User:Iamthekanadian
 | This user has publicly declared that they have a conflict of interest regarding the Wikipedia article LiveWorkPlay. |
Iamthekanadian, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, discloses that they have been paid by LiveWorkPlay for their contributions to Wikipedia.
About Being Paid
Note: the above has been declared, but I have not actually been paid for contributions to the LiveWorkPlay article or for any contributions on Wikipedia. The board of directors that is my employer has no idea I have a Wikipedia account, and my salary is fixed (does not go up or down at all, and evaluation of my job performance is not based on anything even remotely connected to Wikipedia).
I ended up getting involved because an existing LiveWorkPlay article (that I had nothing to do with) was marked for deletion after what I am told was more than a decade in existence. I was notified by a Wikipedia user that it was going to be deleted due to dead links, references, and other problems inherent to an older article that had not been updated. It would have been preferable to assist in fixing the original article (through unique knowledge of sources and other information) but that option was not available as the article had already been deleted by the time I checked into it. So I created my first Wikipedia account, and acted on the advice of others to start a new article. Things got a bit ugly after that. I didn't realize it at first, but I quickly understood that I should declare a conflict of interest, and I did that the second I learned how (or someone helped me do it) but I did not understand the intent of the "paid editor" policy, which is a declaration that some feel should be made whether you are actually "paid" for anything you do on Wikipedia or not (and there is some disagreement about this amongst even the most experienced editors). The wording of the policy forces editors to agree to a statement that is untrue, which I found difficult (and that's why I have this section, as a compromise to myself, knowing that I am definitely NOT paid by LiveWorkPlay for anything I do here). When I tried to raise this issue, I got the feedback that it is "just the wording" and of course I could engage in various complex processes if I wanted to get involved in trying to change the wording of the policy. Perhaps one day, but that would obviously be very daunting.
While some other users and editors were helpful, some were not, and in fact, some were very aggressive, and went so far as "outing" my identity - presumably not something that is supposed to be done here since most every user has a name other than their real name, presumably to offer a bit of protections so that bullying or other negative engagements here on Wikipedia don't carry over into personal life. Well, that's no longer an option for me due to multiple violations of Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting_of_personal_information that have gone on without consequence, but I am OK with that - being harassed by anonymous people who know who you are is usually a "privilege" reserved for celebrities - I just wish my income was reflective of my celebrity harassment status! My name is Keenan Wellar, and I am proud to have been one of the co-founders of a charitable organization, and I bring my 30+ years of experience in the sector here to Wikipedia, where I hope to help address the severe deficit of articles about notable charities. I do this in service to contributing quality articles, and nothing more.
About Conflict of Interest
"Conflict of Interest" has taken on a strange life here on Wikipedia, to the point that it has been weaponized for control and harassment. To be clear, the past and current threat of corruption and abuse by those who wish to pervert the purpose of Wikipedia and disrespect the community here is very real. But somehow the principle of COI has become extended to the point where some have come to believe that "caring about a topic" means you have a conflict of interest. This is nonsense, of course. To have a conflict of interest, you need to have a) multiple interests b) an actual conflict among those interests, whereby your interest or intent of writing appropriate articles is being harmfully subjugated for other purposes.
If you really care about trees, being passionate that two paragraphs about beetles that carry disease is necessary, is not cause for being labeled COI and blocked for refusing to give in. For sure, someone who gets carried away in their passion for trees could end up as a challenge to civility in which case they probably have a WP:ADVOCACY issue, but labeling them COI is not the way to go. That will just lead to everyone labeling everyone COI, and those with more power than others will "win the argument" by using their power. Forcing someone to accept a COI label, or even a "paid editor" label (this doesn't really fit for most employees of a nonprofit) is a very aggressive approach. Instead, try having a conversation about someone's "advocacy" - this has a very different feel. There is a big difference between wrongdoing and being passionate about a topic. Much of my Wikipedia experience to date has meant that I have felt like - or indeed experienced - actual stalking by editors who are "suspicious" of me. If you look at the few articles I've had a chance to work on, it becomes clear how silly this is - and what a waste of very negative energy it has been to keep coming after me with various accusations that just don't come close to the reality of who I am, what I am contributing, or my motivations.
I don't think there is any evidence to suggest I have the "advocacy problem" either - I have made technical errors to be sure, but I have also tried, and I believe mostly succeeded, in avoiding undue bias via:
- Assert facts, including facts about opinions, but do not assert the opinions themselves.
- Attribute claims to known authorities or substantiate the facts behind an argument.
- Let the facts speak for themselves and let the reader decide.
Sometimes, at least in part, this seems to be a straight up case of bruised egos. I have run into this on several occasions where otherwise skilled editors just don't understand charitable organizations or their structures, and my efforts to point out such errors result in accusations of COI: "You must have a conflict of interest since you are so insistent about..." No. Just like with any topic, I want the article to be accurate - perhaps it comes across differently when it is about organizations and not about lemurs or pinball, but it's the same - I have a lot of knowledge, training, and experience (including writing articles for newspapers, professional publications, and conference proceedings). I have degrees in history, education, and discourse studies and you really can't graduate in those areas of study without understanding sourcing. As regards the non-profit community, I don't intend to be argumentative with experienced Wikipedia editors who are lacking in that knowledge, but there is a knowledge deficit about nonprofits and charities, and too many editors are applying a lens more suited to businesses or celebrities. "Notability" for a social services organization doesn't look anything like notability for a technology company. It has to be treated differently or Wikipedia will forever have a huge deficit of articles about that entire sector. I have seen more articles about old highways than charitable organizations!
As a relative newcomer here I am at a loss as to how one might contribute to getting the overall COI WP:COI issue back on track for Wikipedia. In my work in leadership and governance, I see this type of thing often, and generally, it means that people have become consumed with processes and power dynamics, and have drifted away from the core motivation of a policy in the first place. In this case, I would suggest what is important is the publishing of quality articles. "Conflict of interest" allegations that are not in clear evidence in the writing itself but are nevertheless asserted and enforced seems like a slippery slope to a very authoritarian type of community. How does one disprove an allegation that "you seem to care too much" about a topic as a basis for being declared COI? Something to think about. I think it is both scary and sad that this seems be an increasingly normalized experience here, and the good faith policy WP:GF does not appear to be a fully effective counterbalance. I have tried this myself, and have found that it may only fuel the fire where a determined COI proponent will go to great lengths to impose their will and invoke a standard whereby the only "proof" of COI that is necessary is your passion for the topic. We all need to focus on the writing, and in effect, the importance will be taken off of COI and efforts will be refocused where they belong - quality articles.
The Drama Continues
Well, it isn't going to end. The latest tactic is accusing me of sockpuppetry based on account(s) from 15 years ago. It doesn't make a lot of sense, but there's nothing to stop someone from trying. These efforts involve pursuing me not only on Wikipedia but also repeatedly outing my identity (you are not supposed to do this even if a user has shared personal information that is visible on Wikipedia) and using that knowledge to stalk my life outside of Wikipedia - scouring the web in an effort to make connections to topics I write about as fuel for ongoing COI accusations, and making multiple visits to various blogs and websites of mine, or that have information about me. I have always been a very public person, and have even had my share of enemies (not many, but I do a lot of human rights advocacy and you get enemies when you do this, just part of the territory), but this particular obsession is very strange and hard to figure out. To be continued, I guess.
 | This user participates in WikiProject Canada. |
About Me
I have been a Wikipedia user for a long time, but I registered my first account, Iamthekanadian, in 2021. I have spent most of my adult life working and volunteering for causes related to human rights and full citizenship for people with intellectual disabilities and autistic persons, including starting a non-profit organization with my wife in 1995. This was only supposed to be for hosting family advocacy meetings, but it morphed into a rather dramatic career change in 1997 when we quit our jobs and went full-time at the charity - at the time I was working for an IT start-up Ingenia_Communications_Corporation (not as a technical staff member, I was leading an educational project and was hired as an educator) back in the days when the World Wide Web was kind of a new thing. So it was a rather big change, from working mainly with engineers to working in social services. Even then, I thought it would only be for a couple of years, but here I am, pushing into my mid-50s, and still at it. What can I say, there's a lot to do. Other interests that will probably get my attention here on Wikipedia, I am a photographer, a kayaker, and a sports fan, mostly related to in around my home town of Ottawa, Canada, but not exclusively. I love Australian Rules Football, tennis tournaments anywhere in the world, and I love history and geography in general, as well as applied linguistics and education pedagogy.