Boot minor

Flickr COI

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that "a group with direct personal connections to Flickr staff who had received financial inducements to attempt to control the user reaction. [1] At least one of this group has been extremely active here in editing this article section." (that link is just an unrelated comment, and a lower "seem to have been bought and paid for" comment links to a locked iPernity gallery) but if you suspect that there is a conflict of interest or some paid advocacy going on, this is serious stuff and you should raise this clearly with the user rather than giving an enigmatic "one of us here in this drawing room is... the murderer" that casts an aspersion on everybody. (You should be careful to avoid outing them by name, as this is against policy, but politely questioning another editor's possible conflict of interest is fine.) --McGeddon (talk) 10:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you McGeddon for the helpful advice. I will attempt to follow it.Boot minor (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Geeze it's not much of a mystery, my username is the same on both sites. Anonymity be damned. I like Flickr. But beyond that, your bizarre implication that I've somehow been bought off is not so much offensive as it is laughable. In addition to being false and slanderous or libelous (can't remember which is which), it also clearly violates Wikipedia rules. Regardless, the whole article is a bit of a joke at this point and silly, which is why I haven't made any edits in weeks. In the meantime, enjoy your time on Wikipedia and try not to let your paranoia consume you.

The above post is unsigned and I am quite happy that it remains so. I have no wish to cast aspersions on everyone in the room; pace McGeddon. I do hope that I haven't libelled anyone. Boot minor (talk) 14:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually Boot Minor, it's not wrong to raise a question of COI, you can only suspect, and your suspect is valid considering Jakerome's vehement behaviour in attempting to remove the Flickr controversy. CaffeinAddict (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer not to comment further, not because I cannot "put up", but because it would seem to me to be unseemly here in the context of WP. However I see that I need to clarify what I have said in order to avoid confusion. I made a veiled comment originally that one of the editors of the WP Flickr Controversy section was also a member of a group of contributors to the Flickr Help Forum, which group had direct personal connections to Flickr staff and had received financial inducements to control the user reaction. And I posted a link to a post on the Flickr Help Forum where that group had been exposed.

It was pointed out to me that leaving such an obscure remark left all editors of the section under suspicion, and that I should follow a WP procedure. Accordingly I raised the issue directly with the editor concerned. Perhaps my original remark was an inelegant sentence that might not have been totally clear, so I wrote carefully when I raised the matter with that editor. I said that perhaps he should not be involved in editing this WP article, because I believed he had

".....personal connections with employees of this web site (i.e. Flickr), and/or a group of people who have received benefits in cash or kind to pose as ordinary customers of this web site's services (i.e. Flickr's) for the purposes of attempting to stifle expression of dissent amongst the bona fide customers."

It does occur to me that more might be read into what I have said than the facts warrant. That would not be fair, so I will be as explicit as I can be without outing anyone.

Amongst the users of Flickr there are a group who have a tight relationship online with each other. They are very active throughout the Flickr site in verbally stamping on anyone who criticises Flickr. Following the 20/05 changes this group has been particularly active in dismissing and ridiculing anyone who complained on the Flickr Help Forum. Inevitably other contributors began to smell a rat. There were suggestions that this group were staff in disguise, or were stooges planted by Flickr to denigrate anyone with a complaint. This was vigorously denied by those concerned. Then official notices appeared from Flickr', denying that there was any such group of employees in disguise, saying that those suggesting such a thing were having a "tinfoil hat day", and were being disrespectful to these ordinary, helpful and knowledgeable members.

However, I discovered that on the weekend before the Flickr changeover, a number these individuals had flown to San Francisco from across the USA, Canada, and Europe. They had stayed at an expensive hotel and enjoyed other hospitality paid for by Yahoo/Flickr. They were entertained during their stay by at least 4 members of the Flickr 'community staff' including 'community manager', Thea Lamkin (and possibly Yahoo staff). They were briefed on the changes, and one might suppose had a team chat to boost morale ahead of the storm they knew would ensue. Clearly these persons are not ordinary members of Flickr. I cannot say that they have received actual cash inducements, but if they haven't it is hard to understand why they should spend more hours than a working week, week in and week out, defending Yahoo/Flickr's interests on the web. I don't overlook the possibility that they are cynically manipulated, or find some obscure emotional reward in batting for Yahoo/Flickr. However, in my judgment, a paid trip to the West Coast of America and hospitality is, in any case, a substantial inducement and capable of being sufficient to suborn some people. I don’t know what other benefits this group received on this occasion, though I think they received souvenirs of some sort, possibly limited to trivial things such as T shirts. I understand that the meet-up before the change is part of a pattern of such meet-ups. It is thoroughly dishonest, on the Flickr web site, for these persons and Flickr’s employees to deny that there is any relationship between them, or to maintain that they are mere ‘knowledgeable’ members no different from any other member.

All of this is only a matter of interest as far as Flickr is concerned. and is not of direct relevance to WP. My concern was that one of the active editors of this section appears, on the Flickr web site, to be closely aligned with this group of Flickr insiders. However I should make absolutely clear, here and now, that this particular person did not attend the meeting in San Francisco on 18th/19th May. He has intimated that he was invited, but unfortunately had a prior engagement. It might even be that if you live in California, a trip to San Francisco could seem to be a bit of a busman’s holiday. But, I entirely accept that he did not go on that occasion. He also says that he has never received money from Yahoo/Flickr, which I accept, without any reservation, to be the absolute truth. However he has attended previous meet-ups with Flickr staff. He does know employees of Yahoo/Flickr personally in the real world. His contacts network on Flickr includes Flickr staff, who include him in their contacts network. And he knows, personally in the real world, other members of this group of insiders who did attend the May meet-up at Flickr HQ. He spends a lot of time on the site in banter with these individuals and in joint attacks on those they seek to intimidate. If he said that he had no prior knowledge of the Flickr change before 20th May, I might not be able to refute it, but I would need persuading that he didn’t.

In my judgment, even if his involvement with Flickr went no further than having a social connection with the employees of Flickr, or the suborned group of Flickr members, that would amount to a conflict of interest that he ought to have disclosed before he began editing this article. And, on the basis that he was invited to the May Flickr HQ meeting, I suspect that his interest in Flickr may be greater.

I'm adding this as an afterthought on 9th July. After some further reading into posts on Flickr forums and WP history, I would guess that any controversial editing on WP was freelance and self-directed rather than set in motion from within Flickr/Yahoo.Boot minor (talk) 19:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

In the present state of play of this article, I don't see any purpose in pursuing the matter further, so long as unilateral attempts to willfully present a deliberately biased view are held in check by the enthusiastic for either cause.Boot minor (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Declaration of my own involvement with the Flickr web site.

Since COI is becoming a hot topic on my talk page with regard to the WP/Flickr article, I feel I ought to declare my own involvement with Flickr before I make any edit (greater than the minor date correction I have previously made), or contribute more to the WP/Flickr talk page.

I was previously a customer of the Flickr web site. I have ended my membership. I did make some contributions to the debate on Flickr's forums about the 2013 change. I am not a fan of Yahoo/Flickr's customer relationship style. I hope I wouldn't let my personal POV distort my judgement on matters of fact. Inevitably my perspective might tend to colour my judgement as to which facts are relevant. I will guard against letting that happen. But if anyone thinks that personal prejudice is distorting my judgement, I am always prepared to listen to any reasoned argument. If you've read this far, you now know where I'm coming from.

Please stay off my talk page

I come here and read this extended investigation in my online life, with some strange mix of half truths, whole inventions and total falsehoods. I want no further involvement with you, and do not appreciate being libeled on this page. Jakerome (talk) 04:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Flickr

Hey Boot Minor, thanks for your work on the Flickr page, unfortunately, other editors are extremely tenacious about this whole thing, they just don't get it. Largely the fact that the mainstream media completely missed the fact that Flickr was F***ed up by the new redesign... I'm growing tired of defending my original inclusion of the controversy. CaffeinAddict (talk) 19:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

New Flickr Discussion

Hi, there is a new discussion going on still about the Redesign inclusion. I suggest you weigh in. It's come down to more of a "Voting" style thing unfortunately... CaffeinAddict (talk) 18:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)