Talk:Inanimate Alice

Editing dispute
and, can you please settle your disagreement on article content here through discussion, please? Thanks!Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I would like to, thanks. EdTechUSA (new) keeps changing user names, however, and did not respond to my explanation that the content added is factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RooMorgue (talk • contribs) 11:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure, be happy to. My contention regarding the article is based on WP:CONFLICT and WP:ADVOCACY: RooMorgue, are you affiliated with the project professionally? Besides which, RooMorgue's edits transgress WP:NEUTRAL and present as self promotion which bloats an already unwieldy article. Also in regards to "changing user names", this is incorrect: one of my students decided to start editing the Inanimate Alice entry under the name "BradfieldCom", as they were concerned about keeping the article emphasis on the main Episodes and the growing unnecessary focus by RooMorgue on more incidental elements. When he thought his edits were being ignored - he's a huge Inanimate Alice fan - and that RooMorgue was using another Taos based IP address to mask their identity while editing, they asked me to take over. EdTechUSA (talk) 13:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Me again - having had no response here from about their professional affiliations with the article under question, though they explicitly stated they'd like to resolve this editing dispute, I'm getting heat from my students. I'm going to make one more attempt to address the WP:CONFLICT and WP:ADVOCACY evident in the article as it stands, based directly on this quote outlining Wikipedia rules as evidenced at the WP:ADVOCACY page: "Advocacy is closely related to conflict of interest, but differs in that advocacy is a general term for promotional and agenda-based editing, while conflict of interest primarily describes promotional editing by those with a close personal or financial connection to the subject." If or a user from 209.188.124.19, or a new account attempts to immediately undo that revision without addressing these concerns directly here about WP:CONFLICT and WP:ADVOCACY, then their Conflict of Interest and bad faith will unfortunately be confirmed. EdTechUSA (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I am not an employee of Bradfield Company and have no future financial stake in this property or affiliation with the company. I have done some freelance work in the past, as an independent contractor, some of which is already included in the entry (I did expand and update) but not in the majority of the content that I added. The content I added was repeatedly deleted wholesale, without specificity and without regard to the nature of the changes, or which parts were in dispute. The content I added included factual information about the product, such as publications, story lines, characters, and storyworld extensions that are part of the Inanimate Alice canon. I'm unclear on how this factual information is a conflict of interest or has an advocacy attached to it? In the recent addition, I deleted the links to Bradfield Company's and ESA's products (again, I have zero financial stake and am not benefitting in any tangential way from them) and inserted them as "external links," if that is the issue? I have no bad faith and no interest other than providing a more complete and accurate entry on this product, as it includes far more than the episodes that were originally outline, particularly since it is a "transmedia" or "crossmedia" property. I am certainly not a "vandal"! (In fact, I "undid" earlier vandalism.

I was confused by "bradfieldco" user name—someone who is related to the company? Affiliated? Representing? Pretending? For sure, that is a conflict of interest or at the very least confusing. Also, who is Dr SandOps, a one-off user name who made similar changes and 'undos' and deletions? Same person? Affiliated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RooMorgue (talk • contribs) 22:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for taking the time to reply. Your explanation does clear up many of the concerns I have regarding your edits in terms of you admitting to having clear past associations with Inanimate_Alice in terms of being a paid professional - both as a freelancer and independent contractor. I hope you now realize that you should cease continuing to edit this article, given your strong associations with the project, having been a creator on the project and having financially benefited as both a freelancer and independent contractor in line with WP:CONFLICT and WP:ADVOCACY while deliberately withholding this fact through your multiple and for the most part unexplained edits? Perhaps taking the time to read through the links from WP:CONFLICT and WP:ADVOCACY would help you understand this? If you can't grasp why you are in breach of these rules, perhaps Jo-Jo Eumerus can step in here and explain further, and take corresponding action, considering you have again made another 6 separate article edits this afternoon? By repeatedly adding excessive promotional (and for the most part unexplained) edits which bloat/slant the article, you are again flaunting many Wikipedia editing rules including, but in no means limited to, WP:CONFLICT, WP:SELFPROMOTE, WP:NEUTRAL, WP:COIBIAS, and WP:FCOI, the last which states:"If you have a close financial relationship with a topic you wish to write about – including as an owner, employee, contractor or other stakeholder – you are advised to refrain from editing affected articles. You may suggest changes on the talk page of those articles, where you should disclose your COI.". It doesn't matter if your association as a paid creator on Inanimate Alice is in the past, and judging by some quick research, aren't you still part of the Inanimate Alice social media team? Don't you directly tweet as part of this role on the Inanimate Alice Twitter stream? I'd appreciate a direct answer to this if you would. Your repeated assertions that the content you are adding is factual is incorrect: you have clear unconscious bias associated with the article if you have been paid to work on the project, as well as bias being evident in the sections to which you are persistently adding material that, as you yourself confess: "I have done some freelance work in the past, as an independent contractor, some of which is already included in the entry" - this is the very definition of self-promotion! To alleviate any confusion you may still have, in regards to (who I mistakenly called in an earlier comment "BradfieldCom", sorry), yes, they are a student of mine and massive Inanimate Alice fan, who says they called themselves this as they thought a "Bradfield Coup" was happening to the article when you,, were repeatedly ignoring advice given in edit summaries regarding WP:CONFLICT and WP:ADVOCACY, that you were repeatedly performing multiple reversions based on unsupported evidence, and that you were displaying multiple violations of WP:CONFLICT, WP:ADVOCACY, WP:SELFPROMOTE, WP:NEUTRAL, WP:COIBIAS, suspected sockpuppetry and WP:FCOI. In regards to, it may be one of my students, I'll have to check - this term we have been studying Wikipedia and Inanimate Alice in class, and I have to add several of my students are extremely disheartened by this Wikipedia dispute, to the point that one student is actually using it as a case-study for an upcoming assignment calling it "Vanity Hijacking and How Not To Edit On Wikipedia"! I hope this resolves the matter, and that can now see the reasons, and rationale, as to why their edits break multiple Wikipedia rules and why they should immediate cease editing this article. , by all means, as you have disclosed your COI, feel free to - as WP:FCOI instructs: "suggest changes on the talk page of those articles", but please refrain from any further direct edits. EdTechUSA (talk) 02:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

EdTechUSA: What is your affiliation with Bradfield Company and do you have a particular beef with the property? If so, that's surely not my fight. You should take that to the series producer. My additions to the article are of a factual and useful and informative nature.

If, as you say you are an educator, the deletions make no sense! You deleted descriptions of educational materials that would serve the very population you say you are serving. Why? What do you have against including information such as "the episodes have been translated into multiple languages"? The description of the "Alice in Australia" 12 photo journal (again, I had nothing to do with those!) The language learning journals and their story synopses? The Alice in Everloop character outreach that would be aimed directly at tweens (is that your student audience)?

Also, you (or a "student"?) severely truncated the episode 5 plot synopsis to exclude the major points of that episode. Why? It was key material. (Again, I have no stake or interest in that.)

You seem bent on attacking me and reporting me and making wild accusations. I would like to focus on creating a complete and useful entry for a property that is well-studied, used as a case study in many digital media programs and is popular in schools as a model for digital storytelling. That includes all the transmedia extensions, the educational materials (which overlap with the storyworld, as I mentioned), and the links to outside sources and criticisms that would both serve as reference and resource. Why delete those?

Are you also DrSandOps, who made similar deletions, or affiliated (another 'student'?)? I have only one user name and admit to being new at this. I forgot to log in once, and so recorded an IP address—transparency that you have not shown. Rather than "hiding," that's revealing, isn't it?

I'de be happy to leave this whole project behind, but it would do a disservice to Alice and her fans not to include the entire story world. I hope others will step in, true fans of Alice, and keep this entry updated, inclusive, complete and professional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RooMorgue (talk • contribs) 15:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi again. Thanks again for your reply. Firstly, we should acknowledge here that this dispute about the information that's presented in the Inanimate_Alice article is not, and should not, be about you,. It is about constructing a Wikipedia article as free from bias and self-promotion as is possible by abiding by the Wikipedia rules. In accordance with established Wikipedia editing rules, you cannot, and should not, make attempts to factually contribute to the article, in any capacity, if you have been a paid content producer on the Inanimate_Alice project. That you may not have produced content for all aspects of the project as indicated by your statements "I had nothing to do with those [parts of the project]!" and "Again, I have no stake or interest in that" only serves to emphasize the fact that there are sections of the article where you do, or have had in the past, direct influence on the project, and that you do have an openly biased stake in other aspects of it. What is crucial here is that you have been, and have admitted to being, directly affiliated with the Inanimate_Alice project as a freelancer and independent contractor, which compromises your ability to be objective. Do you now understand this? As I have previously suggested, if you read through the WP:CONFLICT and WP:ADVOCACY pages (please click directly on these two links to access this information), you should be able to ascertain this yourself.

The facts in relation to you repeatedly breaching editing rules in regards to the Inanimate_Alice entry, as they stand, are this:
 * 1) If an editor openly admits, as you have, to financially benefiting, in any way, from an article they have been editing, they are breaking multiple Wikipedia editing rules. You have stated you have been a freelancer and independent contractor on the Inanimate_Alice project. You have previously, and consistently, failed to declare this while making multiple reversions and edits. According to the Wikipedia rules (to which I have linked multiple times in this discussion previously, and on all edit summaries I have made in relation to the article, which you have chosen to consistently ignore) you are now required to cease editing the Inanimate_Alice article, due to admitted WP:CONFLICT and WP:ADVOCACY. You are only, according to Wikipedia rules, able to "...suggest changes on the talk page of those articles" - see WP:FCOI. If you are, as you say, new to the Wikipedia editing process, then this has now been made clear to you. Will you now cease your disruptive editing based on this fact?
 * 2) I am not interested in personal attacks in the least. What I am striving to do, as an educator and a Wikipedian editor adhering to the rules required to edit responsibly, is help craft an article that reflects the Inanimate_Alice project without bias or agenda-based input. I don't "...have a particular beef with the property", as you put it. I teach Inanimate_Alice in my classes, yes: this is not a Conflict of Interest. You have admitted producing paid content for the Inanimate_Alice project, which is a clear Conflict of Interest. Do you understand this?
 * 3) Any content I've removed in the Inanimate_Alice entry is to address bias found in that content. Such promotional content should not be included, according to WP:NOTADVERTISING, WP:SELFPROMOTE, WP:NEUTRAL, WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:COIBIAS. No amount of WP:DISRUPT will make this skewed content acceptable. You consistently attempt to insert into the article descriptions of Inanimate_Alice product that has been created by one particular production company (not the primary production company of Bradfield Productions) and an individual associated with this company, including recent insertions into the main Synopsis category including the "Alice in Everloop" section, and your recent attempt to add a section concerning Language Journals that the individual/production company under question has produced for the Inanimate_Alice project. Such insertions illustrates your bias perfectly. At no point have you attempted to add such expanded  - and I'd suggest, bloated - content about the hundreds of other transmedia contributions that have been produced for Inanimate_Alice, often by students and or teachers, and nor should you. This article should contain concise, relevant, and verifiable encyclopedic content that is free from promotional bias, not thinly-veiled advertorials for affiliated production companies or individuals. This is a clear example of why you should not be editing the article under question, . Can you now understand that creating such skewed content shows substantial, and repeated, bias? EdTechUSA (talk) 00:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

''May I recommend you both to shorten your posts a bit? Long walls of text are hard to read.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)''

Hi again Jo-Jo Eumerus. Good idea about shortening. After 's admission to WP:CONFLICT/WP:FCOI by stating that they have worked directly on the Inanimate_Alice project as a freelancer and independent contractor, there's not much else to say. It's clear should not be editing the Inanimate_Alice article at all, and should restrict their input to suggested changes here on the talk page as WP:FCOI states. Yes? EdTechUSA (talk) 05:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Inanimate Alice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706213745/http://www.getideas.org/thought-leaders/blog/considering-transmedia-literature-born-digital to http://www.getideas.org/thought-leaders/blog/considering-transmedia-literature-born-digital

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)