Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-13 Emporis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal

Article: Emporis State: Closed Requested By: Montalto Other Parties: Numerous Mediated By: TheronJ Comments: Compromise proposed, accepted, and performed

Contents 1 Mediation Case: 2006-11-13 Emporis 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Mediator response 1.2.1 TheronJ's summary of the dispute 1.2.1.1 Responses to summary 1.2.2 TheronJ's list of relevant policies and guidelines 1.3 Compromise offers 1.3.1 Compromise proposal by TheronJ 1.4 Discussion 1.5 References and footnotes

[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-11-13 Emporis

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: Montalto 22:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

Emporis

Who's involved?

Gothicform (talk • contribs)

MatthieuN (talk • contribs)^[1]

UnitedPakistan (talk • contribs)

Elk Salmon (talk • contribs)

86.6.160.50 (talk • contribs)

What's going on?

A group of people has suddenly banded together to insert contents of an old dispute under the heading of "Controversy" on the Emporis page. I have connections to many of the persons involved in both Emporis and in the "rival" website cited by the persons editing the article, and I can provide arguments, if not evidence, that the claims being posted on Wikipedia are spurious.

What would you like to change about that?

I don't know what steps you can take to stop these changes, but anything would be appreciated.

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

No, please do whatever you see fit within the standards of Wikipedia.

[edit] Mediator response

• I will take this. TheronJ 23:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Is this case active or can I close it? --Ideogram 04:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• I think we're pretty close to a close. Let me implement my compromise (hopefully tonight), and if everyone's happy, I will close. Sorry about the delay, and thanks, TheronJ 14:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TheronJ's summary of the dispute

• Emporis is a commercial website/company that specializes in collecting data relating to buildings such as photographs, plans, the identity of builders and architects, etc.
• There is currently a dispute about whether a "Controversy" section should be included in the article. This section, viewable here, alleged that Emporis has been involved in various disputes, particularly disputes relating to SkyscraperPage, an open database alternative to Emporis.
• The "Controversy" section contained two citations, both forum posts [1], [2]. The remainder of the article contains only one citation, a link to www.emporis.com.
• The Emporis page has been subject to repeated reversions, as various parties either insert or remove the "Controversy" section. Although all parties appear to be acting in good faith, some of the parties appear to be supporters of SkyscraperPage or of Emporis.

TheronJ 14:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Responses to summary

If you think I've misstated or left out anything important, please place a note here, and I will do my best to correct the summary above.TheronJ 14:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The summary seems fair. Emporis is something of a chimera, part commercial and part volunteer effort. Naturally this arrangement will evince some controversy, but my objections were: 1) that the controversy statement on Wikipedia was biased and misstated; 2) that some of the controversies mentioned are trivial to the history of Emporis and therefore do not belong on its page; and 3) that the writers seemed to be using the Wikipedia article as a soapbox for their anger against Emporis. I agree that the rest of the article needs references and I will try to contribute to that. Montalto 05:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide an arguments - what exactly do you see as spurious? Personally I see that existence of controversy section is perfectly fits into WP:NPOV, while its removal does not. Elk Salmon 06:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I would say it's less a matter of triviality or using Wikipedia as a soapbox, and mainly about reliably sourcing the information. Forums are not a reliable source, so nothing controversial can be attributed to them. While ideally the whole article would be sourced, the controversy section could defame the company so it must be so. I can't see how you could argue with this. Trebor 07:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Not forum is a source, but 1. Emporis screenshots, 2. SSP official that expressed on the page of the forum. Elk Salmon 06:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Deducing anything from the screenshots is original research. And how do you prove someone is whom they say they are from a forum post? I don't think this assertion can be verified. Trebor 15:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

easy... you go to the forum in question, click on forum leaders and see that the admins of skyscraperpage are the people in the forum! unless skyscraperpage has been hacked then this is the case. dealing with montaltos points. 1) if the statements are misstated he should restate them. instead he deleted the entire thing. 2) the controversies are not trivial in the history of emporis. they shut down whole sections of the site to try and make them go away. i suggest montalto reads about limited liability to understand why emporis is how it is today. 3) the motives of the writers have nothing to do with the truthiness. 4) montalto invents a conspiracy where there is none. this is a user who broke the three revert rule, i got warned for reverting back once after he had broken the rule by reverting multiple times! a controversy section is perfectly acceptable and many other databases online like emporis (cddb for example) have had the exact same problems. this is where the inspiration comes from. it was a non commercial database where the information was collected by volunteers. it was then taken over by a company controlled by the owners who commercialised it. the CDDB page has extensive references to this and the emporis page should be built along the same lines. further more the original article was written by the owner of emporis about emporis. it contains no sources, it contains many factually misleading statements. in writing about himself he has committed the sin of original research. furthermore the original author of the article has done multiple other articles all on emporis littered with untrue or spurious claims. its interesting that a screenshot should be considered to be original research. wikipedia is littered with them. what trebor effectively says "yes we can see it to be true but because it's original research the truth should be excluded". of course emporis is set up so google cant archive it (i wonder why) so anything they do thats wrong just gets removed and thats that unless someone can take a screenshot. --Gothicform 18:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

"yes we can see it to be true but because it's original research the truth should be excluded" - you're bang on. WP:V says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." It must be excluded unless properly sourced (see this for why forums don't count). True, the whole article could be misleading and should be sourced - if you want, you can strip it to the bare bones - but I think it's vital that anything controversial definitely is, prior to inclusion. Trebor 21:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Can we hold this dispute because I am trying to figure out how to use this system.UnitedPakistan 03:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• UnitedPakistan, my preference would be to go forward. (1) An informal mediation is not binding - if most people agree on something and you don't, you are free to continue to argue for your particular outcome, so long as you do it civilly and don't edit war; (2) if you need help, can I suggest placing a request for advocacy? - the Association of Member's Advocates will be happy to help you come up to speed. Thanks, TheronJ 15:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

in this case we should clearly strip the article to the barebones.--Gothicform 20:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• I am going to propose a compromise in that direction, although maybe not that far. TheronJ 15:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TheronJ's list of relevant policies and guidelines

In this case, it may be helpful for us to agree on the relevant policies and guidelines.

• Civility: You have been doing well on this one (good job!) but it's worth remembering as the first principle nevertheless. Even if you disagree with someone and even (actually, especially) if you think they're a poorly motivated and bad editor, it's essential that everyone continue to discuss their issues civilly. Again, good job, everyone.
• Verifiability, reliable source, and citation. I suspect that these policies and guidelines will ultimately be the most help in reaching a consensus everyone can agree to. Key specific points include:
  • Verification: Every controversial statement must be verified by a reliable source. This applies both to the criticisms of Emporis and to the positive statements.
  • Self-published statements in articles about the authors: The Emporis website is an acceptable source for statements about Emporis, so long as the statements are (1) not controversial and (2) not unduly self-serving.
  • Blog and forum posts: However, blog and forum posts, whether positive or negative, are only acceptable (if ever) if the blog is by a (1) recognized expert (2) writing within his or her field of expertise.
  • The upshot of these core policies and guidelines, as I see it is that both the criticism and the praise should go unless editors can find a reliable source for it. If editors want to look up newspaper articles at their libraries or on Lexis, they can probably substantiate a fair amount of the praise and criticism, but the burden is on the editors. Some basic, non-controversial facts about Emporis should be verifiable by the Emporis website, however.
• Some other policies and guidelines to keep in mind should be the following:
• Notability: Arguably, neither the Emporis page or the Skyscraperpage page could survive a nomination for deletion unless at least two non-trivial media stories could be found for each. See WP:CORP, WP:WEB. However, unless everyone wants to agree to delete, I would encourage everyone to hold off on deletion for at least a week or two to allow proponents to look for coverage.
  • Neutral point of view: Once the universe of reliable sources is identified, Wikipedia articles should present the information in those sources in a balanced way, presenting all reliably sourced information in proportion to its significance. IMHO, on a thinly sourced article like this one, I would hope that all editors would make an effort to look for and include information that contradicts their POV. (So whether you're generally critical or supportive of Emporis, if you find reliably sourced information for the other side, please make an effort to include it fairly).
  • Biographies of living persons: This policy only applies tangentially -- although Emporis is obviously not a living person, obviously its principals, employees, and former employees are. If the article ends up accusing any specific people at Emporis or its competitors of misconduct, those accusations must comply with WP:BLP.
  • Conflict of interest and Autobiography guidelines: Again, these are only tangentially relevant to the current dispute, but since the talk page has some accusations that Emporis's principals have edited the Emporis article -- Wikipedia "strongly discourages" people with a substantial personal stake in an article from editing the article directly, and "strongly encourages" such editors to provide any proposed edits on the talk pages, allowing disinterested editors to review the proposed edits and incorporate any appropriate edits into the main article. This means that if you're a principal in either Emporis or a competitor, you should probably be suggesting changes on the talk page rather than editing directly. (I make this comment only as a gentle suggestion, and "strongly discourage" the involved editors from engaging in any witch hunts for the motives or identities of the pro- or critical to-Emporis editors - IMHO, such debates usually end up hurting feelings and distracting from the underlying issues.)

Thoughts? Did I miss any relevant policies or guidelines, or did I misrepresent anything? Thanks, TheronJ 15:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Update: Added the note on notability, above. (I can't believe I forgot that on my first pass). TheronJ 19:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise offers

[edit] Compromise proposal by TheronJ

Based on the principles above, I think the following compromise might satisfy all parties. However, if anyone has any concerns, please let me know.

1. The "criticism" section remains deleted, pending the introduction of criticism via a reliable source. If a reliable source is offered, all editors agree to attempt to describe any reliably sourced, verifiable criticism fairly.
2. The description of Emporis will also be pared down to whatever can be supported by reliable sources, as follows:
   1. TheronJ will review the existing article, and mark any statements that cannot be fairly sourced to the Emporis website with a {{fact}} tag.
   2. If, after one week, no editor has been able to provide a reliable source for any marked statements, they will be removed. (Of course, statements can always be reintroduced if a reliable source is found later).
3. All editors agree to work together as additional reliable sources are found to present both positive and negative information fairly.

Thoughts? Thanks, TheronJ 17:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Personally I wouldn't have a problem with deleting the Emporis article, except that it is useful in supporting the page on the Emporis Skyscraper Award, which might in many ways be more interesting to Wikipedia users. Montalto 00:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

• Since I got one "yes" vote and no "no" votes for my proposed compromise, I went ahead and implemented it, shortening the Emporis article to the verifiable information and redirecting Emporis Buildings and Emporis Skyscraper Award to Emporis. Let me know if anyone objects. If not, I will wait a few days for comments, then close the mediation. Thanks, everyone! TheronJ 14:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • With no objection to my compromise edits, I am closing the mediation. I will be happy to reopen if anything new comes up or if the editors think additional work would be helpful. TheronJ 16:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References and footnotes

1. ^ Based on his talk page comment, I understand that Matthieu does not consider himself involved in this mediation, which is certainly fair.TheronJ 17:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)