Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-07-12/UK COI edits

← Back to UK COI edits

Discuss this story

I read the first sentence of the opening paragraph and laughed out loud; evil politicians! Rock drum _Ba-dum^Crash 17:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• The 'expenses scandal' to the 'Wikipedia scandal'? It's a possibility! MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 19:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Not to defend those who remove sourced information, but WP:UNDUE also applies here. For example, that a group had a protest on the top of one's house, even though covered by the press, is of questionable importance; I think a good argument could be made that including it [and I'm speaking here without researching the matter] would be a violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. In summary, the matter is more nuanced than the newspaper article makes it seem. And that's assuming that everything that was removed really was appropriately sourced, a heroic assumption, I'd guess. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

This looks like an example of what I have long predicted - the use and abuse of BLP hysteria to whitewash the encyclopedia. Even where BLP is not directly invoked, its chilling effect enables the removal of negative-but-true information with ease...and it's only going to get worse. BLP must be repealed as soon as possible, and the fanatical faction of BLP hysterics that Wales has allowed to dictate policy on Wikipedia - due to his own increasing identification with the celebrity class - should be examined closely. Their commitment to a free and open encyclopedia is in doubt. Shameful. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 23:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with John Broughton (as usual). Obviously sourced, balanced, encyclopedic information should be put back in, but the WP:COI rules permit a politician or her staff to remove criticism that is not supported by WP:reliable sources or that gives WP:UNDUE importance to trivial events. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Ssilvers said it best and most succinctly here. Anyone is entitled to remove information from Wikipedia for any reason, but if it's relevant, well-sourced information, it will almost certainly be reinserted. In such cases, policitians and their staff should refrain from the ineffective strategy of directing editing the articles and instead voice any concerns they have on the discussion page. Dcoetzee 19:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

"The Houses of Parliament have no rules prohibiting staff from changing Wikipedia entries on politicians." I wouldn't let this line stand in an article! What is it saying? That the Houses should have such a rule? That anyone would even think that they should? Parliamentary librarians, for example, would be ideal contributors. And certain MPs are constitutional experts, and have written widely about politics and politicians. People widely edit their own articles, or those of people they know, sometimes unwisely, but mainly without the types of problems indicated in the news reports - for which we should be, as ever, vigilant. Rich Farmbrough, 03:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC).

You may want to complain to the Telegraph, too, as their article contains a similar statement, from which this one was adapted.

There are of course differing views about when or if editing the Wikipedia article about oneself is acceptable, perhaps correlated to how strong one's concerns about issues like corruption or astroturfing are in general. (Outside of Wikipedia, conflict of interest rules have existed for centuries in many contexts and countries.) But in any case I would say that rules prohibiting staff of companies or institutions from editing Wikipedia entries are quite frequent nowadays, which could justify the Telegraph noting the absence of such rules in this case.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 13:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

There's something pathetic about this story, because Wikipedia is only spanking the most wretched amateurs who edit using a real name account or a traceable IP. The ones who have the wit to hire a PR advocate or company who can deliver edits from a range of preexisting accounts, will face no penalty. Whether they are politicians or fans, far more effective censors are encountered every day by those who try to sneak in a fair word against American "conservatives" (reactionaries). For example, I wanted to add to Modern liberalism in the United States the following, "According to the ASA, IQ data from the "Add Health" survey averaged 106 for adolescents identifying as "very liberal", versus 95 for those calling themselves "very conservative". An unrelated study in 2009 found that among students applying to U.S. universities, conservatism correlated negatively with SAT, Vocabulary, and Analogy test scores.". (The reference list lengthened with each try, but no number is ever enough) What I got were editors who told me things like "even if it's true it's way too POV for wikipedia" and that I was "trying to add controversial content for which you clearly have no consensus", who reverted every attempt within a few minutes, any time of day or night. Of course, Wikipedia policy calls for much more stringent redactions in articles about living persons... Wnt (talk) 11:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Then try adding it with an additional reference to Geoffrey Miller's insights into IQ, personality traits and political views. See Note 3 in the article on him. Tony (talk) 12:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Moved here from article page:

Trying to rewrite history, is like running behind a waggon loaded with manure. Somehow, some day, some wikipedians will virtually unload the waggon. --IdaShaw (talk) 12:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

End of moved part