using the "edit request" function as described in the conflict of interest guideline. I made that easy for you by adding a section to the beige box at the top of the Talk page at Talk:Bernard Harcourt - there is a link at "request corrections or suggest content" in that section -- if you click that, the Wikipedia software will automatically format a section in which you can make your request. You can also add a {{request edit}} tag to flag it for other editors to review.

By following those "peer review" processes, editors with a COI can contribute where they have a COI, and the integrity of WP can be protected. We get some great contributions that way, when conflicted editors take the time to understand what kinds of proposals are OK under the content policies. (which I will say more about, if you want).

I hope that makes sense to you.

I want to add here that per the WP:COI guideline, if you want to directly update simple, uncontroversial facts (for example, correcting a declarative fact about where a company has offices) you can do that directly in the article, without making an edit request on the Talk page. Just be sure to always cite a reliable source for the information you change, and make sure it is simple, factual, uncontroversial content. If you are not sure if something is uncontroversial, please ask at the Talk page.

Will you please agree to follow the peer review processes going forward, when you want to work on the Harcourt article or any article where your COI is relevant? Do let me know, and if anything above doesn't make sense I would be happy to discuss. As I mentioned, once we are done with this COI management orientation, I would like to explain the policies and guidelines, so that content you propose has the best chance of being accepted (saves time for everyone). Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 00:56, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: I agree to follow the peer review process going forward where the COI is relevant. I have also created my User:Kimberlyfloresguzman page. How can we identify User:128.59.177.88 and have them also disclose possible COI in order to remove the

Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

at the top of Bernard Harcourt? If identifying User:128.59.177.88 is not possible, can the article be peer reviewed in order to ensure the accuracy of the article?

Please send me the rest of the applicable policies and guidelines as you have mentioned in your above comment. Thank you! Kimberlyfloresguzman (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for agreeing to following the peer review process as well. As for the tag on the article, that can be removed after independent editors invest time to review the article and ensure that it is all well-sourced and follows NPOV. The history of conflicted, promotional editing is much deeper than that one IP address. And no, we do not ever try to identify people. See WP:OUTING.

With regard to the policies and guidelines, the links in the Welcome message have been designed to introduce people gently to them. I have created this single page to provide an as-brief-as-possible narrative of all the major policies and guidelines, and how this place works. Let me know if you have any further questions - otherwise, see you at the article talk page and elsewhere in WP! Jytdog (talk) 19:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note

About your comment here: Thank you for your timely response.. While it is nice that you say "thanks", the "timely response" bit is .... frankly offensive here in Wikipedia. I have worked in university and business contexts and I understand using, and have used, that kind of language when there is an actual deadline of some sort. Wikipedia is not a context like that.

You are getting paid to work on the article. Whoever asked you to work on this, perhaps put pressure on you to get this done quickly.

But Wikipedia is a volunteer project, and there are no deadlines in Wikipedia. I am not your "customer service agent" and I am not a fellow Columbia employee who has an obligation to work with you, much less "timely".

If there were some kind of WP:BLP issue, (for instance if the article were vandalized to make the claim that Harcourt is a murderer or something) there would be urgency to fix this, under the policies of Wikipedia. But the specific changes you are asking for in the diff above, are just more routine updates. Not urgent in the context of Wikipedia. For what it is worth, I advise you to to never place those kinds of demands, implicit or explicit, on volunteers here. It is a huge turnoff. Jytdog (talk) 19:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jytdog, I was unaware that my comment here would be perceived as offensive since I did not mean to imply any sort of demand or urgency– I was simply appreciating how involved you are on Wikipedia. I hope there are no hard feelings on your behalf. Kimberlyfloresguzman (talk) 18:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]