Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace/Archive 16: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 04:03, 11 December 2019

Revision as of 04:06, 18 December 2019

Line 774:

See [[Wikipedia talk:Username policy#Change to orgname block templates?]]. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 23:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

== Uw-coi: "which forms all or part of work" ==

{{ping|JBW}} Regarding [[Special:Diff/853854806]], the previous wording can be found in the [[:foundation:Terms_of_Use/en|Terms of Use]] as well as [[WP:PAID]]. Where does the current wording come from, and should we really attempt to insert personal interpretation into text copied from a "policy with legal considerations"? [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 23:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

:I've seen the policy interpreted both ways ("paid only counts if you're being paid specifically to do editing" vs "paid counts as long as you're editing about someone who is paying you in some capacity"). I suspect that there's need for a broader discussion about where to draw the line between COI and PAID. ^{<small>[[User:Creffpublic|creffpublic]]</small>} <sub style="margin-left:-8ex"><small>a [[User:Creffett|creffett]] franchise</small></sub> ([[User_talk:Creffett|talk to the boss]]) 13:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

: Why is that a "personal interpretation"? The terms of use say ''"As part of these obligations, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation."'' If I am doing work for which I am paid and which includes editing Wikipedia, then my edits to Wikipedia are being paid for. Is there some other way to interpret the quoted text from the terms of use? On the other hand I can't see how ''"paid counts as long as you're editing about someone who is paying you in some capacity"'' can be justified. Being paid by someone for work unrelated to Wikipedia, and also separately and privately editing Wikipedia about that person is not paid editing, though of course it is editing with a conflict of interest. [[User:JBW|JBW]] ([[User talk:JBW|talk]]) <small>''Formerly JamesBWatson''</small> 14:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

::{{u|JBW}}, what I'm thinking about in the latter case (and I might not have clearly articulated what I was thinking) was a COI case a few months back where the president of a for-profit university was editing the page about that school. I recall some disagreement about whether it counted as paid - on the one hand, his job description probably doesn't include editing Wikipedia, on the other, his job is to make the school look good. ^{<small>[[User:Creffpublic|creffpublic]]</small>} <sub style="margin-left:-8ex"><small>a [[User:Creffett|creffett]] franchise</small></sub> ([[User_talk:Creffett|talk to the boss]]) 14:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

:: Yes. That is a sort of grey area where one could argue either way, and there could be a case for making the policy on paid editing more specific. However, my personal view is that the modern tendency to try to deal with issues that come up with by making polices ever more and more specific to block any loopholes is a mistake, and it is far better to try to follow the original spirit of Wikipedia, which is that we don't have firm rules. Why is there any need to "draw the line between COI and PAID"? I haven't seen the particular case you are referring to, so I can't specifically comment on it, but in general such a situation is clearly a case of conflict of interest, and can be dealt with accordingly, without wasting time on wikilawyering over whether it is or isn't technically paid editing. [[User:JBW|JBW]] ([[User talk:JBW|talk]]) <small>''Formerly JamesBWatson''</small> 15:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

:: If there is no other way to interpret the quoted text, there's no need for the additional clarification. If there is, it is a personal interpretation. The addition seems to needlessly complicate the already-complex sentence, and quoting the actual wording of the TOU/policy seems preferable to me. [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 00:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

::: Now you are turning my words round to mean something that they didn't say. There is no logical way of taking the terms of use as meaning anything else, but that doesn't prevent people from misunderstanding, and they often do. "Additional clarification" is therefore likely to be helpful. [[User:JBW|JBW]] ([[User talk:JBW|talk]]) <small>''Formerly JamesBWatson''</small> 13:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)