This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Samson Switchblade article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
I'm obviously new at this so your assistance is greatly appreciated. I have been asked to update the information regarding the Samson Switchblade. For instance the current picture is very out of date. The picture I used for updating is available from the Samson website. Would that be a sufficient reference. If not, what should be used?
I guess I'm asking what is the best way to update the information so that it reflects the current development status and is therefore far more accurate then what is now several years old while meeting the posting requirements.
From what you have written here it sounds like you work for the company. If so, you should start be reading WP:COI, make a declaration of a conflict of interest and make suggestions for changes to the page here on the talk page, where they will be assessed for inclusion by neutral editors. We'll need references for any changes proposed, as per WP:PROVEIT. It is important to keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a vehicle for publicizing companies and their products.
The photo you uploaded to Commons File:Air 360 001.jpg seems to be improperly licensed. You claimed that it was your own work, but by made by someone else, Sam Bousfield. You can't just take copyrighted images from the company website and upload them, claiming that they are yours to upload. Where did that come from? - Ahunt (talk) 01:58, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your response and assistance. I recognize that it sounds like I work for the company but I am not, nor have I ever been employed or compensated by the company (Samson Works). I do have an interest in seeing that the company succeeds in their efforts as I am an owner (pre-buyer) of a Switchblade. I have volunteered my time and skills in various efforts of the design, construction and marketing of the prototype/product, and have visited the factory many times. I would best be described as a Trusted Advisor (non-paid) to the company and to Sam Bousfield (CEO). As such, I have been asked by Sam to try to update the Wikipedia information such that it accurately reflects the current status of the development and specifications.
One of the first things that is of obvious concern to Samson is the current posting of an old photo of the Switchblade. I recognize the copyright concerns and uploaded the new picture at the direction of and with the express permission of Sam Bousfield, who owns the copyright. If this is not the best way to handle this issue, can you please suggest a better way. From there, we can handle the other updates one at a time. I look forward to working with you. Regards, Nick Nicolas Leonard (talk) 22:04, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your explanation here. Because you are operating here at the direction of the company, that meets the definition of a conflict of interest, regardless of whether you are paid or not. As a deposit holder you certainly have a financial interest in the company and its success. Regardless, it will be easy for you to just propose the changes you think need to be made here on the article talk page and then neutral editors will assess them for inclusion. I am watching this page, so you will get a quick response from me, if no one else. For each change we will need a reference to cite. Company press releases or the company website are fine for factual information, as long as it is verifiable.
The issue of providing that picture is a bit complex. You can't just post someone else's work on Commons under a free licence without providing proof (via an OTRS ticket that catalogues the proof) that its use meets US copyright law. You could get the copyright holder, the artist or company, to upload it to Commons under a free licence, if they are willing to do so. An alternative is for the company to post it on their website with a declaration that it is under a specified free licence , or, better yet, "public domain". I always have a hard time explaining to companies that allowing anyone to use your PR images will increase exposure for the product, while making everything "all rights reserved" cuts down the amount of exposure it will get. - Ahunt (talk) 23:33, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
