→Conflict of interest in WIkipedia: new section |
|||
Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
But really - there is nothing new under the sun here. This place is a laboratory of human behavior; you can watch new people come and make the same kinds of mistakes people before them did, that other people are making now, and that people in the future will make. Some people figure this place out and become productive members of the community; some stick around but get miserable and leave, others yet, go out in fireballs. The choice is always, always, in their hands. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 17:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC) |
But really - there is nothing new under the sun here. This place is a laboratory of human behavior; you can watch new people come and make the same kinds of mistakes people before them did, that other people are making now, and that people in the future will make. Some people figure this place out and become productive members of the community; some stick around but get miserable and leave, others yet, go out in fireballs. The choice is always, always, in their hands. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 17:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC) |
||
== Conflict of interest in WIkipedia == |
|||
About your comment [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ontario_Civil_Liberties_Association&diff=next&oldid=704861680 here] - a second response... |
|||
No, I have no relationship with any Canadian civil rights organization or anything to do with Canada. Along with my own editing work, I work on conflict of interest issues, and my attention was called to this article due to the involvement of an editor with a clear conflict of interest, as we define that in Wikipedia. |
|||
So I have answered you. Based on your work in Wikipedia so far (other than your additional engagement on the [[Dorothy Reitman]] article, all your edits have been about OCLA; on the Talk page you made claims based on your knowledge of OCLA, and you appear to be trying to "defend" the article even though you don't really know what you are doing. This is the kind of behavior that editors who are advocates enact... people can be advocates due to a conflict of interest (they work with or for the subject of the article), or they are "fans" of it. Would you please clarify your relationship with OCLA? I am not asking you to identify yourself (your identity is strictly protected by [[WP:OUTING]], but if there is some relatinship, would you please disclose it? (please see the [[WP:COI]] guideline if you are interested in the background of this) Thanks. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 17:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:57, 14 February 2016
Here's wishing you a welcome to Wikipedia, Tobeme free. Thank you for your contributions. Here are some useful links, which have information to help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- How to write a great article
- Editor's index to Wikipedia
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.
Again, welcome! Jytdog (talk) 00:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Unsourced content
Hello, I'm Jytdog. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Ontario Civil Liberties Association, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on the article talk page. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 00:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Quick note on how Wikipedia works
Hi Tobeme free.
You are new here and you don't understand the "rules" very well, much less the spirit that informs them - please go slow and learn.. it takes some time.
I am sorry about this, but if you really want to get involved, it turns out that Wikipedia is a pretty complex place. Being an "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" means that over the years, the Wikipedia community - the people themselves - have developed lots of policies and guidelines (PAG) to help provide a "body of law" as it were, that form a foundation for rational discussion. Without that foundation, this place would be both a garbage dump of random content and a wild west - a truly ugly place. But with the foundation, there is guidance for generating excellent content and there are ways to rationally work things out - if, and only if, all the parties involved accept that foundation and work within it. One of the hardest things for new people, is to understand not only that this foundation exists, but what its letter and spirit is. (I keep emphasizing the spirit, because too often people fall prey to what we call "wikilawyering") The more I have learned about how things are set up here - not just the letter of PAG and the various "drama boards" and administrative tools, but their spirit - the more impressed I have become at how, well ... beautiful this place is. It takes time to learn both the spirit and the letter of PAG, and to really get aligned with Wikipedia's mission to crowdsource a reliable, NPOV source of information for the public (as "reliable" and "NPOV" are defined in PAG!). People come edit for many reasons, but one of the main ones is that they are passionate about something. That passion is a double-edged sword. It drives people to contribute which has the potential for productive construction, but it can also lead to WP:TENDENTIOUS editing, which is really destructive. WP:ADVOCACY is one of our biggest bedevilments. Anyway, I do hope you slow down and learn. There are lots of people here who are happy to teach, if you open up and listen and ask authentic questions, not rhetorical ones. And really, good luck.
PAG are described and discussed in a whole forest of documents within Wikipedia that are "behind the scenes" in a different "namespace", in which the documents start with "Wikipedia:" or in shorthand, "WP:" (for example, our policy on edit warring is here: WP:EDITWAR not here EDITWAR). You won't find these documents by using the simple search box above, which searches only in "main space" where the actual articles are. However if you search with the prefix, (for example if you search for "WP:EDITWAR") you will find policies and guidelines. Likewise if you do an advanced search with "wikipedia" or "help" selected you can also find things in "Wikipedia space". The link in the welcome message above the "Five Pillars" points you to our most important policies and I recommend that you read them all, if you have not already and if you intend to stick around! They guide everything that happens here.
With all that in mind, here are some things that I suggest you read (I know, I know, things to read... but like I said, Wikipedia can be complicated!)
- WP:OR - no original research is allowed -instead...
- WP:VERIFY - everything must be based on reliable sources (as we define them - see WP:RS for general content and WP:MEDRS for health-related content)
- WP:NPOV - this does not mean what most people think it means. it means that you read the most recent and best reliable sources you can find, and figure out what the mainstream view is, and that is what gets the most WP:WEIGHT.
- WP:CONSENSUS - Wikipedia has plenty of policies and guidelines, as I mentioned, but really at the end of the day this place is ... a democracy? an anarchy? something hard to define. But we figure things out by talking to one another based on the policies and guidelines and what reliable sources say. Not our own opinions about the world. CONSENSUS is the bedrock on which everything else rests. So please talk. If you make a change to an article and someone else reverts it, the right thing to do is to follow WP:BRD (please do read that) - but briefly, when you are reverted, open a discussion on the article's Talk page. Ask the reason under policy and guidelines why your change was reverted -- and really ask, and really listen to the answer, and go read whatever links you are pointed to. Think about it, and if there is something you don't understand, ask more questions. Please only start to actually argue once you understand the basis for the objection. If you and the other party or parties still disagree, there are many ways to resolve disputes (see WP:DR) - it never needs to become emotional - because we do have this whole "body of law" and procedures to resolve disputes.
Anyway, good luck! Jytdog (talk) 00:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- Quick note on the logistics of discussing things on Talk pages, which are essential for everything that happens here. In Talk page discussions, we "thread" comments by indenting - when you reply to someone, you put a colon ":" in front of your comment, and the Wikipedia software converts that into an indent; if the other person has indented once, then you indent twice by putting two colons "::" which the WP software converts into two indents, and when that gets ridiculous you reset back to the margin (or "outdent") by putting this {{od}} in front of your comment, which looks like...
this. This also allows you to make it clear if you are also responding to something that someone else responded to, if there are more than two people in the discussion; in that case you would indent the same amount as the person just above you in the thread. I hope that all makes sense. And at the end of the comment (not in the front), please "sign" by typing exactly four (not 3 or 5) tildas "~~~~" which the WP software converts into a date stamp and links to your talk and user pages. That is how we know who said what. You don't need to type your username. I have had to fix each of your posts on the Talk page of the article so far...Jytdog (talk) 16:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
"Assume good faith" - a pillar of Wikipedia
About your comment here - a first response...
The fact that everyone here is allowed to be anonymous (and this anonymity is fiercely protected by the out policy) ~can~ breed all kinds of bad thoughts, especially during disagreements over content. It is kind of natural for people to wonder at others' motivations, and especially when it comes to something you are passionate about and have strong ideas about, it is very easy to think that someone opposing you is doing so from some corrupt or bad motive. The anonymity of other editors can exacerbate that.
This is why WP:AGF is one of the pillars of this place (not just a policy - a pillar). It calls on editors to not personalize at all but rather to focus on "content, not contributor" -- to avoid filling the void that the privacy policy creates, and look at what people do, not who you think they are, nor why they might be doing whatever they are doing. It is hard for some people to get comfortable with that, and all the time, people fling accusations of COI or other bad faith motivations at other editors in the midst of content disputes. Now, there is COI editing here, and there are advocates of all stripes. If you suspect someone has a COI or other issue, you might be right. But AGF tells us not to hold off from "going there" and really try to work out content disputes based on the content policies and guidelines, while following the behavioral policies and guidelines, and to use the dispute resolution processes to work out the content dispute. The community does have ways of dealing with advocates (those who have a COI, and those who are POV-pushers) but it you need to use those carefully and thoughtfully, and not just "wham" go for the kill on talk page. Instead, assume good faith, focus on content not contributor, and work on content according to the content policies and guidelines, and behave according to the behavioral policies and guidelines, and you will have a pretty nice time here. I hope that makes sense.
But really - there is nothing new under the sun here. This place is a laboratory of human behavior; you can watch new people come and make the same kinds of mistakes people before them did, that other people are making now, and that people in the future will make. Some people figure this place out and become productive members of the community; some stick around but get miserable and leave, others yet, go out in fireballs. The choice is always, always, in their hands. Jytdog (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Conflict of interest in WIkipedia
About your comment here - a second response...
No, I have no relationship with any Canadian civil rights organization or anything to do with Canada. Along with my own editing work, I work on conflict of interest issues, and my attention was called to this article due to the involvement of an editor with a clear conflict of interest, as we define that in Wikipedia.
So I have answered you. Based on your work in Wikipedia so far (other than your additional engagement on the Dorothy Reitman article, all your edits have been about OCLA; on the Talk page you made claims based on your knowledge of OCLA, and you appear to be trying to "defend" the article even though you don't really know what you are doing. This is the kind of behavior that editors who are advocates enact... people can be advocates due to a conflict of interest (they work with or for the subject of the article), or they are "fans" of it. Would you please clarify your relationship with OCLA? I am not asking you to identify yourself (your identity is strictly protected by WP:OUTING, but if there is some relatinship, would you please disclose it? (please see the WP:COI guideline if you are interested in the background of this) Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)