It's quite perverse to see people arguing that COI editing should be allowed because nobody else would be making these edits.
THAT'S THE POINT.
Some things are of no real interest to the wider world. Wikipedia is not the encyclopedia of Mormonism.
Helps is beginning to look like a perfect example of the problem of allowing COI editors to belive they're somehow volunteers like anyone else, and managing their COI is somehow less important than whether they are a good editor.
I believe that NPOV is more important than an undisclosed COI.
Declaring COIs is required precisely because it directly affects the neutrality of Wikipedia.
I believe an underlying assumption is that since I work for the BYU Library, I wouldn't say bad things about Mormonism (broadly construed), the LDS Church, or BYU.
There is no such underlying assumption in the requirement to disclose a COI. The issue is appearances as much as it is effect. You can (and should be aiming to be) a model editor whose bias is completely undetectable from your editing. You still need to declare.
I have edited on many pages in these topics and many have changed the way I think about the LDS Church and BYU, and not in a good way. Some examples are Battle at Fort Utah, a page I expanded about a one-sided attack on Timpanogos families supported by Brigham Young that lies at the heart of the city of Provo's founding.
Case in point. You're seeking extra credit for things which are mandatory for ordinary editors. Why? Because you're trying to make it appear as if your COI is being managed by your own self.
This is not how it works.
And for the record, the model Wikipedia editor practices
writing for the enemy as a matter of routine, not for occasional extra credit. It's considered best practice for a professional historian who is aiming to distill the neutral point of view from a wide range of sources.
A professional is well aware of their own bias and how it would affect their work if they weren't being proactive in mitigating it. Wikipedia is geared toward allowing volunteers to be professional without being paid. Ignoring the guidelines for their own reasons, is the first sign an editor has no such intention.
I believe that on the whole, the work I and my students have done has improved Wikipedia. We have added so much accurate information, cited in-line, to reliable sources. We have helped to make more sources discoverable by summarizing and citing them.
Irrelevant. See above.
Relevant only to illustrate that COI editors seem to want credit for editing the way any volunteer is supposed to edit. You're
supposed to summarizing reliable sources to make Wikipedia more accurate. That is the bare minimum any editor should be doing. The issue is whether you understand THERE IS MORE TO IT THAN THAT.
Neutrality is also about weight and context. It's about why you are using Wikipedia to expose these sources.
) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little…
