User talk:Willscrlt/MEDCAB/Cases/2006-12-28 Insider201283 and Will Beback re Alticor, Amway, Quixtar issues/Archive 2

Insider201283
Now, as to the actual issue, in many ways it is related to Will rather than the articles per se. I have a declared interest, but in many ways it's at a greater distance than is normally considered under WP:COI. I make no money from Quixtar. I make no money from Network TwentyOne. I have for various reasons actually been inactive as an Amway IBO for quite a number of years which has allowed me to step back and truly research the area. My background is in both IT and as a research academic in sociological fields. I am honestly interested in developing factual, encyclopedic articles about Amway and Quixtar for Wikipedia. In my researching of the area what I've actually discovered is that such articles would actually show the companies in a very good light. There is little you can show me that I have not read about these companies - the good, the bad, the ugly. And what I have found, particularly in terms of the internet, is that there has been a small cadre of very vocal people promoting the "bad". Amway/Quixtar themselves took a strategic decision some years back to essentially ignore them, hoping they'd go away. This is something they've recently admitted was a mistake. Furthermore, in the past they actively stopped folk like myself from setting up websites to give another side of the story - there was concern about spamming/advertising/etc, which goes against the grain of the business model. The end result being that many issues started to be publicised with no balance being offered, and folk with an axe to grind, both legitimately and otherwise, or having other vested interests have been able to make various claims and they've been repeated and repeated such that argumentum ad numerum has become standard fare - people think stuff is true because it's repeated enough. What's worse is journalists repeat it and suddenly it's considered "true" by standard wikipedian practice. What's perhaps worse is when issues are true, but they are blown considerably out of proportion or over-generalized.

''I hope you do not mind, but I am going to address things as they come up as I read them. This is fairly stream of consciousness commenting, so I may even contradict myself as I go along. I am processing the information at this time, not making any judgment calls or recommendations. This is only the start of the process, so nobody is winning or losing ground.'' --Willscrlt (Talk|Cntrb ) 02:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "in many ways it is related to Will rather than the articles per se"
 * As I stated in my opening above and elsewhere, I cannot help you if your concern is with the person himself. I can only help if the issue is with Will's actions (or conversely, your actions) or the content or proposed content within the articles in question. Please remember the basic rule: discuss the article, not the editor.
 * "I make no money from Quixtar."
 * Carefully reading WP:COI, I noticed that I have to scroll a fair ways down before financial is even mentioned in the discussion of COI. When it is mentioned, it pretty much states flat-out that if you make money from it, don't even bother editing. Given that attitude, I'd say that it's a good thing you do not make money from these companies, and that the rest of WP:COI probably deserves a little more consideration than you may have been giving it previously.
 * "Network TwentyOne"
 * This is an unfamiliar term to me. If it is likely to come up again, please explain. Otherwise, I will assume it is some type of money making venture, independent or otherwise, somewhere under the Alticor umbrella.
 * Paraphrasing: "There's a lot of misinformation out there, and I am trying to set things right for the good of everyone."
 * While a noble effort, this sounds very much like "campaigning" in COI.
 * On the other hand, your specialized knowledge does help you to quickly spot information that is inaccurate or misleading, which could help to improve the overall quality of the articles. COI recognizes that special ability, but has some pretty specific things to say about how someone with that knowledge should use it to avoid the appearance of "campaigning".
 * "blown considerably out of proportion or over-generalized"
 * Having been involved with Amway and other MLMs, I can relate totally with that statement. This is not a new problem, but one that has faced Amway since before its pyramid scheme court battles. Tiny advances in respectability in the media, followed by a tiny stumble on which the media immediately pounces. Remember the apparent mantra of mass media: good news is a column, but bad news is front page material.

My issue with Will is that as an admin he does have IMO a greater duty of care to act in a non-biased fashion. It's clear to me that he has not being doing that (though I think since I registered this mediation quest it has improved). Will has been challenging virtually any edit in support of A/Q that does not have absolutely rock-solid sources, but rarely challenges the sourcing of "negative" edits and has even made some himself from blatantly invalid sources. Whether this is from a personal bias against the business or business model or just because he is believing the "echo chamber", I don't know. The end result is that he is supporting edits and resulting articles that are in places wildly unbalanced. Now, I think the Quixtar article as it stands is pretty much fine, but that has IMO only come about because I have been actively involved in editing it and challenging it and it's sources. Since then Will instructed me to stop editing these articles because of my perceived (and acknowledged) potential COI. I would note however there have been little in the way of actual challenges to my editing or sourcing. A PDF of a letter from the FTC was challenged purely on the basis that it was hosted on my site, not because of it's actual validity. Similarly with a video clip. In contrast, Will added a section about a lawsuit regarding copyright infringement between Amway and the RIAA and used a known biased critic's own CV on his own self-published website as a source! Not even close to being valid material.


 * "he does have ... a greater duty ... to act in a non-biased fashion"
 * Parts of COI would tend to support that statement inasmuch as he is prevented from using his administrative features to block users from editing. Administrators "are active and regular Wikipedians who have access to technical features that help with maintenance." "They do not have any direct involvement in the ["essential housekeeping chores"] they are helping people with." Aside from that, admins are held to the same standards as other editors. The perception of administrators being held to a higher standard is real, but not policy except with respect to performing administrative duties. If Will_Beback is abusing his "housekeeping" functions of blocking or page protecting, then that is probably a matter for formal complaints. If Will is essentially just acting as any other editor with a different opinion of the value of your edits and actions, then the fact that Will is an admin really doesn't seem to have much bearing in this case.
 * "challenging virtually any edit in support ... rarely challenges the sourcing of negative..."
 * After we get the issues out into the open, we can start looking article by article the types of edits that have been made, and address any intentional or accidental POV that is introduced at that time. If what you say turns out to be the case, then it does seem rather one-sided and unfair. On the other hand, this may be more perception than reality. Let's just put that on the back burner for a little while.
 * "because I have been actively involved in editing it and challenging it and it's sources."
 * Guess what? You just paraphrased WP:COI as to how someone with your specialized knowledge is supposed to interact with such an article (though I read COI as saying most editing debates should be hashed out in Talk, and once deemed acceptable, then moved complete into the article). That is a very good sign that we can come to some mutual agreement here.
 * Re: sources
 * Believe me, it's not just these articles. I am still astounded by what some people object to as valid sources and what the same people will let slide by. I don't know whether it is because they just pick and choose the battles to fight, or if there is some deeper reasoning. We might want to draft up some guidelines concerning sources that are mutually agreeable with all the editors of the articles, and add that as a policy within that grouping of pages. We have done that in the List of cocktails (which is now becoming a full-fledged Style Manual for all the mixed drink articles). It has helped a lot. Wikipedia's guidelines are deliberately broad to encompass as many possibilities as possible. But if the need arises, and with the consensus of everyone actively editing the articles (not just the three of us), it sometimes makes sense to be a little more specific to avoid problems like this. Different topics have different quirks, and it sounds like sourcing might need to be handled a little more carefully here than elsewhere. Or at least the sourcing criteria needs to be more consistently applied.

This particular case is a classic example of the internet echo chamber - because if you search for Amway and RIAA you will find thousands of sites about it and how Amway settled for millions. I always thought what those sites said was the whole story. But when I started researching after starting my time here on wikipedia, I discovered that in a subsequent lawsuit the courts found that neither Amway or the Amway distributors involved were in any way to blame for the infringement. But until I found that information and included it on wikipedia - good luck for anyone to find it anywhere! Thousands of pages have been published giving a one sided and highly misleading view, and this one sided view misleading view made it's way to Wikipedia. Similarly you'll read on places like snopes.com (and wikipedia) that Amway distributors were successfully sued by P&G for libel regarding satanism claims. Except it's not true - as of right now, P&G has not successfully sued either Amway or any Amway distributors. Another falsehood accepted as fact thanks primarily to the Internet Echo Chamber. Just this week somebody is claiming that "the 70% rule" and "10 customer rule" have to be addressed in the quixtar article because they were integral to Amway being found not a pyramid in FTC v Amway, and it is often claimed that this crucial to whether something is an illegal pyramid or not. Except that's not true either. It's another internet echo chamber myth. I've found that even A/Q staff believe this! When I dug up the original cases I find it's not what the court said at all. Again and again myths becoming accepted as fact because they are repeated enough. One Amway critic Will considers an acceptable source, Robert Fitzpatick of Pyramid Scheme Alert, has pages on his site that are completely and demonstrably false (eg claiming the existence of a "70% retail sales rule" for Amway and MLMs - there is and never has been any such thing). Just because folk shout the loudest doesn't make them reliable sources. I'm slowly addressing a lot of these myths on my site, but unlike folk like Hassan, Ross, and Fitzpatrick I'm not getting myself on talk shows and trying to sell books, so I'm not an acceptable source.


 * "so I'm not an acceptable source"
 * In order to write whatever you place onto your website, don't you track down reliable sources and then consolidate that information into whatever you write? If so, couldn't you cite the original "reliable sources" that you used, instead of putting your own unacceptable site as a source? I mean, common sense says that if you have found "the truth" about these things, then you did so from someplace reliable. Just pass the information along with the original source. That avoids any appearance of COI by promoting your own website and avoids and claims of original research.

In recent weeks I've generally respected Will's request for me not to edit articles directly, instead I've been pointing out the issues in Talk. But I'm finding they're often being ignored. The Amway article is still terribly unbalanced and terribly sourced. The websites of Rick Ross and Steven Hassan, two self-described "cult experts" should not be acceptable sources. Will claimed Steven Hassan was accepted as an "expert witness" on cults by Congress, so that's good enough for wikipedia, and the fact they've bee used as sources elsewhere on Wikipedia makes them acceptable. So I went and checked it out. It's on wikipedia, must be true! But it's not sourced. What appears to be the ultimate source for that claim? Steven Hassan. He was called before congress when he was 24 or 25 and only a year or so out of the Unification Church. He was no "expert" on "cults". He was an expert on his experiences with the Unification Church. I have supplied Will with both academic and journalistic sources discrediting these so-called "cult experts". He ignored them and considers them valid sources. The internet echo chamber supports him.


 * "I'm finding they're often being ignored"
 * I'm pretty sure that there is no policy or guideline on Wikipedia that says that other editors must implement every suggestion offered by other users. ;-) Wikipedia is an unusual sort of democracy. Some of Wikipedia's critics even site the situation you describe as being one of the primary reasons that Wikipedia will ultimately fail. A small, aggressive group of editors can effectively keep a specific POV in an article by shutting out, drowning out, or ignoring the tiny voices attempting to remove the POV. Eventually, the NPOV people get frustrated and leave, and the article remains safely POV. Is that happening here? I don't know. We will have to look on a article-by-article basis. Bear in mind that the people attempting to remove the POV may be attempting to replace one POV with another. The proponents of Wikipedia feel that community editing will eventually wrestle any POVs into NPOV after enough consideration. Let's hope so.
 * I am not familiar with any of these people or the cases. It will be interesting to look into this more when we look at the Amway article.

Over the years there has likely been in excess of 10 million people involved with Amway or Quixtar in the US alone. Some of those people have, in my mind, run their businesses in ways that might be considered cult-like. Some of them have undoubtedly been crooks and liars. Yes, some are even rabid evangelicals and extremely right-wing republicans. I don't like any of that. I'm a progressive and a secular humanist. And I've never had a problem with these things in Amway. Never encountered anything remotely cult-like. Never encountered any religious or political proselytizing. Never been scammed or lied to or "forced" to do anything. There's been nothing but positives in my experience. It doesn't mean others haven't - what it means is it's not Amway - it's whatever group/organisation/sponsor they've been dealing with. This is a fundamental issue about Amway that even people involved for years don't always seem to grasp. Given the tens of millions of people who have been involved with Amway around the world over the years, the number of complaints/issues/whatever that have arisen is tiny, an issue I address here, it really is.


 * "Never encountered anything remotely cult-like."
 * I wouldn't describe some of our experiences as being "cult-like", but there was definitely a lot of putting our Crown Ambassadors and Double Diamonds up on sky high pedestals, toadying, and treating them like royalty. The other extreme of looking down on anyone who was not up to standards was also present. It instilled feelings that could be similar to many types of organizations, from cults, to fraternities, to big business. I imagine, however, that Amway being so big and diverse, that was only one situation. There are probably many others where that is not the case, and probably some where it was even worse. The corporation never appeared to endorse that behavior, nor did it condone it (with some high profile people being expelled from the company for such behavior).
 * All personal stories aside, we need to focus on the facts that are important to the Joe Average reader here. 1) Have there ever been allegations of cult-like behavior within these companies? (Allegations, I believe yes.) 2) Were there ever any charges filed? 3) If so, what was the outcome? -- All of these are important within the scope of the articles. As COI points out, the good and the bad of the company are important to present a fair and balanced article. It is perfectly correct to include commonly quoted misinformation (if done in an encyclopedic fashion) and the correct information that refutes it. If the information cannot be adequately verified, and it is negative, some policy (and it might only apply to biographies) states it should be omitted to avoid defamation/libel/slander/whatever. If information is found from reliable sources supporting both sides of the issue, mention that and explain the conflicting views in NPOV fashion. Not everything in life is black and white, and there can be cases where two conflicting statements are both convincingly argued (look at how long Global Warming took to gain general acceptance). In court cases, two expert witnesses are sometimes called to testify exactly the opposite of each other given the same evidence. In those cases, both sides are presented, and the jury (reader in this case) is left to draw his or her own opinion. We have been fair and represented both sides in a balanced manner, and that might be the best we can hope for here.

I quote from Neutral Point of View - ''From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the mailing list: * If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; * If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; * If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.''

As I say on my talk page, businesses like network marketing have a fundamental problem with wikipedia. Virtually by definition, anyone who can bring knowledgeable balance to an article is not supposed to do so, and the "vastly limited" minority that Jimbo Wales talks about above are allowed to magnify and give credibility to their viewpoint to an even greater audience with virtual impunity.


 * Yup. But it doesn't mean you curl up in a corner and stop trying. It also means that you have to respect the structure of the beast and pick and choose the battles. Maybe completely removing what you see as negative POV is impossible in such an environment. Maybe the better battle is to find an equally compelling and authoritatively sourced counter statement and try to get it included, again, leaving it to the readers to draw their own conclusions. This may not be as satisfying, but in the long run, it might be more fair. Or at least more realistic. Please remember I am responding to the statement you made in a general way. We aren't (yet) looking at the articles in question, so don't lose hope in the mediation process. :-)

So, in conclusion what I'd like out of this mediation is for Will Beback to either (a) acknowledge he has a conscious or subconscious bias against the subjects of the topics and this is influencing his actions as both an editor and admin on these topics and/or (b) acknowledge the issues I raise above and on my talk page and that extreme care has to be taken with both accurate and fair sourcing and appropriate balance for these topics. I'd also like for him to agree, in light of the kind of problems I've pointed out, to me again directly editing the articles again as I fit. I of course acknowledge that given my known POV I have to be extremely conscious of WP:RS and WP:NPOV. I feel that apart from a few edits as a "newbie" I have generally done so.


 * Thank you for stating so clearly what your goals are for this mediation. However, I think it is too early to tell if Will has such a bias, or if he has just grown frustrated with an edit history from you that has created an editing environment for you that gives that impression. Likewise, I think it is too early in the discussion to tell if he has been abusing his admin or editorial privileges or not. When we start looking through the articles in question, we can also examine specific edit histories and see if there was any abuse by either party (you may not be an admin, but you are an editor with responsibilities, too), not to blame each other, but to identify the incorrect behavior so that it can be avoided in the future.

Thanks again for your time, Will #2! --Insider201283 23:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've never been comfortable being #2 in anything. :-) Let's just leave it Willscrlt if you don't mind. (Will is my real name, so it's a little confusing to see the two names like this.)
 * I appreciate your considered response, but I truly hope that you can be happy with reaching decisions that focus on actions and edits, and not on the person involved. Likewise, I think it might be unfair to expect any kind of apology from the other party (though I'm sure one would be appreciated if improper actions did occur). I think the more important thing is that the two of you, and the rest of the editors involved in these articles find a workable solution with which everyone is comfortable. Reducing stress is an important thing for everyone's health, and hopefully we can find a way to do that. --Willscrlt (Talk|Cntrb ) 02:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Will_Beback
I don't see any content issues that require mediation. We are doing a fine job of discussing matters on the various article talk pages.
 * Insider appears to feel differently. I do not think that a review of the articles in question and probably some of the more contentious actions taken by both parties would be out of line here.

My concerns with user:Insider201283 is the fact that he has a serious conflict of interest. He admitted that he is an Amway IBO, that he attends Network 21 meetings, and that he runs a large website devoted to defending those companies. He only admitted to owning the website months after joining Wikipedia, after adding links to the site dozens of times, and after demanding the removal of other one-person POV sites. Outside of Wikipedia he is apparently a very energetic blogger, commenter, and forum poster on these topics. In sum, this is both a source of income and a hobby. Insider201283 has never shown any interest in making the articles more NPOV; just the opposite, he has only shown interest in pushing the "pro" POV.


 * "he has only shown interest in pushing the "pro" POV"
 * Insider appears to feel his interest is in setting the facts straight, which may look very pro due to the alleged negativity existing currently within the articles in question. If such allegations were to be true (and I haven't looked enough to form any opinion of my own), then realistically, almost any edit that attempts to bring the article to a more NPOV would appear to be an off-center POV. It all depends on where the article currently sits to the side of center and how far Insider is attempting to tip it.

The Wikipedia guideline on economic conflicts of interest is very clear. WP:COI. (emphasis in original)


 * In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a clear conflict of interest, or where such a conflict can or might be justifiably assumed based on the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. Of special concern are organisational conflicts of interest.
 * If you have a conflict of interest, you should:
 * avoid editing articles related to your organization or its competitors;
 * avoid participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
 * avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your corporation in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).


 * Content-related Conflict of Interest - If you feel it necessary to make changes to Wikipedia articles despite a real or perceived conflict of interest, we strongly encourage you to submit content for community review on the article's talk page or file a Request for Comment to the wider community, and to let one or more trusted community members judge whether the material belongs in Wikipedia.
 * As Wikipedians and encyclopedists, our job is to put the interests of the encyclopedia first. Anyone who prioritizes outside interests over the interests of the encyclopedia may be subject to a conflict of interest.


 * Noted. I have addressed concerns about COI in my inline comments above. I also pointed out that because of his specialist knowledge, he generally shouldn't be editing directly, but working within the talk pages to bring up valid points, achieve consensus, and then the active editors work together to create a mutually agreeable (or maybe "least disagreeable" is a better term) version of the article.

This guideline calls on editors who have an economic or other conflict of interest to avoid editing directly the articles in which they have a conflict. Since it was pointed out to Insider201283 he has shown disinterest in following it. He has disputed or ignored his conflict, his interest, his POV editing, and his numerous additions of links to his own website. At one point he asked me to provide proof of these and when I posted several dozen he said I was "disingenuous" and that he couldn't be bothered to look at more than the first six.


 * I suggested that a clear policy regarding valid sources and proper citations might be desirable for this group of articles, and since both of you feel strongly about this issue, I definitely think it would be wise to spend some time discussing which sources are "good", "weak", "poor", and entirely "unacceptable" within the context of these articles. It sounds like these may differ a bit from the standards Wikipedia applies in general, because the general guidelines do not seem to be working effectively here.

As a result of this mediation I would hope that Insider201283 acknowledges he has a duty to edit in a neutral manner, that he has a conflict of interest in related to Alticor businesses, and that WP:COI applies to him. There are other ways of improving articles besides editing them directly, such as calling and participating in RfCs, that he has not used. -Will Beback · † · 01:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "has a conflict of interest"
 * He has done so in his statement above, though he appears to believe that since he claims not to be making money from the business at present, COI applies less stringently to him. My understanding of COI after reading it very carefully is a little different. I see it as applying precisely to him, but if he were to be making money, then any type of editing would be all but forbidden. That may be a bit stronger than COI if phrased, but I'm trying to make clear the distinction here. COI appears to be more about non-financial conflicts, because financial ones are obvious, and these others do not always feel like conflicts to the parties involved. I think that might be where Insider is coming from mentally.
 * "other ways of improving articles"
 * I was thinking of the same sort of thing. Not specifically WP:RfC, but more along the lines of a peer review or something that gets a lot of people to take a look at the article and work together to improve it.
 * I am sure that one of Insider's concerns will be that we will primarily receive "Echo Chamber"-based improvements, and I agree that that is a concern for me, too. I look at List of cocktails as a good example of what can happen when people don't really know a lot about a topic, but put in their two cents of editing. You end up with a big fat mess full of unrelated, fictitious, and unreferenced material that still has to be cleaned up. That was how the list was when I started working on it. I'd hope that a more formal process, such as RfC or Peer Review would be a true improvement, but I can certainly see where it might also do more damage than improvement if the participants come in with a lot of strong opinions.

Willscrlt's responses to Round 1 responses

 * How many active editors, besides you two, are repeatedly and actively involved? Where do their POVs lie? Is Insider the lonely voice of "Pro" and Will the only voice of "Con" in these edits?
 * Can we try a mini peer review of the articles, working through them one at a time, and seeing what is in each article, how each "feels" (POV pro, POV con, NPOV), look at all the citations and evaluate their quality (and locate better ones for any that are substandard), and then create a task list to help improve the weaknesses within the articles after thoroughly discussing it on the talk pages. Then we move on to the next article, and so on. By doing that, we should end up with a fairly well balanced set of articles. We can also create (but only if really necessary) mini policies that apply to the set of articles that deal with situations unique to the topics. Then, once we think we have a pretty nice set of articles, we open it up to outside review. Insider should not have many concerns at that point, because all "pro" information will be properly cited and Wiki policies are pretty clear about not removing well documented information to advance one view over another.
 * I do not know if it is possible, proper, or right, but it would be nice to divert any new edits to the talk pagewhile such review is in effect (only on the one article at a time being reviewed). It would give us a stable source from which to edit, and it might help bring others into the discussion that would otherwise just edit and run. I know this was done with Chile after a lot of contentious editing took place. I do not think that Will_Beback should be the one to make such a page protection just in case this ever proceeds to a more formal resolution method—I don't want to see him being accused of inappropriate administrative power usage when it was a joint decision. If we can't easily convince another non-involved admin to take such an action, it's probably not a wise action to take anyway. (At least that's been my experience at Wikipedia so far.)

So, what do you two think? Does this sound like a productive way to proceed? Can we get beyond the personalities involved and focus on the articles and the actions instead? Can we all agree (mostly directed at Insider) that there are clear cases of WP:COI present, and probably a fair amount of WP:AGF that has been lost along the way? Can we agree to work in good faith to overcome the challenges of the past and come up with creative and productive ways to improve the situation?

Or do you both want to grump at each other and expect the other to budge first? ;-)

I personally don't think either of you need to "budge" at all. I think we just need to strike out on a totally different path, and just leave dusty and musty past problems in the past where they belong.

--Willscrlt (Talk|Cntrb ) 02:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What's the appropriate format for responding here? --Insider201283 10:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I don't know. This is my first one, so I'm kind of making it up as I go along. :-) I want to keep things light and friendly, but make sure that everyone gets a chance to speak and to be sure that every side is heard.
 * If you don't mind, why don't we start a round #2 of responses with new sections where each person can respond to previous statements similar to how I did above. Quote what you are responding to, then put your response in bullet form on the next line. Before the quotation, use initials of IN (Insider), WB (Will_Beback), or WS (Willscrlt) to identify who said the quoted material. I think that could work. See notes within the source for an example.
 * If you have a better suggestion, I'm open to other ideas, as long as they are (1) readable without getting terribly confused as to who said what and to whom, and (2) it is easy to scroll around the page to refer to various parts and then find your way back to where you were originally. As long as those two things are fine, then I'm agreeable. --Willscrlt (Talk|Cntrb ) 17:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)