Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause

Questionable
The opinion if such things really should not matter at all is questionable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.59.246.228 (talk) 15:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I also think that there is no particular need to overtry with Nietzsche ideology here. Must be somehow more inside bounds of the sane mind. I understand that three guys cleaning the park are not a good topic for Wikipedia, yet the essay before corrections sounds already so that may scare of contributors 81.62.33.34 (talk) 17:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * See my talk page for more Sas27 (talk) 18:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC).

Taking on new meaning
As the SOPA battle continues, the title and purpose of this essay are taking on new meaning. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I support and supported the blackout, but concede the point made by some, so perhaps this should be moved to Wikipedia articles are not here to tell the world about your noble cause... :-) Mark Hurd (talk) 06:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia not have its own conflict of interest?
As far as I can see the Wikipedia policy is in general that contributors should not be promoting their own causes. That conflict-of-interest issue is easy to understand, as is the idea that the platform is for information rather than promotion. However, I would be glad if someone within the organisation would reflect on what I perceive as the active suppression of all fledgling phenomena, and review the policy accordingly.

Reading between the lines of the various policy texts here on Wikipedia, there seems to be an assumption that anyone simply informing the world through Wikipedia that they or their organisation merely exists, is inherently promoting themselves. But if that were the case, and such principles were applied across the board, half of the pages on Wikipedia would have to be drastically altered or taken down altogether! As it is, a tacit distinction seems to operate by which major organisations or other large societal entities can have their page(s) and the issues are only about what goes on those page(s) - whereas the very existence of one page for an unheard-of organisation is inherently a case of self-promotion and a conflict of interest.

To put some context on this, I am perfectly capable of writing a frank and factual summary of the currently-unheard-of organisation I represent, and would like to do so. Why? Because it is a fact that anyone who finds a Wikipedia page for anything takes that entity more seriously - whereas nothing on Wikipedia obviously has the opposite effect. Additionally, a Wikipedia page helps generate web traffic. Like it or not, Wikipedia is a promotional platform in these senses - regardless of how impartial page content may be. But my immediate concern is that no matter how impartial I am in creating a page, if I include an honest declaration of my involvement with the organisation it will immediately be killed on a conflict-of-interest basis. Would that really be the case? I don't know. But I obviously do not want to make the effort if it is a waste of time. I would like to do it with Wikipedia's blessing and agreement. And as I say, I think Wikipedia ought to review their stance on this whole matter - or at least reword some of the help pages.

It seems to me that the current Wikipedia stance amounts to an effective, albeit accidental, policy that organisations are either too big to be ignored, or too small to matter - something that has a discriminatory conservatism all over it as regards new ideas and initiatives.

In my case, the standard conflict-of-interest scenario simply cannot apply. The organisation I represent is even below the not-for-profit bar and is in fact inherently a loss-making organisation that can never be anything else. It has no income-generating mechanisms at all, and all costs have had to be met privately. Contrast this with the many hugely profitable businesses that have content spread across multiple Wikipedia pages. The question has to be asked if the real conflict of interests here is not about Wikipedia's desire to cater to mass interests rather than deliver comprehensive coverage of all areas of society. The reality is that I simply want to put the facts online as regards my organisation, but it feels as if the set-up sees those intentions as intrinsically a problem.

I really would appreciate a response to this at some point, and I thank you for reading this. As regards the organisation I mention, you can find out pretty well everything there is to know about it very quickly at www.tercare.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnotherPath (talk • contribs) 08:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Hypocritical
Contrast it with the "Wikipedia loves X" campaigns, "Wikipedia hates Y" (bigotry, "nazis", SOPA...). Zezen (talk) 07:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)