Template talk:Extant organization/Archive 1

• When considering talk page templates, please have the relevant guideline, Wikipedia:Talk page templates, fresh in your mind.

Changes by BigNate37 from Corporate Minion's versions

1. Separated generic instructions from COI instructions, which now appear as something of an addendum. In my mind I see this as a "tips for COI folks" bit. Hopefully it is perceived as a fortuitous hint, rather than a warning.
2. Changed language directed at COI editors: "you are strongly encouraged to use {{request edit}} to suggest improvements" becomes "you should state your issue on this article's talk page and place the {{request edit}} tag with your comments and someone will respond to you shortly." Just because it's not mandatory that they use our {{request edit}} method does not mean we should imply they're allowed to disregard it. They still very much should use this method, and behavioural guidelines are important even though they are not policy per se. I've also tried to be more prescriptive with directions (that is, I tried to say how to do it rather than what to do), so that editors need not follow any links to understand how to use the request edit (RE) system. My goal for templates like this is always to write with the assumption that most editors will not follow any links.
3. Dropped (A) Template:Request edit/COIinstructions and (B) User:Dennis Brown/EASYMONEY links, replacing with (C) Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide link. (A) is overly technical and geared mostly towards editors responding to REs. While there is information useful to RE template users, that information is elsewhere as well. As for the merits of (B) vs. (C), that's a discussion best left unfragmented so I won't state my thoughts here. (Said thoughts are now stated here.)

Features

• Alters wording appropriately for article space versus talk space, which is intended to permit seamless transition to editnotice.
  • TODO: Show an error if used in article space. Implement a "usage=editnotice" parameter to retain wording functionality.
• Provides a new section link for the talk page, as a shortcut for those wishing to RE.
• TODO: preload {{edit COI}} in the new section link.

Potential variations

• Talk template styles include notice, content, delete and speedy. The latter two are probably inappropriate, though.
• Available and appropriate icons include:

• 
• 
• 

• Template:Request_edit is an example of the notice style with the info icon.

Stating issues or discussing suggestions

I don't like the new wording in this edit. Soliciting recommendations and suggestions to me implies that we welcome COI requests for generic article expansion. I don't think we want to ask article subjects to give us additions or expansions for their articles—that's implicitly non-neutral because an article subject is never going to suggest properly weighted and balanced changes. Talk:Ted_Frank#Requested_edits #4 is a great example of this: "Hey, this article hasn't been updated with my new stuff. Here's some great stuff about me. Please add it." Putting this into the RE system isn't ideal. If that stuff wasn't already added, it's because there are no volunteers who care about the subject enough to expand on it. That kind of thing will happen, and so be it, but I do not like the idea of encouraging it. I would much rather that we consistently present the impression that the role of an article subject "is to inform and reference, not promote or sell."

Now, I suppose my familiarity with issue trackers has altered my perception of the connotation of issue, and it may not be the best phrasing. I'm trying to think of an alternate wording that does not sound so solicitous. BigNate37_(T) 18:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

In making these remarks I did some more digging and thinking and I've decided that it's rather unhelpful to have massive, vague requests. If the subject of an article wants to discuss the article, they should not be using the RE system. Requests that take a long time to get resolved generally have that problem because they are large changes that require considerable research, or they are too vague. In this wording change I just made, I replace the solicitous language and try to mark the difference between discussion and specific requests for a change (singular). I've also made it more prescriptive, so as to hopefully encourage more well formed requests. BigNate37_(T) 18:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I would agree (roughly) on both points. Request edits are for specific edit requests, so general issues should go to COIN. Perhaps we should point COIs to COIN as well in the template, if we can do so without getting wordy. FYI for Ted Frank, you should see the new {{edit COI}} templates I worked on with Noun on. You could use {{edit COI|D|S]] to decline it as not specific enough and ask him to use COIN to describe specific problems.

I do think there are certain things that we should actually encourage PR people to do, like share their coverage reports with us (most companies already collect their own list of reliable sources for internal use). But none of these involve request edits except for making overt factual corrections.

I'm still figuring out for myself if there really is a way to do paid editing right. It's tough work to convince clients they need to include those layoffs they had a few years back, the legal controversy they were engrossed in, etc. Since my focus is on ethics, I think most of my business will come from companies that are just good, successful companies. Wikipedia wants "neutral" articles, but neutral is in perspective. An evil company won't get a neutral article, it will be negative. My role is easier working for reputable companies where a positive article is really neutral, because it's simply a good company.

Anyways, I have a COI with the topic of COI, so I try to merely comment and help, but would ultimately leave these kinds of judgements in the hands of someone else. User:Corporate Minion 20:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Spending some time on the AfC Talk page, I saw that their mission was as much about preventing articles from being created as approving ones that meet PAG. I see request edit as the same way - it's as much about preventing spammy content or censorship as it is about approving content that is good. I wonder if there is a compromise like "please consider using {{edit COI}} before editing the page. We don't want to encourage them to swamp Wikipedia with suggested improvements and crud, but we do want to encourage they avoid direct editing per the recommendations on the COI guideline. Thoughts? User:Corporate Minion 20:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Perhaps that is a better course, instead of working towards getting more COI editors to use the RE system (and use it properly), rather to focus on making uses of the RE system conform. That would have a twofold effect: less adept editors would carry on as before, editing and generally causing COI issues, and the RE system would be easier for volunteers to manage and response time would improve as a result. Hypothetically, If that works well enough it could gain popular use through its propensity for results rather than because we're pushing it. BigNate37_(T) 22:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

As far as doing paid editing right... well. On one end of the Web 2.0 advertising spectrum you have insidious spamming and whitewash/link insertion, things like anonymous editors inserting external links on Wikipedia and gaming the system to try and keep their links present as long as possible. It's akin to spammers in massively multiplayer online games—they know their information has a short lifespan, but the nature of removing it means that the lifespan is always greater than zero. On the other end of the spectrum you have good-faith editors disclosing their conflicts of interest and taking a generally hands-off approach to effecting desired changes. It's hard for me to see value in that, because the whole point of Wikipedia is that everyone else is free to stop by and reassert the naked truth. The only scenario where I believe the subject of an article can get value for their money by contracting an editor is when the article is simply lacking relevant content. One could in theory commission an editor to write about one's interests, like if I commissioned you to write about roleplaying game mechanics. That's safer paid-editing territory, because the public image concern disappears, I just have a benevolent desire for a topic to be better-understood. Not very relevant to the PR issues at hand, though. BigNate37_(T) 22:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it hurts matters to be polite, so I'd suggest changing "Report disruptive..." to "Please report disruptive...". Otherwise it comes across as too bossy. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 00:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Good point - done. User:Corporate Minion 02:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Title?

One other random thought. Do you think it needs some kind of a header to grab the reader's attention? Like "Conflict of interest" in bigger letters at the top of the template. User:Corporate Minion 20:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be common practice for Wikipedia:Talk page templates. That's not to say it can't have one (as far as I know), but personally I don't see justification to buck the trend here. I'm comfortable with the use of boldfaced text for setting the tone of each paragraph. It's not an issue I'm particularly firm on. BigNate37_(T) 21:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Meh, works for me. User:Corporate Minion 22:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

RFC

Posted on RFC here

One more idea

One of the complaints I have heard is that some Wikipedia editors have pro-actively tried to contact companies and it seems impossible to open a dialogue. I wonder if we should add something like "The PR contact for this company is <insert here>" to encourage a PR person to identify themselves as a resource on the Talk page. User:Corporate Minion 15:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

That may be of value. Something like Template:Shared IP springs to mind, but I'm not sure whether it makes the most sense as a part of this template itself. If/when I have a more substantial opinion, I'll revisit this comment. BigNate37_(T) 19:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Declaration of intent to move

Well I haven't seen any opposition to this since the Village Pump discussion where an objection to the edit notice version was made. I'd like to move this to Template:extant organization and distill all the discussion so far (here/my talk page/RfC/VP) into some template documentation, perhaps even in the next day or two. After that it will be considered deployable, though we've still yet to discuss whether it would be disruptive to slap this on every relevant article or whether it should selectively be rolled out to problem articles first (I could see a need for sign tapping after it's first rolled out). This is your last chance for objections, everyone. BigNate37_(T) 17:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• I have asked SlimVirgin to comment. Since she was involved with the inception of {{BLP}}, if there are any obvious issues with what we're doing, she would be the one to know. BigNate37_(T) 22:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Nathan, it looks fine to me. The only thing I'd suggest is making clear to people in the last sentence what the guideline is. So I would write something like: "You may also wish to read the governing guideline at Conflict of interest guideline, and an information page at plain and simple conflict of interest guide." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Wording changes to second half

I'm not really fond of these changes. Particularly, I made a point of trying to avoid conflating edit requests with discussion and suggestions. Now these separate remedies are listed without much distinction between the two of them, and my concern is reinforcing the problem of abuse of the edit request system. 90% of the requests I've seen (including protected and semi-protected page edits) deserve to be declined simply because the tag was affixed to a suggestion, rather than a request for a specific change to the article. I was even admonished once for answering a request with "please state your changes in an X to Y format" by an editor who implied that I should be doing the leg work if someone slaps a request tag on a suggestion. It's a bad attitude that I do not want to perpetuate. BigNate37_(T) 16:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I'm looking over it again - the original was better and I reverted it back to that.

PS - If you feel some of my personal request edits should be declined, I would take no offense ;-)

User:Corporate Minion 21:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Experiment

As an experiment I added the draft template to the Talk page of Credit Suisse. I noticed that the template added the Talk page to a category on Extant organizations, rather than the actual Credit Suisse page. User:Corporate Minion 19:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

and I have removed it agaijn. As currently worded, I object to it being used on the talk page of any actual article. DES ^(talk) 17:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Then the experiment worked. User:Corporate Minion 18:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

What is the value?

What is the value of this template? As written ("An extant organization may be materially affected by the contents of this page. ") It should apply to every article about an extant organization or a person affiliated with such an organization, and many others as well. Is it the intent to place this template only on articles where there has actually been COI editing in the past? if not, what is to be the criterion? In any case, the template wording should be changed to reflect such a criterion. DES ^(talk) 17:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm... the template is meant both to caution editors to be more careful about adding contentious or controversial material and to give advice to COIs - addressing bias in both directions from both positions (volunteer and COI). I wonder if we shouldn't tweak it to specifically say to "use caution when adding contentious or controversial material." I agree with DES that it is obvious and universal that every Wikipedia article has an impact on something, such as health articles, law, etc. - readers rely on it for information. User:Corporate Minion 18:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

we need fewer prewritten templates and more personal discussions. We should be removing many of the ones we have, not creating new ones. There is no way to handle sensitive issues with bureaucratic forms. Especially in an area where policy & guidelines have not yet crystallized, it is preemptory to start using templates, which inevitably carry a implication of authority. There is nothing here different from Wikipedia articles in general--the model of BLP policy is not applicable. We owe a degree of caution with any subject, but the extent of our politeness with organizations is not quite the same as the possibility of insult or harm to an actual living person. As I see it, BLP policy was meant as an exception to our manner of editing, because of a very few actual unfortunate examples. It represents a deviation from good practice, which should be focused on the general principles of NPOV, not the social effects of our edits. I know that for purposes of US law corporations are regarded as people. I have my own view of the motivation and result of that decision from the mid-19th century, but in any case we are not trying to imitate a legal system here. We are not here primarily to resolve disputes, but to build content. I have great respect for Corporate Minion and what he is trying to do, but I think he's following the wrong models. If we must have it, I think something very simple and compact, wording everything as a suggestion, and the minimal use of color, might help. (as for all templates) DGG ( talk ) 23:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Indeed I think that the BLP system, at least to the extent it has gone, was and is a mistake, and I objected to it when it was proposed. (It leads to verifiable negative information being self-censored from articles far too often, in my view.) We surely do not need another similar special system for corp and org articles, in my view. We do need to be careful on all articles, and perhaps corporation articles are more prone to spin, paid advocates, and COI editing. Perhaps we should do something to make editors aware of that. I'm not sure if any template should be used for that purpose, but surely not this one as currently written. DES ^(talk) 23:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Several people suggested BLP-like policies for companies during the CREWE news-wave, but I see the idea does not have as much support as I imagined. I did suggest an essay that merely reinforces a communal understanding of how pre-existing NPOV policies apply to corporations. For example, I think when we present all views on an issue, we rationalize excuses to exclude the company's point of view on controversial issues where they are involved. Current NPOV policies are adequate when followed.

Back to the template, I took a crack at making it COI-only and not addressing any need for hesitation in covering controversial or contentious areas. User:Corporate Minion 06:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

From what you say above, I think you are still focussed on trying to address the specific problem of how a company or organization should respond when excessive emphasis is placed on contentious or negative material. Such material is a problem, because there is a continuum from individual consumer complaints, which do not belong here, to major ethical and financial failures, which can in some cases be an appropriate subject for extensive coverage in an article, or even a separate article. It probably is safer in such cases for the company's representative to ask someone else to evaluate the situation and make the change. For normal editing it should not be necessary. Perhaps we should more proactively suggest OTRS. At OTRS we emphasize the inability of the OTRS volunteers to act definitively on content, but this is to some degree just a self-protective disclaimer--in practice we are able to to do it very well, and usually do--including a referral to legal when necessary. It is very hard to get a concise wording for something inherently a matter of discretion and judgement, but I will have a try. DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I did make a slight change in the template to avoid implying it was the only way to do it. DGG ( talk ) 14:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)