Wikipedia talk:Vested interest
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This essay is borderline in violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. In Wikipedia we discuss the article and not the subject, and we discuss the edit and not the editor. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- You mean the practice of discrediting someone's opinion because of a vested interest, right? I tried to write in there that it's important to be civil and assume good faith. I don't want to encourage people to do this very much, in fact, the point is to discourage it when it's irrelevant, which is most of the time. Mangojuicetalk 01:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- I fail to see how this essay is anywhere near violation of NPA, since it doesn't mention anyone specifically and isn't the least bit antagonistic. However, having been involved in a recent Arb which was primarily centered around someone who is paid to promote a "nonprofit" commercial event, and has introduced hundreds of links and articles to wikipedia claiming not to have a COI, the semantic loop-holes created by this lesser distinction would probably cause many problems later. Arb Com is apparently relaxing their enforcement and definition of WP:COI and WP:OWN anyway, which further muddies the waters. Fred Bauder has recently stated:
- "Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, a guideline, discourages editing of articles concerning matters you have a substantial personal interest in, such as articles about an organization you are deeply involved with. However, such editing is not prohibited, if editing is responsible." Link
- While personally feeling we need less abstract and arbitrary policies on COI and ownership issues than defined above, there does need to be a distinction between emotional investment and fiduciary investment in articles, and I think that as long as these distinctions are explicitly referenced, this essay might be a good start to differentiate between these. - WeniWidiWiki 15:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- I fail to see how this essay is anywhere near violation of NPA, since it doesn't mention anyone specifically and isn't the least bit antagonistic. However, having been involved in a recent Arb which was primarily centered around someone who is paid to promote a "nonprofit" commercial event, and has introduced hundreds of links and articles to wikipedia claiming not to have a COI, the semantic loop-holes created by this lesser distinction would probably cause many problems later. Arb Com is apparently relaxing their enforcement and definition of WP:COI and WP:OWN anyway, which further muddies the waters. Fred Bauder has recently stated:
-
-
-
- Thanks for clarifying about that. I still couldn't find any NPA issues even with the draft, but maybe I take a more literal view of the policy than others do. - WeniWidiWiki 18:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Mangojuice, may I suggest the removal or rewriting of the following phrase: "Discuss the article, not the subject". In many cases, AFD discussions revolve around the availability and incorporation of new sources, which is directly relevant to the notability of the subject. I think I understand what you're trying to say: stay on topic, WP:NOT a soapbox for personal views on religion, politics, etc. However, as currently written, it's a little ambiguous. One more thing ... how is this essay a violation of NPA? It reads to me more like a clarification or extension of the discussion etiquette section at WP:AFD. A great essay, in my opinion. Cheers, Black Falcon 17:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
