Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/FoCuSandLeArN
Wholesale reversion
[edit]@Justlettersandnumbers: Is wholesale reversion really the standard operating procedure here? I understand the editor was engaging in undisclosed paid editing but is there some other way? Surely some of the material added did improve the articles in a neutral way? –xenotalk 18:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- xeno, I really don't know. There's discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#FoCuSandLeArN. Perhaps you'd like to comment there? My thinking is roughly this: in a WP:CCI, we often just revert to the last version before the editor's first substantial addition, without worrying too much about whether his/her edits were good; these edits are completely unacceptable, though possibly not with the legal implications of copyright violation; so perhaps they should be treated in the same way? But I'm open to correction or suggestions on any and all of that reasoning. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- I can understand why this is done in WP:CCI but in (undisclosed) paid editing, the edits aren't illegal, just potentially non-NPOV. –xenotalk 18:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- xeno, I fully agree that they're not illegal in the sense of "breaking the laws of the United States", but they are most definitely in violation of our Terms of Use, the local "laws" under which we participate and contribute here. Do please take this to WP:COIN! – I value your opinion, and think the more discussion there the better. It'd be especially good if you could come up with some other viable way of dealing with this very extensive problem. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- I made a comment there. I'm just concerned that we might be biting off our nose to spite our face with some of these reverts. –xenotalk 18:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Justlettersandnumbers: with respect, the statement "not illegal in the sense of 'breaking the laws of the United States'" is possibly untrue. It is illegal to engage in covert advertising in the U.S. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-10-09/News and notes for details (you may want to search for "FTC") or FTC disclosure guidelines. So basically I'm arguing like a lawyer (which I am not) that we are in violent agreement on the necessity to treat this seriously. - Brianhe (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- xeno, I fully agree that they're not illegal in the sense of "breaking the laws of the United States", but they are most definitely in violation of our Terms of Use, the local "laws" under which we participate and contribute here. Do please take this to WP:COIN! – I value your opinion, and think the more discussion there the better. It'd be especially good if you could come up with some other viable way of dealing with this very extensive problem. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- I can understand why this is done in WP:CCI but in (undisclosed) paid editing, the edits aren't illegal, just potentially non-NPOV. –xenotalk 18:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)