Wikipedia process dilemma, wrt "Conflict of Interest"

[Edmundus1581]

Hopefully we have someone here with a good knowledge of Wikipedia’s editing principles.

I’ve been doing occasional edits to Wikipedia articles for more than ten years, so understand the technology and principles fairly well, but until now I’ve never got into anything controversial.

I have an acquaintance who is a conservative Australian journalist and social commentator, who must remain anonymous. Think maybe Rowan Dean or Andrew Bolt, or Anne Coulter in the US.

This man has had a Wikipedia article for many years. Recently it has been attacked by several Wiki editors intent on using any means within the rules to defame him by digging up “dirt”, using referenced citations to the person’s critics. In the last few months the length of the article has doubled with his critics’ comments. The attackers have also hijacked the page, watching every change like a hawk, and within minutes reverting anything they don’t like.

This man has asked me to fix it for him. He is so ignorant of Wikipedia that his first question was “Can we buy the page?”. I told him that we can’t do that, and can only go through it line by line making small changes, and always backing up anything with citations and being prepared to argue on the Talk page.

I also told him that I don’t have much time to put into this task, but that I’d be happy to put in any changes he wants made - so long as they are referenced.

He came back to me with a document listing several pages of desired changes, and good references.

I put a couple those changes in, successfully, and after a bit of a fight.

I’ve now discovered the Wikipedia “Conflict of Interest” page, and think I have a problem.

I am a supporter of this person, including financially with (low level) crowd funding, and somewhat of a “friend”.

I think that wouldn’t disbar me, but I am wondering if taking line-by-line changes from him does represent a “Conflict of Interest”. I am in effect “ghost writing” for him.

Am I right in seeing this as a COI? Would it be more valid, from a Wiki process perspective, for me to ignore his requested changes, and just work independently?

 

[Minks]

What do you see as the reason for these attacks?

 

[Edmundus1581]

What do you see as the reason for these attacks?

It’s an attack on his political and social commentary, to discredit him personally with one-sided criticisms from a long career in public life. Basically, “mud slinging”.

 

[Minks]

Are these attackers not in violation?

 

[Edmundus1581]

Are these attackers not in violation?

Very good question!

The attackers are well established Wiki editors, from the left of politics, who know the rules. They have succeeded by finding published articles, from academia and the MSM, criticising this person, and so hide behind these as valid references.

Such things as an accusation of “plagiarism”, from many years ago. It’s long forgotten, and may or may not be valid, but they’ve dug it up and given it prominence.

I have a friend who has been very senior in the Wiki heirarchy of volunteers, and his comment on the BLP question was:

My initial advice would be your fighting a losing battle - trying to present a fair view of this type of person is very difficult because what is considered a “reliable” source in wiki terms is very heavily slanted to the left

I also put this particular question, re. COI, to him first, but haven’t got an answer.

 

[Bithynian]

Am I right in seeing this as a COI? Would it be more valid, from a Wiki process perspective, for me to ignore his requested changes, and just work independently?

Yes, you’re right: it’s a conflict of interest.

In all honesty, I would avoid working on the page altogether and I would encourage your friend to put it out of his mind as best as he can.

Wikipedia, being what it is, many articles will accrete to themselves editors who share some common thesis about the article subject. This is not necessarily a bad thing per se: in the case of articles about the Holocaust, it prevents the insertion of wackadoo denial and historical revionist statements.

At the same time, it can naturally stifle legitimate viewpoints and discussion on the article. This is particularly the case for subjects that are in themselves controversial for whatever reason.

And yes, your friend is right re: ‘fighting a losing battle’. I’ve often felt the talk pages on Wikipedia were like a Trinitarian and a Jehovah’s Witness arguing for and against the Trinity using the same proof texts: a futile exercise.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I was a pretty active Wikipedia editor for a couple years and still jump in there occasionally, although I no longer spend the time I once did and got rather disillusioned with the whole process to be honest.

My take is this: if you’re the person’s friend, you shouldn’t be editing their page, whether or not the person requests you to do it. I have made a point of avoiding editing the page of any person I personally know. Obviously if the person is requesting the changes himself then it’s even worse because it’s a pretty blatant COI, even if the changes are sourced.

With respect to what your friend can do in this situation, Wiki has a living persons policy. Your friend might consider making a complaint to Wikipedia under that policy, if applicable. You can show him how to do this.

Your friend might also consider speaking to an attorney in his own country with knowledge about Internet topics to see if he has any legal recourse here. Wikipedia tends to snap to attention when a lawsuit looms.

If both those avenues fail, then your friend might just have to live with the fact that he is working in a controversial area and is going to get slagged on the Internet.

 

[Minks]

It’s tragic that they can’t express their views—in all walks of life—without the animosity and jeering. Wikipedia, along with the “news” outlets that have no clue what constitutes unbiased news are a blight on mankind and civilization. The Wikipedia insinuations and outright lies regarding all things Catholic are sickening to me, so I can understand how your friend feels.

The non-Catholic contributors who post in Wikipedia using non-Catholic terminology would be funny, except for the knowledge that others who read there will believe what they see. If these are relentless attacks, and it were I, I believe I’d remove the page.

I have no legal background, and am not in the least Internet savvy, but if your friend’s detractors learn of your connection, that will be one more nail that they’ll start hammering. That’s what I’d tell him if I were you.

Some things are not meant to be. He, no doubt, wants this article for posterity, but if he removes the page, once he gets past the deep disappointment and accompanying depression, he’ll be free of 24/7 aggravation and angst.

Maybe he can get his biography into a book profiling others in his line of work. That would be permanent and would serve the same purrpose.

Best wishes to both of you.

 

[Edmundus1581]

Thanks so much for your time and very helpful replies!

Yes, you’re right: it’s a conflict of interest.

My take is this: if you’re the person’s friend, you shouldn’t be editing their page, whether or not the person requests you to do it. … Obviously if the person is requesting the changes himself then it’s even worse because it’s a pretty blatant COI, even if the changes are sourced.

…if your friend’s detractors learn of your connection, that will be one more nail that they’ll start hammering. That’s what I’d tell him if I were you.

My primary question answered. Thankyou!

With respect to what your friend can do in this situation, Wiki has a living persons policy. Your friend might consider making a complaint to Wikipedia under that policy, if applicable. You can show him how to do this.

He did so soon after the attackers appeared and was rejected. But that was a couple of months ago and since then the whole balance of the article has been skewed with negative material, so maybe worth reviewing.

You are correct that is something I could help my friend with, and is worth trying, whether or not successful.

I’ve seen this: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view - Wikipedia. At a glance, the “dirt” has been given undue weight in this person’s page.

Wikipedia, being what it is, many articles will accrete to themselves editors who share some common thesis about the article subject.

That has happened here. There is one primary detractor, and another one who supports her, and they’ve established themselves as the monitors of this page, just through having more time and enthusiasm than most people for the task, and having enough knowledge of the Wikipedia rules and the literature on the subject to keep it “legitimate”.

I’ve often felt the talk pages on Wikipedia were like a Trinitarian and a Jehovah’s Witness arguing for and against the Trinity using the same proof texts: a futile exercise.

Good analogy!

Your friend might also consider speaking to an attorney in his own country with knowledge about Internet topics to see if he has any legal recourse here. Wikipedia tends to snap to attention when a lawsuit looms.

Good suggestion for after another BLP violation request.

…your friend might just have to live with the fact that he is working in a controversial area and is going to get slagged on the Internet.

Yup!

He, no doubt, wants this article for posterity,

I know that’s part of it for him! Until a few months ago “his” article was a nice little tribute to him, but now looks completely different.

 

[Edmundus1581]

If these are relentless attacks … I believe I’d remove the page.

I can’t imagine that is an option. He didn’t create it in the first place, and he’s much too well know, and written about, to simply delete it.

Somewhat similarly, albeit on a lesser scale, my brother achieved some prominence about ten years ago as a businessman and his business got into some political trouble. Someone created a Wiki article on him just to attack his business’s politics and used similar tactics to this person’s detractors - ie. use the article to publish his critics. Wiki refused to delete it. Unlike this person, my brother and his business were more aligned with the left than the right, but the attacks came from the even further left. They used the “Nazi sypathiser” attack, btw.

It’s tragic that they can’t express their views—in all walks of life—without the animosity and jeering. Wikipedia, along with the “news” outlets that have no clue what constitutes unbiased news are a blight on mankind and civilization. The Wikipedia insinuations and outright lies regarding all things Catholic are sickening to me, so I can understand how your friend feels.

Agreed, and I’ve seen what you describe in articles about Catholic topics, and, especially, prominent Catholics.

Wiki is great, truly great, where the information is non-controversial, and has changed the world, but the freedom for everyone to contribute in a democratic enterprise does come at a cost.

As I mentioned, it’s people with time on their hands and axe-to-grind who seem to have undue influence, and, as the other friend I referred to mentions, Wiki’s idea of a “valid” source gives them too much ammunition.

Taking advantage of Wiki for “animosity and jeering” is a succinct way of putting it.

Best wishes to both of you.

Same to you, and thanks again to you, @Bythynian and @Tis_Bearself for your most valuable assistance!

 

[GraceJ]

If there are two editors that are specifically dominating the page and “owning” it (WP:OWN), that is also in violation of Wikipedia policies. And yeah, between the undue weight and owning, you might want to look into some of the internal processes of Wikipedia for recourse. Although, the lawsuit idea is not bad.

 

[Pat_Payne]

I can’t imagine that is an option. He didn’t create it in the first place, and he’s much too well know, and written about, to simply delete it.

It’s not an option. Pages can only be deleted by administrators, usually after a public vote/debate (the only exceptions I am aware of are for legal reasons where the page has to be deleted immediately to protect Wikipedia from civil or even criminal action) and even then it’s not completely deleted, instead it’s blanked, a placeholder with a rationale for deletion and an admonition to not recreate the page are added, and it is locked to prevent editing.

Two points: also – first, although “I don;t like the person’s views” are not enough to trigger COI, have you considered the possibility of doing a cursory check to see if the people might be political rivals or otherwise connected enough to the subject to be in violation?

Also, since your friend is a living person, biographies on Wikipedia are (in theory) held to a much stricter standard of scrutiny. You may want to check this page to see if there’s any recourse you or your friend might have to get the article cleaned up.

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons - Wikipedia

 

[pat]

In the past I did a fair number of Wikipedia edits. A COI challenge is hard to demonstrate with respect to anonymous editors. Unless the anonymous editor discloses their identity or relationship to the subject, you are not going to prevail. Challenges for this type of editing are BIO (higher scrutiny for disparaging edits of living persons) and NPOV, editing with a neutral point of view.

As practical matter, when it comes to anything on the radar of the political and cultural left, they will push their numbers and administrative power in the Wikipedia to prevail. It’s not fair, but that’s they way it is.

 

[adamhovey1988]

Yeah, a lot of that conflict of interest stuff is absurd anyway. I specifically get asked to join Wiki project Catholicism or Wiki project indigenous people of the Americas, or whatever, because of my heritage, or because my religious beliefs, and then I go and edit the article with the correct information, conflict of interest. I no longer have an account on Wikipedia. I got kind of sick of the constant edit Wars.

 

[Edmundus1581]

Thanks so much for the further replies! All very helpful.

There seems to be some consensus that I could challenge (on behalf of my friend) the attacks on the article under “Biography of Living Persons (BLP)”, and also WP:WEIGHT and WP:OWN, but bearing in mind that BLP was tried once, and rejected. The rejection was, however, as I recall on, lack of information, with Wiki saying that my friend didn’t provide sufficient detail in his application.

The contributors to this thread who have had some experience of Wki controversies also seem to suggest that with this stuff it may be more trouble than it’s worth. As I’ve already found, the detractors have more time than me to keep an argument going.

As practical matter, when it comes to anything on the radar of the political and cultural left, they will push their numbers and administrative power in the Wikipedia to prevail. It’s not fair, but that’s they way it is.

This comment very much echoes the friend I mentioned earlier (a once senior wiki moderator), who said “you’re fighting a losing battle - trying to present a fair view of this type of person is very difficult because what is considered a ‘reliable’ source in wiki terms…”

As to the detractors’ potential COI it is clear that they come from the camp opposed to my friend and his social commentary, as they have been able to quickly dig up decades of hostile articles. But they are anonymous (thanks @pat) and I don’t think could be associated with a clear COI, as there are no political parties or religious sects involved here - merely social camps. From the discussion I’ve seen on the Talk page they also imagine, either sincerely or not, that they ARE editing from a NPOV.

Thanks for all the material which has greatly increased my sense of the terrain I’m dealing with!

 

[Jbrady]

I’ve now discovered the Wikipedia “Conflict of Interest” page, and think I have a problem.

Yes, you do. And it excludes you from editing this article according to WP rules. You are far too close to the subject to impartially write about him, and the language you used in your post indicates that you are aware of that.

Would it be more valid, from a Wiki process perspective, for me to ignore his requested changes, and just work independently?

You can’t work “independently”. That’s what a COI means. Any work you do is liable to be tainted by your relationship with the subject. Just stand down and wash your hands of the whole matter.

Also, needless to say, it is very strictly to canvass for anyone else’s help on the matter, either on or off WP.

That’s my understanding of WP policy as a long-active editor with quite a bit of experience in disputes of this sort on BLP’s.

 

[pat]

The work-around for a COI in Wikipedia is to persuade an editor without a COI that your text is improvement to the article and conforms to the WP policies. Such collaborations are common and not “tainted”.