| Revision as of 21:18, 25 December 2013 editJehochman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers46,283 edits →A barnstar for you!: thank you so much← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:10, 26 December 2013 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,308,294 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to User talk:Jehochman/Archive 22) (botNext edit → | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| __NOTOC__ | __NOTOC__ | ||
| == Discussion on COI + paid editing == | |||
| It seems to me that the ''reputation of Misplaced Pages as an unbiased reference'' aspect of COI + paid editing is largely missing from the current discussions. Even if enforcement is problematic, the failure to make a strong stand against editing for material reward weakens the mission of Misplaced Pages. If this basic principle of journalistic integrity can't be a part of the culture of Misplaced Pages, then it cheapens not just the work of volunteers, it puts the entire project at risk. I'd like to see this prominence given to this as you turn your ideas into a Misplaced Pages essay. - ] (]) 08:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}}The benefits of the policy would be multiple: | |||
| # Ability to enforce when commercial editing is discovered, which happens often enough. | |||
| # Clarity for commercial editors so they know what is allowed, and what isn't. | |||
| # A signal to large corporations and PR firms about the risk of flouting our rules. Enforcement can come from the outside. For instance, a company may notice a competitor fooling with Misplaced Pages, and bring a claim against them for unfair competition or defamation. | |||
| # Protecting Misplaced Pages's reputation. If the media discover paid editing, we can say "This activity is not allowed." | |||
| I have saved the last version of my proposal as an essay, ]. The next steps are to spread the word about that page, and eventually build up enough support to get it promoted to policy. We should avoid labeling it as a proposal prematurely, because proposals are a magnet for opposition. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)<br /><br /> | |||
| {{od}}As for point #4, it is not enough to say "This activity is not allowed." The community should be able to point to ''active steps to remove COI + paid editing''. In other words, due diligence. Enforcement might consist of an overwatch to flag (behavior + content) that have a high correlation with (COI + paid editing). I'd think automation from the class of bots including ClueBot NG that detect and revert vandalism could be retooled for the purpose (without the automated reversion). It'd be a start. - ] (]) 19:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| : Active steps require a consensus that the activity is not allowed. We haven't gotten there yet. A lot more editors are interested in generating advertorials than finding and removing advertorials. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::That last sentence is indeed precisely the key point where immediate work is needed: we need more people not just to concentrate on finding COI and doing something about it, but for ''all'' editors who clean up or review material to be acutely aware of the likelihood of encountering paid editing and other COI, and not passing over it, but to work on it with a similar intensity to what we give to copyvio. ''']''' (]) 00:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I agree with DGG. One of the biggest problems is every company wants a promotional article, because their competitors have one. Anyways, I removed the promotion from Paylocity, but I will avoid the other one to avoid the accusation of meddling with another marketing person's activities. I would probably trim most of the bottom half of that and they wouldn't be happy with me. ] (]) 14:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Thank you so much for reviewing things for neutrality. Feel free to edit any page as you see fit. We should welcome transparent corporate participation as long as the participants understand that they don't own their page. Corporate watchers can help identify puffery by competitors. They can all help keep each other honest. My informal personal policy is that when I make a request at a noticeboard, I try to clear up one or two other pending requests so that my activities don't add to backlogs. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I don't know if I would call that "corporate participation". I think I dedicate some of my volunteer editing to promo cleanup because I know I have contributed to the problem, and so I overcompensate as penance. I respectfully disagree on both fronts. It sounds like a great idea to have POV pushers from both sides find middle-ground, but in practice it just leads to terrible arguments, advocacy and contentious editing. Also, I've seen stuff like disclosed PR reps removing well-sourced controversies in a disclosed fashion and I felt even more irritated by the fact that they were doing it under a thin sheen of ethics. Most company articles aren't closely watched and often the company itself is the only participant. Anyways, RE a consistent process, I did start on a while back, but never did anything with it. ] (]) 15:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I think PR reps should stay out of article space completely, but they can be useful on article talk pages if they are properly disclosing their representation. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Well.... I do edit in article space as a PR rep on a regular basis, usually to correct spacing, grammar, copyedits, citation templates, etc. as well as when editors have given unambiguous approval of the content, but insist that I take credit for it by making the edit. I've also done it when I was being harassed by Canataloupe and when correcting my own mistakes. I use the language that "important editorial decisions are left in the hands of crowd-sourced volunteers." But really the Bright Line is so much easier and simpler to communicate, without any loopholes, it makes a lot more sense. Bright Line should be the policy, but we already have other rules for common sense, so we don't need to get all NOTBUREAU about it. It's not as if getting a volunteer to make promotional edits on your behalf absolves the corporation of accountability for the edits anyway. Anyways, didn't mean to get soapboxy about it. ] (]) 22:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == ITN == | == ITN == | ||
| Line 50: | Line 21: | ||
| ::I did. Could you react, please? --] (]) 08:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC) | ::I did. Could you react, please? --] (]) 08:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ==Input== | |||
| Please add your input here: (I'm getting really tired of this) ...] (]) 13:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| : Please go use dispute resolution to get more editors involved. You aren't going to win by having a battle. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Wikimedia NYC Meetup- "Queens Open History Edit-a-Thon" at Queens Library! Friday December 6 == | == Wikimedia NYC Meetup- "Queens Open History Edit-a-Thon" at Queens Library! Friday December 6 == | ||
Revision as of 01:10, 26 December 2013
 | Welcome to Jehochman's Talk Page Please feel free to put your feet on the coffee table, and speak candidly. Or for more better relaxation, stretch yourself luxuriously on the chaise longue in Bishzilla's Victorian parlour and mumble incoherently. |
 | An editor thinks something might be wrong with this page. That editor won't actually make the effort to fix it, but can rest assured that they've done their duty by applying a maintenance tag. Please allow this tag to languish indefinitely, since nobody knows exactly what the tagging editor was fussed about. |
ITN
After your update, could you please fix the links so they point to the respective team's season page, i.e. ]. Thanks. --bender235 (talk) 14:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- Please suggest any blurb improvements at WP:ITN/C. Thank you. Jehochman 14:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- I did. Could you react, please? --bender235 (talk) 08:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Wikimedia NYC Meetup- "Queens Open History Edit-a-Thon" at Queens Library! Friday December 6
 |
Please join Queens Open History Edit-a-Thon on December 6, 2013! Everyone gather at Queens Library to further Misplaced Pages's local outreach for borough articles on the history and the communities. Drop-ins welcome 10am-7pm!--Pharos (talk) ~~~~~ |
Evolution
Why? Ramaksoud2000 14:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Excuse me. I'm fending off a big problem. All will be explained. Please don't be an impatient editor. Jehochman 14:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- No worries. I had already seen that you restored but you never provided a reason. Carry on then. Ramaksoud2000 14:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
| Thank you for this tip. You have no idea how much time I sometimes spend looking for the template change that screwed up an article. NeilN 00:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC) |
- Thank you! I'm glad to be of some use. Jehochman 00:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Bishfriends
Season's greetings from Santa and her little helpers
Thank you so much little fishies, and big Santa. Jehochman 21:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC)