Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Atsme (talk | contribs) at 02:54, 3 April 2015 (→Criticism by Gandydancer: no problem, thx for the input). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Thanks Atsme, for starting this :) Some ideas I have for this essay actually came out of the recent ANI discussions regarding COI. , Specifically things that suggest COIDuck such as violations of multiple policies and guidelines such as WP:NPOV, WP:OWN, WP:CHERRYPICK, WP:SYTNTH, WP:BULLY, WP:TAGTEAM, WP:BITE, while editing with a pro-industry POV.

Additionally, things that do not suggest COIDuckery such as an editor simply having substantial scientific knowledge; an editor adding reliably sourced information that is favorable toward a corporation, pesticide, or drug company or an editor removing poorly sourced content that is critical of such. Additionally, appearing to have a pro-industry POV, while not engaging in violation of WP:NPOV, WP:OWN, WP:CHERRYPICK, WP:SYTNTH, WP:BULLY, WP:TAGTEAM, WP:BITE etc is not COIDuckery, COIDucks are disruptive and attempt to run editors with different POV off articles they attempt to WP:OWN. . --BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

potential remedies

Hi Atsme, You mentioned lack of any potential remedy on SV’s talk page. It seems to me that one potential remedy would be to encourage those concerned about COIducdery to add ANI to their watchlist, and when they see editors are calling for a block or topic ban, read the difs provided and the relevant talk pages/article histories to see if they really seem to support such action. Chime in if they do not because tagteams of ducks/advociates will sometimes use that method to maintain ownership of articles.

Other remedies might include things such as if you notice a brand new editor being bitten by a duck, reach out to them to welcome them on their talk page. Direct them to the Teahouse and dispute resolution etc. Advise them that no matter how unreasonable the duck or duckteam seems to get, do not become uncivil with them, as this will be used against you.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I like this very much. petrarchan47tc 22:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, BoboMeowCat. I actually have welcomed a few new editors and offered my help. How does one go about signing up for the "welcoming committee" if there is such a thing? I also was hoping Doc_James would provide input about the essay. The more eyes we can get on it, the better. Petrarchan47, thank you for all you do. I truly appreciate our communications and hope our efforts will be productive in making WP a much better experience for all. Don't hesitate to modify, shorten, tweak, add, or whatever else you think will improve the article. Happy editing! Atsme☯ 14:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I am beyond grateful that you exist, and that you, along with your obvious abundance of brain cells, have tons of free time - cuz we need you here. I'm so glad you have connected with folks who know how WP works, and I am so excited to see where all of this leads. Don't be afraid to speak your truth, but at the same time, this is a chess game. I suck at chess, and am sinking back into my peaceful state of retirement (I hope...). Do feel free to email me whenever you think I can be of any help. petrarchan47tc 21:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words, Petra. You can count on getting emails from me. Atsme☯ 06:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

comments

• gets lost a bit in its own metaphors. it is really unclear what kind of practical advice you are giving when you write: "It may be time to sit quietly in the duck blind and practice your best duck call." First, the hunting metaphor is really infelicitous, and I don't know what you are advising editors to do, with "practice your best call".
• what is the basis for your claim that "Some of the most egregious COI editing appears to arise most often from articles associated with the biotech, pharmaceutical and medical industries, corporate articles, government agencies and universities which may support, be supported by, or have a COI with a particular advocacy, including BLPs ranging anywhere from politicians to medical practitioners to fringe authors.?" As SlimVigin wrote, the high standards WikiProject Medicine maintains for sourcing, keeps a lot of COI editing at bay. In my experience, we get the most COI editing with a) BLP articles; b) articles about companies and products, especially in the software space (which makes sense, with WP being an internet reference) and where sources are less anchored in scientific/academic literature but are more in the popular media. I also keep coming across clear COI editing about universities, which has surprised me. (there is an an essay on it, even)
• the tying-in of MEDRS with the concept of "COI quackery" is unfortunate and a distraction. I would suggest taking that stuff out. Which seemed to be what SV was urging as well, in the comment to which I linked above Jytdog (talk) 16:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

so you put the content in my 2nd bullet in a quote box. it discredits the essay more loudly. folks who know about COI editing, know that is just wrong. As you will, of course. Jytdog (talk) 22:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

We are certainly on the same page here... But as I say below, I'm pretty critical of the whole thing... Gandydancer (talk) 00:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Copy edit

@BoboMeowCat:, @Petrarchan47:, @Doc James:, @Gandydancer:, and whoever else wants to chime in. I revamped the essay, will be changing name to COI ducks. Would like to get some input. Atsme☯ 23:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Criticism by Gandydancer

Of course I feel very bad to have to say this, but I just do not care for it at all. I dislike it so much that it's hard for me to even criticize it. I'll copy the opening here and criticize it.

This page in a nutshell: Loud quacking indicates a possible COI, and so does waddling around in circles to maintain the status quo, but when feathers start flying... It looks like a duck to me

I just don't get the metaphor use here at all. Plus, "when the feathers start to fly" is about chickens, not ducks. Chickens fight with talon-like feet and feathers really can fly - I've never actually seen ducks fight at all.

The first para:

Conflict of interest ducks can be rather difficult to identify at first which is why it is always better to assume good faith, and not make unwarranted accusations based on suspicion or flimsy evidence. However, if you notice a correlation of topics and/or habitual characteristics in the editing behavior of one or more editors, and have also noticed or experienced recurring disputes by those same editor(s) on TPs, noticeboards and forums where they waddle around a target like ducks on a June bug, you may have wandered into a flock of COI ducks. This essay will attempt to help you identify them. Sorry, but WP does not offer any virus software or duck blinds to protect against them. You're on your own, but don't despair. We are here to help.

"they waddle around a target like ducks on a June bug, you may have wandered into a flock of COI ducks." Again, just don't get this, also no idea what the June bug mention means. Next, "duck blinds to protect against them" - what does that mean and how is it connected to virus software? (For anyone that doesn't know it, the hunter puts his/her decoys out in the water and sits in the blind waiting for a flock of ducks to come within range.)

Perhaps this all sounds pretty nitpicky, but to start out so muddled is a bad way to start if one wants to present some sound information/advice, IMO. I hope that you all understand how hard it is for me to be so critical of another's work. I'll stop here for now. I understand what this is getting at, but IMO it's not getting there... Gandydancer (talk) 00:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the essay really picks up steam at paragraph 3. Then it is very clear. I agree that paragraphs 1-2 could use some work and the metaphor is confusing there. I would like to see more remedies along the lines of what BoboMeowCat said on the essay talk page. I am okay with the Duck metaphor:

1. If it look like a duck and quacks like a Duck, it probably is a duck
2. Ducks quack. And the stuff the COIDuck does will indeed involved a lot of quacking/squawking especially towards users who disagree with the COIDuck's COI agenda.
3. WifiOne was taken down by (1) rather than proof of COI.

Thanks for doing this Atsme. I really appreciate it. Please don't give up and let criticism get to you! As Noam Chomsky said early in the documentary Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media "if I didn't get this kind of criticism, I would be worried I wasn't doing my job." He says something like that at 5 minutes into the documentary that can be viewed free here. David Tornheim (talk) 01:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

No problem, David - I appreciate the input. I also realize we all don't live in the country so it may be hard for some to visualize ducks doing their thang, like chasing a June bug, pecking at each other, or chasing off an intruder. It's quite the experience to be chased by a duck, or a goose, a rooster with long spurs, a billy goat, a Brahma bull, a potbellied pig, or had a June bug get tangled up in your hair. Atsme☯ 02:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)