Wikipedia has a lot of policy documents that are typically used to object to an article or a piece thereof. This comes out largely as finger-pointing with a laser sight, but it lends legitimacy to an argument.
Regarding conflicts of interest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plain_and_simple_conflict_of_interest_guide This mostly concerns being personally involved with the subject matter. Whether offering a competing product and being personally committed to the belittlement of the subject matter comprises "personal involvement" is a complicated question. Regarding opinionated content: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion AKA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTSOAPBOX This specifically states that if there are going to be fights over things they shouldn't happen in Wikipedia articles. As others have said, a straight presentation of facts is fine, even if the reader doesn't particularly care for them, but things like motivations and value judgments aren't facts. At best, one can say that such-and-such person claimed such motivations exist or made such-and-such value judgments. Just above that is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought AKA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTFORUM which concerns personal opinions, ratings and original research. Regarding it getting ugly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground AKA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTBATTLEGROUND Regarding dispute resolution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution Arbitration comes at the very bottom of a rather long list of things that should be tried first. Arbitration is apparently meant for situations that have to do with user conduct rather than the content of the article. Regarding neutral point-of-view: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute This has a somewhat similar, though nevertheless different, procedure for resolving the situation. The article can be tagged as being part of an NPOV dispute, and there's an NPOV dispute noticeboard. The similarity is that needing an authority figure to make a ruling should be the very last resort. Don On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 11:20 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts <lo...@apache.org> wrote: > Rob Weir wrote: >>> For what it is worth, I too am a Wikipedia editor. Many are, and it's >>> > not anything to write home about as something special. But it does mean >>> > that presenting a more truthful and honest account of Apache OpenOffice >>> > is something we can do. >>> > >> >> So what can you do when you have someone pushing a biased POV? >> >> His comments here, for example, seem to show that he not only lacks >> the facts, but has an axe to grind: >> >> https://plus.google.com/u/0/111502940353406919728/posts/3CUDTZoTsAp >> >> Doesn't that make someone ineligible to edit an article? >> >> -Rob >> > > In a better land, where notions of fairness are codified and observed as > an honour code, and where cheating is out of the question because it > would devalue oneself (or one's affiliations), I'd think so; and even > Wikipedia might have codified provisions to guard against that sort of > thing; I cannot recall. But my understanding is that there is in play a > Hayek-style free speech rule, where the solution to biased or otherwise > untrue (or untrustworthy) speech is more speech, but from others, > including the offended parties. > > I can't recall but I would be curious if Wikipedia does have a kind of > means of safeguarding the impartiality of its editors. As just about > anybody can be an editor, and put out the most wonderfully batty stuff > (recall Sarah Palin's pages? language coined to give truth to bizarre > falsehood, and by her minions, no less, this was done), the remedy is > the agonistic one. > > So, I'd be delighted to help out here, and correct this nonsense. My > motivation is by no means adversarial. I do not wish ill of LO or TDF. > Gerard seems committed here, as elsewhere (such as his blog on > Wikimedia) to a certain notion of activism. That's fine for him. But > what it means for us is to fix the errors that we can identify and > clarify in the talk sections the logic of our work. > > Much of that has already been done in this thread by Rob and Dennis. > > best > Louis > > -- > Louis Suárez-Potts > Apache OpenOffice PMC > In Real Life: Community Strategist, Age of Peers > @luispo
