Ethan Oksen (COI)

Mentorship

Hello Ethan Oksen,

User:Silver seren has asked that I consider mentoring you. I will consider it, but first I want to know more about what your goals are as a Wikipedia editor, and what you've done so far. I see that you were in a class on piracy at Cal taught by Kevin Gorman. I've met Kevin several times. I do not see much evidence that you've made substantive contributions to the encyclopedia. Perhaps you can point out to me to what I'm missing?

Are you planning to work as a paid editor? If so, how do you plan to obtain clients? Are you familiar with the bitter disputes here on Wikipedia about paid editing?

I encourage you to read my user page and to skim my talk page. Please also read Wikipedia:Mentorship. If, after doing so, you wish to pursue this arrangement, then reply in detail here and leave a talkback message on my talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Cullen. Admittedly my contributions to the encyclopedia as a volunteer have not been tremendous, although as I mention somewhere on my user page (I think,) I also formerly had a bad habit of not logging in because I didn't care about attribution. As an example of something I've done, this series of edits was me (although it was done before I familiarized myself with most of Wikipedia's policies.) I've probably made several hundred other edits so far, although many of them were minor.

I am planning to work as a paid editor, and am familiar with the bitter disputes here on Wikipedia about paid editing. I outlined my intended approach in a little bit more detail on my userpage; I intend to be an example of someone who people point to as a positive example, rather than a negative one. I already do communications consulting work, and Wikipedia frequently comes up; I figured that I should do additional research, create a new account, and publicly declare myself as a conflict of interest editor before accepting any Wikipedia-related work from clients since I wanted to approach this in a transparent way. I'm not anticipating having a massive workflow here, but will likely be dealing with a few conflicted articles a month. Most of what I do will probably relate to the expansion of articles that are currently lacking in content that have many third party sources available. As an example of the kind of article I might work towards expanding (although to be clear, this is just meant as an example, they are not my clients,) Berkeley Bowl is a famous grocery store in Berkeley that currently has no article. They've received a massive amount of press, including articles in the NYT, Christian Science Monitor, and other national outlets - but no volunteer has yet had time/desire to create an article about them.

I know that one point that has frequently been contentious about paid editing is the idea that supervising paid editors to ensure neutrality draws away man-hours that could be used to build the encyclopedia as a whole. To lessen this perception, one offer I'd like to make is to spend one hour (as a volunteer, editing a content area of my choice, or yours if you prefer,) for every hour you (or whoever else ends up mentoring me) ends up spending mentoring me. Obviously, it's still pretty likely that I'll be less productive with an hour of time than you would've been directing it there, but hopefully it'll lessen the perception of paid editors as simply drawing resources away from the encyclopedia. Ethan Oksen (COI) (talk) 16:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Ethan Oksen. Let me begin by welcoming you to Wikipedia, and apologizing if my initial message to you was rude in any way. Silver seren thinks I was rude, but I was just trying to be frank. Perhaps there is a fine line there, and if I offended you, I apologize. If you prove to be an editor who makes positive contributions the encyclopedia in compliance with our policies and guidelines, then that will be a wonderful thing. I assume the best of people, so I will assume that you will be a positive contributor.

That being said, I do not think that I am the right person to act as a formal mentor for you. The reason is your intention to operate as a paid editor. As you are aware, there is widespread opposition to paid editing among experienced editors. Many believe that it is, for all practical purposes, impossible for a paid editor to write or expand articles in full compliance with our policies, because of the conflict of interest and all that implies. I take a more moderate view, although I am not an active supporter of paid editing. I believe that a small percentage of paid editors may contribute positively to the encyclopedia, but I suspect that a large majority are incapable of adhering to the neutral point of view when their livelihood depends on portraying their clients in the most positive light. So, the reason that I will decline to be your formal mentor is that I do not want to be seen as endorsing the practice of paid editing. I remain deeply skeptical about it, though I do not favor an outright ban at this time.

I will extend to you an open and sincere offer to try to answer any questions you might have, and to engage in discussion of any relevant Wikipedia issues of interest to you. If that is the functional equivalent of mentoring without the formal agreement, so be it. I think that it would be a mistake for you to be mentored by another paid editor. That is my opinion, for what it's worth.

My advice to you is to gain some experience and prove yourself as a volunteer editor. Try to avoid editing without being logged in, because your edit history will be the way that you show your work to fellow editors. Write your article about the Berkeley Bowl, using the most solid sources to show that it is notable, and not just another run-of-the-mill local grocery store. Write several new articles, and bring them to a high standard. Expand some stubs, and transform them into informative articles. Copy-edit some articles. Follow deletion debates, and learn in practical terms what notability means, and what high quality reliable sources are for various types of topics. Reading about Wikipedia's policies is one thing and is useful. But nothing beats actually adding useful, encyclopedic content. Real world experience is crucial. Pitch right in, ask a lot of questions, and do your very best to comply with policies and guidelines in every case. If you end up doing paid editing, I can assure you that the day will almost certainly come when all of your edits will be subjected to close scrutiny. Be prepared.

Again, welcome to Wikipedia, and I hope that my frankness is useful to you, and won't be seen as rudeness. That is not my intention. Good luck to you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Cullen - sorry for not getting back to you earlier, I wanted to write a proper response and have had a busy week.

I'm a rather hard person to offend :) It's understandable that you don't want to take on some sort of formal role, but I would ask that once I start producing content, if you have the time, you look over it and point out any instances where it doesn't conform to Wikipedia norms. Someone who is skeptical of paid editors doing so would probably better ensure that I am producing neutral and encyclopedic content - and since that's what I'm shooting for, I would consider your feedback a positive thing. (Please don't feel pressured to do so - and please don't feel constrained in presenting negative feedback.) I'll also be seeking feedback through community forums like the paid editor help board, but since you sound like you don't care too much for communications professionals, I suspect your feedback would be of unusual value :)

I can understand why you would think that paid editors will need to portray their clients in the most positive light possible, but I don’t agree with you. Some paid editors will certainly try to do so, but I think they will be making a pretty substantial mistake. Communications professionals engaging with Wikipedia certainly do need to provide a favorable value proposition to our clients, but for most organizations, the most favorable valuable proposition possible won’t involve presenting our clients in the most positive light possible. I could cut corners and write about marginally notable topics or write in an excessively promotional tone, and I might get away with it for a while. However, if I did so, the content I wrote would eventually be challenged by the community (especially because I’m self-disclosing my conflicts of interest.) If I instead write in a neutral, encyclopedic, comprehensive tone, I’ll be able to make contributions to the encyclopedia that stick around and stand the test of time. For most organizations, the benefits of having a neutral, encyclopedic, comprehensive, lasting Wikipedia article will greatly outweigh the benefits of having a temporary advertisement on Wikipedia. (This is especially true for organizations that do not currently have significant Wikipedia coverage - and make no mistake, many organizations that sail over the general notability guideline (and WP:CORP) currently do not have significant or up to date Wikipedia coverage.) I will not be accepting Wikipedia-related engagements from organizations that do not share my beliefs in this area, because I know that doing so would hurt my ability to provide a valuable service to other future clients.

To rephrase a bit: I believe that my livelihood (or at least this element of it) is dependent on my ability to write in an encyclopedic and neutral tone about my clients. I believe that the closer my writing matches the ideals of Wikipedia, the more value I will be able to provide to my clients. If my writing departs from the ideals of Wikipedia - say, by trying to portray my clients in a more favorable way than is warranted by the reliable sources that cover them - I will be damaging the value proposition that I am able to offer my clients, and in doing so, will damage my livelihood - so our feelings about this are literally diametrically opposing :)

I have a really busy month, but I’ll be shooting to contribute two or three comprehensive, well-written articles as a demonstration of my ability to handle this sort of writing before I start (or at least concomitantly with starting, depending on how my schedule works out) COI article work. This will probably be a few weeks away. I’ll sandbox even my non-COI articles and solicit community feedback about them before making them live.

I understand your initial skepticism towards me, and I wouldn't expect otherwise - in your position I would probably be similarly skeptical - but I hope that as time goes on I’ll manage to erode it. Thanks for your frankness, and offer of further advice as I progress. Ethan Oksen (COI) (talk) 11:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your very detailed response. I am willing to look over any new content that you produce, and offer my sincere assessment of your contributions. When you guess that I "don't care too much for communications professionals", you are actually wrong. I have had conversations with many of them through my participation in Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement. I actually like most of the communications professionals I've met in connection with Wikipedia, but just think, that in most cases, they are not committed to the general improvement of the encyclopedia, but rather to improving coverage of their paying clients.

Those who are sophisticated (as you seem to be) realize that their reputation and effectiveness as Wikipedia editors will suffer if they overtly try to portray their clients in "the most positive light possible". They will be a bit more sophisticated than that. Your phrase, "the most favorable valuable proposition" is an interesting one. Favorable to whom? Valuable to whom? If we have sophisticated paid communications professionals, who through experience, have a deep understanding of Wikipedia's envelope of acceptable behavior for editors, and then continually push but not rip that envelope, then we may have a problem if only unpaid volunteers are available to counter that pushing. The envelope may be pushed to the extreme in the direction of the interests of the largest corporations, and other topic areas may suffer as volunteer editors scramble to maintain balanced coverage of these extremely powerful and influential corporations.

I agree completely that there are many notable businesses deserving of a Wikipedia article that do not have one yet. As we approach four million articles, I am confident that we could have ten million decent articles or more. If you review my user page, you will see that I have written a few myself. Take a look at Gladding, McBean, Hagafen Cellars, Whoa Nellie Deli, Marin French Cheese Company and Mezzetta. These companies are all notable, distinctive, unusual and in my opinion, worthy of WIkipedia articles. None of them, though, is a corporate powerhouse with big bucks to spend on a paid Wikipedia editor. I wrote these business articles out of my personal, non-commercial interest in these companies, and a desire to improve the encyclopedia.

Keep in touch. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Welcome

Hi Ethan,

Welcome! I also noticed your mentorship request. I'll throw my hat in the ring as a possible mentor also. My approach may be a bit different then others, but I do have a bit of experience with COI and Wikipedia. But first, I'd be interested in hearing your immediate goals for this account. Cheers -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 09:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Eclipsed. My immediate goals for this account are, to be honest, not gigantic; I wanted to get a public COI disclosure out of the way and describe my basic approach to editing (which I've done some on my page, and will flush out more in the future) before I agreed to any Wikipedia-related efforts to begin with. Eventually, I'll probably be working to expand a handful of articles on which I have a conflict of interest towards every month. I'll be sticking entirely (or very close to entirely) to just expanding articles that have lots of potential sources and lots of potential encyclopedic content that have never been expanded by the volunteer community or to working to correct/update factual issues in articles. (I might attempt to work towards some amount of balancing of unfairly negative content in articles, but intend to mostly stick away from it, since I know it's one of the more sensitive areas for paid editors to touch on.) Ethan Oksen (COI) (talk) 16:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you have a good plan there. In general it's always a good idea to take it slow at first. Wikipedia is a big place, and there's lots of intricacies to get a handle on before you dive in.

One thing I would advise, is to also take up Cullen's informal offer to answer questions and discuss Wikipedia issues. While I probably won't agree with some of the stuff he says, that's actually good: Because you'll be able to get a diversity of opinions that may help you become a better editor.

Cheers. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 19:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Berkeley Bowl

I did a quicky search on Berkeley Bowl, and the company does have some significant mentions in reliable sources. So if you're interested, a draft in your userspace at User:Ethan Oksen (COI)/Berkeley Bowl would be a good start. Do note that the article was created before, and then deleted in April 2007 (See the notices on Berkeley Bowl). Luckily the deleting admin is still active, so they may be available to help with reviewing the proposed article before re-creation. Cheers. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 21:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions, but in this case I really did just mean to use them as an example of a business Cullen would recognize :) I have no ties with them - I just meant to use them as an example of a business that soars over the general notability guideline that hasn't had a volunteer-written article so far. (They have dozens of national press mentions, including a full profile in the NYT a few years back.) I'll probably produce some non-COI articles in this coming weeks just as a demonstration to the community that I am capable of contributing before I start on COI stuff, but will probably pick a business other than the Bowl to do so. Ethan Oksen (COI) (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with Eclipsed though that userspace drafts is the best route to go rather than just jumping into mainspace. Though I think you're already aware of that, since you've already stated an intention to use the paid editor help page, so i'm likely preaching to the choir. :3 If you ever need any assistance, feel free to let me know on my talk page. Silverseren^C 06:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

No worry about Berkeley Bowl. I've added it to the Requested articles list for companies, and please feel free to add references to the listing to help other editors with re-creation.

Your point about there being many notable companies that don't have articles is something I agree with. In the case of Berkeley Bowl, an article was already written by at least one person in 2007 or before, we just can't see who because we can't view the history of the deleted article. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 09:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

In all likelihood, it was probably just a one line sentence without any references attached and the deleting admin was too lazy to actually look for references. Silverseren^C 20:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for adding it to that page Eclipsed, I had previously been unaware of it. I've gone ahead and added a couple more national references that speak in depth about Berkeley Bowl that would be helpful in writing an article about the store. Ethan Oksen (COI) (talk) 11:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Since there's enough refs now, I started a Workspace draft for Berkeley Bowl. Cheers -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 08:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

COI+ certification proposal

I've thought of an idea that might break our current logjam with paid editing. I'd love your sincere feedback and opinion.

• WP:COI certification

Feel free to circulate this to anyone you think should know about it, but please recognize that it hasn't agreed upon by either PR organizations or WikiProjects or the wider community. It's also just a draft, so any/many changes can still be made. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 15:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)