Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-07-02/In the news

This draft is actually linked from the Signpost. Some mistake surely. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming you meant my mistake in forgetting to remove {{Signpost draft}} from the article. Sorry about that. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CIPR has the right idea. There are no genuine improvements a PR professional could want to make that can't be done without directly editing the page. A little extra patience and effort to follow that rule is all it takes to improve the situation 100x. User:King4057 12:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC) (EthicalWiki)[reply]

I've been solicited twice already to write stuff into wiki to promote. One was OK (Consumer Reports) prob clean motive. The other NOT clean drug rep, and how did they get my email address??

Scary too that stuff has vanished from my talk. Gone as though it never happened. I wanted to recontact as requested the Wiki Foundation guy posted special survey about my experiences re strange edits suggesting follow the money conflicts. Nobody in wiki like administrators should have the power to make text vanish. Nobody should have the power to warn or block re edit war unless under strict rules (3x for ex).

I almost quit already once when an editor undid HOURS of my work researching then writing clean re cancer green tea health benefits claiming that a very (simplistic) FDA statement was better than pubmed research so much so he claims / enforces complete deletion! But then come back because one of my best friends DIED from "prostate cancer". Actually bad doctoring. I look for solutions.

I recommend a global ban on conflict of interest evidenced by edits specifically that are biased. Foundation level board. Bias is easy to show in scientific topics. See how Yobol, adjkasi, and jmh649 sent me to irrelevant wiki pages to support their claims. Look how they immediately appeared and undid my edits giving irrelevant advise and links. My edits were well intentioned though neive now better getting better. Look how they tried to scare me off from entering new facts (Cochrane) demanding that I prove cochrane is peer reviewed!! Look how they diluted the final texts in several ways, though they monitor maintain the original shown was worse by their own edits, or reverted back, or burried key words and sentences.

PS be nice if this page had spellcheck. I type fast as I speak, and read a page in a slow glance, but fixn spelling takes more time than orig text.32cllou (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PSS Why not write software to identify conflict of interest in articles. Find articles that are not fixed to new obvious update info though editors constantly monitor, plant changes that would cost an industry $$ and see what happens who makes follow the money changes, find articles with poor structure made that dilute $$ interests, find articles w few editors always there and monitoring, and review their edits for conflict, and find tag team editors like the three above maybe. Got a friend knows how to write that software, used to edit here, might work for free.32cllou (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]