User talk:Willscrlt/MEDCAB/Cases/2006-12-28 Insider201283 and Will Beback re Alticor, Amway, Quixtar issues

Original request

 * Comments by non-involved parties: User talk:Willscrlt/MEDCAB/Cases/2006-12-28 Insider201283 and Will Beback/2006-12-28 Outside comments
 * Current Case: Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-28 Insider201283 and Will Beback re Alticor, Amway, Quixtar issues
 * Request made by: Insider201283 01:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * Various articles related to Quixtar / Amway


 * Who's involved?
 * User:Insider201283 User:Will_Beback


 * What's going on?
 * POV editing and unfair guideline enforcement by an admin who also apparently has little or incorrect knowledge about the topics in question


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * Stopped obviously :-)


 * Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
 * here is fine

Outside discussion
Since this thing is attracting some outside attention and discussion, I have moved comments from parties outside the case to a dedicated talk page. Naturally I will read such comments, but I hope all three of us can remain focused on what is going on in here, and not get dragged into conversations outside in the "lobby". I will address and summarize concerns as I feel it is appropriate, and you may do the same if you really feel you must. Likewise, pertinent information from the outside can be brought in, but I think it will be most productive for the case to remain focused on the issues you two are working through, and we can tackle larger issues involving other editors once we find some workable solutions here. As the saying goes, "How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time." If we want real resolution, we have to start somewhere, and this case seems like the most appropriate place to start. --Willscrlt (Talk|Cntrb ) 10:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest, Ignore All Rules, and Neutral Point of View
I think that things are actually pretty close to ready to proceed with a review. I agree with Will_B that a complete re-write is not something that is likely to be a good idea. However, reviewing each article, section by section, might make a lot of sense. Naturally, we would have to come to terms with everyone interested in how to go about the review process. If anyone has experience with other similar reviews, so much the better. I dislike reinventing wheels.

The thing that concerns me is the ongoing cloud of uncertainty with respect to Conflict of Interest, Ignore All Rules, and Neutral Point of View. I do not feel that we have sufficiently worked out that hitch. I'm sure that it will come up again during the edit. So, I think rather than airing it in the middle of a review, we should get very clear and focus on these three topics.

Some questions I would like to see both of you answer. Then, respond how you feel about the other person's responses. Please remember to be civil. No calling things stupid, stubborn, or whatever. If you feel the other person is totally missing a key point, politely explain the point and why you feel its pertinent in this case. After that, I think we will have a better idea of where exactly everyone stands, and then look to see where we go from there. Ok?

1. Assuming for the sake of this question that everyone editing an A/Q article has some bias or conflict of interest, ranging simply from knowing someone involved (for good or bad) with either organization, all the way to being on the payroll of Alticor or N21 as a "plant" to foist POV onto the article, how do you see WP:COI as it applies to such editors in articles such as these. (And if the Jossi view is your view, please describe that view in your own words with your own emphasis where you see fit).
 * Questions

2. Should someone with a self-professed non- or minimally- financial tie to A/Q be treated differently, or rather should the edits of such a person, be treated differently from someone with a large financial tie to them, as opposed to someone who has made no claims one way or the other? Why and how?

3. Assuming for the sake of this question, that an article about any subject is strongly skewed to an extreme POV, such that the entire article appears to be NPOV to someone who does not really know the topic well. Further, there are several sources (some of which both sides would agree are reliable sources) that support the extreme POV due to a recent blitz of media coverage concerning a few recent high-profile cases (again, this could be any article, not specifically A/Q). What criteria should be used to evaluate new edits, especially ones that run contrary to the article's current POV (i.e., they would seem to be introducing a new POV rather than correcting a strong POV back to center)? What criteria should be used to evaluate sources used to document information? Should there be a difference in standards between those that support the current article's findings as opposed to ones that dispute it? In short, how would you tell if an article is slanted and how should someone successfully bring the article back to center?

4. Assume that Tom is a reasonably successful A/Q IBO that has first-hand knowledge and evidence, including notarized documents, of certain facts about A/Q (it does not matter if the issue is positive or negative). Tom has attempted to get the word out, but the media does not appear to be interested in airing the report. Tom publishes the information, along with scans of the documents, audio recordings with transcripts from meetings, and more to his Blogger.com account (no ads other than Blogger's). (a) How would you view linking to the evidence in the A/Q articles, bearing in mind that Tom is an IBO with financial interest? (b) Same question, but Tom quit A/Q several months prior to all of this and has not had financial COI in all that time, and not even an axe to grind, but is releasing the information out of a sense of duty in doing "the right thing". (c) If the Phoenix Sun picked up the story and ran it in their newspaper, how would you view linking to the news story, which is essentially a recap of the information on the blog, but did not print the actual documentation available on the blog? (d) If both the NY and LA Times picked up the story, along with some of the networks? In short, at what point does newsworthiness and media coverage overcome concerns (if any) of WP:COI from Tom being the source of the information?

5. During the review, a particular proposed edit seems split 50-50, and you are aware that your opinion is likely to sway the consensus clearly one way or the other. What (roughly in order) would you consider the primary factors in making your decision concerning the edit?

''Are the questions too tough? Or have both of you just been very busy this weekend? -- Willscrlt (  Talk &middot; Cntrb  ) 10:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)''


 * I'm not sure that "tough" is the right word, but they do call for long answers and some are hypothetical questions that seem only tangentially-related. Since Insider initated this mediation I'll follow his lead. -Will Beback · † · 20:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It appears that Insider is "away" for a while. He has not made an edit since January 19. I am going to leave him a note on his talk page, and I am going to note the official case files with this apparent change in status. I hope that everything is fine with him and with his family. -- Willscrlt (  Talk &middot; Cntrb  ) 05:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I hope all is well. Perhaps he's just travelling or busy. No rush. -Will Beback · † · 09:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Some timely clarification on Conflict of Interest
The Wikipedia Signpost had an interesting and relevant article on the topic of COI today. It linked to a blog article with the following statements:

What exactly are Wikipedia’s guidelines relating to conflict of interest and professional editing? Looking at their policy pages, it actually seems to bear little resemblence to some of the comments floating around. From what I can gather, here is a summary: This seems quite reasonable and workable.
 * Defamation can be removed at any time by anyone
 * Being paid to edit is not, of itself, a conflict of interest. That is stated nowhere.
 * Being paid to edit with the sole intention of improving the employer’s image is a conflict of interest.
 * This is because, in Wikipedia terms, the conflict of interest comes not from the payment but from the aspect of self-promotion.
 * Nevertheless, being paid to edit however does give an appearance of a conflict of interest (but not for unrelated material) and so is strongly discouraged.
 * Editors should declare conflicts of interest on their User page, which allows edits to be paid extra attention for neutrality.
 * The guidelines include guidance for how to proceed if you have or appear to have a conflict of interest, with a section on professional editors. The guidance specifically concerns itself with bias for and against the employer company.
 * If you have a conflict of interest, avoid editing, participating in discussions, or even linking from your company to Wikipedia (i.e. using it to market your company.)
 * If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them.

As someone who helped write the Conflict of Interest guideline, I'd like to first note that your summary of nine bulleted points is an entirely accurate summary of the various related guidelines and policies. On the other hand, every single person who we have had a COI problem with insists for various reasons similar to yours that they can edit without adding bias and should be allowed to make Wikipedia better. The problem arises when other editors disagree with that assessment. So long as you accept that your opinion is not the opinion that counts on your own COI, meaning that you don't fight over what goes in the articles but are content to offer suggestions on the talk page (or in the articles if no one protests) than we don't have a problem. Anyone can add an edit. Anyone can delete an edit. People who fight about it get banned. People who play well with others are encouraged to help even more. I hope you, like me, get addicted to helping create a wonderful free resource for all mankind.

Anonymous • January 27, 2007 05:36 AM

Clarification: "No one protests" refers to the other respected editors editing that article. So long as the main authors of an article are playing nice together and improving Wikipedia, its all good. When conflicts arise, the guidelines and policies become important, but the interpretation of them should be in the hands of uninvolved editors (mediators). If mediation fails, administrators can ban or block people who insist on continuing to fight. If administrators disagree among themselves or a contributor insists on it, Arbcom holds a sort of trial to resolve the situation. This is very roughly how its supposed to work.

Anonymous • January 27, 2007 05:51 AM

I thought that the second excerpt was especially pertinent to this case, because it almost exactly describes the situation involving Insider ("insists for various reasons ... that they can edit without adding bias and should be allowed to make Wikipedia better. The problem arises when other editors disagree with that assessment."). That is apparently what has happened here. Insider is welcome to edit, but he's not in a good position to judge his own COI. In fact, none of the primary editors are at this point, because they all have some degree of "interest" in the portions of the page they edited.

It still leaves the big question mark always left behind after these statements concerning COI: what about the other side? If the non-interested parties are able to edit freely, and the interested parties are not permitted to do so, then how can you ever have a truly neutral point of view article? It would appear that the answer is simply that you can't. WP:COI does not take into account how it inadvertently leads to POV-slanted articles, and the general editing public of Wikipedia (as evidenced by the notation that this guideline is generally accepted) do not seem to find that matter worrisome.

Applying that to this case then, it would appear that Insider, due to his obvious and self-admitted COI (the financial issue may be debatable, but not that there is some degree of COI), is subject to the general consensus opinion of the majority of non-interested editors who will act as moderators (whomever such people might be). If they are convinced that Insider's COI is imposing POV on the article, then his edits should be removed. The fact that other major contributors might have COI (though it would have to be proven through self-statement or repeated actions consistent with having COI) should not even be factored into this decision, since WP:COI appears to trump common sense when it comes to POV. If only common sense were a little more common.

I'm going to try to exercise a little common sense here and say what makes sense to me, at least in this case.
 * Insider should be free to edit the articles in question, subject to the same policies to which everyone else is held. Even if he does receive some financial gain either directly from an IBO or a third-party (selling books, etc.), I don't see him as having much, if any, more financial COI than the likely dozens of full-time IBO owners who anonymously edit the articles each month.
 * Insider or anyone else who edits in a fashion that consistently edits in a manner that appears to slant things toward one point of view or another, should be treated as someone likely to have COI, even if that COI is not readily apparent.
 * By treating someone as if they have COI, I mean that their edits are scrutinized a little more carefully than other edits are (fair, maybe not, but it is the guideline).
 * If the consensus of the uninvolved parties (i.e., none of the individuals on either side of a POV struggle) feels that a particular edit, link, or whatever is a POV edit (in either direction), then it should be reverted.
 * Obviously, if either side can show solid, reliable sources backing their edit, then the other POV should be required to provide equally compelling sources or rescind their argument.
 * If both sides present compelling sources, then a carefully crafted statement should be added to the article presenting both sides of the issue neutrally, along with the sources.
 * In those situations, Wikipedia would be acting as a neutral source of information, and the end-reader can make up his or her own mind, because he or she will have the pertinent facts.
 * If such compelling sources cannot be found, but one party knows something to be false, then, *shrug* tough. Until adequate citable sources are found that are roughly comparable in reliability to the opposing side of the debate, the side without sources will have to suffer in silence and resist the temptation to insert weasel words or otherwise soften the other side's argument.
 * Determination of the reliability of a source should be made, again, by consensus of the uninvolved parties. It should be noted that (and I can't remember the names of the individuals previously discussed) if a prominent news source (New York or Los Angeles Times; NBC, ABC, or CBS Nightly News, CNN News (not just an opinion talk show), NPR, or a foreign news source of equal stature) feels comfortable with the reliability of an "expert", then that should be acceptable for Wikipedia, too. True, the expert may be an expert in cults based on personal experiences that are outside the experiences other people have, but that is not for us to decide. The Times or whoever made that decision already, and they are paid professionals with careers on the line based on their judgments. It is not the average Wikipedian's duty to try to second-guess the criteria that otherwise reliable sources use.
 * The preceding being said, if such sources later change their level of trust of an "expert" or appear to change views, then it is certainly worth revisiting. Reliable sources do not always retract earlier statements, but attitudes and levels of trust change over time, and more current assessments by such sources should generally be given greater consideration than ones from the past.

Is all of that found in WP:COI? Not hardly. But it is how I interpret WP:COI making the most sense, especially in this particular case.

Are any parties involved in the wrong? No. As long as all parties agree going forward to be equally bound to WP:COI based on apparent COI as well as stated COI (and also assuming that a clear, consistent history of POV editing has been established before name calling gets thrown about), then I think that this might be a workable solution. It seems true to the spirit of WP:COI, without getting bogged down in the one-sided illogic that literally following WP:COI would seem to almost mandate.

I would be very interested to hear everyone's feedback on this matter. Everyone including outsiders to the case. -- Willscrlt (  Talk &middot; Cntrb  ) 04:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If I understand correctly, Jelliffe himself is accused of having a conflict of interest by way of having been hired to edit Wikipedia. While I'm sure he's intelligent and fair-minded, he has a conflict of interest in interpreting the conflict of interest policy. (Whew) The comments in reply are by an anonymous editor. Therefore, I can't really give their comments any weight of authority. What we can rely on is the guideline itself, which has clear and barely-equivocal language, language which calls on those with COIs to avoid editing articles directly.
 * Yes, you pretty much described the issue, and the anonymous quotes above and Jelliffe himself may not be the best people to use as references, but the point they bring us is one I had already brought up as a shortcoming of WP:COI. That guideline has a distinct blind-spot when it comes to dealing with people with strong interest that is not defined in the guideline. My contention is that COI is not only something that people with declared or financial interest should be held to, but people who act in a manner that is indicative of COI (such as repeatedly and strongly promoting a particular POV).


 * Insider has raised (in as many forums as he can) the interesting question of those who have either unidentified conflicts or non-monetary conflicts. You mention the (obvious) IBOs who appear now and then to add links to their websites. And there are also those who've made a hobby of attacking A/Q. I'd agree that strongly held beliefs can also create conflicts of interest (though that isn't entirely agreed upon by the community), and that when we identify such users they should follow COI guidelines also.


 * I strongly disagree with the implicit contention that I have any COI in this matter. My recent edits to the articles began as an effort to serve as an uninvolved, neutral editor mediating betwen sides. The partisan "anti" editors then disappeared for a while (holidays?) leaving me as the only editor to work with a strongly "pro" editor. In my opinion, Insider decided that even a neutral editor was insufficiently sympathetic to the "pro" side and so initiated this mediation. While I'm happy to use any method to smooth out ruffled feathers and improve editing, I don't agree that I represent one side of the spectrum of viewpoints about this topic.
 * If anything I said seemed to imply that you have COI or even a strong opinion on the topic itself, that was accidental. I did say that sometimes non-interested people (like you and I) become "interested" in articles, but in an entirely different manner. We have no COI as to the topic, but over time all people develop attitudes and concepts in which we tend to believe true, and will begin to develop "interest" in the article from that point of view. I don't think that WP:COI has anything to do with that, though WP:NPOV might begin to enter it after some extensive editing. The POV is not COI-driven, but rather becomes the POV the editor develops over time just from repeatedly editing the articles.


 * Another aspect of the COI guideline is its interaction with the Wikipedia policy calling on editors to "assume good faith", WP:AGF. If an editor with a significant conflict of interest fails to disclose it while editing that lessens the assumption of good faith. It's bad faith to edit under false pretenses. While Insider did not generally and immediately disclose his affiliation, he was apparently already known to the "anti" editors and seemed to presume that everyone knew of his entanglements. So even though he didn't make them explicit until later, and even though he repeatedly used his own website as a source without revealing his connection to it, I don't think he was trying to deceive and therefore I continue to assume good faith on his part.


 * In summary, I'm happy to keep working with the "pro" and "anti" editors, and wish that they'd all follow the COI guidelines as written. As you say above, if such editors only added material that was neutral and verifiable then there'd be no need for uninvolved editors like myself to get involved. Unfortunately that is not the case. "NPOV" and "V" are core policies, which guidelines like "COI" only help to implement. When editors who have a COI have shown that they cannot edit neutrally then the guideline becomes operative, as they now have.
 * I agree with your summary very much. And I think that is a good distinction. NPOV and V are policies. The guideline of COI helps to "guide" actions when policies aren't followed as expected. My biggest concern is that WP:COI does not deal with COI in the form that can take place where COI does not fit the current guideline's definition. It leaves a rather large loophole that POV can slip in through, and largely shuts off the ability to root it out. If WP:COI applies to one side of a strongly polarized debate, it should also apply to the opposition view when the opposite side acts in a manner similar to (albeit opposite of) the side with the identified COI.


 * An old essay titled "Writing for the enemy" may be worthwhile reading for both sides. -Will Beback · † · 06:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I will definitely look at it. Thanks.


 * PS: I'd like to draw attention to the very recent example of user:Crocoite, who brought up what he thought were problems with the article while at the same time admitting that he isn't neutral. He asked an uninvolved editor to make the proposed change instead. That's a great example. -Will Beback · † · 06:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Very good idea, and one that more people should emulate.
 * -- Willscrlt (  Talk &middot; Cntrb  ) 08:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

(Likely) Closing thoughts
Hello again. I just wanted to mention that while Will Beback and I appear to have somewhat different views concerning WP:COI (as has come to light in recent discussion concerning that policy on its talk page), I feel that I can remain a fairly neutral mediator on this topic. I do not have to fully agree with a policy or guideline to see its overall wisdom, or to compare actions taken and compare it to the actions the policy or guideline prescribes in a given situation. In other words, just because I think the policy could use revision, does not mean that I cannot fulfill my obligations with this case. Anyway, the point will probably be moot in a few hours, because it does not look like Insider will return to the discussions before the case closes tomorrow. If he does, though, I will be happy to continue mediating the case, unless either party feels I can no longer remain neutral. If so, then I understand, and I we can request a different mediator to continue the discussions.

This has been an interesting first Mediation Cabal case for me. I hope that it was productive for both parties (and the people watching from the outside, too). I know I learned a lot in the process. I think that both parties have made good points along the way. I truly respect Will Beback's patience and commitment to safeguarding and improving Wikipedia. I also respect Insider's desire to see the articles in question be brought to a neutral POV, and I can appreciate his frustration with certain processes. I also admire both parties for seeking to come together and reconcile their differences. I hope that you each feel something good came out of these discussions. I imagine it is a little anticlimactic for the discussions to fizzle out instead of concluding on a happy note. It is for me, at least. But hopefully it will all turn out for the best in the end. Again, I hope that all is well with Insider and his family. Thank you everyone for your participation and decorum. Will and Insider, feel free to add your thoughts, too. -- Willscrlt (  Talk &middot; Cntrb  ) 12:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)