Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-01 TechCrunch



Mediation Case: TechCrunch
Please observe Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.

Request Information

 * Request made by: Wikidemo 17:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * ...On the talk and main page relating to the well-known technology blog, TechCrunch


 * Who's involved?
 * ...Various Wikipedians who are participating in editing and discussing the article


 * What's going on?
 * ...A low level edit war over what is arguably article vandalism in violation of WP:POINT, Tendentious editing, and Edit war.

In late January, in the aftermath of the flap over Microsoft offering to pay a blogger for Wikipedia edits, a Wikipedian vastly expanded the "criticism" section of the Wikipedia article on TechnCrunch to include a litany of accusations made by third parties that the TechCrunch blog contains editorial bias. The Wikipedian in question is apparently a Microsoft Employee who is upset over what he considers unfair treatment of Microsoft, and admitted on his own blog (as cited in the discussion section of the TechCrunch article) that his edits were done as an "experiment" in creating Wikipedia bias, and to prove a point by example that it is easy to be unfair to companies by spreading disparaging comments about them on Wikipedia entries.

Several others have edited out the disparaging comments but the user keeps reverting them.
 * ''What would you like to change about that?

As an outcome, inflamatory material as a bias / POV issue, and for relevance, warn editor that they risk becoming a bad actor on Wikipedia and possible real-world fallout from vandalizing the site merely to score debating points.

However, I want to achieve that by consensus rather than simply adding my hand to an ongoing edit war. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and I don't know the process short of formal arbitration or abuse reports. This doesn't seem that serious. Maybe some kind of vote? A principled resolution where people agree on whether or not the "criticisms" section is appropriate by consensus rather than contentious editing, and whatever is decided they respect that instead of editing it on and off the page.
 * Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

No need to be discrete. I'm not directly involved in the incident. Might as well do things openly.

Mediator response
Accepting case; Anthony cfc  [ T • C] 23:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Compromise offers
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.

Compromise 1
Further to edit wars on the article in question, TechCrunch (talk), and to the request posted at the bottom of this page, editors are invited on the motion for editors to edit down the criticism section of the article.

An optional extension to this motion could be to set up a "workshop" where editors could propose edits; these edits are only to be implemented when consensus has been determined. With the leave of the editors, I would continue to treat this as a mediation, and would determine consensus, and be permitted to assume consensus under reasonable circumstances; I would also undertake the editing.

Yours, anthony cfc  [ talk] 01:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Compromise 2
Having now read all of the references cited in the criticism section, I would like to change my vote, and move that we delete the entire criticism section. None of it is encyclopedic, in my opinion. From what I can see, all votes on this page now lean towards deletion of the entire criticism section. It's also worth noting that the last disputed edit was over a month ago, so the reverters may have moved on. Thank you Anthony for your care in mediating this issue. Jonathan Stokes 06:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree, but keep a brief mention of the criticism TC has received. Computerjoe 's talk 16:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I made a sample compromise here: User:Jonathan_Stokes/TechCrunch_Compromise. I removed the term "Franchise," deleted nearly the whole criticism section, and added a standard Web Info Box to house that floating logo.  There are a number of other minor typos and inaccuracies I would like to fix in the article, but I don't want to begin editing the live article until we sign off on this mediation.  Jonathan Stokes 19:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * no such claims have ever been verified and most have been disproven sounds POVey. Computerjoe 's talk 19:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Computerjoe. How about now?  User:Jonathan_Stokes/TechCrunch_Compromise.  Jonathan Stokes 21:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems good. Computerjoe 's talk 22:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit implemented - mediation complete. anthony cfc [ talk] 22:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I would like to start by requesting that Wikidemo compile a list of editors involved in the case.


 * Kind regards, Anthony cfc  [ T &bull; C] 23:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

list of editors and history of case
Editors favoring removing the "criticisms" section of the Techcrunch article:
 * For removing the "criticisms" section
 * User:Computerjoe, a long-time wikipedian, initially deleted the derogatory material as vandalism and on  NPOV grounds, citing the editor's admissions that they were an "experiment" (see below).  He | added a POV tag (and re-added it after it had been deleted) after his deletion was reverted.  Also deleted the material in whole or part four more times | here, here, here, and here.
 * User:Geni, a prolific wikipedian, deleted the material after it was reverted.
 * User:Mvent2 changed the POV tag to a POV-section tag.
 * User:Serg3d2 added a | notice that the "criticisms" section was the work of Dare Obasanjo (see below).
 * User:Sven Erixon deleted the material for the third time as unencyclopedic.

Editors for keeping the "criticisms" section:
 * 67.168.165.27, who added the initial criticisms on January 24, 2007. A Microsoft program manager named Dare Obasanjo, who goes by Carnage4Life on various blogs claimed in a blog that day he had made the edits in an admittedly biased way "as an experiment" in Wikipedia's  NPOV policy.
 * 131.107.0.75 reverted the first deletion claiming the material was "relevant."
 * 207.130.90.44 reverted the second deletion] again claiming the material was "relevant."
 * 24.29.83.3 | deleted the mention that Obasanjo had added the material.
 * Blocked user 24.236.237.88 | reverted the material (3rd revert) claiming the previous deletion by User:Sven Erixon was "vandalistic." Later, this user vandalized User:Computerjoe's user page by [replacing most of the talk content with a complaint, and was subsequently blocked for making death threats, apparently in an unrelated matter.
 * 131.107.0.106 reverted material (3rd revert).
 * User:Swdavis67 cleaned up and expanded criticisms section, reverted User:Computerjoe's deletions twice, and added considerably more derogatory material (links here include the work of multiple editors).
 * 71.216.4.36 added some criticism
 * 71.117.4.238 reverted one of User:Computerjoe's deletions.

The derogatory material about the subject of the article was deleted and then reverted seven times in the space of a little over a week and is now in a couple weeks later. The three editors that deleted the material are longtime Wikipedians who have contributed a number of articles. With one exception, those adding or reverting the material are anonymous users. The one exception has few or no other contributions to Wikipedia. I haven't checked to see if the anonymous users are all from the same ISP.

I posted my own opinion in the Talk:TechCrunch section that the derogatory material concerning the article subject whether or not cited and true should be deleted as irrelevant unencyclopedic, POV, vandalism, an experiment to prove a point, etc. But having said that I would prefer to step back and let the parties and a neutral mediator sort things out rather than advocating one way or the other. I'm not an interested party, so nothing I could say would have any legitimacy as a compromise on behalf of the parties involved.

Should I alert the most interested parties User:67.168.165.27, User:Swdavis67, User:Computerjoe, User:Geni, User:Sven Erixon, that there is a mediation in place? I wouldn't know which template to use? Wikidemo 02:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Go right ahead! You could post a manual message, or use my template for MedCabal cases; there is a link in my user page at the bottom under "userspace links", "DR Templates", "MedCabal". Note the usage notes at the bottom.


 * Kind regards, Anthony cfc  [ T &bull; C] 22:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I have alerted those users and IP addresses that had a user page, and also posted to the protagonists' respective blogs. Also added a mediation notice to the main article. I'm going to take a back seat but I've invited them to advocate for their positions if they wish. This controversy has attracted notice in the blogging community if not the mainstream press (see a follow-up I posted in the Talk:TechCrunch page, so some people may be watching for a successful resolution.Wikidemo 03:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * My Vote for Deletion of most of the Criticism Section
 * Hello. I am new to this process, so I'm not sure if I should add discussion here or on Talk:TechCrunch.  Thank you Wikidemo for setting this up, and thank you  Anthony cfc  [ T &bull; C] for moderating.
 * The controversial "Criticism" section relies on blog posts for all of its references. Checking these sources, most seem spurious at best, and not worthy of an encyclopedic reference.  Taking into account that the entire "Criticism" section was openly motivated as an attack against TechCrunch, I would cast a vote for removing at least the 2nd, 5th, and 6th bullet points in the list.  Additionally, the 1st bullet point in the list is irrelevant, or does not belong in a "criticism" section unless I am missing something.
 * Finally, I think the most compelling remarks on this case were posted by Michael Arrington of TechCrunch himself, on Talk:TechCrunch: "The "criticims" are true only in that people wrote them. I do not believe it is accurate to point to unverified blog posts that say we take money for posts, nor do I think it is accurate to point to a ONA link that I have flat out said was an innacurate statement of what occured and which was written by a paid consultant to big media. Finally, the term "franchise" has legal meaning and is inaccurate."
 * Jonathan Stokes 05:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A criticism section is fine - but not when it's almost as long as the article itself! Computerjoe 's talk 11:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I Vote for Deletion
 * "Criticism" section does not satisfy quality standard. Serg3d2 08:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * All wish for deletion? anthony cfc  [ talk] 05:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Anthonycfc, it's looking that way. The last disputed article edit was February 5, and the last talkpage debate edit was January 26.  Things may have cooled off.  Should we proceed with editing down the criticism section?  Jonathan Stokes 19:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

(reduce indent) I'd like to find out; see the compromise section at the top of the page. anthony cfc [ talk] 00:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)