Wikipedia:Editor review/Sfacets

Sfacets
I have been editing Wikipedia for some time now, and I would like some feedback on my editing, as well as on my interaction with other editors. How would you rate me as an editor? Constructive criticism welcomed :)  S facets  03:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

 Reviews 

 Comments 


 * View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool.


 * View this user's edit summary usage with mathbot's tool

 Questions


 * 1) Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * I think my contributions to New Religious movement-related articles, both in terms of janitorial work and contributions are where I have beeen most productive.
 * 1) Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * My contributions to Sahaja Yoga (A form of meditation I practice) have been called into question for COI. I see this as a non-issue, since, to my knowledge, editors subscribing to "established religions" have no restrictions to their editing.
 * 1) You appear to employ different standards for different articles. When the topic is Sahaja Yoga, you regularly delete any negative material even when sourced. When the topic is one of a number of other gurus or movements, such as ISKCON, Osho, or Maharishi Mahesh Yogi you appear to insist on retaining negative or controversial material while it's being discussed. Do you feel this behavior shows good faith? Are you willing to  edit in a more neutral manner on religious topics? -Will Beback · † · 00:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) You appear to employ different standards for different articles. When the topic is Sahaja Yoga, you regularly delete any negative material even when sourced. When the topic is one of a number of other gurus or movements, such as ISKCON, Osho, or Maharishi Mahesh Yogi you appear to insist on retaining negative or controversial material while it's being discussed. Do you feel this behavior shows good faith? Are you willing to  edit in a more neutral manner on religious topics? -Will Beback · † · 00:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Dseer Comments:


 * Overall, I think your editing is valuable. I was one of those who raised the apparent COI issue regarding your activity with Sahaja Yoga (I am much less concerned now than when it seemed all critical information was being supressed) but as I intended and I see it, it applies not just to your situation, but equally to all conflict of interests, and regarding religious issues, to all religions including established ones, and also the non-religious, i.e., skeptics/rationalists/atheists. As you probably know, WP:COI states:


 * Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", but if you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when: editing articles related to...your organization, or its competitors.


 * Friedrich Engels would have had difficulty editing the Karl Marx article, because he was a close friend, follower and collaborator of Marx. Any situation where strong relationships can develop may trigger a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest can be personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal. It is not determined by area, but is created by relationships that involve a high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon, a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization.


 * Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it may incline you towards some bias. Be guided by the advice of other editors. If editors on a talk page suggest in good faith that you may have a conflict of interest, take seriously what they say and consider withdrawing from editing the article, and/or working to find and minmize your biases. As a rule of thumb, the more involved you are in a particular area in real life, the more careful you should be to adhere to our core content policies —Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Attribution — when editing in that area.


 * There is no tidy definition of what is meant by "too close" in this context, and editors should use their common sense in deciding whether this guideline applies. An article about a little-known band should preferably not be written by a band member or the manager. On the other hand, an expert on climate change is welcome to contribute to articles on that subject, even if that editor is deeply committed to it. Notice that "too close" does not mean it is impossible to be neutral. It all has to do with the level of bias the person has.


 * Just to clarify, here is what I consistently suggest regarding your type of situation, and I am aware you've been on both sides of this issue in dealing with COI editors on other articles. The disadvantage of working with less established religious movements over more established ones is that there is more general knowledge, history and interest and thus lots more information and more peer reviewed sources for established religions, which makes it easier to find editors across the spectrum, whereas for less established religious movements the editors tend to be more polarized. It is acknowledged that as an advocate you have practical knowledge on the practices and dogma. That is a strength and where your editing is most valuable, because we want to get the organization's message and practices right, and we want to corrrectly frame rebuttals to critical information. I would advise those in your advocacy situation to be sensitive to what makes a good, interesting article in crafting the advocacy portion. Where advocates run into COI problems is when they allow personal beliefs about the validity of criticism to affect or to appear to affect their assessments of critical information and links, when NPOV and ATT both apply. In a sense, those who are more interested in the critical/skeptical case have the same advocacy role in reverse in their limited portion of the article, and this is where their editing is most valuable, because we also want to get the skeptical and critical information right too, but in a concise and interesting manner. The best way to handle this is for each de-facto "advocacy" group, pro and con, to give reasonable lattitude to their respective portions of the article (acknowledging that the bulk of the article will be presenting the position of the group), and to concentrate on that advocacy and their rebuttals of contrary information, rather than trying to over edit or delete the other positions. Thus for example when advocating a critical position, I would point out where controversy over claims exists as opposed to trying to suppress the group's claim itself.


 * In summary, your editing in general, and specifically relative to Sahaja Yoga is valued and desired, just be sensitive to COI implications in being an advocate when dealing with decisions about critical information, and as it says in COI, when dealing with critical information, bounce it off more NPOV editors. COI, IMO, applies equally to all where applicable, including those with a COI on established religions, and not just you. My only other suggestion which most are guilty of to some extent is to be more helpful ot other editors and to discuss more first. --Dseer 17:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)