Talk:Eastern Municipal Water District of Southern California
This page needs moving. Eastern Municipal Water District could refer to any city! crandles 19:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
COI - Conflict of Interest
editThis article has twice been tagged COI - Conflict of Interest. The reason appears to be because the editors/creator is employed by the company.
Reading the article, it needs wikifying, but it is not a puff piece, the company's web site confirms what is said here (Google ditto) and there is no obvious gain to the originating editor. WP:COI requires us to demonstrate a conflict (so does WP:AGF). As there appears to be none, please do not tag COI without pointing to some concrete evidence of the same.
Creating an article on a subject related to one's employment is not a COI unless the company/editor stands to gain from it - that's what WP:COI says in black and white. At this time, the article's creator seems to be working wholly within WP's guidelines: the rest of us have to do likewise and remember AGF.
Thanks
Vacant Stare 21:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Copied from User:Vacant Stare on his / her request. For what it's worth, the article looks relatively good - it may primarily have been written by an individual with a COI, but there is no notability issue (probably why it's been slapped with a COI tag and not an AfD or CSD tag), and whilst it may need wikifying on a brief look-over I wouldn't agree with the COI accusation. Will leave the helpme tag in place on this page for someone else to chip in. Giles Bennett (Talk, Contribs) 21:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Per WP:COI, edits made by employees to the articles of the companies they work for are strongly discouraged, especially when they are doing so at the request of their employer (and therefore getting paid to do it) [1]. The gain to the editor and his/her company is increased visibility. Notability may be an issue, haven't researched it enough, but currently the article does not cite any WP:RS to satisfy the primary criterion of WP:CORP (multiple, independent reliable sources). In addition, the creator of this article's username may be in violation of WP:UN, as it contains the abbreviation of the company, thereby promoting it. I think I was WP:AGF when I tagged the article with the COI template, because I figured the original editor was not aware of the policy, and I only wanted to let him/her know about it. Leuko 00:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- ... but you offered no explanation here to the originating editor (nor to the rest of us) so how was s/he meant to know?
- 'Stongly discouraged' does not equate to 'forbidden' and there is not the slightest hint that anyone has asked/paid for this article. If I, an editor unconnected with (and thousands of miles from) the firm had written the exact same article it would be fine. If you insist, I will blank the page and re-insert the exact same article under my username: this will resolve the COI issue (I assume you have no quibble with my user name) but it is absurd to have to go to these lengths.
- Notability is not an issue, at least as far as I and Gilesbennett (see above) can see.
- As far as refs go, perhaps you would be kind enought to highlight which areas you feel need extra refs? Other than some third party confirming the company exists and does what it says it does, it's hard to think what else to ref - the article makes no specific claims, and the place names and so on are already linked to appropriate articles within WP.
- The originating editor's username is a separate matter for Admin to handle.
- No doubt for the best of motives, you are seeking to enforce WP guidelines (we all are) but this actioning appears to be translating thoses guidelines into something they are not: there is no injunction against company workers writing about their company, just very strict requirements which the creating editor has complied with.
- May I suggest WP:RFC if we are unable to agree?