Talk:International Council of the Aeronautical Sciences

false changes
I would like to contact the person who's putting in wrong information about every 3 weeks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bo1958 (talk • contribs) 10:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

present status
The information about ICAS is incomplete and sometimes wrong. I could change that but I'm blocked out and I'm not sure why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bo1958 (talk • contribs) 09:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Please take the time to carefully read through Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. As an employee/representative of ICAS Wikipedia is going to consider you to have a conflict of interest (COI) with respect to anything written about the organization on Wikipedia. Although Wikipedia doesn't expressly forbid COI editing, it doesn't highly discourage because individuals closely connected to a particular subject matter often have (even though they usually think they don't) a real hard time editing the article in accordance with Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines. Undisclosed page contributions (see Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations and meta:Terms of use/FAQ on paid contributions without disclosure for more on this) are, however, not allowed per the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use and a failure to properly disclose such a thing can lead to your account being immediately blocked from further editing.Once you've taken a look at those pages, then please take a look at Wikipedia:Ownership of content and then maybe even Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Neither ICAS, its employees/representative, nor anyone editing on behalf of it has any final editorial control over the content of this article and any content deemed not to be in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines may be contested and removed at any time. The purpose of the article is not to promote ICAS or present things from its viewpoint and article content (positive or negative) is really only intended to reflect what secondary and independent reliable sources are writing about the organization; in other words, Wikipedia is more interested in what reliable sources (as defined by Wikipedia) are saying about ICAS than what ICAS has to say about itself. If there is inaccurate or otherwise wrong information about the article, then you should follow the instructions in Wikipedia:Edit requests and propose changes her on this talk page. This will give another editor a chance to review the propose and assess if it's in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. The best types of edit requests are those which are simple and easy to understand, and which can be verified by examining reliable sources. So, if you say the article has lots of incorrect information in it, the reviewing editor is not going to know what information is incorrect. Moreover, if you say this is incorrect because you know it to be correct; the reviewing editor is going to have no way of verifying or corroborating what you're claiming. If you want something changed in the article you should clearly state what it is, and then provide link to some website or reliable source which can be checked to verify the claim.If you read the above and still are not sure how to proceed, please take a look at Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide and follow the instructions there. If you do that and still are not sure, please ask for assistance at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. All of what I posted might seem like a pain in the behind, but the easiest way for you to help improve the article in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines is to try and follow those policies and guidelines as best as you can. Wikipedia has a fair number of COI and PAID editors and the ones who have the least amount of problems and the most success in helping to improve articles about subjects they're connected to are the ones who follow relevant policies and guidelines. The ones who don't tend to find themselves having lots of problems with other editors, and often blocked for one reason or another by an administrator. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:01, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Dear Marchjuly,
 * sorry I'm new to Wikipedia but again, as I already mailed Diannaa, I don't really understand what I did wrong. Every information I put on the Wikipedia page about ICAS is also available on the website, the only difference is that there the information is not compressed on one page. The only problem might be that I work for this organisation, but I'm not getting paid for putting information (advertisement) on the Wiki page. And ICAS is a nonprofit organisation, our only goal is to get people together discussung their studies on aeronautics. We offer a large data base of thoussands of papers about aeronautical topics. We don't hold any copyright on those papers, everybody can read them. We only ask those who want to use information out of these in their own papers to get together with the respective author and ask for permission since we only hold the right to publish them on our website. So we don't sell anything and we would only get a 'profit' out of advertisement that people know that there is a platform where they can exchange information with other people about the topic of aeronautics. So, I think, that's about the same pronciple as Wikipedia, making information available to everybody free of charge and without any censorship.
 * And coming back to me publishing information about ICAS on the Wiki page. I think it's better if a person who knows what ICAS is about puts those information online as compared to a person who only heard about it. And since we don't get any monetary profit with publishing that information I don't see the COI problem or Copyright issues. In a lot of Wiki articles about companies there's also the Logo included. How can you publish that without getting permission from the company itself, so there's also an involvement with a person who works for that company.
 * So please help me out with solving this problem. I read the articles about COI and Copyright but again I don't really see what I did wrong. I don't want to say that I didn't do anything wrong but I only don't know what. And please keep in mind that, as a German, I'm not a native english speaker, so that might be a problem as well.Bo1958 (talk) 09:21, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You cannot post copyright material that has already been published elsewhere online unless special licensing permissions are in place. That is because Wikipedia aims to be freely distributable and copyable by anyone, and all content must have the appropriate documentation in place before that can happen. Please see donating copyrighted materials which explains how it works.The second problem is conflict of interest. Editing an article about your own organisation or that of a client is strongly discouraged, as it is difficult to maintain the required neutral point of view. According to our terms of use, paid editors and people editing on behalf of their employer are required to disclose their conflict of interest by posting a notice on their user page or talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . I don't really have anything to add to what posted about copyrighted textual content. Basically, Wikipedia requires that all content posted on it (text and images) be released under a license that it can accept as explained in Wikipedia:Copyrights. As for you question about logos, Wikipedia  does allow some images to be uploaded used as non-free content and many logos you see used in articles are uploaded and used according its non-free content use policy. Wikipedia (more specifically English Wikipedia) does this because its servers are based in the United States where copyright law recognizes the concept of fair use. The Wikimedia Foundation gives the communities of each of its local Wikipedias (e.g. English Wikipedia, German Wikipedia, French Wikipedia) to the ability to decide whether their respective project wants to allow such images to be used based upon the copyright laws of their respective countries, and English Wikipedia decided many years ago to allow such content to be used as explained in Wikipedia:Non-free content. So, these files are being allowed to be uploaded locally and used in accordance with a combination of US copyright law and (English) Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. Copyright laws, however, are not the same for each country and there are some language Wikipedia where such files cannot be uploaded and used.As for your comment about it being better for you or someone who knows about ICAS to post content about it, please take a look at Wikipedia:Ownership of content, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability not truth. Basically, Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article or anyone connected to it may have to say about it, but rather only what independent and secondary reliable sources have to say about the subject. ICAS doesn't have any control over the article and anything you or anyone connected to ICAS adds to the article can be changed (for better or worse) by someone else at anytime; so, the only way that Wikipedia can try ensure that things to don't get too out of control is to require all of the content in the article be in accordance with Wikipedia:Core content policies. All editors are expected to try and adhere to these core content policies as best as they can, regardless of how much personal knowledge they have about a particular subject, and those who are able to do such a thing typically find themselves having less problems editing than those who cannot. Wikipedia doesn't expressly prohibit COI editing, but it does highly discourage it because (as Diannaa mentioned above) people who try to write content about things they are closely connected to often have a hard time doing so in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. This is why Wikipedia instead suggests that COI editors propose changes on article talk page and let other editors review them to determine if the content is appropriate for Wikipedia. In principle, it's the quality of the edit and whether it's in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines, not the person making the edit, which is ultimately assessed; however, over the years the overall experience has been that COI editors tend to be editing more on behalf of the subject they're connected to than on behalf of Wikipedia, which is why Wikipedia highly discourages such editing. There have been many problems caused by COI editors in the past; so, Wikipedia tends to take a very cautious approach when in comes to such editors.Now, if you think that you're capable of adhering to all of Wikipedia's core content policies and edit the article in accordance with these policies, then go ahead and try as long as you properly disclose your COI as explained in WP:DISCLOSECOI; however, you don't have any control over the article and any edit you make can be changed or undone by another editor if they feel it's not an improvement or not in accordance with some policy or guideline. The same applies to myself and Diannaa in that our edits can also be changed or undone if they're not in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines even though neither of us has any connection at all to ICAS. Any disagreements over edits between different editors will need to be resolved here on this talk page per Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. I'm sorry, but I don't speak German and perhaps what I've posted in somewhat difficult for you to understand. If you're having a hard time understanding this, perhaps someone at Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany or Wikipedia:Local Embassy can better explain things to you in German. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:51, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Dear MarchJuly,
 * thank you for all the explanation.
 * I agree that no company or organization should have the only control about what is written on their Wiki page. I just posted dates of congresses, names of our presidents and so on. So that's not personal biased information. Like with the presidents the present entry on the ICAS page is just wrong. We don't have two presidents at the same time. And also some congress locations were wrong. I don't see a problem if such information is provided from a guy which works for that organisation and is also available on their website. It doesn't make sense if e.g. somebody writes the present president of the United States is Clinton. It's an undeniable truth that she's not. I just wanted to make sure that the undeniable facts like dates, names and locations are correct.
 * I just read through the COI policies, one thing is that I had to say on my user page that I'm working for ICAS, I did that. Otherwise I couldn't find any other thing prohibiting me to edit the article.
 * I think my english is not that bad that I don't understand it, it's only when it get's to technical that I may have a misunderstanding, and it also doesn't help that I'm not a programmer.
 * Bo1958 (talk) 13:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * As long as your edits are in accordance with relevant (English) Wikipedia policies and guidelines, you should have no problems with others. However, Wikipedia is not really interested in unideniable facts, dates and locations, but rather in verifiable facts, dates and locations. So, any content you try to add to the article should be supported by citations to reliable sources (ideally WP:SECONDARY and WP:INDEPENDENT ones) so that it can be verified by other editors. The content should also be written in a neutrally worded way which doesn't places any unnecessary importance on it in comparison to other content that would affect the overall balance of the article. Moreover, content should only reflect what reliable sources are actually saying, not what you interpret them to be saying.Since the average COI editor seems to have problems doing these kinds of things, Wikipedia highly discourages COI editing and instead asks them to propose changes for others to review. Most of the content you'll find on the official websites of organization's, etc. is written by people whose purpose is to promote their organization and give others a favorable impression of it. Since such content is written for the benefit of the organization, not Wikipedia, it is pretty much never written in a manner suitable for Wikipedia both in terms of style and tone, and copyright licensing. In addition, since the people writing such content are either employed or otherwise acting on behalf of the organization's, etc., not Wikipedia, such people often have adjusting to Wikipedia's way of doing things. If you're able write in a manner that adheres to WP:5PILLARS and edit in accordance to relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, then once again you shouldn't really have many problems; if not, any changes you directly make to the article are likely to be challenged by others and even undone. Most experienced editors will be understanding if you make one or two mistakes; however, if you keep making changes which are deemed by others to be a problem despite being advised not to do so, an administrator may be asked to step in a take action. There are plenty of COI and PAID editors who are able to figure ways to edit in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines, but there are just as many (probably even more) who end up having their accounts being blocked because they are either unable to do so or simply don't think they should have to do so. You're going to have to be the one who chooses whether you're editing to be WP:HERE or editing to be WP:NOTHERE, and it will be by the quality of your edits that others are going to assess your contributions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:55, 18 December 2019 (UTC)