User talk:Buster7/Sandbox-BP to do list

A question @ User:MastCell's talk page

 * Moved 4/28/2013

A common counter-charge that is often used somewhere during the MANY discussions about COI or paid to edit situations is that those that oppose paid editing are a small but very vocal minority within the Wikipedia Community...just some fringe group whose position is out of date and easily ignored or discounted. Does that position have any basis in fact or is it just the stated wishes of Pro-Operative supporters? Is it possible that, in fact, WP reality is the opposite...that supporters of operative editing are in the minority but just more vocal? The vast Silent Majority is unaware of any problem. Has there been any poll or study done to provide some idea as to where the common editor of WP stands on the issue of Paid to Edit? ```Buster Seven   Talk  13:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * As a practical matter, it's not really possible to gauge the level of support for a proposal among all Wikipedians. Project-space discussions attract a very small and self-selecting slice of the editorial population. Increasingly, we've got a lot of editors whose participation here is mostly or totally limited to arguing about project-level issues, without any meaningful participation in article-space (I could name a few names, but that would just piss people off, and I'm sure you can think of examples readily). Basically, we've been overrun by armchair quarterbacks, who happily lecture others on the meaning of various content policies without any actual experience in applying them. We even had a (now-ex-) Arbitrator who was prone to sanctimonious pontification about civility, but whose own civility rapidly disintegrated when he found himself involved in a content dispute. But I digress. To answer your question, I don't think there's any way to truly assess "the community" stance on paid editing. I don't think it's safe to assume that there's a Silent Majority who actually take the issue seriously (although it's comforting to believe that there is). We're stuck with trying to convince the small minority of editors who actually spend their time arguing about project-space issues. Most are sort of a lost cause and make snap decisions based on various poorly-thought-out abstract principles or personal grudges, but there is a small but influential persuadable middle. For example, if I can't convince Risker that I'm right, then I usually start to question whether I am right, or at least whether my powers of articulation are failing me. And there are other people like her - people with whom I often disagree but who are intellectually honest and open to serious discussion. The trick is identifying them and ignoring people who are clearly operating on a knee-jerk, spinal-reflex level, and who contribute about 90% of the verbiage in project-space discussions. MastCell Talk 18:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Concerns raised at Slim's ghostwriting page

 * Moved here 5/2/2013 for convience

Editors have expressed concern about the PR initiatives and the degree to which they have been welcomed and encouraged by Wikipedians. Concerns include:


 * 1) in general, the potential for Wikipedia content being unduly influenced by corporate and government participation - even when not directly writing the article, corporate editors can become dominant influences on article talk pages, and become part of the consensus that determines article content;
 * 2) that PR reps of controversial companies, by being so active on the talk page, are positioned to engage in damage control as future controversies arise, skewing articles to downplay or eliminate references to negative media coverage;
 * 3) that PR reps provide selective or misleading information, and omit unfavorable facts from their talk page comments;
 * 4) that PR reps scold and otherwise attempt to intimidate editors not viewed as sympathetic to their interests;
 * 5) that despite their professed interest in "improving Wikipedia" and "correcting errors," PR reps do not correct factual errors when doing so would reflect negatively on their employers.
 * 6) a feeling that PR reps are condescending toward Wikipedia, and take a cynical attitude toward the project;
 * 7) the absence of a disclosure mechanism to inform readers that the article they are reading was shaped by, and perhaps sections written by, employees of the article subject;
 * 8) adverse publicity caused by public revelation of corporate involvement in the shaping of Wikipedia articles, notwithstanding the fact – and perhaps even exacerbated by it – that the PR reps have played strictly by the rules and established alliances within the Wikipedia community;
 * 9) a feeling that open corporate participation in the editing of Wikipedia articles is antithetical to the basic purpose of Wikipedia;
 * 10) the potentially corrosive and demoralizing effect on independent editors, not paid for their contributions, especially when they need to volunteer their unpaid time to supervise the work of paid editors, and when their work is not appreciated or even results in criticism;
 * 11) potential exploitation of Wikipedia mechanisms such as the "do you know" and Feature Article process, to gain visibility for Wikipedia articles created or influenced by PR reps;
 * 12) the potential for corporate editors and PR reps influencing policies, or becoming administrators, for the benefit of their clients;
 * 13) other than the edit history, which the average reader knows nothing about, there is no talk page notation (the use of ✅, for instance) of the implementation of a ghostwriter. (There is no paper trail to follow for the average reader)
 * 14) the inability of volunteer editors to match the firepower of paid advocates or what sometimes seems like teams of paid advocates (freetime v paid to do a job time)
 * 15) corporate editors engaging in "Wikipolitics," encouraging participation by editors they like and cynically invoking WP:AGF against editors who question their efforts to spin articles in their employers' favor
 * 16) corporate reps canvassing veteran, semi-retired administrators to intercede on behalf of the corporation.
 * 17) the soliciting of proxy editors (ghostwriters) in advance of actually making requests at the talk page. This advance thankfulness creates a subtle bond between the Rep and his ghostwriter: a committment to act and to fight to support the request. This pre-arrangement and pre-gratiousness subverts the editing process. Neither readers nor fellow editors are aware of the working arrangement and automatically assume good faith (in error).

Special concerns during litigation
Large companies and prominent individuals frequently become involved in litigation, sometimes with large amounts of money and even criminal penalties at stake. Courts have been known to cite Wikipedia in their decisions, and jurors will sometimes read Wikipedia articles even though they are admonished not to do so. Thus the exploitation of Wikipedia editing mechanisms by COI editors, representing the subject of the article or its critics, is of special concern when the litigation is ongoing. An innocuous-sounding request from a corporate editor for additional information added to an article, or utilization of sources favoring the narrative of the subject of the article, could have an impact on the outcome of litigation.

Supporters of talk-page involvement by corporations involved in litigation argue that such persons and corporations have the right to voice their concerns about the direction and accuracy of articles, much the way they might write letters to the editor of a newspaper. But what has happened, critics of such practices contend, is more analogous to parties to litigation participating in the daily editorial meetings of the Business and Environment Desks of the New York Times or Washington Post, injecting their opinions concerning the placement, composition and direction of coverage of articles about their own companies. When challenged over this practice, and when their motives are questioned, they behave indignantly and demand that their contributions to the editorial process be viewed as having been made in "good faith." All they want, they say, is to "improve" the articles, and to restore "balance," but they become silent, citing the press of other business, when asked to provide specifics of the alleged imbalance. When not participating in Wikipedia's version of editorial conferences, they can be found giving encouragement to friendly editors and snubbing or chastising editors who are not overtly friendly to them.

Echo chamber (media)

 * From Above - All they want, they say, is to "improve" the articles, and to restore "balance," but they become silent, citing the press of other business, when asked to provide specifics of the alleged imbalance. When not participating in Wikipedia's version of editorial conferences, they can be found giving encouragement to friendly editors and snubbing or chastising editors who are not overtly friendly to them.

"Failure to communicate"

 * What we've got here is failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week. Which is the way he wants it. Well, he gets it. And I don't like it any more than you men.


 * Cool Hand Luke, the character "the Captain" played by (Strother Martin).
 * The quote was listed at #11 on the American Film Institute's list of the 100 most memorable movie lines. An audio sample of the line is included in the Guns n' Roses songs "Civil War" and "Madagascar".

Once polorization happens at an article like BP, editors start "missing the meaning" of each others edits and they start to search for hidden meanings and not-so-hidden attempts to get the upper hand in article collaboration and consensus building. The resulting animis is hard to overcome. Its hard even for the involved editors to acknowledge.

Control the Message in order to Promote the Company

 * I can understand the PR Dept. But I don't understand the opposing editors. The "op-ed's"?
 * We need a name for them that is not aggressive or demeaning, only descriptive. They won't like "PRO-BP". What do they call themselves?.

A discussion is taking place at...
the BP article to get consensus on finding and addressing the main points of contention on the article, and moving the article to a stable and useful condition. As you are a significant contributor to the article, your involvement in the discussion would be valued and helpful. As the discussion is currently looking at removing a substantial amount of material, it would be appropriate for you to check to see what material is being proposed for removal, in case you have any concerns about this. If you feel you would rather not get involved right now, that is fine; however, if you later decide to get involved and directly edit the article to reverse any consensus decisions, that might be seen as disruptive. Re-opening discussion, however, may be acceptable; though you may find few people willing to re-engage in such a discussion, and if there are repeated attempts to re-open discussion on the same points, that also could be seen as disruptive. The best time to get involved is right now.
 * This is a notice ST delivered to various editors working on the Tea Party Movement article. I though it was appropriate (and the languaging wasneutral and balanced) for the BP article
 * ```Buster Seven   Talk  18:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose @ Blinks RfA

 * My take .... is that.... rather than blindly reverting per a common or garden edit war, he was trying to reach a suitable compromise in the lead of BP and provide a neutral point of view to avoid putting undue weight on the criticism of its environmental measures, providing (what I assume is) a more neutral source in the Daily Telegraph. I also see his subsequent endorsement of including the Texas City Refinery explosion in the lead on talk, which suggests he's not inclined to support a pro-BP or pro-environment view. So I think things are a little bit more subtle than you suggest.
 * The main diff TDA points to here shows me composing new text for the BP article, text that had never been in it before. The text was based on very solid sources that said John Browne, Baron Browne of Madingley, was responsible for changing BP's corporate atmosphere into one of cost-cutting and lower safety. The sources were the Washington Post, CBS News, ABC News, and the New York Times. I stand by my composition of this material as being very suitable to the article, not at all a violation of BLP, and not at all an off-topic coatrack. A complete article about BP would include this information. At any rate, my contributions at BP were one of a content-creating editor concerned about accuracy and completeness, not as an admin keeping tabs on behavior. Binksternet 15:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem right there is that you do not understand that WP:BLP demands a generally stricter adherence to all our content policies when it comes to living people, not just a stricter requirement for verification. It was an article about the company, but you made a point of assigning blame to Browne for BP's environmental problems, even after his departure, in the lede and several other prominent places of the article. Your comments clearly indicated that you were trying to force this edit in out of your own personal opinions regarding the company and the corporate exec you deem responsible for its troubles.
 * .... The only elements I brought to the BP article were concepts that were repeated in numerous media outlets by expert industry observers: "How the Sun King sank BP", "How BP’s Browne Created Culture of Risk, Incompetence", "The real villain of BP", "The final days of BP's John Browne". Your position on this matter baffles me. CEO Browne was blamed for BP's later troubles by multiple media sources, so we report that fact. It was (and remains) a critical part of BP's corporate history. Citing BLP to prevent this material from going into the BP article is a mistaken policy position. A CEO's direction for a company is a foundational part of that company. User Blink 21:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)