Pipsy3
|
Managing a conflict of interest
edit
Hello, Pipsy3. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.
All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.
If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:
- Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
- Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
- Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.
Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Wikipedia has policies against single purpose accounts and paid editing. -- Callinus (talk) 12:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
What you can do to make Wikipedia more fairly and openly reflect truth about abortion
editHi Pipsy3,
I noticed that you had recently removed NYT material from the article on Center for Medical Progress, a change that was promptly reverted by others presumably in disagreement with your position on the matter. I was previously involved in controversial edits like this and vowed to stop because it wasn't healthy for me to continue doing so.
If you will, I would like to share some strategies and insights that I developed in these kinds of edits.
First, knowing the rules of Wikipedia allows you to be more powerful. It doesn't matter how right you are about anything... your edits will be undo'ed if you don't follow the rules. In discussions the rules are referred to by their acronyms, such as SOAP, NPOV, OR, etc... to learn about the rules search Wikipedia like this: [in the search box] ---- WP:SOAP or WP:NPOV etc.
Second, learn how to add citations to articles. There are loads of helpful tools on Wikipedia on how to do this. Wikipedia articles must never contain "original research" i.e. anything that can't be easily confirmed by looking at the news, the web, textbooks, scientific research, etc. So anything you want to say here has got to be supported by citations. I have found "cite web" to be the most straightforward way of doing this.
Third, with controversies, get familiar with the rules/guidelines of 3RR, BRD, and verifiability. If you don't like a statement that is unverified, you are authorized to delete it with the simple note "uncited material". But if the statement is verified by sources, you have fewer options. You can change the summary information to be less biased as long as you firmly maintain the facts.
Or you can provide other sources that reflect your position, that have equal reliability. For instance, if there were an op-ed about this subject in the Wall Street Journal, you could add some of the commentary here and cite it the same way that the NYT op-ed was cited.
Last, do what you can to gain credibility on Wikipedia. Make edits to articles that are non-controversial on subjects that you as a person enjoy. Maybe the article on your favorite artist doesn't have any information about his latest work. Or maybe articles about your field of business aren't as clear as they ought to be. Or maybe the article on your hometown doesn't have anything about your favorite park or plaza. Or maybe you found an article that simply has poor formatting. I really think that this approach will make you a more skillful editor to start with, and less likely to be undo'ed in general.
Good luck, and remember... it's just the web. It's not worth losing your temper for.
SocraticOath — Preceding unsigned comment added by SocraticOath (talk • contribs) 16:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
One more thing... I noticed that the editors are paring down the details of this article, so that web users find less information when they investigate---- especially in regards to the content of those videos. I would suggest that you make a brand-new Wikipedia page having a title like "Secret Videos of Planned Parenthood (2015)" or "Planned Parenthood Sting Videos". This way, the new page can provide direct information about the videos without anybody saying that it was too much detail for the article on CMP. You would naturally link the page on CMP over to this new page, and you would have the option to make such a link on other pages like "Abortion in the United States", "Planned Parenthood", "2016 US Presidential Campaign", etc. SocraticOath (talk) 16:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Reference errors on 1 August
edit
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the Center for Medical Progress (political organization) page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)