Thank you so much for your response. I have two thoughts. Corporation X has a "Wikipedia editing team" or some such thing (as per a Media article). It is clear to me that because taking them on, so to speak, is so challenging and stressful given their limitless resources and fantastic support system here at Wiki that, as you earlier suggested, the only answer is to 'combat' it with an equal force. As you said, that would very literally mean that a COI editor from the 'other side' is required. See:CREWE. When I first heard you suggest a Peacerep (was that your example?), I thought it sounded ludicrous. Now I see it is exactly as ludicrous as having Corporation X write this article. I watch the indies here bite each others' ankles every time one turns around. And it strikes me this is a function of our working for free, without pay and for very little reward. This is why an organized team somewhat like CREWE, even if more loosely organized and with few members, is actually a good idea. If Wiki editors are now seriously being asked to do what we are doing at this page/article, we need to take a moment and reflect on what that really means. We are up against a PR department of one of the most powerful and wealthiest companies in the world. And they are not about to stop caring (and caring A LOT) about what this page says. They have loyal editors here who seem much more organized and less emotional than those of us interesting in removing spin. If that doesn't change, nothing will change with regard to the POV in the article. Another idea also is to keep this talk page very content-focused and the moment feelings are hurt, personal talk pages could be used instead of this one to deal with it. But I also agree that we must not silence ourselves or each other regarding the bullshit that has gone on at this page for about a year now. We've really only just begun uncovering the story.
- The way to move forward in my opinion, is to keep talking about all of this: problems with the Corporation X page, the corporate catastrophe page and its insane editing history, etc. Lastly, as either Editor A or Editor B said, the indies do need to just start being bold and making edits. The assumed suggestion is that with a lot of eyeballs now on these pages, edits sticking to guidelines should have enough support to remain in one form or another (ie, our efforts won't be thoroughly wasted). Editor G, 23:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- From my read, it seems the really High Ups prefer to assume all is going well with Paid Editors on talk pages. No investigation into the truth of that has been made, and it appears that will remain the case. Editor P 19:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- I just wanted to add that I think it's important to expose this article to as many eyes as possible within Wikipedia, and to utilize adjudication boards/procedures as much as possible, such as the RfC that I just commenced when editors repeatedly removed text from the C.A.T. section, and demoted it to subsection. If nothing else, doing so will get more editors involved. The paid editor issue is not the only one troublesome in this article; the rest seems to be concerted whitewashing, which may or may not have a COI element. Your general point on paid editing is an important one. We have a paid editor to point out when the article tilts in one direction, but no countervailing force when the article points in another direction. The article cries out for expert attention from persons versed in environmental issues and this company's track record. Editor:The 19:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- From my read, it seems the really High Ups prefer to assume all is going well with Paid Editors on talk pages. No investigation into the truth of that has been made, and it appears that will remain the case. Editor P 19:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- The way to move forward in my opinion, is to keep talking about all of this: problems with the Corporation X page, the corporate catastrophe page and its insane editing history, etc. Lastly, as either Editor A or Editor B said, the indies do need to just start being bold and making edits. The assumed suggestion is that with a lot of eyeballs now on these pages, edits sticking to guidelines should have enough support to remain in one form or another (ie, our efforts won't be thoroughly wasted). Editor G, 23:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- I think you are right. To give you some background, in the past, our RfCs have not attracted much attention. The last one filed by Editor M attracted literally no one. But perhaps you know some secrets? And I really do agree that a counter-force should be called in here. Of course, with the attitude towards environmentalists, I can't imagine anyone accepting that delicious offer, unless they were paid like Editor Self-Identified. Non-profits probably don't have extra help and resources lying around to spend time in the recesses of Wikipedia. What would be the payoff for them? Editor P 20:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)