University fo Okahoma-Sigma Alpha Epsilon-Racial Chant

[MU2Driver]

Originally Posted by naraht

It is wikipedia, pages are not owned. In fact due to the rules on Conflict of Interest at Wikipedia, a brother of Sigma Alpha Epsilon is actually the least appropriate type of person to edit a page about Sigma Alpha Epsilon.

I understand that a literal reading of the Wikipedia conflict of interest policy could be interpreted that way, but it also says "subject-matter experts are welcome to contribute to articles in their areas of expertise, while being careful to make sure that their external relationships in that field do not interfere with their primary role on Wikipedia."

Using this example, who else other than a brother of SAE would have both the subject matter expertise and also the time and inclination to edit the SAE page? It's not a perfect system, which is why most people take Wikipedia with a grain of salt. The options in most cases would seem to be either uninformed editors or editors with a bias against the subject of the article.

[amIblue?]

Originally Posted by MU2Driver

I understand that a literal reading of the Wikipedia conflict of interest policy could be interpreted that way, but it also says "subject-matter experts are welcome to contribute to articles in their areas of expertise, while being careful to make sure that their external relationships in that field do not interfere with their primary role on Wikipedia."

Using this example, who else other than a brother of SAE would have both the subject matter expertise and also the time and inclination to edit the SAE page? It's not a perfect system, which is why most people take Wikipedia with a grain of salt. The options in most cases would seem to be either uninformed editors or editors with a bias against the subject of the article.

I agree, and I also don't understand the motivation to get involved in a self-admitted "edit war" with someone over whether the appropriate terminology for the chapter at OU is "closed," "inactive," "disbanded," or whatever when one don't personally have the knowledge of the correct terminology and when one has to go to a message board in order to get the information. GC isn't what I would consider a reliable academic source. If one isn't a subject matter expert, then leave it to the subject matter experts. It's wikipedia, not life or death.

That being said, I also don't understand the motivation for several GCers to do and type things they do and type in the name of "helping," but to each his or her own.

[naraht]

Originally Posted by MU2Driver

I understand that a literal reading of the Wikipedia conflict of interest policy could be interpreted that way, but it also says "subject-matter experts are welcome to contribute to articles in their areas of expertise, while being careful to make sure that their external relationships in that field do not interfere with their primary role on Wikipedia."

Using this example, who else other than a brother of SAE would have both the subject matter expertise and also the time and inclination to edit the SAE page? It's not a perfect system, which is why most people take Wikipedia with a grain of salt. The options in most cases would seem to be either uninformed editors or editors with a bias against the subject of the article.

"Subject matter expertise" is relatively broad. If there is an article on a new treatment for acne, a dermatologist or even a general MD would be viewed as having subject matter expertise. An Alpha Tau Omega brother would have all of the subject matter expertise to edit the article on SAE or vice versa. Many people are interested in improving articles on topics that they will have to research. For example, if a page for an honor society is marked as a stub and I happen to run into it, I'll do the research necessary to try to "destub it". I'm not a Phi Beta Kappa member, but I'm currently working on a chapter directory including installation dates.

Articles should be referenced, finding and putting the information from the pages puts someone above the level of "uninformed". And someone who is vocally opposed to the subject of the article is also viewed as having a conflict of interest. (So it would be equally inappropriate for the PR company for Exxon Mobil and for Greenpeace to write the article about the Exxon Valdez spill)