Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:13, 19 December 2017

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Replied

Talkback

Talkback

Talkback

--Pine

Whisperback

 Hello. You have a new message at Ɱ's talk page.
 Hello. You have a new message at Ɱ's talk page.

Merry Christmas and happy new year

DRR involving you

DRR involving you 101.63.168.177 (talk)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, WWB Too. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Michael J. Saylor

Done. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Are you breaking the law?

Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#Deceptive_advertising,_FTC_on_Native_advertising (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 08:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

What is your purpose in asking me this, TQP? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, @Smallbones: wrote: "So any posting of text by a business or its paid editors in a Misplaced Pages article is deceptive advertising, a violation of FTC rules, illegal under the FTC act and a type of fraud". I assume you disagree so I was hoping for another perspective. I do not live in the United States and I know little about U.S. law. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

From what I understand from WWB he and his business only edit talkpages, never articles. If so they are likely to be following FTC rules as I understand those rules. Not that I'd guarantee this. I stand by the quote from me above. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting, Smallbones. And I appreciate hearing your perspective; you're correct, my colleagues and I use talk pages and draft space only. We never edit live articles, even for minor maintenance purposes (to the annoyance of some editors who'd prefer to give us the OK to go ahead). Still, the questions you raise at Talk:COI do seem to call into question whether an interested party can even join in talk page discussions that result in new material being added to live articles. If that is not your intention, I hope you can clarify this point in that discussion. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Draft space? Who said anything about that? Are you legally allowed to edit in the draft space? It seems unlikely that someone would be allowed in draft space, but not be allowed to edit live articles. Have you asked a lawyer? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

My efforts on behalf of clients carefully follow Jimmy Wales' advice from 2012 that editors with a financial COI avoid editing articles directly, but instead disclose their connection so volunteer editors are aware of the fact, and stick to making suggestions on talk pages. That's what we do. It should go without saying, but since you are asking: no, I don't believe this is illegal. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Like many people here I am not a huge fan of Jimbo. I don't hate him but I don't love him, its somewhere in between. You wrote: "...stick to making suggestions on talk pages. That's what we do." (15:50, 15 December 2017) but you also wrote: "...my colleagues and I use talk pages and draft space only" (15:13, 15 December 2017, emphasis mine). (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Jimbo said: "never edit article space directly". Back then there was no draft space afaik... (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:55, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I am speaking informally; see the draft at User:WWB_Too/Michael_J._Saylor, which is in my userspace. However, I'm pretty sure we've also used draft space since it came into being. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Someone should probably ask the WMF to clarify how to interpret this FTC act. I followed the TmarTn controversy a while back, it was very interesting. I am not a lawyer, and my local laws are different (I live in the Netherlands). @Smallbones: Have you asked the WMF legal team for an opinion (e.g. via JimboTalk?). (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I've answered WWB's question at WT:COI, though I really wasn't clear what he was referring to. I'll limit my discussion on COI to that page for awhile (but did anybody note that Christmas is fast approaching). I'm not at all comfortable with The Quixotic Potato's tone on this page. Wishing everybody "peace on earth, goodwill toward men". Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:55, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

So, first you make a vague accusation (too vague to be confirmed or denied), and then you wish everybody peace. Not sure how to interpret that. I am allowed to ask questions, WWB Too is allowed to respond if WWB Too wishes to respond. I think that WWB Too understands that I am not accusing anyone, I am simply asking questions because in my country there is no FTC and I am curious about paid editing and disclosure (but in case you were worried about that then I'll point it out for the record). I am worried that currently the situation is unclear, even for those who are trying to do the right thing, and I wish there was a WMF lawyer who explained how this decision affects our encyclopedia, if it does. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 18:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

The question was posed to WMF Legal, and Slaporte (WMF) has responded to say that he doesn't know the answer either, though they may look into it next year. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, interesting stuff. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 18:29, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, he is breaking the law in many national jurisdictions which Misplaced Pages is published in. It is deceit, cheating and fraud not to disclose to readers that the flattering content actually originates from the company through their hidden paid cutouts like WBB Too. Since Misplaced Pages is a composite work it is irrelevant if the company's content is uploaded into "draft" space or "article" space by the cutouts. There are other legal and moral aspects of such paid editing. Vunutu (talk) 03:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)