→Imaginary scenario - a thought experiment: new section |
|||
Line 74: | Line 74: | ||
::Thank you Olive, I appreciate your clarity of question. Barney - not only is it the position of good wikipedia editing to be uncompromisingly neutral, it's my job. I'm not sure what it is you do not think I am hearing and I do need you to be specific and not some broad policy stroke and some general assumption thrown my way. It would be great if you could participate in talk and respond to specific requests that I make, that way we could participate in consensus building. Confusing my requests for consensus building as my failure to understand policy seems more like [[WP:DISRUPTSIGNS]] to me so let's help keep each other in check as this article is governed under discretionary sanctions for all editors, not just COI. [[User:SAS81|SAS81]] ([[User talk:SAS81#top|talk]]) 22:40, 20 April 2014 (UTC) |
::Thank you Olive, I appreciate your clarity of question. Barney - not only is it the position of good wikipedia editing to be uncompromisingly neutral, it's my job. I'm not sure what it is you do not think I am hearing and I do need you to be specific and not some broad policy stroke and some general assumption thrown my way. It would be great if you could participate in talk and respond to specific requests that I make, that way we could participate in consensus building. Confusing my requests for consensus building as my failure to understand policy seems more like [[WP:DISRUPTSIGNS]] to me so let's help keep each other in check as this article is governed under discretionary sanctions for all editors, not just COI. [[User:SAS81|SAS81]] ([[User talk:SAS81#top|talk]]) 22:40, 20 April 2014 (UTC) |
||
== Imaginary scenario - a thought experiment == |
|||
There are 7 editors on the Barack Obama article. All of them well intentioned. Six of them are passionate Red State Republicans with a keen eye for Sarah Palin and a love of country and values they believe to be true. The seventh is a lonely progressive with a voting preference for Democrat who works of the US Archives for US Presidents and is responsible for correcting misleading sources on Wikipedia articles. The lead section in the article attempts to frame Barack Obama as a socialist in ideology and although they are referencing sources, it's clear the article is leaning towards the weight of Obama's detractors |
|||
How does this scenario play out on Wikipedia? |
|||
[[User:SAS81|SAS81]] ([[User talk:SAS81#top|talk]]) 18:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:52, 21 April 2014
I am here to answer any questions and work with any editors on the page. ChopraMedia (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello, ChopraMedia, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.
I noticed that you have edited the Talk page of a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article.
Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The plain and simple conflict of interest guide
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Simplified Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}}
before the question. Again, welcome! Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 03:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Your username and our conflict of interest policy
Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "ChopraMedia", may not comply with our username policy. Please note that you may not use a username that represents the name of a company, group, organization, product, or website. Examples of usernames that are not allowed include "XYZ Company", "MyWidgetsUSA.com", and "Trammel Museum of Art". However, you are invited to use a username that contains such a name if it identifies you personally, such as "Mark at WidgetsUSA", "Jack Smith at the XY Foundation", and "WidgetFan87". Please also note that Wikipedia does not allow accounts to be shared by multiple people, and that you may not advocate for or promote any company, group, organization, product, or website, regardless of your username. Moreover, I recommend that you read our conflict of interest guideline. If you are a single individual and are willing to contribute to Wikipedia in an unbiased manner, please create a new account or request a username change that complies with our username policy. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 21:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up, to the best of my ability we are appropriately addressing our concerns about the article using this name but I don't mind changing it. I am requesting a user name change request. If you don't hear back from me in a few days I am just busy and will get to this as soon as I can. We want to do this the right way. ChopraMedia (talk) 01:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Checking username signature. ChopraMedia (talk) 19:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- Ronz I am not sure how to sign in as SAS81. It only let's me sign in as ChopraMedia. Please adviseChopraMedia (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- Your sig not changing is strange. I'm not sure even where to begin on fixing it. Try
{{Help me}}
and they should at least point you in the right direction. --Ronz (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)- @ChopraMedia: If you are logged in as ChopraMedia, click on this link to log out: Log Out
- Then, click this link to log back in: Log In
- You should be prompted for a username and password when you log in; use the SAS81 username and password you've chosen for that account to log in. -- Atama頭 22:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- Your sig not changing is strange. I'm not sure even where to begin on fixing it. Try
Thx! SAS81 (talk) 20:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
WP:FRINGE
I think you'll have much more success here if you take more time to understand WP:FRINGE and why it is an extension of WP:NPOV.
For example, you wrote, "Is the inherent contradiction between the application of BLP and Fringe based on a misunderstanding on my part?" and "My understanding of WP Fringe is that whatever defines fringe on Wikipedia (and I accept mind body healing is under that umbrella) then the mainstream scientific point of view must also be listed on that article. Yet it's very vague how this applied to a BLP, especially when it implies that mainstream scientist's opinions about Dr Chopra the person become the voice of the article, which contradicts neutrality in any definition of the term."
If you work for Chopra, then I don't think it would be a stretch to assume you are so ingrained in the support of fringe beliefs that you don't see it as anything but mainstream. --Ronz (talk) 15:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hey Ronz, thanks for the heads up. I would not be so quick to make assumptions about me. I have a very specific job with Dr. Chopra and his organizations and was hired based on my skill set, not on my own personal beliefs which they never asked and I never offered.SAS81 (talk) 20:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- Acknowledging that this is controversial is the first step. Acknowledging that it isn't mainstream would be the second. How far are we stepping? Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I would not be here if it was not controversial. I'm not sure what you mean by 'mainstream' or in what context. Let's work it out on the page. SAS81 (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- The two actually aren't that far apart. Generally we would consider evidence-based medicine to be mainstream, mostly because it's been shown to work. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Dispute resolution policy may be helpful
You seem to be having a hard time getting anyone to agree with your concerns. You might want to review our dispute resolution policy. --Ronz (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yes thanks again Ronz for looking out for me. I am aware of dispute resolution but was hoping to see what kind of consensus can be made between current editors, I don't want to make things unnecessarily dramatic if they don't have to be. They may have to be :( SAS81 (talk) 21:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- A bit of advice, for what it's worth:
- I strongly recommend new editors learn Wikipedia by editing articles that aren't controversial in any way, so they can learn the basics with very little risk of running into any disputes at all, much less complicated disputes. However, I realize you're here on behalf of your employer, so you likely don't have much time to learn your way around.
- Neutrality is difficult to accomplish, and there's a huge amount of guidance in Wikipedia on how to go about it. When it comes to articles about living people, it's even more difficult because of the higher standards expected from such articles. In this case, you also have to negotiate WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS, as well as the related arbitration decisions.
- At the risk of oversimplifying how to approach these problems, I suggest finding sources that are secondary/tertiary, independent, and reliable that demonstrate the information/event is important with respect to the person's entire life's work. Independently-written biographies and well-researched histories are ideal.
- Other types of sources can be helpful, but the impact they have on the overall article will only go as far as how well they provide well-researched context and history. --Ronz (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Ronz I'm trying to find the related ARB decisions, is there one in particular? I'm just aware of the Fringe ARB com from I think 2006. I also instructed the team here to start compiling sources with proper citations broken down by primary, secondary and tertiary. It's probably going to take a few more days though for that to be finished. SAS81 (talk) 04:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
- " also instructed the team here ... " ← wait, so the input from this account will be resourced by a group of people acting under instruction? Isn't that a problem?—"Any user account should represent an individual and not a group". Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 05:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hey Alex - as a professional, I have a team that works under me for what ever purposes I may need. If I instruct them to perform research or gather sources with proper citations it's because I don't have time to do it. Y'all have me busier than a one legged man in an ass kicking contest. SAS81 (talk) 15:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Politeness and WP:IDONTHERETHAT.
We understand your motives here, and we're appreciate that you've been up-front about them, and have generally been polite. That's great.
We can make certain allowances for not understanding policies, and not having the experience to understand them.
One way to learn a little more about policy would be to contribute in other, less controversial areas. Iranian Embassy Siege, for example is quite complete but there may be related articles that need attention.
What would be not so great is if, once something has been explained to you multiple times by multiple editors as best they can, you still bring up the issues involved, which would count as WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. WP:IDONTHEARTHAT is disruptive, whether it's intentional or not. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- I've been watching the Chopra discussion closely, Barney. Perhaps you could be more specific especially if you are warning this editor about possible sanctions. I see an editor who has gone out of his way to work with other editors on this article, who goes way beyond being polite and is working carefully within the confines of his declared COI. And who is the "we" you are referring to. Could you explain.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2014 (UTC))
- Thank you Olive, I appreciate your clarity of question. Barney - not only is it the position of good wikipedia editing to be uncompromisingly neutral, it's my job. I'm not sure what it is you do not think I am hearing and I do need you to be specific and not some broad policy stroke and some general assumption thrown my way. It would be great if you could participate in talk and respond to specific requests that I make, that way we could participate in consensus building. Confusing my requests for consensus building as my failure to understand policy seems more like WP:DISRUPTSIGNS to me so let's help keep each other in check as this article is governed under discretionary sanctions for all editors, not just COI. SAS81 (talk) 22:40, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Imaginary scenario - a thought experiment
There are 7 editors on the Barack Obama article. All of them well intentioned. Six of them are passionate Red State Republicans with a keen eye for Sarah Palin and a love of country and values they believe to be true. The seventh is a lonely progressive with a voting preference for Democrat who works of the US Archives for US Presidents and is responsible for correcting misleading sources on Wikipedia articles. The lead section in the article attempts to frame Barack Obama as a socialist in ideology and although they are referencing sources, it's clear the article is leaning towards the weight of Obama's detractors
How does this scenario play out on Wikipedia?