Jerodlycett (talk | contribs) →COI: r |
Silver seren (talk | contribs) →COI: Reply |
||
Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
::::In edits you made removing content mentioning SPS, what are you seeing as a problem? The sources I've seen deleted here appear fine under [[WP:BLPSPS]]. I don't think everything should have just been deleted, but some of that content associated with them can be reworked. I'll take a stab at that in a bit. Just wanting to make sure you weren't deleting content based on the source alone. [[User:Kingofaces43|Kingofaces43]] ([[User talk:Kingofaces43|talk]]) 23:44, 13 September 2015 (UTC) |
::::In edits you made removing content mentioning SPS, what are you seeing as a problem? The sources I've seen deleted here appear fine under [[WP:BLPSPS]]. I don't think everything should have just been deleted, but some of that content associated with them can be reworked. I'll take a stab at that in a bit. Just wanting to make sure you weren't deleting content based on the source alone. [[User:Kingofaces43|Kingofaces43]] ([[User talk:Kingofaces43|talk]]) 23:44, 13 September 2015 (UTC) |
||
::::{{reply to|Winner 42}}This: {{cite web | url=http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidkroll/2015/09/10/what-the-new-york-times-missed-on-kevin-folta-and-monsantos-cultivation-of-academic-scientists/ | title=What The New York Times Missed On Kevin Folta And Monsanto's Cultivation Of Academic Scientists| work=Forbes | date=10 September 2015 | accessdate=10 September 2015 | author=Kroll, David}} doesn't appear to be SPS, but rather an op-ed for Forbes, or maybe not, as he seems to be a semi-regular columnist for them. |
::::{{reply to|Winner 42}}This: {{cite web | url=http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidkroll/2015/09/10/what-the-new-york-times-missed-on-kevin-folta-and-monsantos-cultivation-of-academic-scientists/ | title=What The New York Times Missed On Kevin Folta And Monsanto's Cultivation Of Academic Scientists| work=Forbes | date=10 September 2015 | accessdate=10 September 2015 | author=Kroll, David}} doesn't appear to be SPS, but rather an op-ed for Forbes, or maybe not, as he seems to be a semi-regular columnist for them. |
||
{{outdent}}Considering the evidence very clearly shows this is just a smear campaign and little more, a lot of the edits having been made to this article concern me. Especially [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kevin_Folta&type=revision&diff=680905663&oldid=680904564 this edit] by Winner 42, which implies to me they know nothing about Wikipedia or RS's and shouldn't be allowed to edit at all. Of course, that implication doesn't make much sense, since they've been editing for a long time and have written GAs and such. Which then only allows one other conclusion: they are editing in bad faith and trying to POV slant the article because of personal biases against the subject. <font color="silver">[[User:Silver seren|Silver]]</font><font color="blue">[[User talk:Silver seren|seren]]</font><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]</sup> 23:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:50, 13 September 2015
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Role of Land Grant universities
I think it might be informative to add a couple quotes about the nature of Land Grant universities such as University of Florida with regard to the alleged conflict of interest. These articles explain how Dr. Folta's educational outreach program relates to their broader mission, and how such collaboration is a feature, not a bug:
There is a network of “Land Grant” colleges and Universities throughout the US that was first set up in the late 1800s through the Morrill Acts. Their purpose was to focus on agriculture, science, military science and engineering. They became important centers of applied research which has been of great benefit for the global food supply. These institutions have traditionally been part of a synergistic, public/private partnership for the discovery, testing and commercialization of innovations of value to the farming community. They also educate future farmers, the specialized scientists and engineers who become the employees of ag-related businesses, and the future faculty. [1]
[T]his is the way the land-grant university system is supposed to work. Part of our mission is to partner with others — be they corporations, nonprofits, or government agencies — to discover, test and commercialize inventions. It's also our mission to share science and innovation broadly with the public. [2]
Wurdeh (talk) 16:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
COI
I think we need to talk about the changes made rather than just reverting. Some are quite good, and there are WP:RS citations for a lot of the changes made. Jerod Lycett (talk) 22:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- Like most COI editor's edits, this section was fundetmentally non neutral. IT was biased in favor of its subject with the addition of unreliable sources and giving undue weight to the view that he did nothing wrong. Winner 42 Talk to me! 22:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- I see one SPS, and many many RS. Can you show RS that he did something wrong? He did go about editing in the wrong way, but he did add RS, and from what I can see, removed the NPOV. Jerod Lycett (talk) 22:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- In this case when an advocacy group is working on a smear campaign (or any nicer way to put it), we also need to be careful of undue weight for that point of view as well. That's especially the case given that this is a BLP. This is very similar in nature to Climategate, so while COI edits were made, I agree with Jerodlycett that a lot of them actually weren't too shabby as far as COI editors go. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- Alright, I have gone through and removed most of the unreliable sources and misrepresented sources, and I'll continue to work on the section for a bit. Winner 42 Talk to me! 23:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- In edits you made removing content mentioning SPS, what are you seeing as a problem? The sources I've seen deleted here appear fine under WP:BLPSPS. I don't think everything should have just been deleted, but some of that content associated with them can be reworked. I'll take a stab at that in a bit. Just wanting to make sure you weren't deleting content based on the source alone. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:44, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Winner 42:This: Kroll, David (10 September 2015). "What The New York Times Missed On Kevin Folta And Monsanto's Cultivation Of Academic Scientists". Forbes. Retrieved 10 September 2015. doesn't appear to be SPS, but rather an op-ed for Forbes, or maybe not, as he seems to be a semi-regular columnist for them.
- Alright, I have gone through and removed most of the unreliable sources and misrepresented sources, and I'll continue to work on the section for a bit. Winner 42 Talk to me! 23:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Considering the evidence very clearly shows this is just a smear campaign and little more, a lot of the edits having been made to this article concern me. Especially this edit by Winner 42, which implies to me they know nothing about Wikipedia or RS's and shouldn't be allowed to edit at all. Of course, that implication doesn't make much sense, since they've been editing for a long time and have written GAs and such. Which then only allows one other conclusion: they are editing in bad faith and trying to POV slant the article because of personal biases against the subject. SilverserenC 23:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)