User talk:Arush-JMP
The following was posted on George William Herbert's user page and is posted here for full transparency.
Good afternoon, Mr. Herbert.
I just wanted to let you know that I am making changes to the "Interchange Fee" article (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Interchange_fee). The "Discussion" tab is locked, so I am posting my reasoning on your user page and on the user page of Stymiee, with whom I think I am in a "revert war." In brief, I am trying to correct the bias of the article by inserting into the "controversy" section the other side of the Merchants' argument (of course, you can read the whole history here: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Interchange_fee&action=history).
I feel that the changes I made are consistent both with the explicit rules of Wikipedia and are in keeping with the spirit of the Wikipedia mission. My edits further the following Wikipedia values (taken from http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:The_perfect_article):
• acknowledges and explores all aspects of the subject; i.e., it covers every encyclopedic angle of the subject.
My angle on the subject, which includes the activities and viewpoint of the Electronic Payment Coalition (EPC) is certainly part of the “controversy,” which is where I made most of my edits and EPC’s Web site (which I linked to in the “external links” section” is certainly relevant to people looking for external sources of information—at least as relevant as The Merchant’s Bill of Rights.
• is completely neutral and unbiased; it has a neutral point of view, presenting competing views on controversies logically and fairly, and pointing out all sides without favoring particular viewpoints. The most factual and accepted views are emphasized, and minority views are given a lower priority; sufficient information and references are provided so that readers can learn more about particular views.
Words like “secrecy” are logical “poison pills;” they assume nefarious (or at least ulterior) motives. “Transparency,” which I used, is a more neutral term.
Also, Stymiee is deleting essential parts of the controversy; in a section dedicated to explaining an ongoing controversy, I am presenting one side’s documented argument, that “merchants are simply attempting to shift costs to consumers – costs that are a part of doing business, just as rent, salaries, or the cost of accepting checks,” which I state is an argument, not a fact (that is, it is a verifiable fact that one sides make the argument I present and that that argument is a part of the controversy—thus it belongs in the “controversy” section of this article).
• is precise and explicit; it is free of vague generalities and half-truths that may arise from an imperfect grasp of the subject.
I wrote “Some countries, such as Australia, have established price controls in this arena. The fees are also the subject of several ongoing lawsuits in the United States.” Stymiee edits this to “Some countries have established significantly lower interchange fees. The fees are also the subject of several ongoing lawsuits in the United States.” My language is more precise and explicit. I name a country and detail why they have a different interchange fee I do not use words like “significantly” or “marginally” or “nominally” lower; what does “significantly lower” mean? 10 percent lower? 50 percent lower? My language is more precise and explicit. I would also point out that interchange fees are negotiated between banks, they are not set by one group of banks (more on that below).
• is well-documented; all facts are cited from reputable sources, preferably sources that are accessible and up-to-date.
By linking to the EPC, I am adding to the cache of verifiable facts. People can go to the EPC for their side of the argument and to read the assembled statistics available on the site. I am already gathering more online citations for the facts that I have presented in my edits; currently, my information comes only from wood-pulp media.
I also believe that my edits are in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia. For example, much of the "overview" section (before my edits) represented an argument and not verifiable statements of fact. In my deletion of certain passages, I tried to keep the article focused on verifiable, accurate statements of fact about the Interchange Fee, even to the extent of presenting both sides in the "controversy" section.
An example of this is that the article stated "Interchange fees are set collectively by the financial institutions which are stakeholders in Visa (currently an association of banks and other credit card issuers and acquirers) and MasterCard (a public company). Many of these banks issue both credit and debit cards. JPMorgan Chase is the largest issuer of both." In truth, interchange fees are negotiated, not set, (see, for example, http://minneapolisfed.org/pubs/region/06-06/interchange.cfm, "Sears and large grocery chains, have negotiated special interchange fee deals."
Not relevant to the article are the following paragraphs, which serve more to vilify the payment card industry and do not help readers understand what the Interchange fee is, nor its history nor the ongoing controversy that surrounds it.
This post seems long enough and you are a patient man if you have read it in its entirety. Because the discussion page of the Interchange Fee article is locked, I am cross-posting this entry on your page, on my own page and on Stymiee’s for full transparency and I am going to revert the Interchange Fee article to my own edits. Though I hope the altercation I seem to be having with Stymiee can be worked out without any intervention, I hope that I can contact you again should the need arise.
Thanks,
Anne Rush (Arush-JMP)
Start a discussion with Arush-JMP
Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikipedia the best that it can be. Start a new discussion to connect and collaborate with Arush-JMP. What you say here will be public for others to see.
