User:Omaharodeo

Hi, stranger. I guess you are here to see what I'm about. Where to begin...where to begin. Shoot. Well, maybe I should start high level. I like broccoli and parrots. You seem trustworthy, so I will tell you a secret: I also like dogs. Now that we're really getting to know each other, I will tell you of my Wikipedia journey thus far.

I have been a Wikipedia reader since 2004 at least, but only joined as an editor in May 2014. Before that, I had no intention of editing or even having an account. I don't consider myself an expert on much and didn't know what I could possibly contribute.

Then one day I came upon an article so whitewashed and blatantly promotional that its presence on Wikipedia, undisturbed for months, actually offended me. A quick search revealed the article's author was a public relations specialist frequently employed by the article's topic.

I made an account and pointed this out. I naively expected COI Editor to either voluntarily rollback their edits or for a magical Wikipedia cloud robot to do it automatically. Of course nothing happened. At this point, I was invested, so I decided to take the initiative myself.

And here I am. It has turned out to be a painful, but that's all right. The following is my running list of observations.

Observed Tactics of COI Editors / Why It Works

 * 1) Burying adversaries under a mountain of WP:WHATEVER policy references.
 * 2) Positions COI Editor as expert
 * 3) Intimidates new editors
 * 4) Referring to a single guideline as though it were the only guideline.
 * 5) Even if readers are familiar with the vast panoply of Wikipedia policies -- and I think most are not -- they may not have considered the interplay of conflicting values
 * 6) Clinical tone
 * 7) Creates impression of objectivity and reasonableness
 * 8) Seemingly well-cited comments paired with misleading descriptions
 * 9) It's time consuming to pore through references, many of which require tracing through a long, disjointed conversation
 * 10) In edits, include a few crumbs which seem to criticize their customer
 * 11) Allows COI Editor to claim impartiality
 * 12) The negative information included is probably already widely known
 * 13) In most cases, these crumbs are buried as non sequiturs in disjointed paragraphs decreasing the likelihood a reader skimming the page for salient points would notice them
 * 14) Creation of an obscure disclosure page
 * 15) Allows them to claim to have been open about conflicts
 * 16) Most readers will never find this page

Musings on Conflicts of Interests
Not all conflicts of interest are created equal. To my thinking, there exist two varieties of COI which are uniquely acute:
 * 1)  (CR) COI: When the editor IS the subject of the article
 * 2)  (CO) COI: When the editor is RECEIVING MONEY FROM the subject of the article

In these cases, I believe the conflict is so consequential to editorial discussion that it must be mentioned anytime there is a risk a new participant coming upon the discussion may not be aware of it. Furthermore I believe neutral editors should err on the side of flagging the COI in ambiguous situations.

I have seen editors assert that they have been "open" about their Code Red (CR) or Code Orange (CO) COI it is mentioned inconspicuously in their profile, with the same prominence given to their affinity for pasta. I do not consider this "openness" in any meaningful sense of the word since in my estimation the risk that the CR or CO COI will go unnoticed by other editors is far too high.

It seems to me that editors who are truly "open" about their CR and CO COIs should not mind it being mentioned any more than they mind their username being mentioned. However editors who were hoping for their COI to go unnoticed by some portion of users should be expected to protest loudly.

Other Musings

 * The deck is stacked against neutral editors on Wikipedia for two main reasons:
 * Neutral editors are not being paid (duh) so have little incentive to endure a bureaucratic siege, unless they are hotheads in which case they will probably end up provoked, saying something inflammatory, and disciplined for violating WP:PICKONE;
 * The legion of public relations professionals on Wikipedia have generally aligned commercial interests, at least with respect to participation by neutral editors, and so together form a massive collusion unit.