BoboMeowCat (talk | contribs) Thanks! |
(No difference)
|
Revision as of 02:51, 31 March 2015
Thanks Atsme, for starting this :) Some ideas I have for this essay actually came out of the recent ANI discussions regarding COI. [1] 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. [2]. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)