User talk:Sarah Rolph

Point Reyes
I have reverted your edits to the Point Reyes National Seashore page. They introduced significant bias and NPOV issues, slanting the article in an inappropriate manner. For example, you included material stating, as unchallenged fact, that the farm benefits the estero and that opponents have no evidence of negative impacts. This is not permitted on Wikipedia. I invite you to discuss your proposed edits on the talk page so that a neutral and unbiased presentation of both sides of the issue can be formed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:06, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I see now that you are directly involved as an activist supporting the Drakes Bay oyster farm and that you have essentially attempted to turn the Point Reyes National Seashore and Drakes Estero articles into political propaganda for your position. This is prohibited by Wikipedia policy. We are required to present a neutral, unbiased accounting of the dispute based upon reporting from outside reliable sources. The article must fairly and evenhandedly present both sides - your version clearly and blatantly attempted to present your side of the story as fact. I strongly suggest that you refrain from editing the articles in question, and instead present any proposed additions on the article talk pages for discussion. Based on your blog posts, you have an obvious conflict of interest, and you should read the encyclopedia's established policies on editing by people with a conflict of interest. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Response from Sarah: Thank you for taking the time to provide this guidance. I have read the pages you referred me to and now have a better understanding of the current policies here.

I agree that there is a perceived conflict of interest here, since I am indeed an advocate for the continuation of the Drakes Bay Oyster Farm. I am not a paid advocate, and I was not trying to unfairly bias the pages, although I can see how I created that impression.

My motivation in editing these pages was to correct bias that has been successfully introduced and now remains on the page. The activists working against the oyster farm ARE paid professionals, so I guess they have a lot more time to learn how to skillfully introduce bias that doesn't look like bias.

I don't understand this particular point about my edits: "you included material stating, as unchallenged fact, that the farm benefits the estero and that opponents have no evidence of negative impacts." It is a fact that the farm benefits the estero. The fact that some "challenge" this doesn't make it untrue. It is a fact that opponents have no evidence of negative impacts. I will be studying policies here to learn what constitutes evidence of a fact in the world of Wikipedia.

Thanks again for your guidance. Can you help me understand exactly where I should post my proposed changes? (If you don't have time for that, I'm sure I can figure it out using help, etc.)

cheers, --Sarah Rolph (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, no, it's not a "fact" that the farm benefits the estero. You and others who support the farm argue that it does. Others argue it doesn't. In the absence of any clear and unambiguous scientific consensus, we must report each side's arguments evenhandedly.
 * I agree that the article didn't present an evenhanded account of the matter, and the solution is to make it unbiased - not swing it all the way in the other direction. The article has a "Talk" page - click on the tab at the top of the page, or click Talk:Point Reyes National Seashore. I have opened a thread there for discussion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC)