User talk:Ocaasi/Orangemike

Props to Ocaasi for inviting both sides to the SignPost. One comment: "If so, why did you approach the issue from a more antagonistic perspective?"

This seems like a loaded POV question. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 03:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

How would you rephrase it? What I was really thinking is that Paid Advocacy Watch is more antagonistic than WikiProject Cooperation. I think that's fair. Let me know what you think. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 01:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Check out my diff here and lets discuss.

• I removed questions that were duplicated. For example, supporting the bright line and asking if COI editors can make non-controversial edits are very similar questions.
• I removed first-person statements from Ocaasi, such as those starting with "I believe" or "what I see" - some of the questions were setup to make an observation that expresses a POV before asking the question. Again, unintentionally - but it's the nature of having the questions asked by someone with an opinion.
• I also added a question about whether PR pros can be good editors. This is my own POV, because I think this is really the heart of the issue. If our industry made solid NPOV, non-disruptive edits most of the time, there wouldn't be an issue right? If we're respectful, use Talk pages heavily, understand the rules, make great edits, than I'm sure we would be more welcome. History hasn't shown that. Doesn't mean we can't change it.
• Well, my own POV is that Paid Advocacy has been somewhat antagonistic as a group, but not that the approach itself is antagonistic. It seems like name calling to me.

Hope this helps. I appreciate that Ocaasi is so forgiving, civil, and cooperative even as I chase him down seemingly everywhere with wild accusations of bias. ;-) User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 02:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks pretty good. I might make some minor changes, but I think overall they're improvements. Thanks for the feedback. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 02:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Awesome. I'm a little sensitive to Wikiproject Cooperation beating up on Paid Advocacy Watch. How come PaidWatch's list is accused of advert, yet Cooperation has a similar, far more promotional list and nobody minds? PhilGomes mentioned in the last SignPost that Cooperation was more successful than PaidWatch, but if you strike out all the paid editors in Cooperation, the delta in project members isn't that great. Many are members of both and even on Cooperation's Talk page there was consensus to have a PaidWatch-type element.

Problem is Cooperation has more resources for well-articulated arguments, while PaidWatch is often just plain angry and doesn't have the methodology to explain why. I could imagine the same imbalances being caused by general PR participation in articles. I am privy to ranting as you can see, but that's why the original kind of made me jump in my seat. I would rather see both projects work together. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 04:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)