User talk:AnnaDidic

Conflict of interest
Anna, first off, thank you for your contributions, and for openly declaring your background prior to posting. I realize that your intentions are good, but unfortunately as a writer for 2thinknow, you cannot post text to articles using your material as a reference, or otherwise promote your organization's activities. That runs afoul of Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline. If you feel that your material is useful for a particular article, by all means request that other regulars to that page assess it and decide on its suitability. However, you must avoid wide-spread attempts to add said material.

What is even more of a concern, however, is that your job requires you to "edit wikipedia entries related to innovation and change, as well as cities around the world". I would strongly suggest that you advise your employer that this policy may well backfire on them; editors here will not take kindly to an organization making changes that reflect that organization's priorities, rather than Wikipedia's. Please feel free to ask if you have any questions about this, as I would like to help resolve this matter. Cheers. --Ckatz chat spy  10:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Anna, with regard to your posts, I am sorry if you feel you are being "punished". While I can understand the confusion over the removal of the material, it is certainly not an effort to "discipline" you for errant contributions. (If I was to make one correction, I would have mentioned the removal in my initial post, an oversight for which I apologize.) As for your comment about other PR agencies, it is an unfortunate reality that we cannot catch all such instances. There are too many firms, with too many user names, for us to do so. The best we can do is to deal with the ones we become aware of. Trust me when I say that your honesty is appreciated. While you may feel that you have been "burned" because of it, you are actually far better off in the long run in that you have demonstrated a willingness to work within the system. There are many others who have tried to hide their edits in an effort to abuse the site, with the end result often being a loss of editing privileges and/or having their URLs blacklisted.
 * As we have discussed, Wikipedia discourages parties with a vested interest from contributing material that benefits those interests. In your case, you represent the creators of the "Innovations Index", and having that index mentioned in high-volume Wikipedia articles certainly benefits your organization. While you may feel that the inclusion of the index benefits the article, you are not in a position to make that call due to that conflict of interest. I was quite specific in outlining a more appropriate way in which you should present the material, that is, by requesting a review of it on the respective article talk pages. Keep in mind that, although I am an administrator here, that does not give me the "final vote" on content. My role at this point is to make sure that you, as a user with a conflict of interest, follow the proper procedure in presenting your material. After that, it is up to all editors to reach consensus as to the suitability of the material. --Ckatz chat spy   23:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand that, now this is the way Wikipedia works. That is ok. I will leave it up to the cities (and their PR agencies) to edit their own content. Knowing that this is what in fact happens. So what you are punishing us for is not being a large corporate firm, because if we do not write our own content, a corporate competitor may write the content, using their inferior quality work as the source. And they will use PR agencies who will be paid to do it, and they will not be asked to desist. This is reality.
 * Yes we have a conflict, but I know that this is what happens. These rules favour the large firms. Who will simply not declare interest. Of course, having references in wikipedia benefits us and the cities (ultimately our clients), otherwise we would not devote the work time to do it. However, we will find an experienced wikipedian to make changes, who knows the system better - and uses this talk and review procedure on each page. But each page is already a series of vested interests. We may also ask individual cities who edits their page, to do so. But they will be more biased than us. I may try it myself, Or at least get someone to show me how to do it. But to pretend this is 'fair' is not true. It merely favours the large firms with PR agencies, who will come in 6-12 months and do this, and you will not stop them.
 * Anyway, I understand you volunteer, so thanks for taking time to respond. I do not like you removing all changes, undoing my work, and I do not think it is fair, but then this is not a democracy, this is a company - and we have to abide by your use of rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnaDidic (talk • contribs)


 * Well, the individual cities certainly do not own the pages about them, and any efforts on their part to control that content would be swiftly reverted if it were to be discovered. Do we catch everything? Certainly not - but that doesn't mean we stop trying. As for your efforts, I'll repeat that there certainly is no "punishment" involved. As I said previously, you are in a better position to present your material having declared your COI. A company, large or small, who did not do so would certainly not get this level of discussion. Beyond that, you have to remember that while your company may feel that the "innovation index" is essential content, not everyone may agree with you. After all, what standards did your organization use? Who sanctions the results? Why is your index any more or less relevant than a competitors? These are the kind of questions that we have to ask; remember that Wikipedia is not here to merely regurgitate every bit of data available about a subject. The editors assess material and decide if it is appropriate for an encyclopedic treatment of a subject or not. Beyond that, you've said it quite clearly: "having references in Wikipedia benefits us and the cities (ultimately our clients), otherwise we would not devote the work time to do it." Editors have to approach material from the opposite perspective, namely how does the material benefit Wikipedia. --Ckatz chat spy  00:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand. My point was that most people who edit these pages have interests in their topics. Even a PhD student has an interest in his views on economics, maybe one view not another. But I appreciate you taking time as a volunteer and busy editor to engage in discussion. I will leave it to others to edit, and hope they are honest and balanced. But I know that PR agencies edit most pages on these topics, and I was trying to be balanced, but I understand your rules. And I will get others views on how it works. Maybe I will read a book on wikipedia if I can. Take care, Anna.


 * The difference is between one's personal interest in a topic leading one to contribute (as I do with astronomy, for example) and one's job requiring one to do so. As for reading material, I'm not aware of many print primers on Wikipedia, but I would suggest starting with WP:HELP, especially the "Getting started" and "Policies and guidelines" sections. The "conflict of interest" page will help with regards to potential contributions to articles related to your field. Beyond that, however, I would strongly encourage you to begin by contributing to articles that you are personally interested in, and that have have nothing to do with your work. That is an excellent way to get a feel for the site, and for contributing in general. It also helps other editors in that they see you are not just here to promote your organization's interests, and it may make them more willing to listen when you do propose changes related to your organization. Again, please feel free to ask any questions you might have; I'd be happy to help. Cheers. --Ckatz chat spy  01:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)