|
|
|
I do recall hearing or reading about a recent scandal with political biographies on Wiki, where some people in the employ of the biographied persons were "helping out" on the articles. They were also probably not specifically paid to edit the articles, but Wiki did take action in this case. I think they made the articles so that they could only be edited by registering or something like that. Not exactly sure of the facts though.
So what it really seems is that in cases like our "very important voice for peace" for which basically hardly anyone could care less about, Wiki just doesn't pay attention.
Really if anyone with half a brain from Wiki would just look at the editing and discussion history, that would be enough to show what is going on with the article. Under any reasonable NPOV perspective, especially considering the "mission" Wiki has before itself, the article should have taken 15 to 30 minutes of time up for some editor and basta. Anything else is a ridiculous waste of resources for Wikipedia.
|
|
|
|
Jim, Jossi's MO on Wikipedia has been to involve himself in the rewriting of official Wikipedia policies. All of those policies and guidelines so far have been related to how he edits the Rawat articles, and a good example is "Biographies of Living Persons" guidelines which he pulls out like a six-shooter every time someone places anything slightly criticial of M in the article. Now, I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that since Jossi has claimed a conflict of interest on the Rawat article because he works for a related organization, would preclude his ability to be fair-minded while editing the conflict of interest policy. Also, Jossi claims to be committed to following Wiki policy, but I would assert that he's not in a position to make that claim because of his conflict of interest. Here's the link to the talk page if you can stomach it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest
Related link: Why I don't edit Wikipedia anymore
Modified by Cynthia at Tue, Feb 20, 2007, 08:54:35
|
|
|
|
Cynthia, There's a reason why most people of the world aren't Wikipedia editors. Not yet anyway. In my legal world, we have these things called judges. It's all rather balanced in that the opposing parties can get as nit-picky and obscurantisticalacious as they want but, at the end of the day, the judges sort through the arguments and, when things go right, find what matters and make rulings. If they get it wrong, there's always at least one level of appellate review, usually a couple. Issues get pared down and there are premiums on values such as consistency, efficiency, fairness and closure. Process in Wikipedia is the opposite. No clear process, no clear judges, no refinement and narrowing of issues, no nothing but a cackle of obscurantistic nitpickers content, apparently, to argue forever in the foyers of the Wiki imaginary Halls of Injustice. But wait -- you don't want to get accused of Wikilawyering either! The whole thing's too much. I wonder if anyone's ever gone Wikicrazy before?
Modified by Jim at Tue, Feb 20, 2007, 10:45:46
|
|
|
|
Wiki COI policies clearly state that people who are financially remunerated by an organization affiliated with the article's subject for public relations purposes should not edit the article: [edit] Financial If you fit either of these descriptions: - you are receiving monetary or other benefits or considerations to edit Wikipedia as a representative of an organization (whether directly as an employee or contractor of that organization, or indirectly as an employee or contractor of a firm hired by that organization for public relations purposes); or,
- you expect to derive monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Wikipedia; for example, by being the owner, officer or other stakeholder of a company or other organisation about which you are writing;
then we very strongly encourage you to avoid editing Wikipedia in areas in which you appear to have a conflict of interest. Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy states that all articles must represent views fairly and without bias, and conflicts of interest do significantly and negatively affect Wikipedia's ability to fulfill this requirement.
That bold text is Wiki's not mine. Yet, when John persists, extremely patiently, to explain to Jossi why he should disclose, Jossi refuses, pretending that all his COI requires him to do is disclose its existence, however vaguely, and to continue editting the article as he pleases. What's actually quite funny, as well, is how he's flailing with this argument which is almost as stupid as something Momento might come up with: To clarify this further, note that contributions to this and related articles represent less than 8% of all my contributions to Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC) In that case, he shouldn't be so upset if he's forced to give up this particular article! The bottom line is that Jossi is definitely violating the spirit of the rule here and making a mockery of it, in fact.
Modified by Jim at Tue, Feb 20, 2007, 22:22:31
|
|
|
|
Jossi has stated he doesn't get paid to edit Wikipedia, so he considers himself exempt from that policy as a result. It's so odd he won't disclose what he does for Rawat and the name of the entity for which he works. What's the big secret, eh? When someone questions him, he pulls out the "assume good faith" premise and gets indignant. But, Wikipedians are such wimps. They don't make any real rules and policies, rather they massage the English language, creating loopholes that fit their own personal needs. At any rate, I'm not going to complain to a group of people who don't know their ass from their elbows about creating a conflict-free workspace and constantly give people like Jossi free passes to lord over their favorit articles. Like I said, Jossi clearly has a conflict of interest, but considers himself above being questioned by monitors himself and he is the sole person making a determination about his state of being NPOV on the articles. My opinion is that he should be precluded from editing the Conflict of Interest article, as well as the Rawat articles, but he's established himself as a task-master administrator on Wikipedia (a Jimbo Wales lap dog type) and they like his work more than being concerned about anything moral or ethical that may be amiss. There's no rhyme nor reason to Wikipdiea. It's a monster truck run amok.
|
|
|
