User talk:Kos42

Michael Chertoff page

Question regarding returning the cite to the source. If you look at the source for the page at http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Chertoff.html is Wikipedia. That seems like a circular reference? Kos42 (talk) 22:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed that the source was removed by accident as it had preceded the statement you took out. Never assume. I replaced the source with a more reliable reference. Thanks for the catch! Alansohn (talk) 23:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI and government employees

Hello Kos42. I noticed your question over at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#COI and Govt Employees. There are some documents here and there that could be helpful. One of them is Wikipedia:FAQ/Business (For 'business' you should think 'government'). If you have a question on how to edit a specific article, sometimes you can get assistance by posting an item at WP:COIN. Generally, the big problem (that I see) faced by editors from an institution is that it takes them a while to pick up on the norms here, since the first impression is the 'anyone can edit' and there is no actual person who needs to approve changes. So their first attempts to edit Wikipedia sometimes sound like PR and get reverted. (This can be a discouraging experience). They will greatly benefit if there is an experienced Wikipedia editor already working for the institution who can advise them. You may be able to play a helpful role yourself. EdJohnston (talk) 19:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

guidance for fed employees editing

Good advice has been offered you already, but I thought I would add a few comments. The English language Wikipedia has a mob-like governance structure (but with some interesting checks and balances) that is often compared to an on-line shoot-em-up game or a massively multi-player virtual world. People often come here to help, only to find nothing like due process in dealing fairly with people. We don't do due process. What we do is whatever seems to pragmatically work, and what works here depends strongly on these facts: people's real identities are usually not known, anyone can edit, any edit can be reverted, we try for consensus in determining what happens here, children have been given the ability to block other users. You should also be aware there are not safe for work images at Wikipedia. A neural description of Wikipedia's problems can be found on our pages and disgruntled users and others can be found at the internet site Wikipedia Review. I recommend proceeding slowly and cautiously; and plan on experience with Wikipedia causing major changes in your plans. It would not surprise me if at some point all the IPs at your establishment were blocked due to charges of inappropriate off-site collaboration in pursuit of non-neutral objectives. Are you really going to pay people to edit Wikipedia having them write things that are contrary to your establishment's point of view? See the perception problem? Many have concluded that the process here only works if they edit without identifying who they are. Others stick to non-work subjects; stick to the talk pages; or stick to non-controversial claims. WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]