User talk:Sunflowergal34

Wikipedia Consulting vs. Actual Paid Editing?

Summary:One of my staff brought up the idea of Wikipedia consulting as opposed to paid editing

As you may know, we have ceased all our previous paid editing practices of our firm. We see the intrinsic COI problem that invariably exists. However, one of my staff brought up the idea of Wikipedia consulting as opposed to paid editing. The idea was to do webinars, consultations, et al, to help people learn how to compose wikipedia articles, but not do any actual editing, posting, dispute resolution, etc., on behalf of the client. The client would have to do all writing, editing, publishing, h/erself. I want to ask the Wikipedia community what it thinks about this. This is an honest question; whatever the community thinks, we'll go with. And we have no intention of violating Wikipedia policy again. Thank you.

Sunflowergal34 (talk) 20:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC) Eric Bryant, Director, Gnosis Arts Multimedia Communications LLC

• This is not really the appropriate place for an RfC, but asking the clients to write about themselves is still a COI. However, simply showing people how to use Wikipedia/start articles/etc. is a good thing, and COI doesn't mean someone is banned from writing about their company, but it would be pretty difficult still to get the whole NPOV idea and whatnot into shape and avoid promotion, accidental or intentional. It might be worth thinking about consulting a company to write about things they may know about but something that is less likely to be seen as promotional (like a zoo writing about some species of animal or a computer company writing about some sort of technical innovation). /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• Where is the appropriate place to ask for comment on an issue like this? Also, what about an online training course, with a series of modules, that walks people through, step by step, on how to conceive, write, edit, compose and publish a quality Wikipedia article? We would sell the course. It would be like self-paced, online course. We would do no editing, no writing, no publishing, no arbitrating - just purely, "This is how you add an image; this is how you make a citation; this is where you go to ask for help; etc." Is that still a COI?

• Also, one of my staff brought up what I thought was a good point today in a staff meeting. They said, in effect, "Doesn't really everyone have some sort of conflict of interest in editing/writing an article, in the way Wikipedia defines it?" Their point was if someone is going to write about, say, the Beatles, or edit the Beatles articles, they would most likely be either a fan, or a supporter, or a rep of a PR firm, or a friend, i.e, it is likely going to be somebody who cares about the Beatles. Caring about a subject creates, in one sense, a COI - doesn't it? How is this different than a paid editor? A paid editor cares too, only, for a different reason. This is also a COI, when you think about it, was her point. Admittedly, it is not as egregious as an outright paid editor, but still, you can see the point.

• Ignore this argument, for the moment. As I reread it, it isn't convincing. I think that the COI is sort of on a continuum where way over on the left is outright is paid editing, an obvious COI. Way over on the right is some hypothetical person editing an article on a subject s/he doesn't even care anything about or have any relation to whatsoever; then, the majority of cases, somewhere in the middle grey area. No? Sunflowergal34 (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC) Eric Bryant, Director, Gnosis Arts

• So, her question, was: In what circumstances is an article written by someone devoid of a COI? It would seem to me to be relatively few. It would have to be edited/written by someone with no personal affinity or contempt, no special relationship to the subject, no monetary interest ... They would have to be just, basically, editing it for the fun of it, for the enjoyment of it, which I suppose is possible, but how would you know the difference in the majority of cases?

• Anyway, I'm not leaning in the wiki education direction, either, just so you know. I don't even want to be bothered with all this nonsense, truth be told. It's just my staff is worried as heck about their jobs and they're putting a lot of pressure on me to do something.

Sunflowergal34 (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC) Eric Bryant, Director, Gnosis Arts

Welcome!

Hello, Sunflowergal34, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Solve Media, Inc., may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

Speedy deletion nomination of Solve Media, Inc.

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Solve Media, Inc., requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Ironholds (talk) 17:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

On my accusation of BoogieTime

Sockpuppetry has a broader definition sometimes known as meatpuppetry. Collaboration in terms of affecting the AfD of Geissler makes BoogieTime a guilty meatpuppet, so my accusation as a sockpuppet remains unchanged but I applaud your efforts to clean up.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

completely clean

It would be better if you voluntarily handed over the other accounts rather than have us find them. You've no doubt seen several of the articles deleted within the last 24 hours and if we continue it just wouldn't be the same as you coming completely clean and proving the sincerity of your confession. Not revealing them seems to suggest otherwise. I believe you want to turn a new leaf but you haven't done this fully yet. Doing so would help mitigate the circumstances.

If you have proteges that are still editing deceptively, you may want to suggest to them to retire. Co-mingling commercial interests with deceptive practices is a slippery slope as it seems you have found out. Negative aspects arise out of your control.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• I have uploaded this as proof that we have stopped editing.

I am not going to give a list of all articles only because it would cause us to be flooded with inquiries and complaints from former clients. Our phone would be ringing off the hook with disgruntled clients. We're already hurting. "My name is only some-dumb; my name ain't crazy," as an old Waco, TX buddy of mine used to say. That isn't fair to them, or to us. If you cannot accept all that we have done so far as just penance, I don't know what to tell you. Our whole firm is in disarray right now. Believe me, the effects of this decision were not seen by my staff as laudable on my part in the least. We've lost a major revenue stream, we have to completely rearrange our service offerings, the website will have to be significantly changed, etc. I have staff to take care of, just like the Wikimedia foundation does. If you understand anything about business, you will understand the weight of all this. We are not criminals, and don't expect treated like ones.

So ... sorry ... but this ain't tell all here. I'm not going to give you the blessing to start a witch hunt.

Sunflowergal34 (talk) 22:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

try ideas at Village pump (misc)

You should try to bring this up at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) and state your ideas there to see what the community may feel about it. Also, you may want to post at the bottom of this page...users are accustomed to finding it in chronological order that way and some may not see your post above believing they have already read it.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 19:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• Ok thanks. Sunflowergal34 (talk) 19:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC) Eric Bryant, Director, Gnosis Arts

evading block

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 83.100.225.242 (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Otaki Forks Article

What about the [Otaki Forks] article needs additional citations before it can be verified? -Postitnz