User talk:Serro03

January 2023

Hello Serro03. 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:Serro03. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Serro03|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) 14:54, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for reaching out. I’m puzzled, to say the least, as to what drove you to the conclusion that this was a paid consultancy job. Even more to learn the page was rejected without further consideration. I would love to learn from it in to prevent making the same mistake again in the future.

This is my first attempt at creating an article on Wikipedia. In this particular subject, I spoke to people and learned somebody has created a draft and rather than starting from scratch, I took their work and the feedback from Slywriter.

It’s unclear from your message what else I can do to solve this issue, other than replying to it. Your advice is much appreciated. Serro03 (talk) 17:16, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any association with this topic? What motivated you to edit about this topic in particular and ask others about it? 331dot (talk) 17:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The page is about SESIP, an industry standard developed by GlobalPlatform, an industry association creating technical specifications and standards. We have regular meetings, engaging with other members on regular bases and we have been talking about creating a page for while. When I proposed to take the lead, I was told somebody else had a draft. It's not like I "found" a draft, but I was made aware of it.

My motivation for creating this page comes from creating awareness of what SESIP is and more importantly, the reason why so many people are engaged and motivated to develop this standard. I was involved in the early days when SESIP was an "idea”. I feel passionate to share this knowledge, making it accessible to a larger audience rather than a limited community of "experts" as is the case today. Serro03 (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So you work for Global Platform?

"Creating awareness" is a form of promotion. To merit an article, a topic must already have awareness. Wikipedia does not lead, it follows. It follows the coverage of independent reliable sources, which is what articles summarize. 331dot (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry it took this long to reply. I have an actual job and I got busy meeting deadlines. Also, I wanted to cool down and think about how to answer. My experience with Wikipedia hasn’t been great so far. First, I was labelled a mercenary as I was doing this for money for no reason. From there, I have been treated with a bias while Wikipedia is all about neutrality. In your last response, you take again a biased approach by assuming I work for GlobalPlatform. Why?

I read Wikipedia’s mission statement: “to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally”, I cannot see what’s wrong with my previous message. I’m not a native speaker and I’m afraid that “creating awareness” has been taken out of context, but my gut feeling tells me that if I used “disseminate” will be the same result. Is an article about the Vitruvian man promoting Da Vinci or his views? Is An article about Yahoi Kusama is promoting her work?

The SESIP topic has enough awareness as proven by the references in the article. There is not one single, or main reference, but multiple reliable sources.

I fully appreciate your jealousness preventing advertisement, and I thank you for that effort. That keeps Wikipedia an incredibly valuable tool. Serro03 (talk) 17:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't assumed anything, I asked if you worked for Global Platform. Do you?

The article about Vitruvian Man was not written by Da Vinci. If it were, it likely would indeed be promotional. Wikipedia does not merely disseminate information; it summarizes what independent reliable sources say about a topic. It disseminates information to say that Walmart has a sale on televisions, but that is not appropriate content for the Walmart article. 331dot (talk) 18:03, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. I don't work for GlobalPlatform. Serro03 (talk) 09:14, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't work for them, okay. You do seem to have some sort of conflict of interest, as you say "We have regular meetings, engaging with other members on regular bases and we have been talking about creating a page for while. When I proposed to take the lead, I was told somebody else had a draft. It's not like I "found" a draft, but I was made aware of it." I'm not clear on who "we" is- but it's okay to work on the draft. 331dot (talk) 09:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia should read Miranda rights to any user attempting to contribute: everything you say can and will be used against you :)

I take from your last response, that the proposed draft will be reviewed. Thank you.

At the risk of getting in trouble, let me address your comment on the “we”: I’m a professional in cybersecurity. For my work, I talk to industry players in industry-driven associations (cybersecurity requires a lot of talking and it’s a fast-moving world). GlobalPlatform is just one of those associations. The reason for having those conversations in such associations is in order to prevent falling into anti-competitive practices. The “we” are the members of the security industry participating in cybersecurity working groups. They include not just private companies, but policymakers and regulators in Europe, Asia and North America. In the draft, you can see the names of many of them.

Thank you for sending the link to the COI. I can confirm that I don’t get financial gains from the proposed draft, and the content of that is neutral and independent, pending your revision and approval. It doesn’t represent any form of self-promotion, or SESIP promotion. It’s developed in good faith and intended compliance with Wikipedia's content policies and best practices.

I’m not DaVinci promoting the Vitruvian Man (I wish). In a similar fashion I’m not the author of SESIP (I wished that too). Serro03 (talk) 10:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer. I would clarify that anyone who contributes to an article or draft is an "author", one does not have to have initiated the draft. Drafts/articles do not have specific authors and belong to the community. 331dot (talk) 10:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what is the status of this article. I understand the workload the community has with so many articles. I just want to know what the status is. Is the article still under revision? Serro03 (talk) 07:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]