|
If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.
What this noticeboard is:
- It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.
What this noticeboard is not:
- It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
- It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums.
- It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
- It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.
Things to remember:
- Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
- Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
- Sign and date your posts with four tildes "
~~~~".
- If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.
|
Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 23:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pharmaceutical Industry
Hi Slim,
As we have been unable to resolve our differences, I have posted a request for dispute resolution which you can see here. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Pharmaceutical Industry. Albert Bertheim Talk page
I have also posted a summary of my position on the Pharmaceutical Industry Talk page. I suspect you will want to do the same.
Respectfully, Alfred Bertheim (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you would find this NPR interview interesting:
"In her new book, Frankenstein's Cat: Cuddling up to Biotech's Brave New Beasts, science journalist Emily Anthes talks about how the landscape of bioengineering has expanded since Dolly the Sheep was cloned in 1996. Scientists, she says, are now working to create pigs that can grow organs for human transplant, goats that produce valuable protein-rich milk, and cockroaches that could potentially serve as tiny scouts into danger zones for the military...."[2]
Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 06:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the link. A mouse that buries marbles endlessly. :-/ SlimVirgin (talk) 20:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- New update. Viriditas (talk) 04:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw a film not long ago about these insect cyborgs that are mentioned. I'll see if I can find it for you. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've archived the debate [3]. Nothing more productive was going to come, and the majority approved the motion that info boxes are not always necessary. Seems a good compromise. Giano 19:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's fine by me. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have initiated a discussion at Village Pump Proposals regarding applying Template:COI editnotice more broadly, in order to provide advice from WP:COI directly onto the article Talk page. Your comment, support or opposition is invited. Cheers. CorporateM (Talk) 19:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick note to say that the Wilhelm Reich GA review is coming soon. My web connection has been fickle for a few days, but I am sorting it out. Though not as early as promised, will have some comments out this week. Thanks! EricEnfermero Howdy! 13:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SlimVirgin,
I have left you a note on my user talk page for this account. Thank you. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 22:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is good to have you at the BP article. I have been concerned about paid editors ever since my experience with Silverseren at the Cracker Barrel article. Also, please see topic #24 at the Chevron Corporation article where I say, I have spent several hours to familiarize myself with this environmental disaster. I've never worked on an article where it was acceptable for a controversial section of a corporation article to be completely rewritten as the corporate rep has done in this case. I think that it should go without saying that this is completely unacceptable for Wikipedia. I find the rewrite a brazen attempt to bias our readers to the Chevron viewpoint rather than an unbiased telling of this unfolding incident. This paid editor has gotten rid of the Independent, the BBC, Reuters, and CBS and replaced them with court documents and Forbes." All it would take would be for a person such as Silverseren to round up a crew to get this paid version into the article. Gandydancer (talk) 23:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that it's unacceptable, and I'm thinking about raising it somewhere. I'm not yet sure where, or what information to include. Apparently the BP rep went through OTRS and someone there (Ocaasi) referred the rep to Rangoon, even though both Ocaasi and Rangoon had worked together on the article before, and Rangoon's edits there and elsewhere are somewhat contentious. So that referral seems problematic to me, but I haven't read all the archives, and I feel I should do that before I can comment further. But anyway, bottom line: these companies should not be writing their own articles (directly or by proxy), and if they are, we should signal that to the reader with a box at the top of the article. (I'm not suggesting anyone should create such a box; I'm just thinking out loud that for some articles it might be the only ethical way forward.) SlimVirgin (talk) 23:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify a point, Arturo at BP posted on the article talk page and the COI noticeboard asking for help; as far as I know it did not go through OTRS. I have worked with Rangoon before; it was in the midst of the Deepwater Horizon spill and we significantly reorganized a pretty messy article amidst a lot of incoming media coverage. I believe the coverage was very fair, perhaps even overemphasizing the recent disaster. The only changes we made together involved how to structure the litany of such incidents in the company's past. I think we improved that structure. I haven't been following Arturo's work with Rangoon, I just know that he's doing it as transparently as one could and going through the talk pages as we've suggested such editors should. Slim we do have a Template:Connected_contributor if you think that's appropriate. (I haven't had a chance to look at your idea yet but am glad you posted it.) Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 01:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, thanks. I understood from one of your posts that, via OTRS, you had referred BP to Rangoon11. You wrote: "Typically for OTRS requests I first investigate the claims myself and see if it's something minor I can handle. If it involves anything complex or controversial I'll look for an active, non-POV pushing editor at the article's talk page/history whom I respect to put the person in touch with. At BP that person was Rangoon11 ..." [4]
- As for the box, it's worse than a connected contributor. It's BP writing the article on BP. That should never happen, but it's being facilitated by editors who are posting BP's drafts word-for-word into the article (e.g. [5]). Silver seren has now advised the BP rep to "ignore them," apparently referring to Wikipedians who are objecting, and to answer only Silver seren's questions. [6] So really it could not be more problematic. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Embarassingly, Slim, for my error and how unbelieveable it may sound to correct it, the Arturo to Rangoon handoff I alluded to didn't happen through OTRS, on Wiki, or off it. I admit I was under a bit of pressure with your questioning and mixed up the particulars. While I have led representatives to active talk page editors in the past, and would have thought to do the same in this case, it's not what happened. Looking through the history, to my knowledge, Arturo contacted Rangoon directly here and used the COI noticeboard here. Rangoon replied here. I checked my talk page and email history and see I hadn't spoken with Arturo until this past month when I asked him through email for an interview about his experiencing working on the BP article. That said, I likely would have trusted Rangoon's judgement and hadn't seen any behavior from him before that was concerning, so in this case I mistook the spirit of your question for the details. Checking the OTRS archives could probably confirm we hadn't heard from Arturo (at least I hadn't). My apologies for that weird confusion; it might have made the situation sound worse than it was. Although, regardless of how Arturo found Rangoon, he did, and the article draft that came out of that process is still concerning to you, so I don't think these details ultimately have any effect on the current discussion. Also note that this has gone through Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, so it's hand a good run of back and forth.
- We also have Template:COI. "Use this tag to indicate that an article is biased or has other serious problems as a direct result of the editing done by the subject of the article or a person with a close connection to the subject (e.g., professional public relations staff). Do not use this tag unless there are significant or substantial problems with the article's neutrality as a result of the contributor's involvement. Like the other pov tags, this tag is not meant to be a badge of shame. Do not use this tag if you can quickly solve the problem, e.g., by removing peacocking and puffery or by reverting the blanking of well-sourced criticism. Like the other neutrality-related tags, this tag may be removed by any editor after the problem is resolved, if the problem is not explained on the article's talk page, and/or if no current attempts to resolve the problem can be found."
- I think "ignore them" is never wise advice. We're all accountable to critics and it's part of consensus to address those concerns. I still think we're going to have to figure out when it's appropriate to object merely for a process violation rather than for a content objection. "The company wrote it" is a persuasive but not sufficient criticism if the draft is neutral and well-sourced and has been through review from any editors at the talk page who want to comment. This strikes me as a typical dispute...the article should be more or less frozen while discussion continues and editors bring more thoughts, sources, and suggestions to the talk page.
- I suppose there's a related WP:BURDEN question one could ask. Is the burden on the corporate representative to prove their draft is neutral, or on the talk page critics who question its bias to counter with opposing sources? I don't think we have clear guidance on that, but it might be useful. Ocaasi t | c 02:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, thanks for explaining that, and no worries if you made a mistake. I'm glad it was a mistake; I was starting to get concerned about OTRS being used in that way. I can't agree with you about Rangoon11, though; his editing at these articles is problematic. I won't say more, because I don't like to see editors being criticized on user talk pages without being invited to take part, but I don't particularly want that discussion here.
- As for BURDEN, articles have to reflect the body of literature that's out there. For an article like BP, that involves a ton of reading. Very few of these editors are in a position to say whether BP's drafts reflect that body of literature, because they're not familiar with it themselves; there are some knowledgeable people on the talk page, but they're not the ones adding BP's drafts (that I have seen). To say "we should add BP's text unless we find mistakes in it," is to completely misunderstand what neutrality means on Wikipedia. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (Yes, to be fair, I notified Rangoon on his talk page of our discussion last week). I always interpreted his approach as lacking an agenda to either criticize or promote corporations; I appreciated how he wanted to give controversies attention but not at the exclusion of other aspects of the company. I still think that's a fair approach, but of course disagreements about WP:WEIGHT are challenging and easy to interpret differently, even moreso when a COI editor is involved. If this was not a COI editor situation, we would demand that someone demonstrate proper weight by citing more and better sources. You're saying that's not feasible here, so it's not going to be simple to resolve.
- I think I understand why you want to exclude corporate representatives from the drafting process as such, but what mechanism would you suggest that would still allow one to give input? Are you saying they shouldn't participate on talk pages either, or yes but not with full drafts? What's the process look like instead? And if we're very strongly discouraging direct editing, then is not responding to talk page suggestions defensible or reasonable? If we don't respond to talk pages are we going to nudge folks back underground to edit in secret? I'm not sure I see the alternative yet, except for the kind of robust debate that's going on right now out in the open. (Oh yes, you posted an idea on my talk page. I'll get to that this week when I can give it some time. Win-win would be great if you have found one). Ocaasi t | c 03:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- EDIT CONFLICT ::::::Thanks so much SlimVirgin, it is good to see that somebody understands the situation. When I read Ocassi's post I almost could've wept. Why on earth should the paid editor's rewrite be held superior to what we've been able to put together, imperfect though it may be, to the point that we need to spend endless hours picking his version apart? Furthermore, there is a lot more than just the facts of what is written, it is how the facts are presented when just one word or lack of it can completely change the tone of what is being presented. Ect. Gandydancer (talk) 03:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC) Occasi's more recent post leaves me at a loss for words... And of course the great trust that s/he puts in Rangoon is just mind boggling. Gandydancer (talk) 03:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to disappoint you Gandydancer, I can only speak from the direct interaction I've had with an editor, which in this case was quite positive. I'm not Rangoon's minder and haven't followed his every move; for example, I missed the entire DRN thread which was not exactly inspiring on any front). I think it's sufficient to say that this article would be controversial regardless of Arturo's involvement and editors working on it will just have to continue to slog through sources and drafts. I don't see an easy way through it. I also don't believe Rangoon has any affiliation with BP, so Arturo's presence there appears to just be aggravating an issue that was already present.
Slim, if we can use BP as a case study I'd like to continue to try and draw out best practices (or practices to avoid) for these kinds of situations. I don't know what they are, frankly, I just know I generally prefer corporate representatives acting transparently rather than in secret. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 04:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Slim Virgin, I did go back and look at BPs edit/talk record and I found that Ocaasi did work extensively with Rangoon on the BP article. It does concern me that at Ocaasi's final edit on Jan 6, 2011, the lead included this info on the BP spill incident, or more accurately did not include any information on the spill, the worst environmental disaster on record in the US other than the Dust Bowl: BP's track record of corporate social responsibility has been mixed. The company has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents and received criticism for its political influence. It is my opinion that Osaasi is either intentionally biased or easily misled and naive. I believe the latter. Generally one should never go into a discussion of other editor's motives, etc., but I did note that editor Ocaasi has suggested that your view fringes on "conspiracy", so it seems to me to be appropriate. Gandydancer (talk) 14:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please keep in mind the context of that period. We had an article on BP, the hundred year old company, which was being absolutely deluged with information about Deepwater Horizon. Keeping that incident treated with appropriate scale and not becoming a news article on the single (enormous) disaster was an intentional attempt to remain balanced and neutral. The article was also a mess, and I simply organized the history of controversies into Safety, Political, and Environmental categories for more easy reading. I think you're excluding the possibility that I may just have a different informed opinion on the matter... I may be naive or misled here, I accept that's a possibility, but the more likely explanation is that I stopped working at the BP article once the Deep Water Horizon incident had slowed from the news and have not followed the day to day debates at the article over the past year. My renewed interest in the BP article came about because we have a transparent corporate representative working on it through talk page suggestions; that's a model I'm interested in and want to see how it's working. Ocaasi t | c 17:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, for reference, when I started editing this article in 2010, I was still using an IP. Here is the major reorganization I made. You can see at this time the lead had only two paragraphs, one of which was on Deepwater Horizon. This edit summarized the political, environmental and safety record. By the time of my last edit, the version mentioned the mixed safety/environmental/political record [7] but also noted BP's pro-environment efforts. I think that version could use more detail on the scale of the disasters that have happened. I haven't been involved at BP since then, almost 2 years ago. Ocaasi t | c 17:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Gandydancer, maybe I can shift this conversation towards more productive territory, noting that the battleground mentality percolating around this article isn't very productive. It's clear that you don't like or trust the work of corporate representatives, which is a reasonable and defensible position. However we're basically prohibiting such folks from directly editing and best practice at this point is direct them to talk pages to make suggestions, propose sources, and offer drafts, advising they do so with full disclosure. Arturo did disclose his COI in his username, at the article talk page, and at the COI noticeboard. How else do you think we can make this process useful and effective? It seems to me that the added scrutiny and discussion going on at the article is a good thing, despite its contentiousness. Do you have suggestions on how it could be made/done better? Ocaasi t | c 19:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ocaasi, you talk about "full disclosure," but that BP is writing the article is being hidden from the readers, arguably the only people who matter. Editors are inserting BP's words into the text (extensively) without quotation marks and without in-text attribution. BP is choosing what to highlight, choosing the sources, and choosing the words and tone. That really has to stop. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ocaasi, yes you are correct, I have great concerns regarding paid editors. They are professional writers and they know very well how to spin information. I am dealing with that right now in the section that deals with the 2006 North Slope Alaskan spill. Arturo and BP supporters want to say "BP admitted..." while I want to phrase it "The U.S. Department of Justice disclosed that BP...". You see the difference? As for Arturo, I have nothing negative to say about him. He was only doing his job and as far as I know was open and honest in his work. My problem is a concern that more recently he has gone to WP:COIN and asked for assist which seems to have brought a new sheriff to town, if you will, and and the new sheriff has given a promise to Arturo that he can round up a posse to post his drafts if need be, so not to worry.
Ocassi, you seem to think that there are plenty of editors at the BP article to have a "robust discussion", I think were your words, but that is not the case. A corporate article is not any fun at all. Who would really want to spend hour after hour attempting to keep a corporate article from becoming nothing more that a corporate webpage filled with glowing praise? Right now at BP there is only Binksternet and I. Editor Petrarchan was with us and she did a lot of work--we both worked at the BP spill article as well and one day she just got totally fed up and left. If you happened to look at the Chevron article that I mentioned above, only two of us--I am not familiar with the other editor--objected to what I called a blatant attempt to spin the information re that company's ongoing lawsuit. He threw out all of the secondary sources and substituted a legal document that would make sense to no one. I had been watching Chevron and he had been posting his drafts but no one had responded so he went ahead and posted them in the article--they were all corporate stuff and I had no objections. But in the case of the law suit, if I and one other editor had not shown up, he would have done the same with that draft as well. In the case of that paid editor, I don't think I should be forced to work with him because I consider him to be nothing more than a goddamn crook.
Ocassi, I read some of your posts on your talk page--I'm not done yet--and it is my impression that you mean well but you really are out of touch with the reality of this situation. That's why I was so grateful when someone (Slim Virgin) came along that finally seemed to understand how perilous and urgent this situation really is. Over the years I have complained but my experience has pretty much been a you can like it or lump it--it's here to stay.
As for improving the situation, it seems that paid editing has started a whole cottage industry to spring up out there. That can't be good. And then when they arrive at our doors it seems that we all but have ambassadors of good will in place to greet them and show them around and help them out and so on... When Arturo posted at COIN editors responded with good cheer, and "let me know if you need anything!", etc. One even gave him a wikilove message. Even still, paid editors may have a place--if I were a corporation I'd want a fair shake too. But now that they are rewriting whole sections of their articles and Wikipedia has formed a group of editors that jump from one article to another to insert their copy into articles, that is not the way to keep our 'pedia from, as I think Slim Virgin said, nothing more than a free advertisement for their wares. Gandydancer (talk) 21:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure most of you already know that I have the greatest sympathy for the position of Slim and Gandydancer here. I'm afraid that this might just be a case where the letter of the rules are being followed but not the spirit. BP obviously needs to back off on inserting its interpretations and addressing matters of weight, which require independent judgement.
- But BP should also know that this type of editing just cannot possibly work, either for them or Wikipedia. Say PBS and other national news organizations find out what they are trying to do here - they will be vilified in the press and get no PR benefit at all from this, and Wikipedia will be viewed as just another corporate spam mirror.
- In short, if this is not a matter of rules being broken, then we need to change the rules. The discussion should likely be at WT:COI, where I'll take it (in a few hours from now) unless somebody has a better place for the discussion. Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, and it has left me wondering about BP's position in all this. There are news organizations that would have a field day with it, and both BP and Wikipedia would end up looking terrible. I'm reluctant to stress this too much on the talk page in case anyone interprets it as a threat to go to the media, but it does make me wonder who within BP knows that this is going on. Smallbones, I would be very grateful if you would raise it at COI. I've been thinking about where and when to raise it myself, and how to phrase it because it has several arms and legs. If you would get the ball rolling, that would be great. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The same thing was done, as I have said, at Chevron and nobody seems at all concerned. Cracker Barrel was a total rewrite by a paid editor as well and they have not been mentioned--only BP. I also know of one other article that was a total rewrite by a paid editor. Silverseren is well aware of this and yet I note that he is apparently one of those that others go to for advice and opinions about paid editing. OrangeMike is aware of it too. [8] Frankly it is hard for me to understand why this has been going on for so long if there is a problem. To then have Slim Virgin speak out at the BP article as though those of us that approved of Arturo's drafts are to be forgiven because we "haven't thought it through" seems a bit condesending...and irritating. Gandydancer (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies, Gandydancer, if I expressed that badly, and I wasn't thinking of you, but of the people who've been helping BP, and BP itself. I wonder whether senior people in its corporate communications department have agreed to insert company material into independent publications in a way that hides the company's involvement from the readers. That's what I mean by people not thinking it through, i.e. not realizing how bad it makes BP and Wikipedia look. I know it has gone on elsewhere, and it's often or always the same small group involved, some of whom seem to be connected to CREWE, though that may be incidental. Hopefully if we start a discussion about it somewhere, we can try to set some limits on it. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#BP_and_large_company_editing_in_general Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Slim Virgin, I wonder if you saw the conversation at the top of the present talk page of the BP article. Gandydancer (talk) 12:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SlimVirgin,
I see you haven't edited the article in awhile, but as its primary contributor, I was hoping to gain some feedback as to your feelings regarding the Muhammad al-Durrah incident becoming a TFA on the Main Page?--Chimino (talk) 00:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Chimino, I wouldn't support that, for a number of reasons. The best time to have done that would have been the 10th anniversary: I didn't submit it then because it is so contentious. Also, it would have to be completely checked and updated, and that might be quite a bit of work. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I had the same reservation due to the subject matter. It's a wonderful article, still. Thanks for the response.--Chimino (talk) 03:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The replacement and transition began, on 16 March 2013, to use Lua script in some wp:CS1-style cite templates. The good news is that the Lua-based cites have been optimized as much faster, almost 10x times faster than the prior 2012 {cite_web} which had COinS metadata, now restored in the Lua versions. For a large article, with 350 cites, those will be formatted within 3 seconds with Lua (rather than 18-35 seconds). The bad news is that the Lua modules are extremely complex for most people to read (or modify for future features), involving unusual data structures not found in many other computer languages. Plus, as I had feared earlier, some of the Lua-literate editors could adopt a "Luattitude" where they do not respond easily to questions about Lua limitations. This can become a difficult combination, because as more half-readable markup templates are "complified" into Lua-script versions, there is the danger of a growing two-worlds view about template usage, and the potential for a real condescending attitude towards people who do not know "Luaspeak" with its obtuse syntax. Hence, we might need "Lua ambassadors" who feel a need to bridge the two worlds and help to relate issues between template users and Lua programmers. Fortunately, some parts of Lua modules can be kept simple, where many other editors could alter parts of those modules without having a "Lua PhD" spanning all the complex features. Meanwhile, I am beginning to sense the frustration of Galileo, when the Church leaders insisted he write everything in formal Latin, but he wanted to write in Italian for the common people to read, and eventually smuggled his Italian writings out, through help from friends, to teach the world the principles of the "Father of modern physics". Because small markup-based templates are many times faster than Lua functions, then there is no talk (yet) of Lua-only scripts, but the pressure is there to foment a "template language war" in some cases. I cannot count all the times I have seen computer guys in language wars, transitioning from one computer language to another. As long as we can focus on civility, I think the ongoing transition to Lua can be reasonable. -Wikid77 04:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Transition done for {cite_news}: The Lua version of {cite_news} was installed on 19 March 2013, as 6x faster, primarily used in many major pop-culture articles which have news-trendy topics. Timing tests have shown even large articles to edit-preview, or reformat now, within 19 seconds (headed for 3-8 seconds when {cite_web} is upgraded), and no longer the 25-35 seconds for the first time in years. Hopefully, {cite_journal} can be transitioned to Lua in the next few days. -Wikid77 06:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An RfC concerning addition of a subsection to Philosophy can be found at this location. Please comment upon its inclusion and any modifications you think would help make it better. Brews ohare (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
SlimVirgin!!!
|
| The companies would pay this independent body, and that body would take a percentage and pass the rest to the Wikipedian. Companies would have no say over who is given assignments, so that editors did not feel they had to comply with the company's wishes for fear of never being given another one. Sorry, there were no Catch 22 photos so I had to take this one which took the photographer four hours to catch. Happy editing Slim--Wikipedia is lucky to have people like you. Keep on baiting those traps and helping Wikipedia to keep the rat population down to a minimum! Gandydancer (talk) 13:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
And everybody gets a share! SlimVirgin I just could not resist this one even though you are anything but a Milo Minderbinder. It is so good to see that at least one Wikipedia editor is working to see that our encyclopedia remains free of corporate bias. BTW, having worked as a health care professional (I'm retired), it was so good to see that you have a well-placed concern regarding direct editing from the pharmaceutical industry. Gandydancer (talk) 15:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC) Gandydancer (talk) 15:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks for the award, Gandydancer (I love your name, by the way). :) SlimVirgin (talk) 21:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you read my article? Gandydancer (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I did. I really enjoyed reading it. Members of my family were gandy dancers a long time ago, though I doubt they ever called themselves that. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SlimVirgin,
I have again responded to your comment on my user talk. I'm notifying you, rather than reproducing it here, to avoid fracturing discussion. :) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello SlimVirgin,
Thank you so much for your message. I have retired from editing Wikipedia in protest over what happened at Deepwater Horizon oil spill article beginning on 23 December 2012. My issues with Wikipedia are multifaceted and involve primarily the oil spill and BP pages, but extend to all pages which are being edited and/or controlled by special interest reps, which from my experience is no small number. For instance, although it's been big news that more American troops are committing suicide every day (19) than are dying in combat, and that there is a huge problem with rape in the military, (keeping in mind "American Troops" redirects to United States Armed Forces), you will not find this information at that article. There are retired military guys there to argue why it doesn't belong. There is no space to even place any negative or non-official information at the article or any similar military articles, which all look more like a shiny brochure than an encyclopedia page.
This type of thing is repeated throughout Wikipedia and there is no simple, effective recourse for independent editors to fix or blow a whistle, that I have found. For the BP article, I filed my first of 3 different types of noticeboards - I used every avenue I could find and even asked a few Admins to come help, all to no avail (or very little). I spent all of June 2012 in a DRN with Rangoon11 and spent an entire week of research to provide a proposal for the Intro, requested by Rangoon in the DRN, only to have my work slammed and used as further excuse to call me a POV pusher.
- later edit: I realized I should clarify: when I refer to people responding to help out, I am talking about truly NPOV editors who were new to the page, who learned about it only through the noticeboards. There were editors helping out who had already been active on the BP talk page, like Gandydancer, and I'm sorry I didn't make this more clear earlier.)
From the DRN only Binksternet responded to help out, and he has been slammed for it as well. At the AN/I, only one person responded - an Admin who put much effort and time into helping us but without prior knowledge of BP, it was too much and s/he ended leaving Wikipedia right in the midst of our discussions. So of the 3 noticeboards, 3 (novel) individuals responded, 2 came to help, 1 stayed. After nine months the Intro is much improved, and most of my suggestions/issues have been resolved but not without many tears, much abuse and a label placed on me as a POV-pusher. My point is that even using the avenues Wikipedia offers to help with the problems I saw at BP, there is barely any response from independent editors. I am wondering frankly what the ratio is these days of seriously NPOV-loving editors to special interest reps. It's not good.
In my understanding, COI editors were initially invited to participate in talk if they ran across an article about them or their company that contained falsities or obvious spin/bias. They were invited to alert independent editors. That is completely understandable - none of us want falsities or spin of any kind on Wikipedia. But authoring content or even arguing about how information is presented, whether directly or through an editor like Rangoon11 (appointed by Ocassi to help BP - without ever making this fact known - indeed this association was covered up and when asked directly, obfuscation and personal attacks ensued) seems like a grotesque stretch of this allowance, and frankly an abuse of Wikipedia's remaining indies. I don't think anyone could look through my work at the BP talk page and related noticeboards and claim that the BP-supporting editors had not been abusive of me and of my time.
My main work at Wikipedia by far has been on the BP oil spill page and specifically with the health and environmental aspects of it. This is fun and easy for me because it's my passion - I'm reading about it anyway, so it's simple to keep the article updated. One could assume that my work at the BP article is related to some hatred for the company that caused the spill. That was indeed a meme that began at my first BP edit and continues. In actuality I don't blame BP any more than I blame our bought government. In fact, after a few years of editing the oil spill page (in 2010 I was an IP - see edit summary of the spill article, the top IP contributor was me) I had never even looked at the BP page. In May 2012, I ran across an article stating that BP had ended its solar programme, and I went to update the Wiki article. That was my first edit at the BP page. Even though editors were active on the page, the article still had a big section about its solar programme three months after it had ended. Seconds after updating it, Rangoon11 stepped in and reverted my work, calling me a POV-pusher right off the bat. Her edits made no sense, removing BP's own statement sourced from their website that "It wasn't profitable enough".
- later edit: correction It was not Rangoon11 who reverted BP's stated reason for leaving its solar programme, it was Beagle who deleted it. It was not 'immediately', but about 5 hours later.
I next noticed the Intro that was literally the most profound example of greenwashing I had even seen - it was the day I learned the term "greenwashing" in fact. I've covered the details of this extensively elsewhere, but my point is, if something so obvious can't be fixed in a reasonable amount of time, Wikipedia is broken. The problem I pointed out should have been resolved in weeks at most. The reason it took nine months was because of the editors permanently working to 'help' Arturo/BP. Their help mostly consists of arguing until they are the last one standing.
"Should paid BP reps be writing content for their Wikipedia article?" - if this is our starting point, it is an extremely low bar and highlights just how bad the problem is. This should be a no-brainer. In my opinion, we should be far past this and actively banning people who have edit histories like Rangoon11 from editing Wikipedia altogether.
Because I am a bit emotional about all of this, I won't be engaging much with the BP talk; emo-editing is a bad idea. BUT I am willing to respond to questions about what happened and can easily and happily give diffs for everything - and that is a big deal because if you aren't familiar with this whole thing, finding individual pertinent diffs is prohibitively time consuming.
The idea of summarizing my entire history at the BP page and the related catastrophe at the spill page seems challenging at this time. I think to begin with, I would rather answer specific questions simply because of time constraints and the fact that I'm pretty angry about this. I don't enjoy reading the words of an angry editor, and out of respect I wouldn't want to put you all through it. When I'm calm and rational I would love to post something helpful. But as you say, the time is now.
Do you think you have enough of a grasp on the situation to have specific questions for me, and would this be a helpful compromise for now? petrarchan47tc 22:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note, while I had previously worked with Rangoon in 2011, I checked my contribs and email and as far as I can see did not introduce him to Arturo at BP or interact with him through OTRS. I stopped working at the BP article after the Deepwater Horizon incident escaped constant press coverage and did not follow the controversy at the article since, until I learned that Arturo was engaging with disclosure there, which interested me as a general approach. Petrarchan, I hope you come back, perhaps after a break. Your perspective is needed. Controversial articles only work when there is robust and fair discussion. Ocaasi t | c 23:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You stated: "Typically for OTRS requests I first investigate the claims myself and see if it's something minor I can handle. If it involves anything complex or controversial I'll look for an active, non-POV pushing editor at the article's talk page/history whom I respect to put the person in touch with. At BP that person was Rangoon11" If Rangoon is your idea of a respectable non-POV pusher, whoa. I did ask for your help at BP and you never responded. I am concerned that you are putting editors to 'help', like with the NDAA 2012 article, where you placed someone to help the US Congress, but no one on the talk page is being told this is taking place. Editors can sense when an interest group is being represented even when the editor has not declared a POV, or that they are specifically there to help the subject of the article. And they loose faith in the system when it's so apparent on so many pages that this is taking place, yet blowing a whistle yields only headaches. Wikipedia doesn't even have a rule about transparency regarding editors asked to 'help' the US Congress or BP? That's crazy! From what I've experienced, it seems the cards are massively stacked against the indie editor on Wikipedia and massively stacked in favor of the paid, or otherwise compensated, editors who have endless time, energy, contacts and knowledge of how to *use* this system. (And by use, I mean game.) petrarchan47tc 01:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Petra, I' m sorry to hear what you've been through. It sounds horrific, and exactly the kind of situation that's burning out volunteers. It's really hard to know how to deal with it all, or rather it's easy to know how to deal with it, but for reasons I'll never understand hard to get it done. Sometimes I think what we need to organize is a poll of our readers, not our editors: do you want Wikipedia to allow paid advocacy?
- I'm just leaving this note to tell you that I have to go offline shortly, and I want to think some more about what you said. I don't have specific questions at the moment, because I don't know enough to know what to ask. But I want to read your note again and get back to you when I have more time. Thank you for replying so promptly. Best, SlimVirgin (talk) 00:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well truthfully I did come up with an idea. I talked about it with Binksternet on his talk page during the June 2012 DRN. I seriously think that pages which are subject to be targets for special interests or POV pushers should have an easy-to-use, very visible button at the top of the talk page - so that when an editor, even a first-time IP (reader), stumbles upon obvious advertising (I am using that as a placeholder word - it could be in the form of: spin, bias, glaring omissions, wording (like at BP it was "(BP did something bad). However, (they are actually great)" - which was right in the Intro in March 2012. According to Rangoon11 in the DRN, this section was penned by Rangoon and Ocaasi - though there are no talk page entries supporting this. The wording sounds identical to BP/Arturo drafts.). There would be levels of checks, and the valid submissions would find their way to a group of editors who would HELP fix the problem. Because most truly independent readers or editors can easily spot advertising/problems, but how many know how to use the Wikipedia system to fix it, or have time after work, between dinner and bed, to go learn how to do a noticeboard, after arguing with some BP 'helper' for an hour? There could be a team ready - since we KNOW these things are taking place - YES there are interest groups actively trying to spin these articles - let's have a team ready to respond!
- As for the questions, I am not sure if you were interested in help with BP article content, BP talk page content/history, my opinion about paid and hidden advocacy, all of these or other. Anyway, feel free to ask me anything. petrarchan47tc 01:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- One thing that would help – could you link to the worst version of the article and/or the worst lead, in terms of the whitewashing you identified (such as the May 2012 version you mentioned above)?
- I like your idea of a button for readers to alert editors. I wonder if that's something the Foundation would be interested in. The obvious problem would be how to prevent its overuse. We'd want it for glaring commercial-type issues, not just that someone didn't like something. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's why a series of checks could ensure only the valid complaints make it to the team. A large group of trusted volunteers could monitor incoming complaints just like we do vandalism, and send them up and to more (specialized?) groups of volunteers. Sure it won't be easy, but something like this could potentially save Wikipedia.
- Here is the Intro to which I've been referring.
- Here is the DRN about the Intro. petrarchan47tc 02:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Petrarchan, I checked my 4 email accounts and my OTRS tickets... While I indeed worked with Rangoon during 2011 it wasn't me who connected Arturo and Rangoon. Under a good bit of pressure from Slim's questioning I simply got mixed up--25,000 edits, hundreds of OTRS tickets, and hundreds of conversations with people about Wikipedia, it happened. When I worked with Rangoon the world was piling on BP and it struck me that editors needed to maintain balance while that was going on. I did the same at Julian Assange, WikiLeaks and Aaron Swartz and Egyptian Revolution of 2011. There are causes I support in private, but I go out of my way to make sure that Wikipedia doesn't take a side on them beyond following WP:DUE. In 2011, Rangoon was helpful and clearheaded, I appreciated his background in this area and his feedback. I can't make up the fact that I had a really positive experience working with him, it's just how I felt. Then Deepwater Horizon left the constant news cycle and I left the BP article. I didn't follow the DRN threads, or the talk pages, except to note that Arturo had joined in the conversation. I'm sorry you had such a contentious time at the article and am disappointed you couldn't come to consensus with Rangoon. I've been there, at other articles. I'm also sorry I didn't reply to you earlier, I have been quite busy with meetups and wikipedia related travel and events.
- As for the U.S. Congress article, there very much was a COI disclosure, as I encouraged, and the conversations continued on the talk page with editors who had much more knowledge and expertise than I did. When I talk to someone from one of the largest Oil Companies (Occidental Petroleum), or a global consulting organization (Monitor Group) or the a superpower (NDAA 2012), I don't welcome them with bear hugs. I tell them the best practices I think will ensure both their and our integrity, which is to stick to the talk page, state up front that they have a COI, and propose neutral well-sourced drafts or other suggestions that editors can review. That's always been my practice, despite the policy conversations I've been involved with that taken out of context suggest I'd prefer otherwise. I talk to these people because I think it's important that Wikipedia be responsive to critics, and I can't think of a better way to do that than to let them share their input on a talk page where it's out in the open.
- That said, not all of the conversations I have can be public. Some people will only talk to me in private. Some policies, such as OTRS' privacy policy, prohibit me from making information public unless given permission...there are also things that happen behind the scenes in private consulting firms, or within PR companies that I'm also only privy to rare glimpses of. And that's with trying to find out what I can--much of the world of public relations is still hidden behind confidentiality agreements that even my attempt to research this issue can't penetrate. This is frustrating, perhaps even moreso for you, but it is reality, and neither of us can control much of it. All I can say is that at any opportunity I get, I encourage people to be transparent about their COI and to go through the talk page. What Arturo has been doing may not be anyone's dream of neutrality, but I consider it better than the alternative of hundreds of edits clumsily or sneakily slipped into an article while no one is watching. I've seen worse than Arturo, though I understand why he's under such serious scrutiny, the BP article warrants that scrutiny.
- This situation has raised a lot of emotions and been generally divisive, as contentious issues are. We still have to make practical choices about what to do when a company representative approaches us next month (or doesn't approach us and hires someone else to do the work in secret). Plenty of folks would love to tell them, go the fuck away, but I think that just creates an illusion of security where one doesn't actually exist. So I'll just say it again, I hope you take a break, and I hope you come back. Ocaasi t | c 02:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not advise them to post helpful material on a company website, so that we can cite it as a source? That solves the problem right there. BP's words can go into the article on BP, attributed to the company, and in quotation marks as appropriate. This gives them access to express their perspective, and it tells the reader which bits of the article come from the company.
- Our polices allow published primary sources to be used, so no policy change would be needed.
- Instead of organizing paid-editor helpers standing by to add company drafts to articles, you could be advising them to use that source material, as they would any other. Everyone wins. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick question for Ocaasi: where is the editor told that Darouet was placed to help the US Congress? I have been editing the NDAA 2012 page and did not know that a representative was working on the page, and do not see it stated anywhere. The most recent edit Darouet made was to remove mention of which Congress people voted for the NDAA 2012, saying it didn't belong in the intro, but deleting it altogether rather than moving it to a better place. Do you ever check up on how your editors are doing? Rangoon11's first ever edits to Wikipedia landed her (and if you'd studied her AN/I history you would know her gender) in big trouble as the edits were all advocating for some big, private school. I do think you could spend more time investigating the editors you choose to trust and make their association extremely evident. petrarchan47tc 02:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Slim, from what I've seen Arturo's work appears to be a summary of published reliable sources, so don't think it's against our policy if it's offered and reviewed through the talk page; that said, concerns about whitewashing and reflecting the full literature with proper balance are totally reasonable. We can discourage such drafts, or we can seek a better review process: I've explained my views on why I prefer the latter option, but I'm waiting to see how this plays out. For your suggestion, if BP posted statements on their website that we could quote, it could be useful. I think though that I'd frankly prefer the information comes from third-party sources. This might seem ironic to say if one points out that Arturo is far from independent (I agree he's not independent), but the sources he cites in his draft would be (and should be).
- Petrarchan, Talk:National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012/Archive_1#Upcoming_work_to_address_criticisms_of_the_article.2C_COI_declaration. It was in the archive. I also did a massive amount of research for that article (probably bordering on copyvio). And I keep tabs at least at first until discussion picks up at the article, but as it progresses I often don't have time nor expertise to follow all of the details. I'm sure this isn't an ideal or maybe even satisfactory response, and if you think it's inadequate then I'm open to suggestions. I'm not sure what a better alternative is that's realistic to implement. Ocaasi t | c 04:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A Wikipedia Administrator placed an editor on the NDAA2012 page to help the represent the US Congress, and is satisfied that the only declaration of this is in the archives, and does not check to see if said editor is following NPOV, is not accountable for that editor's actions -- this is actually a bigger story than "BP wrote it's own article", in my mind.174.71.84.85 (talk) 05:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to note that Petrar's claims about his editing history at BP are mistaken on numerous fronts. Basically everything he has said about his history of editing that article has been distorted. Maybe he just forgot exactly how things went and it all blended together, but it definitely didn't happen the way he claimed.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Without concrete examples, what purpose does your comment serve other than to try and discredit me? (Also known as trolling, which a recent study found to be very influential). Diffs or it didn't happen. petrarchan47tc 06:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe you should provide diffs since you are the one making such specific allegations.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 06:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- TDA is correct, I did have (at least) one detail wrong. It was not Rangoon11 who reverted BP's stated reason for leaving its solar programme, it was Beagle who deleted it. It was not 'immediately', but about 5 hours later. Any other discrepancies, please point them out. Thanks to all for their sleuthing. petrarchan47tc 16:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, SlimVirgin, what you have done by pulling back the curtains has had a profound effect already. I am one small person, but for me your actions have been quite earth-shattering. The experience I described above, and my reasons for retiring, well... it all seems to have been healed. I no longer have the scars, and today editing Wikipedia was pure bliss.
For the larger picture, though, according to (non-troll) chatter online, not one person was surprised by either BP or Wikipedia's involvement in this. You were right indeed - arguably the most controversial section on the BP page, tar sands ("Canadian oil sands"), was written by a BP PR team and sits, as we speak, on the Wiki page without a BP copyright tag. The other reaction that was unanimous, from what I have observed, was a collective sadness. People were saddened to acknowledge that 'our' Wikipedia is not ours. The sadness comes from the fact that we want to believe this is a sacred place of truth, where spin is the enemy. We want to believe we can trust this online collection of knowledge - which is really us (or so we thought). People are left with a sickly feeling knowing that with enough money, corporate tentacles know absolutely no bounds.
But sunlight is the best disinfectant. I want to predict that something very good will come of this. I believe it. I think it already has. At least, for this one small person. Thank you. petrarchan47tc 23:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your note, Petra, and I'm really glad to hear that you're reconsidering your retirement. We need people who know all the details, but it does takes its toll on those individuals. Just make sure you put yourself first. All the best, SlimVirgin (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sage advice, I'll take it. Best to you. petrarchan47tc 08:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BP lead in 2011
Ocaasi, the lead that Petra highlighted above does require explanation. Just to be clear: this was when you and Rangoon11 were writing the article in 2010 and 2011, before Arturo at BP arrived in 2012. The three key sentences are:
BP's track record of corporate social responsibility has been mixed. The company has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents and received criticism for its political influence. However in 1997 it was the first major oil company to publicly acknowledge the need to take steps against climate change, and in that year established a company-wide target to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases.
This is a pretty clear violation of WP:LEAD, which says that "prominent controversies" must be included. The reason for that rule is that a lot of readers only read the lead, so it's meant to be a stand-alone summary of the article. Anyone reading the lead alone should come away with a clear idea of the article's main issues. But this lead failed to mention, for example, the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the largest environmental disaster in the United States, and the criminal proceedings BP was facing as a consequence; the earlier Prudhoe Bay oil spill in 2006, for which BP was fined US$20 million; and the Texas City Refinery explosion in 2005, which killed 15 workers, injured 170 others, over which BP faced criminal charges.
The sentence saying that BP's track record has been "mixed" was added by you in January 2011. [9] I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a source that says its record is mixed. For overviews, see for example:
- The New York Times, "For BP, a History of Spills and Safety Lapses", May 8, 2010.
- The New York Times, "In BP’s Record, a History of Boldness and Costly Blunders", July 12, 2010.
- Martin Smith and Abrahm Lustgarten for PBS/Pro Publica, The Spill, October 2012, which catalogues the allegedly poor safety and environmental record and the reasons for it.
The second sentence, "The company has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents .." was added by you in the same diff. The third sentence – "However in 1997 ..." – was added by Rangoon in February 2011. [10]
These edits meant there were more words in the lead about BP acknowledging climate change, than about the environmental disasters for which it faced criminal charges. Petra tried to challenge this, and was forced to go through this discussion on the dispute-resolution board (scroll up to BP; the link is jumping for some reason), though anyone adhering to LEAD would have known that the prominent controversies needed to be added, with links to the relevant sub-articles. Editors wanting the policies and guidelines to be adhered to shouldn't have to jump through hoops the way Petra was forced to.
I'd appreciate hearing your perspective on this. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- My perspective that this edit I made got closer to what WP:LEAD suggests. Editing is an iterative process and not every edit ends on the right solution. I have no doubt that Deepwater Horizon should be mentioned in the lead, but crafting a lead was a second priority to organizing the article itself, which is necessary to do so that the lead reflects the body. My primary work on the BP article, as I said before, was that reorganization.
- It's also taken thousands of edits to get a better conception of how WP:DUE impacts WP:NPOV, and I accept that my 2011 work was probably a less sophisticated reflection of that.
- I think a more constructive activity than digging through old diffs would be to go and evaluate, criticize, improve the content at the current article. I get the feeling there's a bit of a prosecution going on, and I think it's going down the wrong path. Better to acknowledge the controversy, and work to improve the article as well as our processes around these situations... I don't claim to have acted perfectly, but my work on BP in 2011 was soundly with the intent of keeping balance at an extremely contentious article. In short, if you think it could be done better, please, go make that suggestion. The article is very much a work in progress, as am I. Ocaasi t | c 21:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What you say about your 2011 edits not necessarily being the edits you would make today is a very fair point. Learning how the polices interact with the realities of actual editing involves a steep learning curve, and I find I'm learning myself all the time even though I've been doing it for years. So I completely accept what you say about that. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
About 40% of Wikipedia's article on BP (British Petroleum) was written by a BP employee, and the the source of this text is not disclosed to our readers? BP was also the source of the horrific Deepwater Horizon oil spill. It recently pleaded guilty to lying to Congress and to lying to its own investors, but those facts are not included in the article, nor is there anything in the article about BP misleading our readers.
If you'd like to know why independent editors are leaving Wikipedia, please read User talk:Slim Virgin#Re: BP <Retired>
(hope you don't mind a little extra trafic on your user page)
Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I just read the article and found this text:
- "On 14 November 2012, BP and the Department of Justice reached a $4.5 billion settlement, the largest of its kind in U.S. history. BP also agreed to plead guilty to 11 felony counts related to the deaths of the 11 workers. Beyond the 11 counts of manslaughter, the government charged several individuals as well. David Rainey, who worked for BP during the spill response, was indicted on charges of obstruction of Congress and false statements. He alledegedly cherry-picked pages from some documents and withheld others "to make the spill appear less catastrophic than it was.” Two other BP supervisors on board the rig when it exploded were charged with manslaughter and other counts[16][17] The settlement has not resolved the fines under the Clean Water Act, which could be as much as $21 billion.[17] Speaking at a news conference, a U.S. federal official said, “The explosion of the rig was a disaster that resulted from BP’s culture of privileging profit over prudence.” The total amount paid out by BP by November 2012 was $42 billion.[287][18] In November 2012, the U.S. Government temporarily banned BP from bidding any new federal contracts.[288][18] Estimates of the total amount of penalties that BP may be required to pay have reached as high as $90 billion.[289]"
- So, I am not sure what Smallbones is saying is lacking in the article. It also links to four additional articles about the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, including the one Smallbones linked. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above quote says that one BP employee was indicted for lying to Congress. It doesn't say that BP itself pleaded guilty to lying to Congress (that's part of the $4 billion fine). It doesn't say that separately BP pleaded guilty to lying to its investors in the SEC case ($525 million fine). Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your advocacy on the issue of conflict of interest in the BP article. The attitude that Wikipedians hold toward conflicts of interest always amazes me. I can't imagine any serious, reputable reference work or encyclopedia that would be comfortable with a BP public-relations employee having a role in drafting its coverage of the subject - a role undisclosed to the casual reader. That should be an immediate non-starter.
People seem to feel that the conflict is a non-issue because the edits are filtered through a handful of pseudonymous Wikipedians - an approach which hardly inspires any sort of confidence. I think that part of the problem is that very few Wikipedians have any exposure to or understanding of how reputable publishing works, and how seriously and carefully reputable publishers approach editorial conflicts of interest. I also think that many Wikipedians view themselves as incorruptible arbiters, smarter than the PR people trying to manipulate our coverage. Of course, that just makes them easier marks, like physicians who don't think that free lunches and basketball tickets affect their prescribing habits.
The central asset of any published work is its credibility, and I think we're really squandering our credibility in a very short-sighted way here. I appreciate you standing up for a serious, mature, and sensible approach to conflicts of interest, but (as I'm sure you know better than I) it's going to be a lonely and probably unsuccessful road. Wikipedia's approach to conflicts of interest is stuck where the scholarly literature was 20 years ago - we pretend that our existing editorial process is sufficient to handle COIs, just as the journals assumed that their peer-review mechanisms were sufficient to catch out biased or unsound submissions. Those journals learned a hard lesson, largely at the hands of the tobacco industry, and now any reputable publisher requires an honest disclosure of conflicts of interest in addition to the standard editorial/peer-review process. I don't see Wikipedia getting there anytime soon - our community and editorial standards seem to be mired in a race to the bottom at present - but I do appreciate your efforts to articulate that this is a real problem and a real threat to this site's credibility, even if people inside the bubble here are never going to understand why. MastCell Talk 22:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, MastCell, your comment means a lot to me. I've been feeling like Alice in Through the Looking Glass for the last 24 hours. I've just posted this to the BP talk page, to try to show how absurd it would be for any reputable publication to do what we're doing. But some Wikipedians genuinely believe that we can handle COI better than the most reputable academic journals and newspapers are able to. It will destroy our credibility, and I couldn't honestly argue that we deserve any if this is the attitude. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I did try to articulate my concerns here, but without much success. I don't come to Wikipedia expecting much in the way of serious discussion, but the thoughtless, knee-jerk quality of many of the responses was particularly depressing. I don't want to romanticize the old days, because there were a lot of problems... but at least it seemed like there was a shared goal of a serious, respectable reference work. These days, if you try to discuss what we need to do to create a credible, reputable reference work, people treat you like you have three heads or something. I've come to feel increasingly out of step with the dominant ethos here, which means it's probably time to shuffle off into the sunset. Anyhow, I appreciate your efforts, and rest assured that you're on the right side of the looking glass. MastCell Talk 03:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes thanks for taking this up SlimVirgin. If there's anyone who can get any traction on this it's you. Yes the response is frustrating and puzzling. I guess one factor is that there are a lot libertarians here, probably. This is kind of a crisis for the idea of an encyclopedia written and run by volunteers. Herostratus (talk) 05:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's hope that the current situation represents one position of the pendulum, which will swing towards sanity in due course. I have been too busy to follow BP, but I noticed a spectacularly uninformed comment directed at SV on Talk:BP and couldn't resist getting slightly drawn in. One complicating factor is that it appears (from a very quick look) that some of those opposing the COI have been inappropriately pushing a "BP is bad" line, or have been too vociferous in their approach with some of their complaints being found to have flaws when inspected. An unlikely group of editors has gathered to resist the flawed complaints, but they can't hear anything from outside the echo chamber. Johnuniq (talk) 07:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Our article on transcendental meditation is now written more or less exclusively by members of this small religious movement as arbcom indefinately banned User:Will Beback one of the few independent editors in this topic area as he spoke out about COI. They have refused to allow him to return to editing for reasons discussed behind closed doors. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- John: you are right; the current complainants aren't making a compelling case. Anyone whose argument involves demonizing the BP editor are unlikely to succeed - he has done a fine job of following existing policy. We have many severe instances of COI that go unrecognized; this one is quite minor in contrast, in part thanks to all of the transparent self-identification, but has a spotlight on it. We do need a better process for reviewing & handling long-form suggestions / proposed edits.
- James: Bonus points for using Will's case in context. It can be hard to quantify or grapple with the relevance of COI for specific contributions, or recognize long-term impacts of shifts in process towards enabling / discouraging COI. Some of the larger questions are "how can we move towards having great balanced articles in this topic" (whether it's TM or supermajor oil firms), and "what behavior are we encouraging / preventing / hiding" and "what sort of community of practice are we building". Since many of the people involved with the BP article are easy to work with, better solutions can be easily tested out - a luxury we rarely have with flame wars. – SJ + 05:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
The Writer's Barnstar
|
| For doing what I think you do best, which is turning decent articles into models of encyclopedic summary. Despite our disagreements on policy and procedure, I'm continually impressed by your ability to streamline content and organize articles. Ocaasi t | c 18:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Thank you, that's much appreciated. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
_(5642928470).jpg)
