m →Oriental Ruthless Boys: new section |
Hydrangeans (talk | contribs) Tag: Reply |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Warning|To discuss conflict of interest problems with specific editors and articles, please go to<br />[[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard]].}} |
{{Warning|To discuss conflict of interest problems with specific editors and articles, please go to<br />[[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard]].}} |
||
{{COI changes disclosure requirement}} |
|||
{{talkheader}} |
|||
{{talk header |sc=WT:COI}} |
|||
{{archivebox| |
|||
{{Press |
|||
*[[Wikipedia talk:Vanity guidelines/Archive 1 | 2004 – August 2006 ]] |
|||
| subject = page |
|||
** <small>different pagename: ''Vanity guidelines''</small> |
|||
| author = Garber, Megan |
|||
*[[Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Archive 2| August – September 2006]] |
|||
| title = Okay, Who Edited the 'Choco Taco' Wikipedia Page From Congress? |
|||
*[[Wikipedia talk:Editing with a conflict of interest|August – October 2006 ]] |
|||
| org = ''[[The Atlantic]]'' |
|||
** <small>''Editing with a conflict of interest''</small> |
|||
| url = http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/07/okay-who-edited-the-choco-taco-wikipedia-page-from-a-congressional-computer/374488/ |
|||
*[[Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Archive 3| October 2006 – March 2007]] |
|||
| date = July 15, 2014 |
|||
*[[Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Archive 4| March – July 2007]] |
|||
| author2 = Sali, Meghan |
|||
* [[/Archive 5 | August 2007 ]] |
|||
| org2 = ''[[Huffington Post]]'' |
|||
* [[/Archive 6 | September - December 2007]] |
|||
| title2 = Keeping Truth Alive In A World Of Anonymous Wikipedia Edits |
|||
* [[/Archive 7 | January 2008 - ]] |
|||
| date2 = February 1, 2017 |
|||
| url2 = http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/meghan-sali/truth-in-era-of-wiki-edits_b_14531364.html |
|||
| title3 = Wikipedia editors for hire |
|||
| date3 = June 12, 2009 |
|||
| org3 = [[CNN]] SciTechBlog |
|||
| author3 = Wes Finley-Price |
|||
| url3 = http://scitech.blogs.cnn.com/2009/06/12/wikipedia-editors-for-hire/ |
|||
}} |
|||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|||
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|||
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|||
|counter = 34 |
|||
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|||
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|||
|algo = old(18d) |
|||
|archive = Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Archive %(counter)d |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
__TOC__ |
|||
==Direct discussion vs. outing== |
|||
== Should we upgrade this to policy? == |
|||
I see in the section on [[Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#How_to_handle_conflicts_of_interest|how to handle conflicts of interest]] that it suggests directly discussing potential issues, but also says that outing editors is always wrong. In the case of biographies, however, I'm not entirely sure how this would work. Is the idea that one should ask whether there is a COI, but not whether it is the subject him or herself? I would think in the case of someone editing a biography that it is allowed to ask whether the person editing the biography is its subject, and presumably that this is what "direct discussion" means. I realize such situations have led to controversy, but I would guess it is also the general practice. If there are problems with clarifying this, I'd be curious what they are. [[User:Mackan79|Mackan79]] ([[User talk:Mackan79|talk]]) 15:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
We have always treated policies as codification of existing practice. The recently closed [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management|Conflict of interest management]] cited {{tq|failure to meet the conduct standards expected of an administrator, specifically as pertains to conflict of interest editing and conflict of interest disclosure}} as sufficient reason to revoke sysop status, with essentially unanimous agreement. So it seems to me it's time to make it official and upgrade this from a guideline to a policy. This would recognize that demanding adherence to this is indeed existing practice, and would be consistent with the community's increasing intolerance of COI editing. [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 16:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Considering how large the archives are on this page == |
|||
:{{ping|RoySmith}} I'm pretty sure we would need an RfC for that. If you plan on starting one, I would most likely support, since I thought that it was already policy. [[User:QuicoleJR|QuicoleJR]] ([[User talk:QuicoleJR|talk]]) 17:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I figured the place to start is with an informal discussion and move on to a formal RFC if it looks like there's broad support. [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 17:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
: I just archived this talkpage (which was over 300K) into separate archive pages, and added some nav templates so it's easy to scroll through them and scan the table of contents on each one. However, if someone wants to take the time to create a more detailed summary, I am sure that would be useful too. --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 21:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:I think so. Though that case also highlighted some ambiguities in the definitions of paid editing and financial COI, and relatedly this guideline's relationship to [[WP:PAID]] (see [[Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict_of_interest_management/Proposed_decision#Statement_by_Joe_Roe]] for both). It might be a good idea to try and iron those out first. – [[User:Joe Roe|Joe]] <small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 18:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:The general principles of the conflict of interest guideline are widely accepted. However, I'm inclined to think revision of the text would be necessary before accepting it as a policy would be possible, in order to have more clarity about what are conflicts and what are acceptable practices. I say this as someone who has been confused by gaps between what the guideline says and what some members of the community expect (and gaps between what different members of the community expect, as [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_190#COI_and_the_evolution_of_Wikipedia|this interaction between Donald Albury, Teratix, and Levivich indicates]]). For instance, the current guideline's examples and language emphasize articles about current ({{tq|''being'' an owner, employee, contractor}}, rather than "having been") and close relationships, like an article about a business that one owns or an article about a direct family member. This has led, at least for myself personally, to being surprised to learn there are editors who consider since terminated institutional employment relationships a conflict as well. If this is going to be a policy, I think it's going to need to be shored up to avoid these confusions. I get desires to avoid rules creep, but if the community expects something as a rule but doesn't communicate it, that just creates more muddles and makes it harder to apply, follow, and enforce the potential policy. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] ([[She (pronoun)|she/her]] | [[User talk:Hydrangeans#top|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Hydrangeans|edits]]) 18:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Regarding previous employment, I'd say it's not black and white. If I retired from XYZ Corp on good terms and with a generous pension after 30 years of high-ranking service then I would likely still have a COI with the company for at least a few years, especially if I'm still in contact with current employees. Similarly, if I was fired by MegaCorp in a manner that I thought unfair then I would almost certainly still have a COI for probably some months (maybe a double digit number) after my employment ended. However, if I spent a short time temping at Joe Bloggs Ltd or had a summer job at Bob's Burger Franchise then any lingering COI would be measured in weeks at absolute most. If I am a self-employed plumber contracted to fix the toilet at Chain Restaurant then my COI with my client ends pretty much as soon as I walk out the door. This is all generally speaking of course - stronger COIs will last longer than weaker ones for example. |
|||
::Reading this back, I'd say this is actually a good argument for it remaining a guideline. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 23:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::FWIW, I have tried to clarify what I did to articles I may have a COI on, and what the relevant policies and guidelines said at the time, at: [[User:Donald_Albury#Conflict of interest declaration]]. - [[User talk:Donald Albury|Donald Albury]] 21:50, 21 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Yes, but as Joe Roe points out, some ambiguities need resolving before starting the formal procedures. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|~~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 20:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I could support something along these lines. [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:red">——Serial Number 54129</span>]] 21:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:IMO another point point of clarification is what '''should''' disclose your COI actually means. I've always interpreted ''should'' to be opposed to ''must''. So if an editor fails to disclose their non paid COI, this isn't actually a violation of anything and by itself is unsanctionable. Now if an editor fails to disclose their CoI and then we may have much lower tolerance for any problematic behaviours, so we may block or topic ban them or whatever much more readily but we do actually need something else for it to be sanctionable. However I know from discussions as far back as 15 years or so ago, there are plenty of people who interpret it as a "must" and consider failure to disclose a non paid CoI by itself sanctionable unless perhaps the editor can provide a sufficiently compelling reason for not disclosing. While I haven't followed this case that well, I'm fairly sure I read several commentators who still interpret it as a must and this also seems to be the direction arbconm has lent. Yet I read back in long ago discussions as well as ones when this blew up people who share my view. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 22:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Just post a simple proposal at [[ Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)]]. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]</span>🍁 22:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I can envision a slew of problems with trying to make it a policy. It's important not to undercut the harassment policy by giving fuel to those who argue that outing is no big deal if there's a COI; there's been a ton of previous discussion at the harassment policy talk page about the balance between the two. And whereas undisclosed paid editing has an important place in the terms of use, COI covers such a broad spectrum of degrees of "conflict" (just look at some of the talk sections above this one) that it probably lends itself better to a guideline. I recently saw a thread on a good-faith editor's user talk page, where a POV-pusher asked the editor if they were a physician, implying that physicians cannot impartially edit pages about fringe medical theories or quackery. Just imagine where that could go if this were raised to policy-level. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 22:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::It wasn't so much NihonJoe's failure to disclose the COI that resulted in the desysop, but the manner in which he did not disclose. It's almost certain that had his initial response to a civil question of "Do you have a COI with X?" been "Yes, and I also have COIs with A, B and C." it wouldn't have reached arbitration let alone a desysop. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 23:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Quibbling about should? "Should" is not hard to understand, should means, you should do it. Should is used throughout the consensus policies and guidelines: eg. you "should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias" is the nutshell of perhaps Wikipedia's most fundamental editorial policy. That does not mean, it's just fine not to do it. Do it, if nothing else, because Wikipedia, which as there is a guideline means Wikipedians by consensus have asked you to. But really, why not take real stock of what we are doing here, Wikipedia is a publisher and responsible writers and publishers disclose COI. -- [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 23:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::'Should' does not mean 'must', and very few policies/guidelines use 'must'. COI isn't something that there should be any doubt around, so this should be one of the exceptions where 'must' is used. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 16:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::I don't understand the concern people have about inviting harassment. Of course you shouldn't be subjected to harassment, and people who do harass you should be sanctioned. But [[Special:Diff/1217231357|as I said earlier]] nobody's making you edit COI articles. One perfectly good way to avoid being harassed about COI is to just not edit COI articles. We've got 6,812,642 articles right now; surely there's other topics which interest you that you could edit. And if you do chose to edit articles with a COI, all we're asking is that you disclose it. If you're unsure if your association meets the definition of COI, just say what your association is and let other people figure out for themselves. This really doesn't seem like an onerous requirement. And if you do find it onerous, then there's still those 6,812,641 other articles. [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 16:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Having been pressed in the past about alleged COI for a topic I did not actually edit articles about (different than the matter I mentioned earlier), I find the concern about harassment credible. When there do exist editors who claim COI investigation justifies harassment (something [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict_of_interest_management#Editor_privacy|the Arbitration case, so long as it's been brought up, unanimously agreed wasn't a legitimate excuse]]), I worry that advice along the lines of {{tq|just}} [do] {{tq|not edit COI articles}} inadvertently veers a little too near to victim blaming. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] ([[She (pronoun)|she/her]] | [[User talk:Hydrangeans#top|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Hydrangeans|edits]]) 20:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::In addition to Hydrangeans comment, there was also a case recently of a good-faith editor being subject to borderline harassment, to the extent oversight was needed, when a different editor refused to take "no" for answer when accusing them of having a financial COI. We must be careful not to accidentally encourage or legitimise such behaviour. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 20:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::That sounds like you are positively encouraging COI writing. "Don't edit COI articles" prevents readers and Wikipedia from being misled, and also editors who don't want to be publicly connected to the subject from being publicly connected. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 17:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::In re {{xt|very few policies/guidelines use 'must'}}: Guidelines use ''must'' more often than policies, and [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style]] uses it the most. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 01:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I would support upgrading this guideline to policy unchanged. Not saying I wouldn't support changes. I'd appreciate a ping when this goes to VPP. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 17:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Something that I don't think has really been addressed so far in this discussion, and needs to be carefully thought through and spelled out before making a formal proposal, is '''what is the problem that the proposal to make it a policy is going to address?''' Are we having a problem that results from it being only a guideline, that will be fixed by making it a policy? --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 19:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Yes, and that's the main reason I'd support a change to it being a policy. People frequently break out the "it's just a guideline, not a policy" argument when they disagree with a guideline. HJ Mitchell mentioned that in the case. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 20:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Thanks. So if I restate that, it becomes: the problem that needs to be addressed is that users often treat COI as unimportant, because "it's only a guideline". I think I could get on-board with that. But I still have serious concerns about whether the community will have consensus about enforcing this as a policy. I understand the comments about "should". But consider someone who has a significant and problematic COI, leading them to make biased edits, and they are not disclosing it, and they have always been very careful not to make it possible to dox them. They ''should'' disclose that COI, and arguably they ''must'', but if they don't, what do we do to enforce it? As a guideline, we focus on enforcing NPOV, which '''is''' is a policy, and enforcing NPOV as a policy also effectively enforces the COI guideline. So, if we take "COI is only a guideline" off the table, how does this change? --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 20:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I think the community is treating COI like a policy most of the time. This could be problematic for users who are treating it like a guideline and who might think their cases are exceptions. There are, and there will continue to be, COI cases that remain undetectable for a long period, or forever. I don't think upgrading COI to a policy will have much of an effect on those either way. I agree that the quality of the edits made by COI editors is a factor, but it's not just about NPOV. I don't think—if this is what you were implying—that NPOV enforcement is sufficient to handle all COI problems. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 00:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Yes, just like there are NPOV violations that remain undetected for a very long time or forever, that's clearly not a reason for not having policy or guideline and enforcing them when they come up. Moreover, part of the purpose of the guideline is to promote ethics, and also honesty with readers, which should be what we always try to enforce and reinforce in almost every policy and guideline. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 17:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::{{tq|I agree that the quality of the edits made by COI editors is a factor}} I strenously disagree; the quality of their edits makes no difference at all (notably, this was a repeated defense made for Rachel Helps and she still got topic-banned.) There are clear red lines for COIs where, once crossed, nothing else can serve as a defense. We wouldn't accept "I like their edits tho" as a defense in a sockpuppetry case, I don't see how a COI case is any different. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 23:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::{{tq|We wouldn't accept "I like their edits tho" as a defense in a sockpuppetry case}}: Perhaps you or I wouldn't; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=567904165#closing but the community has done just that] and is [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Unblock_request:_ExclusiveEditor|again considering doing just that]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1219639092#Unblock_request:_ExclusiveEditor permanent link]). [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] ([[She (pronoun)|she/her]] | [[User talk:Hydrangeans#top|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Hydrangeans|edits]]) 23:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::The purpose of the COI policy is to maintain the quality of the encyclopaedia. If editors have found that the contributions of an editor with a COI are beneficial to the encyclopaedia (i.e. the articles they've contributed to are notable, neutral, due, etc) why would we want to block them? What benefits would we gain? [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 00:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::I think you're thinking about direct benefits. The more obvious benefits are indirect: expressing certain views about COI signals that you're part of the in-group, that you share values with those in power (<small>that'd be most of us in this discussion</small>), that you support the current social order, etc. Groups use words and intensification to help strengthen the group's power and identity. |
|||
:::::::In the song "[[Ding-Dong! The Witch Is Dead]]", there's a solo that runs: |
|||
:::::::<poem> |
|||
:::::::As coroner I must aver |
|||
:::::::I thoroughly examined her |
|||
:::::::And she's not only merely dead |
|||
:::::::She's really most sincerely dead |
|||
:::::::</poem> |
|||
:::::::What's the difference between "only merely dead" and "really most sincerely dead"? Well, nothing, in practice. But the point isn't to change the practicalities; it's to indicate an emotional state. IMO the same thing happens here: We have said for years that you should normally disclose a COI before editing (except when that would require self-OUTING); now we want to say that you really most sincerely should disclose a COI before editing. The practical difference is zero. The psychological difference is significant. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 01:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::*{{tq|They ''should'' disclose that COI, and arguably they ''must'', but if they don't, what do we do to enforce it?}} We topic-ban them or block them as soon as sufficient evidence emerges. The recent ArbCom case and the ANI cases for Rachel Helps and Thmazing have made that obvious (though it was obvious already, since that has ''always'' been our practice.) Obviously some policies (like sockpuppetry) might not always be obvious or could be hard to prove, but once it comes out, what happens is clear. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 23:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::But that wasn't what I asked. I asked about when they are very careful about not leaving any way to identify them, and therefore "as soon as sufficient evidence emerges" never arrives. You make a comparison with the sock policy, where we have the checkuser tool, but we wouldn't use checkuser to "out" someone who might or might not have a COI. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 21:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::@[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]], that hasn't "always" been our practice. The COI rules were very different back when we made our first edits. We have admins who created articles about themselves, their family members, or their employers, and nobody thought that was a problem back in the day. The idea back then was that if your personal interest aligned with Wikipedia's interests, then there was no "conflict", so writing an autobiography was acceptable, so long as the result was neutral. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 02:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::A neutral autobiography has got to be an oxymoron, but sure there was a time when this project had no real concept of COI. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 12:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::neutrality is judged by the words on the page, not by who wrote them. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 19:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::Nonsense. A person writing their autobiography is POV writing. They are creating their life story -- now, part of their life story is the writing their autobiography. He wrote that, '[he] was born in a car seat', or he wrote a paragraph on his first job, is not neutral information no matter how it is written, it is important self-information, it is him, telling you about himself, indeed him telling you what's worth knowing. -- [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 13:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::You are conflating notability, neutrality, DUE, and other factors into a mess that accurately reflects nothing more than your personal, rather extreme, point of view: |
|||
:::::::::::*Whether the subject of an article is notable or not is completely independent of who wrote the article. |
|||
:::::::::::**It is more likely that an autobiography will be written by a non-notable person than a notable person (simply because there are fewer notable than non-notable people and a significant proportion of notable, living, people with the necessary skills and opportunity to write an article on the English Wikipedia already have an article) but that does not mean that everybody who writes an autobiographical article is non-notable. |
|||
:::::::::::*What information about the subject of an article is encyclopaedic and due is completely independent of who wrote the article. |
|||
:::::::::::**What information the article ''should'' contain is solely determined by what reliable sources write about the subject, and the consensus of editors deem is important. This always overlaps with what the subject of the article thinks it should contain - sometimes the overlap is tangential, sometimes it's (almost) complete, most often it is between the two extremes. The exact same is true when you substitute "fans of the subject", "haters of the subject", "the subject's family and friends" and many other groups of people. |
|||
:::::::::::*What information is present in the article is present in the article is completely independent of who wrote the article, what should be in the article, and whether it is neutrally phrased. |
|||
:::::::::::**Only a featured article contains everything it should contain and nothing else. Every other article contains either omissions or excesses. Given the overlap between what the subject wants in the article and what independent editors want in the article, an autobiography will contain at least some material that consensus says it should (e.g. both an autobiography and an independent biography of a notable actor will include information about their career and at least a partial filmography). How much (and what) is missing and how much (and what) is present that shouldn't be can (obviously) only be judged by the actual content of the specific article. |
|||
:::::::::::*Whether the information in the article is written neutrally is completely independent of who wrote the article, and of what information is in the article. |
|||
:::::::::::**It is obvious that this can also only be judged by the words on the page, but it is entirely possible to write both neutrally and non-neutrally about both encyclopaedic and non-encyclopaedic information, and all combinations are possible for both the article subject and for others. It is less likely that an auto-biography will be neutrally written, but that is not the same thing as impossible. |
|||
:::::::::::[[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 14:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::Your statements are the complete mess. Indeed, its as if you have no idea what you are responding to, it's like you just rattling off random talking points. Nothing I said addressed notability, nor encyclopedic. And your pretense of divorcing DUE form neutrality just demonstrates a complete lack understanding of neutrality. You appear to not even understand autobiography. -- [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 16:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::Now try reading what I actually wrote and responding to that rather than assuming that someone who disagrees with you must not be understanding you. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 16:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::Oh, I read what you wrote. It is a complete mess of random irrelevant talking points, and nothing but misunderstanding or lack of understanding on your part. And as I said, which you apparently did not read, your misunderstanding goes far beyond me, to neutrality and biography. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 16:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::::I'm not misunderstanding anything, it's a detailed explanation of why you are wrong, but as you have no interested in listening I'll end the conversation here. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 17:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::::No, your comment is not. It is about other things, not responding to what I wrote, its either pretending that due is not part of neutrality or you are fundamentally misinformed or spreading misinformation. Your comment further betrays a misunderstanding or misinformation about biography and autobiography. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 17:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::{{xt|A person writing their autobiography is POV writing. They are creating their life story}} – I think this is overstated. If the article says "Alice Expert is the chair of the Expert Department at Big University", and that's what independent sources say about Alice, then the article is neutral, no matter who wrote it. (Articles were usually shorter back then. A single-sentence or two-sentence substub was pretty typical.) [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 00:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::No, not neutral, it's the thing the very subject thinks is important to say about the very subject. |
|||
::::::::::::(As for creating their life story, it is them living it, which now for your author includes writing their autobiography but deceivingly so, as independent biography.) [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 10:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::@[[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] You need to explain how the words "Alice Expert is the chair of the Expert Department at Big University" are neutral when written by an independent editor but the exact same words are non-neutral when written by Alice Expert. Until you can do that the foundation of your argument is baseless. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 11:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::You said you were done talking to me, now you ping me back. I have already explained. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 11:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::::Except you ''haven't'' explained anything. Please answer the question asked. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 12:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::::I certainly have. |
|||
::::::::::::::::And your latest flip-flop further decreases trust in your commenting, so just stop. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 12:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::::::Forget personalising the dispute and just answer the question asked. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 12:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::::::Already answered. Your badgering is not in the least useful to Wikipedia. -- [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 12:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::::::::Thank you for acknowledging that you cannot answer the question. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 13:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::::::::I did answer the question. Your last comment is just further evidence of your untrustworthy commenting. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 13:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::::::::::@[[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] the answer to your question is that when an independent editor writes that, they have made the independent (and presumably, unbiased) decision that it is important enough to put in an encyclopedia. The same cannot be said when Alice Expert writes the exact same words. [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 14:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::::::::::That still doesn't answer the question. If an independent editor makes a judgement that those words are neutral and DUE, but those identical words are not neutral and DUE when written by someone who isn't independent then there must be some way of distinguishing the words without knowledge of who wrote them. Given that the words are identical that isn't possible, therefore you still haven't answered the question. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 14:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::::::::::::Now you're just [[WP:IDHT|being pig-headed]]. [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 14:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::::::::::::Now you're just making personal attacks. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 14:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::::::::::::::I think Thryduulf is correct about the article. An article's neutrality is judged by its contents, not by its author(s). If a given string of words is neutral when I write it, then it's neutral when anybody writes it. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 00:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::Well, since we're talking about nuance: the basic logic behind the COI policy, as I see it, is to recognise that, like all text, text in Wikipedia articles comes with [[paratext]]. The ''text'' "Alice Expert is the chair of the Expert Department at Big University" written by Alice Expert and "Alice Expert is the chair of the Expert Department at Big University" written by Bob Volunteer are identical; the ''paratexts'' are very difficult. One says this is an editorially independent encyclopaedia, the other says this is ''Who's Who''. One imbues a degree of confidence that Alice being the chair of the Expert Department at Big University is neutral without qualification, the other raises the possibility that Alice might in fact be a ''disgraced former chair'' at Big University Degree Mill Inc, working in the hotly-disputed field of Expertise. And so on. In theory we could make the paratext irrelevant by rigorously assessing the verifiability and neutrality of every piece of text contributed. In practice we don't have time, so we take the reasonable shortcut of trusting some contributors of text more than others. – [[User:Joe Roe|Joe]] <small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 12:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::How does the paratext differ if both statements are supported by a reliable source? Especially if they are supported by the same reliable source? [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 12:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::In exactly the same way. – [[User:Joe Roe|Joe]] <small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 12:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::::So you are saying that identical text, supported by an identical citation to a reliable source, magically changes from neutral to non-neutral based on whether the person writing the words is the subject or not? I seriously don't understand how you can say that with a straight face. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 13:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::::Make sure you never find yourself in the literature department of a university then, it'll blow your mind. |
|||
::::::::::::::::But seriously, I agree that the ''text'' either neutral or it's not. What I'm trying to say is that in practice, we all know that it's not that easy to tell. It sounds neutral and has a reliable source, great, but does that source really check out? Has it been fairly represented? Is it independent? Has it been cherry-picked from other sources that say something different? Given time you can answer all those questions, but in day-to-day editing we usually take a shortcut by rely on contextual clues. WP:COI just extends that logic into a guideline. If I see a potentially non-neutral edit to [[Alice Expert]] from [[User:Thryduulf]], with admin bits and 95k edits, I'm not going to blink an eye. If I see the same text as one of the first ten edits from [[User:McNewbie]], I'll probably check out the source. If I see it from [[User:AliceExpertOfficial]], I'm going to be so suspicious that I'd really rather they didn't make it in the first place. |
|||
::::::::::::::::And just as importantly, I think readers have a similar logic. Luckily, few people actually understand who writes Wikipedia articles or how to check, but everybody I know assumes that our articles are written by random nerds, because if they wanted to read what people and companies had to say about themselves, they'd be on Facebook. – [[User:Joe Roe|Joe]] <small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 14:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::::::So what you are actually saying is that, no, the neutrality of identical text supported by an identical citation to a reliable source ''doesn't'' change depending on who wrote it. What you are saying is that your assumptions about the text change based on things other than the words on the page. That is a very different claim to the one you were making previously. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 14:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::::::That's a very good way of putting it, yes. I didn't intend to claim anything different. – [[User:Joe Roe|Joe]] <small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 14:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::::::::Another way to look at this is to consider that if Bob Volunteer thinks about making that edit about Alice Expert, and then decides that it would be better not to, then Alice Expert making the edit herself is objectionable. But then if Alice Expert made the edit first, and it got reverted because of COI, after which Bob Volunteer decides to reinstate the edit and assume responsibility for it, then the edit has been vouched for. In that way of looking at it, Alice Expert making the edit by herself is ''not'' the same as Bob Volunteer making the edit by himself, although Bob Volunteer can take a positive action to make Alice Expert's edit effectively the same as if he had first made it. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 22:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::::::I think [[The Death of the Author|some literary departments]] would disagree. [[User talk:Dilettante|Sincerely, Dilettante]] 21:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::::::Joe, it sounds like your analysis is less about whether the article actually is neutral, and more about how the RecentChanges patroller feels about the edit (e.g., confident because it's a familiar face vs. suspicious because it's not). That's a popular heuristic for everyday patrolling activities, but as you say, it's not really about the article itself. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 00:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose'''. The recent arbitration case highlights the complex interplay between managing conflict of interest in editing and upholding our privacy through the harassment policies. While the case underlines the necessity for clear COI guidelines, escalating these to a policy could rigidify processes that need to remain adaptable to context and sensitivity. The intricacies revealed through the case, where concerns about COI were mishandled or led to heightened disputes, show that a flexible approach is crucial. By codifying the current practices into a rigid policy, we risk not only an increase in administrative disputes but also potential misuse in contentious cases, thereby exacerbating challenges rather than providing clarity. The existing guideline allows for nuanced application that can be adapted as needed, which is more appropriate in handling the varied scenarios of COI that arise in an environment as diverse as Wikipedia. [[User:FailedMusician|FailedMusician]] ([[User talk:FailedMusician|talk]]) 23:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' per {{u|FailedMusician}}. I couldn't have said it better. COI isn't a black and white thing. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 00:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' The biggest reason is that the the COI def here is far too broad and vague. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> ([[User talk:North8000#top|talk]]) 00:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose'''. [[WP:COI]] is large, unweildy, and not well defined. The only "policy" we need, in my view, are a few items derived from the guideline: Don't write about yourself or associates in main space, don't cite yourself or associates in main space, don't link to places with which you have an association, use the talk page to propose any substantive change in any article where you have an association with the topic. Something like that, short and sweet. ~[[User:Anachronist|Anachronist]] <small>([[User talk:Anachronist|talk]])</small> 07:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:Sounds good. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 22:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:While I do think these shorter and sweeter principles are generally good, the last two I think still would need clarification before further elevation as policy. For instance, with {{tq|don't link to places with which you have an association}}: I think it makes sense that we want to avoid promotionalism—the owner of a business wikilinking to their business, or someone who runs, say, a personal online warship database adding their website to external links. On the other hand, I think we go too far if the impression is given that a user who is a member of a professional association like the Society for Historians of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era or the [[American Association of Physics Teachers]] shouldn't add citations with DOI links or wikilinks to the organization's peer-reviewed journal, in these cases ''[[The Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era]]'' or the ''[[American Journal of Physics]]''. And {{tq|any article where you have an association with the topic}} is a phrasing that's too capacious, imbricating as it would trans editors contributing to biographical articles about transgender people, or Americans editing U. S. president biographies, or maths teachers editing mathematics articles. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] ([[She (pronoun)|she/her]] | [[User talk:Hydrangeans#top|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Hydrangeans|edits]]) 04:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::In addition to Hydrangeans poitns, {{tpq|any article where you have an association with the topic}} would prevent any (established) editor from editing the [[Wikipedia]] article. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 09:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::Both your comments suggest you did not read what was written. The brief comment were grounded in the guideline which is based on defined relationships, so your [[parade of horribles]] are a waste of pixels. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 17:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::Something can be "grounded in" something that is "based on" something that is good and still be problematic - especially when those things are proposed to be present outside of their original context as would be the case here. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 00:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' per the above, and per the things I was pointing out in my earlier comments. (I was beginning to wonder if community sentiment had changed suddenly, and I was an outlier. In fact, I was starting to wonder if Jytdog had simply been ahead of his time.) I do want to say that I appreciate the views of those editors who want to treat COI more seriously, but I also want to suggest that trying to make a formal proposal of elevation to policy would be a waste of time and effort. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 21:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*This isn't an RfC so I won't !vote. But if this were an RfC then I would oppose making the current guideline a policy. There is too much in the current guideline - and how many editors interpret it - that assumes that COIs exist in a binary state and that all COIs are equal. In my professional experience, the organizations and people with whom I have worked recognize that COIs exist on a very large spectrum. Some bright lines are helpful and appropriate - [[WP:PAID]] is a good example - but this concept is much more nuanced than currently described and handled in this project. [[User:ElKevbo|ElKevbo]] ([[User talk:ElKevbo|talk]]) 22:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*I think we absolutely do need ''a'' policy about this, because in practice we are already using it as policy, because it is extremely serious and because there are clear red lines; in recent disputes over this many people who ultimately ended up topic-banned or blocked have breezily defended their actions (and had their actions defended by others) by arguing that the whole thing was not policy and therefore they weren't required to follow it. They were wrong, as can be seen from the numerous recent blocked; and fact that there gray areas makes it ''more'' important to have a well-thought-out, clearly-defined set policies for how we approach COI issues, not less. That doesn't necessarily mean that the current wording is ideal and should be translated directly into policies, but we need to think about what the red lines are, what the gray areas are, and when and how people have responsibilities to disclose potential COIs or to avoid editing in an area entirely. Clearly they ''do'' have such responsibilities; editors are regularly being blocked for failing to meet it. We need to make at least some effort to have a policy page that reflects current practice and makes it clear to people what their responsibilities are, because otherwise we're going to end up with more situations where editors go "ah I don't have any responsibilities, it's not policy" and then end up blocked by ANI or ArbCom. That is not ideal - the ideal situation is to have clear policies that make the requirements as clear as we can in ''advance'', so editors don't find out where the red lines are only after being blocked. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 23:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:I see several editors saying that we use this as a policy, and I wonder if we all agree on what [[Wikipedia:The difference between policies, guidelines and essays|the difference between policies, guidelines and essays]] actually is. I suspect that we don't, and what's meant is "we enforce this pretty strictly". We enforce a lot of "mere guidelines" pretty strictly. We even block people for violating "mere essays". On the other hand, RecentChanges patrollers violate the [[WP:PRESERVE]] section [[Wikipedia:Editing policy]] every hour of the day, and none of them get blocked. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 02:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::Our enforcement is haphazard at best in most things, because many of our policies and guidelines rely on decentral enforcement, decentralized judgement, and fuzzy (or is that, nuanced) lines, content or editing policies or guidelines are probably the most haphazard, as there is minimal barrier of entry for any edit. Perhaps, the best we can do here is stress and reenforce for an amature encyclopedia writing publisher, the ethics of the matter. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 12:14, 20 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::That's true, but I think what's more relevant is that policies tend, on average, to articulate more general principles (e.g., "Wikipedia is not a place to publish new ideas", "Wikipedia is not a web directory", "Thou must not violate copyrights") and the other pages get into the details (e.g., all the different pages about identifying and dealing with POV pushers, spammers, and copyvios). |
|||
*:::We might need a different way of talking about this. Perhaps we'll end up with the [[Wikipedia:Editing policy]] being classified as "gently recommended best practices" as well as "policy", and [[Wikipedia:Spam]] as "strictly enforced" and yet "guideline". [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 00:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::Perhaps, but that seems less relevant than, some things are easier and some things are harder, but it is the harder that are usually more central to complex tasks. And functionally it does not compare to decentralization as a reason for uneveness. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 13:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*Per FFF above, I'd support promoting the guideline to a policy unchanged, and I'd also support some changes. (Shorter, clearer, probably stricter.) [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 06:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Well''', I'd need to know what problem this is solving. The case OP cites did end with the person getting the heave-ho on COI grounds, so it didn't seem necessary there. We have a lot of policies here, and a some of them suck, so I would '''support''' a trade: enact this as a policy in return for demoting another one, leaving no net change in number of policies. Which one to demote would be up to the community, I can think of several. [[User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] ([[User talk:Herostratus|talk]]) 01:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*Hi, I'm a paid editor who has recently been banned for a lack of COI disclosure (but which I believe was actually an issue of NPOV that other editors were unable to articulate well). I believe that we should get rid of this whole guideline. It promotes suspicion of editors, and since Wikipedia allows anonymous editing, requires some editors to be known publicly while allowing others to remain anonymous. This creates an environment that motivates outing and discrimination based on an editor's relationships and background. It is inherently unfair. Instead, we should focus on whether or not edits maintain NPOV. I would support making the policies surrounding NPOV clearer and having an environment of enforcing NPOV more strictly. [[User:Rachel Helps (BYU)|Rachel Helps (BYU)]] ([[User talk:Rachel Helps (BYU)|talk]]) 19:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA [[user:ltbdl|ltb]][[user:ltbdl/d|<span style="color:orange">d</span>]][[user:ltbdl|l]] ([[user talk:ltbdl|talk]]) 06:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::{{ping|Ltbdl}} I'm not sure what you find funny here. [[User:QuicoleJR|QuicoleJR]] ([[User talk:QuicoleJR|talk]]) 13:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::While the response is unnecessarily rude, I do see the humor in a paid editor arguing that COI editing can produce neutral results, as if people can be immune to [[implicit bias]], [[confirmation bias]], and, well, just [[bias]]. As if Wikipedia doesn't have a 20-year history of COI editing leading to NPOV problems. As if we didn't ''just'' prove that ''again'' in recent months. As if COI editing leading to NPOV problems isn't the reason why this particular paid editor is now topic banned. There's this very famous [[Upton Sinclair]] quote, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." And, indeed, paid editors and COI editors seem to have difficulty understanding that paid editing and COI editing invariably leads to non-neutral editing. Funnier still is the argument that restrictions on COI editing are "inherently unfair" -- unfair to whom? The COI editors? The idea that fairness requires letting people edit about subjects with which they have a COI is, well, laughable. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 17:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::{{tq|invariably leads to non-neutral editing}}: Recent months don't indicate this is invariably true, per [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management#Content of Nihonjoe's conflict of interest editing|a finding of fact from an Arbitration Committee case]] about {{Tq|editing while having a conflict of interest}} [that] {{tq|did not, in general, violate other content policies or guidelines}}; this would include [[WP:NPOV]] (the case maintained that conflict of interest editing is against guidelines; the point is that the claim about an invariable chain between COI and POV isn't, well, invariably true). |
|||
*::::{{tq|unfair to whom?}} Unfair to those who become targets of discrimination and harassment. If a Wikipedia guideline inadvertently motivates harassment or discrimination, I can understand why an editor might consider it unfair. I'm reminded of recent experience at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:No queerphobes]], where it became apparent that some detractors to the essay believe that being LGBTQ+ constitutes a Conflict of Interest for LGBTQ+ topics (see for instance the comment claiming the essay is {{tq|really only going to be}} [..] {{tq|used to claim that editors do not have a conflict of interest even when it's obvious}})—a claim that [[WP:No Queerphobes]] rightly says is a queerphobic claim—to the point that [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 May 8|the deletion discussion was taken to Deletion review to overturn the keep decision]] on the claim that notifying [[Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies|WikiProject LGBT Studies]] {{tq|had the effect of prejudicing the discussion}}. While the XfD decision was not overturned, it was pretty chilling to see editors so willing to try to justify excluding LGBTQ+ editors from matters pertaining to LGBTQ+ topics. Among the comments opposing overturning, there were even a few that apparently agreed that notifying WikiProject LGBT Studies did wrongfully prejudice the discussion, which was unsettling. |
|||
*::::{{tq| laughable}}: I don't see what's funny about someone being concerned about harassment; that'd seem to entail supposing, however inadvertently, that people being harassed is funny. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] ([[She (pronoun)|she/her]] | [[User talk:Hydrangeans#top|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Hydrangeans|edits]]) 20:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:It may be my inability to articulate well {{u|Rachel Helps (BYU)|Rachel}}, but I fail to understand how the following sentences are logically coherent: {{green|"It promotes suspicion of editors, and since Wikipedia allows anonymous editing, requires some editors to be known publicly while allowing others to remain anonymous. This creates an environment that motivates outing and discrimination based on an editor's relationships and background. It is inherently unfair."}} Could you also please expand on which NPOV policies you think should be made clearer, and how they should be enforced? [[User:AirshipJungleman29|~~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 00:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::Sorry if that wasn't clear. [[WP:PAID]] requires that paid editors reveal the identity of their employer; we assume, correctly, that any paid editor has a financial COI regarding their employer. However, there are other COIs, which the policy proposed on this page would cover. For example, it's a COI to edit the page of a friend or relative. However, this relationship is not apparent unless the identity of the author is revealed (encouraging authors who want to edit pages for people they have a COI for to be anonymous, because of the scrutiny declaring a COI often causes). Since so many people are editing anonymously with a COI, other editors become suspicious that their fellow editors have undisclosed COIs. This leads them to wonder what the identity of the other editors is, sometimes resulting in harassment. So here is a possible alternative. Let's say that an editor whose identity is unknown is making a lot of edits that seem to be promoting a living author. Rather than questioning them about a possible connection to the author, a fellow editor could ask them to comply with NPOV. If they disagree, they could ask for a third opinion, or take things to the NPOV noticeboard. When an admin agrees that they are not up to NPOV editing standards, they could give that editor a warning. After this formal warning, continued NPOV editing could result in a topic ban. That way we could use an existing policy (NPOV) to enforce what we actually care about, which is NPOV. We don't have to ask the editor what their relationship to the author is. There is no hidden information! We could make [[WP:UNDUE]] more detailed about what constitutes undue weight, with examples, so it is easier to understand. I think my own past editing had issues with NPOV, and in conjunction with my topic ban, and to demonstrate I understand what the problems with my editing were, I am in the process of drafting guidelines for NPOV specific to religious topics. To comply with my topic ban, this is off-wiki. Please email me if you would like to know more. [[User:Rachel Helps (BYU)|Rachel Helps (BYU)]] ([[User talk:Rachel Helps (BYU)|talk]]) 15:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::They ask for a third opinion and then a third editor comes and gives an opinion and turns out that third editor is also a friend of the article subject and doesn't disclose it. This is what actually happens in reality. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 16:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::{{green|"So here is a possible alternative..."}} Yes, a perfectly normal procedure. Take a discussion I participated in today on [[Talk:Bachelor]], where two editors got in a dispute, and I answered a third opinion request; one of the editors attempted to continue their non-neutral editing, and was subsequently page-blocked by an admin. Again, this is common. The "process" you seem to be pushing back against, where editors take the time to extensively investigate undisclosed COIs, is much rarer ([[WP:VOLUNTEER|I do sometimes have a life]]). I think you are overestimating the extent to which your topic ban represents a widespread problem (the case was in reality unique in nearly every way), among other things. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|~~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 03:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::{{tpq|one of the editors attempted to continue their non-neutral editing}} The point is that it is irrelevant whether they were doing that because they have a COI with the topic or for some other reason. If they are unable or unwilling to edit neutrally they should not be contributing (to that article/subject), regardless of why that is. If they are able and willing to edit neutrally there is no benefit to preventing them contributing. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 08:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::It is relevant whether or not the people who decide what is and what is not NPOV have a COI. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 15:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Comment''' It seems like this accidentally evolved into an RFC. Do we consider this discussion to be one? If so, we should probably update the formatting and list it at [[T:CENT|CENT]]. If not, we should probably go ahead and start one to figure out community consensus. [[User:QuicoleJR|QuicoleJR]] ([[User talk:QuicoleJR|talk]]) 16:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:Initially, I understood this discussion to be a sort of testing-the-waters, prior to starting any sort of formal proposal. Based on the discussion so far, it's not clear to me that there is enough support for upgrading to make a formal RfC worth the effort. (But of course anyone who wants to start an RfC is free to do so.) --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 20:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::That makes sense. [[User:QuicoleJR|QuicoleJR]] ([[User talk:QuicoleJR|talk]]) 20:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Proposed text for a shorter and clearer COI policy == |
|||
== Tag == |
|||
To throw out a possible summarized and clarified wording, either for this guideline or for a hypothetical policy. This is only a first draft, and feedback would be appreciated. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 07:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
I have removed the "guideline" tag, since it only contains advice for editors, not anything that can actually be seen as a guideline - particularly since any attempt to find if someone is not following this 'advice' would itself be a violation of several policies, there is no sense in calling this a guideline. --[[User talk:Random832|Random832]] ([[special:contributions/Random832|contribs]]) 17:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:It's guidance on how to behave; guidelines needn't necessarily be "actionable". The guideline tag indicates the consensus support it enjoys, while an essay has no such status. It's a major change, and if it is to be made, it should be discussed first. [[User:Sambc|SamBC]]([[User talk:Sambc|talk]]) 17:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::The fact that it is in direct contradiction with a policy that also supposedly has consensus demonstrates that a consensus does not exist. --[[User talk:Random832|Random832]] ([[special:contributions/Random832|contribs]]) 18:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::It isn't in contradiction with any policy, Random. All you need do in the case of a suspected COI where there is policy violation is say, e.g. "User:X's edits are so poor and so fawning [or so attacking] that I suspect he is in some way connected to [whatever it is, or whoever it is]." There is never a reason to out someone onwiki by publishing what you think is their name; if the name itself rather than the suspected connection is important, it can be e-mailed to involved editors and admins, or if sensitive to the ArbCom. |
|||
{{tqb| |
|||
:::Remember that what matters most are that the edits are poor. A COI might be the reason for the poor edits, but it's the poor editing that gives rise to the suspicion of COI in the first place (assuming the user hasn't said who they are.) <font color="Brown">[[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]]</font> <small><sup><font color="darkgreen">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|talk|]]</font><font color="Light green">[[Special:Contributions/SlimVirgin|edits]]</font></sup></small> 18:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
To preserve the integrity, neutrality, and public trust in Wikipedia, it is crucial to effectively manage conflicts of interest among editors. A conflict of interest arises when an editor's personal or financial connections might compromise the objectivity of their contributions. This policy outlines the types of conflicts and specifies the conduct required for editors who may be affected by them. |
|||
::::Should it even matter, then, if the person does disclose a COI? Or if they do and then come back as another account, should we take care not to disclose who is returning? To hammer people when they disclose their identity but give them impunity if they don't is one of the major inconsistencies. [[User:Mackan79|Mackan79]] ([[User talk:Mackan79|talk]]) 18:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
===Financial Conflict of Interest=== |
|||
:Then why do we have COI/N, and why do we routinely allow threads that _DO_ include a real name? --[[User talk:Random832|Random832]] ([[special:contributions/Random832|contribs]]) 18:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
An editor has a financial conflict of interest when they stand to gain, or can reasonably be expected to gain, financial benefits from the coverage of a topic on Wikipedia. This conflict arises in various forms: |
|||
:I guess I don't see why it's important to have a guideline about conflicts of interest at all, if all that matters is the content of the edits. --[[User talk:Random832|Random832]] ([[special:contributions/Random832|contribs]]) 18:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Direct Financial Benefits:''' These include receiving direct payment for editing Wikipedia articles |
|||
::All that matters is the content, but given that COI is often a reason for violating NPOV, we alert people for that possibility. Our goal is to allow everyone to edit, but people with COI should be extra careful, and others should be extra alert for NPOV (and other related) violations in such cases. [[User:Crum375|Crum375]] ([[User talk:Crum375|talk]]) 18:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Indirect Financial Benefits:''' Such benefits are not as overt as direct payments but are significant. Examples include: |
|||
:::So what is the purpose of [[WP:COI/N]]? Why was it not deleted when I brought it to MFD last month? --[[User talk:Random832|Random832]] ([[special:contributions/Random832|contribs]]) 18:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
**'''Business Exposure:''' Gaining from increased visibility when a product, service, or company is featured in an article. |
|||
::::According to its mandate, it's for resolving "... disputes with tendentious editors and cases where editors are repeatedly adding problematic material over a longer period of time." I see no conflict between that activity, sensibly carried out, and the rest of our rules. [[User:Crum375|Crum375]] ([[User talk:Crum375|talk]]) 19:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
**'''Reputation Enhancement:''' Benefiting indirectly from an enhanced reputation due to having a personal article on Wikipedia or being cited as a source in one. This can lead to increased professional opportunities, such as book sales, speaking engagements, or consultancy work. |
|||
:::Editors who do disclose their affiliation with the subject of an article and ask for advice in how to stay out of trouble are usually very well treated at the [[WP:COIN]]. The main problem is when you see a pattern of clear promotional editing (often using what appears to be insider knowledge) and then the editor behaves in a cagey manner when questioned about their connection. Discretion should be employed even when that happens, but you'll see phrases like 'apparent COI' used. Nobody is going to go out and publish the email address and phone number of a possibly COI-affected editor, but you'll see cases where adverse inferences about someone's affiliation are drawn, and the adverse inferences often appear to be correct. If you see what you consider to be improper speculation about someone's identity, you should make that known to the person speculating, using email if necessary. Or complain to an administrator. |
|||
:::There have been AfD debates where people affiliated with the subject participated, and I see no impropriety if they disclose their affiliation (not their personal identity) when commenting there. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 19:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::This seems consistent with this page as written, other than the two sentences: "Remember, conflicted editors do not lose their privileges to edit Wikipedia pseudonymously. Revealing the names of pseudonymous editors is in all cases against basic policy." Do others agree that these should be removed? I pointed out above it also seems inconsistent with the first sentence of that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#How_to_handle_conflicts_of_interest paragraph], which states that "The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor...." [[User:Mackan79|Mackan79]] ([[User talk:Mackan79|talk]]) 19:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
: Yes, there is a tension between COI/COIN and editors rights to privacy. This tension is real. That doesn't mean we should remove this. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 19:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Sorry, do you mean we shouldn't remove the guideline, or were you responding to my suggestion? I agree there's a tension here, but this is also why I don't think it's a good idea to suggest editors have privileges that they don't entirely have. [[User:Mackan79|Mackan79]] ([[User talk:Mackan79|talk]]) 20:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::Editing anonymously is a core principle of Wikipedia. If I work for IBM, and edit that article, it should not make me lose my anonymity. If I make poor edits, and violate NPOV or NOR, this can be corrected via normal processes without revealing my personal info. If personal details need to be shared, that can be done discreetly via email. [[User:Crum375|Crum375]] ([[User talk:Crum375|talk]]) 15:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::What if you're editing tendentiously from a company IP, and you admitted off Wiki what you're doing? The [[WP:COIN]] seems pretty clear that in some cases we discuss this, where it clearly becomes an issue. [[User:Mackan79|Mackan79]] ([[User talk:Mackan79|talk]]) 15:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::If I publish my private info on a public forum, along with my intentions to disrupt Wikipedia, I would no longer be anonymous. One thing we need to watch out for, however, is situations where people have previously (e.g. due to inexperience) published their personal info, and later decided to become anonymous. We have to make all efforts to help them regain their anonymity in such cases. [[User:Crum375|Crum375]] ([[User talk:Crum375|talk]]) 15:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
===Non-financial Conflict of Interest=== |
|||
==In all cases== |
|||
An editor has a non-financial conflict of interest when their personal or professional connections may compromise their ability to present a subject objectively. This type of conflict arises in various forms: |
|||
Regarding the rv [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest&diff=203300041&oldid=203298961 here], the problem as noted above is that we clearly don't follow this in "all cases." Among other things, the previous version tells people they have privileges they don't have. I think it would be better to keep a simpler version that tells people where to go to discuss this, while noting that bad faith use of the guideline is looked upon badly. I don't think we should say something which goes against practice. [[User:Mackan79|Mackan79]] ([[User talk:Mackan79|talk]]) 15:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Personal Relationships:''' Editing articles about friends, colleagues, family members, romantic partners, or personal adversaries can lead to biased content, whether overly favorable or unduly negative. |
|||
:There is never a reason to disclose an anonymous editor's personal info publicly. That we sometimes do it does not make it right, and violates a core Wikipedia principle. In all cases private info can be forwarded via email to the appropriate parties. [[User:Crum375|Crum375]] ([[User talk:Crum375|talk]]) 15:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Professional Connections:''' Editing articles related to one's employer or competitors in the industry can introduce biases that may either unfairly promote one’s own organization or undermine others. |
|||
::I don't think it's correct that ArbCom wants to resolve every such case, but I'm interested if others have a view. [[User:Mackan79|Mackan79]] ([[User talk:Mackan79|talk]]) 15:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Political and Ideological Beliefs:''' Editing articles that cover political or religious movements in which an individual holds an active role. It is important to note that simply being a supporter or member of such movements does not constitute a conflict of interest. For example, a member of the Democratic Party does not inherently have a conflict of interest when editing articles related to the party unless they hold an official role within it. |
|||
:::I didn't mention ArbCom — admins and other established and trusted editors may also receive such emails to help decide COI issues. [[User:Crum375|Crum375]] ([[User talk:Crum375|talk]]) 15:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::I have received such emails about one particular editor, and I was not sure how to handle them. In these cases the emails confirmed my own suspicions. However, if I were to block someone based upon such an email, how would I provide evidence without revealing the identity of the "informant?" At the same time, if I ''were'' to give the blocking reasons on Wikipedia, then it might very well reveal sensitive information (perhaps even unintentionally) about the person being blocked. Finally, the emails were from individuals who had a personal, off-Wiki disagreement with the editor in question (although I do not doubt the veracity of their information). So I don't think "I've received an anonymous email which says this is a COI" is going to carry much weight. Based on this reasoning, in my own situation I finally forwarded the emails in question to the ArbCom mailing list. (I am even using a pseudonym in this forum (which I've also told ArbCom), because otherwise it would be quite apparent about whom I am writing.) Thanks, -- [[User:Leo DeVeaux|Leo DeVeaux]] ([[User talk:Leo DeVeaux|talk]]) 16:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::P.S. Also see my earlier comments in [[#Exposing COI versus outing the editor]]. -- [[User:Leo DeVeaux|Leo DeVeaux]] ([[User talk:Leo DeVeaux|talk]]) 16:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Well, I think it's hard to say what should happen in a specific situation without knowing anything about it. Clearly at some point, however, discussion of the COI becomes appropriate, whether done by a normal editor or the type contemplated by Crum375. This raises the question to me of why we would say it is always inappropriate, when clearly this is not a matter of any consensus and goes against what is generally done. [[User:Mackan79|Mackan79]] ([[User talk:Mackan79|talk]]) 19:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::It's never appropriate to publicly reveal an anonymous editor's personal information, unless perhaps to protect against a potential physical threat to the public. Otherwise, we should always use email, using discretion and common sense. [[User:Crum375|Crum375]] ([[User talk:Crum375|talk]]) 20:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::What exactly does one email? Or what if the person doesn't respond? I don't see how a preference for emailing resolves the problem. [[User:Mackan79|Mackan79]] ([[User talk:Mackan79|talk]]) 22:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::The point of email is to use it when personal information must be revealed to handle a rule violation. The actual personal details don't need to be made public, only the surrounding facts. Established trusted editors, admins and arbs will generally respond fairly quickly to emails. [[User:Crum375|Crum375]] ([[User talk:Crum375|talk]]) 22:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Ok, but the problem is that you are demanding a policy which would prevent even admins and "established trusted editors" from ever discussing such a COI on Wikipedia other than in general terms. Again, that clearly isn't general practice or supported by any consensus. [[User:Mackan79|Mackan79]] ([[User talk:Mackan79|talk]]) 22:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
(outdent) I am not demanding anything — simply reminding all that we must conform to our fundamental principle that protects anonymous editing. To do that, we never disclose personal information publicly — whenever we need to relate this information, we send it by email to specific individuals. There is no problem discussing a COI, we can always say User:XXX appears to be an IBM employee. We just can't say publicly that User:XXX is John Smith, residing at 123 Oak St. in Peoria. [[User:Crum375|Crum375]] ([[User talk:Crum375|talk]]) 22:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:I'm still not sure I understand your position on this. As far as I can see you're saying that even if someone admits they are editing material under a clear conflict, then finds out this is strongly discouraged, they could comes back with a different account and we should help them by not acknowledging that it's the same conflicted user. It seems to me that this is stating what you'd like policy to be, rather than acknowledging in a guideline what editors do. I think this is a problem, among other things, in telling editors they have a privilege that [[WP:COIN]] clearly shows they don't have. I'm also not sure anyone has shown in answer to Cla68's question where the basic policy is that this refers to. [[User:Mackan79|Mackan79]] ([[User talk:Mackan79|talk]]) 16:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::If someone admits to a COI and comes back with a new account, and we can prove (e.g. via CU) that it's the same user, we may assume the same COI as before. But having COI ''per se'' does not preclude you from editing, unless you are violating the rules. The point is that all this is no reason to publicly divulge an anonymous editor's personal information. The basic policies are [[WP:NPOV]], [[WP:V]], [[WP:NOR]], [[WP:CIV]], [[WP:BLOCK]], etc.. If you adhere to them, you may edit even if you are COI or POV. [[User:Crum375|Crum375]] ([[User talk:Crum375|talk]]) 17:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::I don't think a two way conversation is helping, so I'll leave it there for others to comment if they like. The guideline says that discussing identity is always against "basic policy," but nobody has shown which policy this refers to, and clearly editors often do exactly that on [[WP:COIN]]. The edit I made to fix this is seen [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest&diff=203298961&oldid=203092331 here]. [[User:Mackan79|Mackan79]] ([[User talk:Mackan79|talk]]) 19:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::The reason your edit was reverted is that it removes the established prohibition on publicly revealing editors' personal identity information. The relevant "basic policies" are [[WP:V]], [[WP:NOR]], [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:CIV]] (which generally allow us to edit as long as we behave properly and the edits meet specific content requirements, not based on who we are), as well as the Wikimedia Foundation's [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy privacy policy], which allows users to edit anonymously if they so choose. Publicly revealing such information is blockable per the [[WP:BLOCK]] policy. [[User:Crum375|Crum375]] ([[User talk:Crum375|talk]]) 20:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
===Managing Conflicts=== |
|||
== just a heads up.... == |
|||
*'''Editors with a Financial Conflict:''' Must not directly edit affected articles. Instead, they should propose changes using the [[Template:Edit COI|Edit COI template]], disclosing the nature of their conflict on their user page and in any location they discuss the topic. |
|||
*'''Editors with Non-financial Conflicts:''' While not strictly forbidden from directly editing affected articles, they must disclose their conflict in the edit summary and in any location they discuss the topic. |
|||
No exceptions exist to this policy; edits made in violation of it are indefensible, regardless of their perceived harmlessness or quality. Editors who wish to avoid disclosing their conflict of interest may do so only be avoiding topics affected by it.}} |
|||
the above conversation echoes the recent thread [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=203515295#Policy_question here] in many ways - it seems to me that quite a few editors at different places mention 'real world' names 'on-wiki' - further, there seem to me to be a few people saying very clearly that this is not allowed, but not really a consensus that this behaviour is against policy... cheers, [[User:Privatemusings|Privatemusings]] ([[User talk:Privatemusings|talk]]) 20:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
* The first section talks about "financial conflict of interests" but the third talks about "paid" and "non-paid conflicts". That the existing text uses these terms interchangeably was a major source of confusion in the recent arb case; I think we ought to stick to one or the other. – [[User:Joe Roe|Joe]] <small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 09:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Disclosing personal information is against policy. See [[Wikipedia:BLOCK#Protection]]. <font color="Brown">[[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]]</font> <small><sup><font color="darkgreen">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|talk|]]</font><font color="Light green">[[Special:Contributions/SlimVirgin|edits]]</font></sup></small> 23:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*: Good point; switched to "Financial". [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 09:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I totally understand that that is both your position, and likely policy - it does seem sensible to me to ask if posts like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=203624641#TragedyStriker this one] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=203139571#Demob_.28band.29 this one] are a) against policy and b) all that common or not. Ed's post at the thread linked to above seems quite sensible to me, and I thought the thoughts of editors of this page would probably help too! [[User:Privatemusings|Privatemusings]] ([[User talk:Privatemusings|talk]]) 23:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
* I appreciate this attempt although I'm very skeptical that any attempt to approach this inherently nuanced topic without nuance is fatally flawed. For example, a proposed policy must account for (a) employment that isn't directly related to editing Wikipedia or promoting the employer (e.g., marketing, public relations) and (b) editing by experts who are connected to a topic but perhaps not directly connected to a specific article subject (e.g., scholars). The draft language for "Non-Financial Conflict of Interest" (why the weird capitalization?) would seem to disallow edits by scholars and experts which is certainly not what we intend. And in the areas in which I focus - US colleges and universities - we also deal with edits made by students and alumni who arguably have a COI. And what about GLAM editors and Wikipedian-in-residence programs who have project-approved exemptions to our typical COI policies and practices? [[User:ElKevbo|ElKevbo]] ([[User talk:ElKevbo|talk]]) 12:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:Thank you for the reply; I agree that the text can be improved, but I hope that we will be able to do so. |
|||
*:{{tq|employment that isn't directly related to editing Wikipedia or promoting the employer (e.g., marketing, public relations)}} |
|||
*:I think that is accounted for by the section on "Professional Connections" |
|||
*:{{tq|The draft language for "Non-Financial Conflict of Interest" (why the weird capitalization?) would seem to disallow edits by scholars and experts which is certainly not what we intend.}} |
|||
*:My intent was to allow such edits; for example, if you are an expert in Austro-Hungarian history, then there should be no issue contributing to the article [[October Diploma]], so long as you avoid citing yourself or your colleagues. However, the fact that you think the wording would prevent this means that the wording can be improved; why do you think the wording would prevent this? (Also, edited the capitalization; feel free to edit it further) |
|||
*:{{tq|And what about GLAM editors and Wikipedian-in-residence programs who have project-approved exemptions to our typical COI policies and practices}} |
|||
*:Regarding GLAM and WIR editors, that's a good point; I've drafted an expanded "Exceptions" section below, which would exempt them from the financial COI restrictions with limited exceptions; the intent is to allow them to share the knowledge of their institution without promoting it, in line with [[meta:Wikimedian in residence]]. Do you feel it meets this intent? [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 12:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::If you are an expert in Austro-Hungarian history, we actually do want you to cite yourself and your colleagues, within reasonable limits. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 00:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::Why? In this circumstance, I don’t think you are well placed to decide whether your work, or the work of your colleagues, is [[WP:DUE]]; better to make an edit request and let editors without a conflict of interest figure that out. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 15:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::Honestly, if an article is getting to the point where ''only'' a tiny community is knowledgeable enough to edit it accurately, the content is no longer suitable for a general encyclopedia anyway. We shouldn't "need" experts to edit in their sub-sub-specialty. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 14:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::As well-meaning as this sentiment is, this sense the project doesn't "need" experts who are well-versed in their specialities seems too near to the anti-intellectualism that permeates Wikipedia and contributes to the [https://wikipedia20.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/rpamp9jh/release/2 the project's imbalanced content coverage] (this linked article focuses on exclusion of certain kinds of sources based on reliability, but I would take this observation to instead point out that experts can be aware of academic sources in other languages, or that are available primarily through academic libraries rather than convenient Google searches). Furthermore, there are plenty of plainly notable topic areas that suffer from the lack of expert intervention, such as the [[Talk:Native_American_genocide_in_the_United_States#Differing_treatment_of_the_U.S._compared_to_other_British_white_settler_colonies|soft-pedaling of Anglo/British settler colonialism]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Native_American_genocide_in_the_United_States&oldid=1220763594#Differing_treatment_of_the_U.S._compared_to_other_British_white_settler_colonies permanent]). The project does need, desperately, for experts to contribute in their specialities and sub-sub-specialities. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] ([[She (pronoun)|she/her]] | [[User talk:Hydrangeans#top|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Hydrangeans|edits]]) 19:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]] |
|||
:::::::This completely misses the point of my comment. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 21:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::It may or may not have been the point you intended to make, but it does not miss the point that you actually made. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 21:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::I don't see where I said Wikipedia ''does not need'' editors with expertise. I said a page ''should not require'' editors with such super-specialized expertise that only a tiny handful of people would be qualified to evaluate it. This isn't a controversial statement. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 22:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::Except that the editors of Wikipedia does not represent the universe of people who would be interested in a topic. A topic may have plenty of interest to be worthy of a Wikipedia article, but only tiny handful of Wikipedia editors are qualified to evaluate it. [[User:Rlendog|Rlendog]] ([[User talk:Rlendog|talk]]) 13:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::A subtopic that is so complex and niche that ''only'' the people who have a conflict of interest with it are capable of summarizing it accurately is clearly too technical to be described on WP. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 01:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::I don't disagree if everyone was an active Wikipedia editor. But since most people are not active Wikipedia editors, there are topics that only a few Wikipedia editors are capable enough of summarizing it accurately, and those might have some conflict of interest, especially if interpreted broadly. [[User:Rlendog|Rlendog]] ([[User talk:Rlendog|talk]]) 00:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::This won’t prevent those experts using those non-English sources, unless those non-English sources are written by the expert or their colleagues - and in such a circumstance, it’s worth the additional oversight of the edit request process to make sure they’re adding them in accordance with our core policies and not to promote themselves or their work. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 03:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::In my experience, academics are aware of their place in their field's hierarchy, sometimes acutely so. In particular, when their views are rejected or ignored, they know it. They might still think they're right, but they are aware. Consider [[Katalin Karikó]], who won last year's Nobel Prize in Medicine: she'd been demoted, had her pay cut, and was told she wasn't good enough for tenure. There is no way that she would have thought her views were the most dominant in her field. But if were were lucky enough to have her as a Wikipedia editor, having her cite a paper or two of her own would not have been a significant problem. |
|||
:::::[[WP:CITESELF]] has been our rule for many years. We get some [[WP:REFSPAM]] from people who don't read the directions (but [[Wikipedia:Nobody reads the directions]], so that's hardly surprising) and occasionally from a self-promoter, but overall it seems to work out for us. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 01:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::How would we know if it ''isn't'' working out for us? I know at least two people in my department who have added their own findings to numerous articles and even created articles based on their research papers. Wikipedia currently strongly emphasizes primary results that we now know were incorrectly interpreted and misleading, but the paper that recently came out showing some of the deficiencies in their previous findings is also primary and not suitable to use for context. I can't edit the affected articles myself or even suggest edits under this username, so a splashy unreproducible narrative will persist for a topic that itself never would have even been mentioned on here if we had more stringent COI rules/patrolling and stricter discouragement of primary sources. How many other pages reflect a highly distorted perspective on what is relevant, accepted science in a subfield due to undetected self-promotion? [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 06:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::More stringent rules wouldn't have changed anything. People who aren't following the existing rules can't be counted on to follow other rules. |
|||
:::::::More stringent patrolling is difficult. If someone edits as "User:AliceExpert" and cites a paper by Alice Expert, that usually gets reverted. If someone edits as "User:InnocentVolunteer", then patrollers don't wonder whether that's Alice, unless our InnocentVolunteer cites multiple papers, or the same paper in multiple articles, all of which were written or co-written by Alice. |
|||
:::::::I have seen several academics over the years who cite not only their own work, but others as well. I have seen them write articles that say there are two camps, A and not-A, and cite strong sources on both sides. I would not want to give that up. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 15:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* Can you explain more about why you are proposing defining {{tq|Editing articles related to one's employer or competitors in the industry}} to be a Non-financial Conflict of Interest, which differs from the current policy? To be fully transparent, I'm someone who falls into this category and I've declared a Financial Conflict of Interest accordingly. I strongly believe I am not biased toward my employer in this case as, for example, I hold no fear whatsoever that I could be fired or punished by my employer for "disparaging" the business in an article. That being said, I agree with the widely shared sentiment that this is not the case the vast majority of the time. I fully support the current practice of submitting the article to AfC and not touching it afterward, so I don't support language that says {{tq|not strictly forbidden from directly editing affected articles}} in this scenario. [[User:Mokadoshi|Mokadoshi]] ([[User talk:Mokadoshi|talk]]) 03:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:Fear of retaliation is not the only concern about bias. The above type of editing is also problematic due to what it emphasizes; what might seem important to an employee may not reflect what is important in independent sources. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 14:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::What do you propose? [[User:Mokadoshi|Mokadoshi]] ([[User talk:Mokadoshi|talk]]) 18:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::...Not editing pages related to one's employer. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 22:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::That would be highly restrictive for some large companies. Apple, for example, is involved in computing, AI, photography, videography, filmed content production and distribution, telecommunications, cloud computing, music, electronic payment, ... The list goes on and on. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 02:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::Apple isn't involved in every aspect of those topics. An employee could easily edit in those areas without touching material related to Apple. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 06:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::::Editing aspects of topics unrelated to your employer is not the same standard as not editing pages related to one's employer. Which are you actually proposing? [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 07:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::::It is when those aspects are standalone pages. [[User:JoelleJay|JoelleJay]] ([[User talk:JoelleJay|talk]]) 12:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::::::[[Apple Inc.]] makes [[Safari (web browser)]]. [[Google]] makes [[Google Chrome]]. [[Microsoft]] makes [[Microsoft Edge]]. [[Mozilla]] makes [[Firefox]]. [[Opera (company)]] makes [[Opera (web browser)]]. |
|||
*::::::::[[Web browser]] is a standalone page. Do you think that article should be forbidden for all the employees of those companies? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 15:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::::::If your standard is "do not edit pages related to one's employer" then an employee of Apple Inc would not be able to edit pages like [[Computer]], [[Portable music player]], [[Smartwatch]], [[Wearable technology]], and many other pages. |
|||
*::::::::If your standard is "do not edit aspects of topics related to your employer" then at least some parts of all those articles would be able to be edited. |
|||
*::::::::The two standards are very clearly not the same, which standard are you proposing we should use? |
|||
*::::::::Do you intend to prohibit an Apple retail assistant from adding third-party sources to the [[LocalTalk]] article, because both of your above standards would do that. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 22:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::::::Its "related", not "related, broadly defined". However, I think we can improve the proposed wording and make things clearer by saying "editing content about/related to" rather than "editing pages about/related to"? [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 01:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::::::::How is an Apple product not "related" to Apple Inc? [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 02:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::::::::An Apple product is; however, [[Computer]] isn’t an apple product, it’s a generic term. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 02:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{tqb| |
|||
===Exceptions=== |
|||
No exceptions, except those explicitly listed here, exist to this policy; edits made in violation of it are indefensible, regardless of their perceived harmlessness or quality. Editors who wish to avoid disclosing their conflict of interest may do so only be avoiding topics affected by it. |
|||
====Wikipedians in residence==== |
|||
A Wikimedian in Residence (WIR) is a professional role in communications for an organization to share its knowledge within the Wikimedia platform, measure the impact of the same, and promote Wikipedia through training, education, and edit-a-thons. While WIRs can greatly benefit Wikipedia, there is a risk of edits that could unduly benefit their employers. To manage this risk, the following guidelines apply: |
|||
*'''Scope of Editing''': WIRs may edit articles related to but not directly involving their institution. They must not edit articles where their institution is the primary subject or could reasonably be seen as directly benefiting from the article's content; if they wish to make changes to such articles they must follow the instructions at [[#Managing Conflicts]] for ''Editors with a Financial Conflict''. |
|||
*'''Disclosure Requirements''': WIRs must clearly disclose their role and association with their institution on their user page, as well as in any discussions or edits related to their role as a WIR}} |
|||
LGTM [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 16:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::It's not likely policy, PM; WP:BLOCK is policy. :) |
|||
*I also share ElKevbo's skepticism of trying to handle nuance in a bright line, black-and-white way. Both proposals also seem hasty in light of the lack of consensus in the thread further up for policy elevation in the first place. This seems well intended but misbegotten. More specifically, I'm also troubled by the draft's elision of [[WP:OUTING|the policy on harassment]]. The [[Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#How to handle conflicts of interest|current guideline reminds editors that COI investigation does not justify harassment]]. Any policy version of COI should include similar reminders of similar strength. Finally, {{tq|edits made in violation of it are indefensible}} seems contrary to [[WP:BITE|our guideline for being patient with newcomers]]: a new user's ignorance doesn't make COI editing not a violation, but it does make the behavior defensible in the sense that it's a mitigating factor for how we respond to said hypothetical newcomer's COI editing. We educate before expelling. All this reminds me of the reasons Thryduulf and Tryptofish laid out for not supporting elevation to policy at this time, and right now I share their view. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] ([[She (pronoun)|she/her]] | [[User talk:Hydrangeans#top|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Hydrangeans|edits]]) 18:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:IMO the community has, for some years now, been leaning towards the idea that everything is black and white, everything can be pigeonholed, [[everything that is not allowed is forbidden]], etc. We have accomplish this dubious goal through the simple means of telling [[lies to children]], rather than trying to teach newcomers the complexity and shades of gray. Since we teach the rules via a [[telephone game]] (because [[Wikipedia:Nobody reads the directions]]), and distorting them further through teach step, we begin with "I don't think that ____ is a good idea for this particular article because [[WP:UPPERCASE]]", and a couple of years later, we end up with "You horrible newcomer! [[WP:YOU]] [[WP:VIOLATED]] the [[WP:MOST]] [[WP:IMPORTANT]] [[WP:POLICY]] and [[WP:I]] will [[WP:SEE]] you [[WP:BLOCKED]] [[WP:IF]] [[WP:YOU]] [[WP:MAKE]] [[WP:ANOTHER]] [[WP:MISTAKE]]!" What we don't manage to communicate is that [[Wikipedia:The rules are principles]], and [[Wikipedia:If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.]]. In this context, it's hardly surprising if editors think that problems are solved by writing increasingly powerful rules, rather than individually (and [[Opportunity cost|expensively]]) investing time in teaching the principles to each promising newcomer. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 00:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:{{ec}} I was about to write something substantially like Hydrangeans and WhatamIdoing (edit: before their most recent comment) did, but probably less well articulated. Stating "no exceptions exist", even with an accompanying list of exceptions, is naive at best. The real world is complicated and messy, and ill-suited to such inflexible language. For example everybody should be allowed to revert very obvious vandalism, fix obvious typos, and make similar edits that are identical to ones an editor without a COI would always make. Not every organisation has a clear delineation between those with and without official roles within them, and even when they do it's not always the case that someone with an official role is more conflicted than someone without (e.g. a volunteer, unofficial spokesperson for a charity vs the directly employed HR person). This is a good faith attempt, but it is fundamentally flawed. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 00:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* No comment on the "Exceptions" section, but regarding the WIR section, I support the overall effort to clarify when a WIR has a conflict of interest. I understand the background to this proposal is due to WIRs not declaring a COI, but from my experience recently I've seen the exact opposite problem: I've seen WIRs submit a ton of COI edit requests in order to make sure everything is above board when they aren't always necessary. I'm not naming names because I am happy they are being so transparent, but my concern is that a WIR creating 20+ COI edit requests take a lot of time to review. [[User:Mokadoshi|Mokadoshi]] ([[User talk:Mokadoshi|talk]]) 03:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*I would '''oppose''' this. This is a radical change, but more importantly, it is unenforceable and clearly doesn't have consensus. The best example I can give is the one I gave at the COI Arb case. I own AT&T stock. I have edited [[History of AT&T]]. Should I now stop? What exactly is "significant" benefit mean when it comes to the dividends I earn on that stock? Significant compared to the average worker where I live, in the Philippines? That wouldn't take much. Significant compared to the average stock broker on Wall Street? That would require a great deal more than I have. Where do you draw the line in defining "significant"? More importantly, how do you enforce it? You don't know if I own 1 share or 1 million shares, and I'm not going to declare it, so should I be blocked for refusing to declare my holdings? "Financial benefit" is so vague, so nebulous, that it doesn't work. Paid editing is simple. Editing for your employer is simple. After that, it gets muddy. |
|||
:::In your example above, exactly the same thing would have been achieved by simply saying the user appears to be connected to the topic. Naming people is almost always unnecessary. The only times the particular name might matter is where there's a real-life feud between people, especially anything involving legal action, where one is suing the other, for example. It's then obviously important that Wikipedia not be used as a platform to damage one of the sides. In those cases, it might be appropriate to alert other editors and admins by e-mail, and if necessary ArbCom, to the identity — although, even in those cases, it should be enough to say User:X's edits suggest he might be connected to court case Y, because it's the connection that matters and the nature of the edits, not the name. |
|||
:You can't make a black and white policy to "outlaw" COI editing and have it be effective. You CAN look at my edits and say "they look normal" or say "your edits look promotional, full of puffery" and remove those edits based on existing policy, and then block me if it is a pattern. Existing policy covers this. What matters is the CONTENT of my edits and whether they are obviously designed to improve the encyclopedia, or if they appear to serve another purpose. Regardless, forbidding COI editing is just going to ''guarantee'' that people with a COI will simply stop declaring the COI, so you will have less transparency, so this would backfire spectacularly. What the COI guideline needs is MORE disclosure, not less. If you treat ''all'' COI editors as the enemy, they will respond in kind and simply ignore policy and sock. You are better off engaging and getting them to declare and become invested in their editorship (and reputation) here. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 03:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::It seems neither the extensive rebuttals on Wikipedia nor on Wikipediocracy have convinced you to give up the "I own stock" line of argument. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 03:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::No, because there hasn't been a single successful rebuttal that address the actual circumstance. The real question is "where do we draw the line?", and it serves as an excellent example because it isn't hypothetical and is extremely common. Writing bad policy without considering real world implications is what I'm trying to get the community to avoid, just as I tried to get Arb to avoid. Now, do you have an actual argument against the example, or are you just wasting everyone's time and saying "I don't like this example". [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 07:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::All policy and guidelines here are line drawing, and regularly the lines are fuzzy (or nuanced). As presumably (you say you support the guideline) your not saying there is no such thing as conflict of interest, it means even you are aware that lines can be drawn for conflict of interest, indeed probably some are easy to draw. And as for Wikipedians being able to hash out lines, that's most of what Wikipedians do all the time. So, let's say your position is you don't have a conflict, submit your situation to the community, and no doubt they will guide you as best they can. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 13:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*There's room for refinement but overall I think this is a significant improvement over the current guidelines, especially in terms of readability. The thing is, strategically, you're never going to get consensus to adopt it, because any attempt is going to be blocked by people who oppose the ''current'' guideline (see the !vote directly above...). This is a project-wide phenomenon and the reason why we have so many PAGs that everyone agrees are shit but that haven't changed substantially in a decade. But I digress. The upshot is I think it's more realistic to make these changes incrementally. – [[User:Joe Roe|Joe]] <small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 08:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:I don't oppose the currently policy, Joe. You've been told again and again by others, YOUR interpretation is not correct and you are very much in the minority, in particular at the last Arb case. I think refinement is a good idea, but refinement that makes people want to lie about any conflict is not in the best interest of the encyclopedia. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 09:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::There is, clearly, room for differing interpretations of the current guideline. I am not interested in battling it out to see whose is "correct". However, I've been active in enforcing COI for nearly a decade, so what I can tell you is that what ''actually happens'' (e.g. at [[WP:COIN]]) is that when someone has an obvious financial stake in a topic, editors don't fuss around trying to establish whether they've been "paid by an entity for publicity" (because how would they even do that?) before acting to protect the project's integrity. That this practice differs from how some interpret the guideline is a problem that needs to be solved, one way or the other, for sure. But I think all you achieve by going around talking about your AT&T stock is to make people wonder why on earth you think "this can't be paid editing, because Dennis Brown is doing it!" is an argument that would convince anyone except Dennis Brown. – [[User:Joe Roe|Joe]] <small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 10:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::{{tpq|There is, clearly, room for differing interpretations of the current guideline.}} whether that is true or not, there is a very clear consensus that ''your'' interpretation is not one that is correct. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 10:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::Is there? Please point me to it. – [[User:Joe Roe|Joe]] <small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 10:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::The most recent example is the arbitration case. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 10:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::{{green|"this can't be paid editing, because Dennis Brown is doing it!"}} is s strawman argument, and someone would have to be rather simple to believe that is an actual position. If you sincerely believe that my example is paid editing, surely you wouldn't show favoritism, and you would instead block me. Your stance on COI smacks of politicking. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 12:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::I mean, I've considered it, more than once... – [[User:Joe Roe|Joe]] <small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 12:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::Given that you haven't blocked Dennis, it seems safe to assume that you concluded either that he wasn't violating policy or that a consensus of uninvolved administrators would conclude that he was not violating policy. That sounds rather similar to your interpretation of the policy either being different to what you say it is in discussions or, more likely, different from the community consensus interpretation of the policy. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 14:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::::Or maybe I'm just too much of a coward to apply the same rules that are applied to regular editors to an admin with a tonne of social capital in the midst of a contentious arbitration case about the selfsame issue. – [[User:Joe Roe|Joe]] <small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 14:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::::And maybe it's because Dennis hasn't actually edited [https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Dennis+Brown&page=AT%26T&server=enwiki&max= AT&T] or [https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Dennis+Brown&page=History_of_AT%26T&server=enwiki&max= History of AT&T], so what Dennis describes as {{tqq|The best example I can give}} is actually a poor example of COI editing. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 14:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::::::Dennis also has three edits to [https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Dennis+Brown&page=AT%26T_Corporation&server=enwiki&max= AT&T Corporation], but those are also a nothingburger. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 15:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::::::Those edits are ones that even an indisputably paid editor should not be sanctioned for making, further demonstrating the "no exceptions" is incorrect. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 15:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{od}}Some of us live on the other side of the globe, and slept during most of the buffoonery. The claims of "non-trivial" amounts of stock were absurd, since I never said I owned non-trivial amounts. I was intentionally vague because it isn't anyone's business. The concept of an ''absurd de minimis'' example are lost on some. Again, I can only conclude that Joe's reference to blocking me here, and then dragging out an ANI case, are to try to silence me, which won't work on me, but it might work on others, which is what made me question his competency to be an admin. He knew I only had a few minor edits to AT&T, but the value of dragging someone through the mud wasn't to get action on me, it was to silence critics of his unique interpretation. Even above, he seems worried that others will cite my example {{green|"this can't be paid editing, because Dennis Brown is doing it!"}}, so it seems the ends justify the means in his eyes. As for being a "coward", that is an amazing display of gaslighting Joe. I'm not trying to silence debate, Joe, but you clearly are and have made it personal. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 20:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:It's gaslighting that my own explanation for why I didn't do something differs from yours? Okay. I didn't know that you only made minor edits to AT&T, because you strongly implied otherwise, and I foolishly took you at your word. Now I am wondering why on earth you brought this up at all, then, given there is [[WP:COIADVICE|already a well-established exception for minor COI edits]]. |
|||
:::I still can't think of an occasion where a name would absolutely have to be disclosed onwiki if the user himself hadn't disclosed it. <font color="Brown">[[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]]</font> <small><sup><font color="darkgreen">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|talk|]]</font><font color="Light green">[[Special:Contributions/SlimVirgin|edits]]</font></sup></small> 00:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:In the mean time, for the crime of daring to take you seriously when you repeatedly asked "is this paid editing?", and so asking for the community's answer to that question, you have: |
|||
:* Called me incompetent[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1220388277][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest&diff=prev&oldid=1220443553] |
|||
:* Called me "simple"[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest&diff=prev&oldid=1220376568] |
|||
:* Implied I should be desysopped[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1220386632][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1220388277] |
|||
:* Accused me of harassing you[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1220386632] |
|||
:* Accused me of gaslighting you[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest&diff=prev&oldid=1220444165] |
|||
:* Accused me of "politicking" and trying to "silence" you[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1220386632][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest&diff=prev&oldid=1220376568] |
|||
:I eagerly await the evidence you will be providing for these aspersions and personal attacks. – [[User:Joe Roe|Joe]] <small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 08:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::You say "we have a well-established exception for minor COI edits." But the proposed wording says "No exceptions, except those explicitly listed here, exist to this policy; edits made in violation of it are indefensible, regardless of their perceived harmlessness or quality." And the [[WP:COIADVICE]] exceptions are not listed in the proposed wording. [[User:Rlendog|Rlendog]] ([[User talk:Rlendog|talk]]) 14:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
We have some good exceptions listed at [[WP:COIU]]. I'd love to know what the reason is for removing them. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 20:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Your view seems to me to be very similar to [[User:EdJohnston]]'s - who seems to be one of the most active volunteers at the noticeboard - perhaps we should also solicit his views about whether or not anything needs to be done to resolve the mild tension that results between the clear policy statement you link to, and emergent practice ([[Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#TragedyStriker|live link to thread with a 'real name']]) I'm not sure, but I think there may be a use to figuring out how we handle good faith users mentioning 'real world' identities (whether that's a policy, guideline, or just unspoken thing, I'm not sure...) - everyone seems to be taking a very sensible approach, which is cool, but it's also a good time to look for resolution (if it's even needed!) - [[User:Privatemusings|Privatemusings]] ([[User talk:Privatemusings|talk]]) 01:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::Of course, [[WP:Block]] doesn't say what kind of discussion is or isn't justified; it merely says that a block may be appropriate when an editor is outed, which is clearly true. I can't see where a person's identity would absolutely need to be discussed either, but I can see plenty of situations where ignoring it would cause a lot of frustration and confusion, and where this would embarrass Wikipedia where an open secret came to the fore. It's also apparent that users are routinely discussing this, and that it would be a bit ridiculous not to when some editors make it very apparent (without necessarily saying explicitly). The problem is that staying around to prove someone is tendentious enough to be blocked, without reference to the fact that they're clearly conflicted, can take a great deal more energy than most people are willing to invest, even if they knew how to take on such editors. [[User:Mackan79|Mackan79]] ([[User talk:Mackan79|talk]]) 04:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::There is really no conflict, and nothing needs to be resolved. The policies are clear and unambiguous: The [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy Foundation's fundamental privacy policy] is protected by the corresponding [[WP:BLOCK#Protection|blocking policy]]. We may not publicly disclose anonymous editors' private information, period. If we need to identify them for COI or other purposes, we must do so discreetly via email. If someone is not willing to invest the extra effort required to adhere to these policies, they shouldn't be enforcing COI. And if someone persists in violating these policies, they will be blocked. [[User:Crum375|Crum375]] ([[User talk:Crum375|talk]]) 11:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::So when are the people cited in thread links above who revealed alleged real names going to get blocked, or at least warned? [[User:Dtobias|*Dan T.*]] ([[User talk:Dtobias|talk]]) 16:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:I'd flip it: why do we need them? Why do we need someone with undisclosed COI to be able to "fix spelling, grammatical, or markup errors" or "add independent reliable sources when another editor has requested them, although it is better to supply them on the talk page for others to add"? I mean I'm fine with having WP:3RRNO-like "obvious" exceptions sitewide--same exceptions not just for 3RR and WP:INVOLVED but also for TBANs, COI and PAID, but we actually don't have that right now. Here's an interesting wiki policy question: why should certain edits be exempt from COI if they're not exempt from TBANs? [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 04:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:The foundation Privacy Policy only applies to information like checkuser and server log data. If someone makes it obvious from their editing who they are, the foundation privacy policy doesn't protect them from someone connecting the dots '''without Foundation tools and data'''. [[WP:BLOCK]] still applies in a meaningful way. [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|SchmuckyTheCat]] ([[User talk:SchmuckyTheCat|talk]]) |
|||
::[[WP:5P3|Because we are the encyclopedia that anyone can edit?]] Assuming the edits aren't undermining the goals of the encyclopedia, of course. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 05:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::You are adding things to the Privacy Policy that are not there. As it stands, we are not allowed to publicly disclose anonymous editors' personal information, and if someone does it, per [[WP:BLOCK#Protection|our blocking policy]], they may be blocked. [[User:Crum375|Crum375]] ([[User talk:Crum375|talk]]) 15:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:: I think they're most helpful for editors with declared COI. Our COI requested edit backlog is usually significant, so keeping uncontroversial changes out of it is helpful. Interesting thought experiment about TBANned editors, but they're ones who have already been disruptive in that topic area. The burden of evaluating the acceptability of their edits falls back on those who were affected by the disruption. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 12:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Crum375, could you please quote the part of the privacy policy you're referring to? I don't see anything that would apply here. [[User:Mackan79|Mackan79]] ([[User talk:Mackan79|talk]]) 18:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::A long backlog of COI edit requests is arguably a [[Wikipedia:Broken by design|feature, not a bug]]. – [[User:Joe Roe|Joe]] <small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 12:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::This is from [http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy the Foundation's Privacy Policy]:{{quotation|The content of this page is an official policy approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. This policy may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored on local Wikimedia projects...<br>* you may choose to publish under a pseudonym...<br>* Therefore if you are very concerned about privacy, you may wish to log in and publish under a pseudonym...<br>* Using a user name is a better way of preserving your privacy in this situation.}} |
|||
::::In what possible world is that is good thing!? We ''want'' COI editors to engage with the edit request process, and the best way to do that is to make it responsive - anything else incentivises them to ignore it. When requested edits are good delaying making the changes harms the encyclopaedia, when requested edits are bad leaving them hanging around benefits nobody and indeed makes it harder for the editors making the requests to learn which edit requests get accepted and which don't. If your primary goal is eliminating COI rather than improving the encyclopaedia then you are here for the wrong reasons. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 12:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::In addition, en-Wikipedia's [[WP:BLOCK#Protection|blocking policy]] says:{{quotation|'''Protection'''<br>A user may be blocked when necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public. A block for protection may be necessary in response to: ...<br>* disclosing personal information (whether or not the information is accurate);}} |
|||
:::::It is a good thing in the world where we don't want COI editors to edit at all. I understand that you don't agree with that aim, but you must surely acknowledge that many others do, and let's not forget that the nutshell of this guideline—its message stripped of all the ifs and buts—is {{tq|''do not edit Wikipedia'' in your own interests, nor in the interests of your external relationships}}. Eliminating COI editing is an important goal for many people, even if it's not our primary one. – [[User:Joe Roe|Joe]] <small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 12:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::This makes it very clear that public disclosure of personal information of an anonymous user is not allowed and any user violating this policy may be blocked. [[User:Crum375|Crum375]] ([[User talk:Crum375|talk]]) 18:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::If we didn't want COI editors to edit at all, we would ban COI editing rather than regulate it. The reason that we don't do that is twofold - first we recognise that in the real world we can't actually ban it, people will just edit without disclosing and the encyclopaedia will be worse off. Secondly we recognise that COI editors can make valuable input that improves the encyclopaedia. I'm increasingly of the opinion that you've become so blinded by your view towards COI editing that you've lost sight of the bigger picture. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 13:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Ok, I see a number of statements about what someone should do to protect their privacy if they are particularly concerned. So then we say that someone picks a user name which suggests a real name tied to an employer, says off Wiki that they're editing an article relating to their employer, edits in and out of an IP of that employer, and does so in a way that persistently promotes the employer's POV. You believe the privacy policy prohibits discussion of any of the former three? I suppose I don't see how advising people on what might do to protect their privacy means they can do one of these things, ignore everything else, and then all editors are still prohibited from discussing it. [[User:Mackan79|Mackan79]] ([[User talk:Mackan79|talk]]) 19:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Your use of a collective "we" is a bit misleading here because there is a lot of disagreement about COI and there has been for as long as I can remember. I'm aware that my view is on one of the end of the spectrum—I think yours is too, to be fair—but I'm not alone and I don't think I'm blind. I think this is just another one of those judgement calls that make consensus difficult to achieve: is the risk presented by COI editors worth the value they can add? Is a total prohibition of paid editing something that we could enforce within an acceptable margin for error? I'm more and more realising that one of the major shortcomings of our decision-making model is that we lack mechanisms for resolving disputes like this when different editors bring different and incompatible premises to the discussion. – [[User:Joe Roe|Joe]] <small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 13:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I should add that the blockquotes provided are not an accurate representation of the text; you have provided ellipses, but you haven't noted the other extents to which the text was modified, for instance by adding bullets to text taken from the middle of paragraphs. [[User:Mackan79|Mackan79]] ([[User talk:Mackan79|talk]]) 19:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::{{tpq|is the risk presented by COI editors worth the value they can add?}} Yes. {{tpq|Is a total prohibition of paid editing something that we could enforce within an acceptable margin for error?}} No, but yet again it's worth noting that you are conflating paid editing and COI editing - the former is just a small subset of the latter. I'm also uncertain why we would want to attempt to completely prohibit either, given the harm it would do to the encyclopaedia. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 13:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Feel free to fix the format of my quotation. The point is simple: the Foundation tells us we may edit anonymously to protect our identity, if we so wish. Wikipedia policy tells us that we must not publicly disclose personal information of an anonymous editor. Editors who violate this policy may be blocked. [[User:Crum375|Crum375]] ([[User talk:Crum375|talk]]) 19:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Conflating them there was a slip of the tongue. I meant to write COI in both cases. But there's no objectively determined answer to either question. Others, like me, answer no and yes. That's the basic problem here. – [[User:Joe Roe|Joe]] <small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 14:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Except that you still haven't shown how this is true. Which Wikipedia policy tells us we "must not publicly disclose personal information of an anonymous editor"? I would think if we wanted this to be policy, we would say in a relevant policy, "Revealing the names of pseudonymous editors is in all cases impermissible." So far no statement remotely like that has been found in any policy, while this page and [[WP:COIN]] show that it happens routinely with editors causing problems relating to clear conflicts of interest. Unfortunately I can't fix the blockquote, since there wasn't anything there to put in a blockquote. [[User:Mackan79|Mackan79]] ([[User talk:Mackan79|talk]]) 19:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::[[WP:COIU]] isn't clear as to whether those are examples of edits that editors with a COI can make if they disclose the COI, or if they're examples of edits that editors with a COI can make ''without'' disclosing the COI. I think it's the latter? I don't really have a problem with the former, but I do have a problem with the latter. Because why not make the same exceptions for UPE, or even socking? The reason why not is that it'd be next to impossible to police, and rife with abuse if it was on the honor system. "I'll make an undisclosed alt account but only use it to revert obvious vandalism and BLP vios," or "I'll UPE but only take payment for edits that are reverting obvious vandalism and BLP vios" wouldn't fly with anyone, and I don't think it should fly for undisclosed COI. I wouldn't mind those exceptions for disclosed COI, but even then, COIU goes too far IMO, insofar as it goes beyond self-reverting, vandalism, and BLP. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 15:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Wikipedia policy says we may block a user for "disclosing personal information (whether or not the information is accurate)." That's clear and unequivocal. [[User:Crum375|Crum375]] ([[User talk:Crum375|talk]]) 20:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:I understand where this is coming from, but I tend to think that simpler rules are easier to follow. If we have fewer exceptions people know what is expected of them - don't edit articles where you are getting paid; disclose before making edits where you are not paid but do have a COI. The only real emergency situations which I see as exceptions are blatant vandalism and BLP violations. Everything else can wait. |
|||
:::::::::Clear and unequivocal that someone could be blocked for this, yes, and clearly necessary for that purpose considering that outing can often be a form of harassment. Clear and unequivocal that it is impermissible in all circumstances, no, you'd have to do better. [[User:Mackan79|Mackan79]] ([[User talk:Mackan79|talk]]) 20:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
: |
:It is why I like 3RR. I know that if I make that third revert I better be convinced that it is a BLP violation or absolutely blantant vandalism. I need to mentally check myself to make sure it is definitly ok, because if I am not sure then it probably isn't an emergency. - [[User:Bilby|Bilby]] ([[User talk:Bilby|talk]]) 06:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
||
:: You cite 3RRNO as a positive example, and it includes a longer list of exceptions than COIU does! [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 12:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::No, it would only be IAR if you showed the policy that was being ignored. You haven't shown any; rather you're attempting to vastly stretch, if not misstating, what is in those policies. Reverting to these comments about "you may be blocked" is also tendentious, and I'd encourage you again to consider the way you are discussing this. [[User:Mackan79|Mackan79]] ([[User talk:Mackan79|talk]]) 20:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::True enough. But I think of it as "don't revert unless you are absolutely convinced it is ok". I like that approach. :) And when you look at the list, it is actually pretty sensible - you can revert yourself (ok, that makes sense), you can revert on your own talk page (again makes sense), but otherwise it is serious policy concerns. I think we could use a similar list here. If it isn't a serious policy issue (BLP violation, obvious vandalism, child pornography), do not edit the article with a COI. Makes it easy to follow. - [[User:Bilby|Bilby]] ([[User talk:Bilby|talk]]) 12:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Comment''' I was a Wikimedian in Residence with [[Consumer Reports]] from 2012-2018 and now I am at the School of Data Science at the [[University of Virginia]] since 2018. I am a data scientist but [https://datascience.virginia.edu/people/lane-rasberry my actual title that I registered with the university is "Wikimedian in Residence"]. I also organize [[:meta:Wikimedians in Residence Exchange Network]]. |
|||
:My views are not aligned with most other Wikimedians in Residence so what I am about to say is my individual and personal opinion. I think for most cases the primary problem is not COI versus non-COI, but rather marketing versus non-marketing. If we defined the taboo as being paid to edit biographies, organizations, and products then I think that hits the target of problematic editing 99% of cases. I would like to support, for example, paid public health communication professionals in developing medical articles about medical conditions with advice on the level of government and professional society recommendations. I sponsored development of the general topic of [[Software maintenance]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_maintenance&oldid=1220845306 before], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Software_maintenance&oldid=1222992826 after]), [[Talk:Software maintenance/GA1|currently at Good Article review]] because we as a research department care about certain aspects of software development. I have biased ideologies here - advocacy for [[open-source software]] mostly - but if we wanted a simple rule for preventing most problems, I think it should separate specific commercial interest editing versus broad interest Wikipedia articles and cited sources that are unlikely to give benefit to any specific interest. I especially want to accept paid editing when it improves [[Wikipedia:Vital articles]] in such a way that skeptical review would not identify particular bias. A lot of organizations invest a lot of money in trying to communicate general reference information and I think Wikipedia is losing out by not having pathways to accept some of that. I am not sure how to draw the lines but universities are knowledge centers and right now, there are not good paid editing pathways for universities to invest in Wikipedia for public education campaigns. [[User:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">''' Bluerasberry '''</span>]][[User talk:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">(talk)</span>]] 18:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
===How I see it=== |
|||
(outdent) The policy says you will be blocked if you reveal an anonymous editor's personal information. I don't see any room for stretching anything. And I encourage you to stick to the message and not the messenger, as I always try to do. [[User:Crum375|Crum375]] ([[User talk:Crum375|talk]]) 21:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
This is how I see the ''spirit'' of existing policy, worded differently and perhaps defined a little more clearly: |
|||
If you are paid to directly edit on behalf of a company, or you are paid to promote a company's interests (social media, marketing, advertising) and you edit the article of that company or create edits that mention that company or their products (broadly construed), then you are a paid editor and must fully disclose your relationship, even if your edits are trivial, or are limited to talk pages. How much you are paid is not relevant. Adminship is not consistent with paid editing. |
|||
: Outing people is problematic if it is done to harass editors. When there is a serious COI there is nothing wrong with bringing that to the attention of the community. This of course needs to be done carefully and in good faith. The ArbCom has more or less agreed with this position. See the Agapetos Angel arbitration. There is a serious tension between our COI guidelines and our desire to protect anonymity. We need to exercise reasonable care in balancing them. That means we don't just block people for raising such issues but that doesn't mean that trying to out editors is in general at all acceptable. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 19:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
If you own at least 10% of a company, or derive at least 10% of your income from a company (including stocks), but you have have no official role in promoting that company, you have a '''clear conflict of interest''' when it comes to that company. It is strongly preferred that you don't directly make significant edits to the content of any article that is directly related to that company, and instead make suggestions on the talk page of those articles. If you are making direct edits to those articles, then disclosure on your user page is required. If you are only making edits to the talk pages of those articles, disclosure is strongly recommended. The 10% threshold isn't a brightline rule, it is a common sense rule of thumb, to say that any company that provides an important source of your income, even if indirectly, should be considered as a conflict when it comes to editing. While direct editing is not forbidden, it is discouraged and you should expect those edits to be closely scrutinized. You are required to be forthcoming in explaining your direct edits if questioned in good faith. |
|||
::well said, Josh - I'd echo your words, except I'd probably downgrade a 'serious tension' to a more mild one... I do also see the merit in Slim's post above saying there might not be a situation where one absolutely has to mention a real name 'on-wiki'. Leaving aside the discussion of whether or not we already have a clear policy (I think the relevant bit is the blocking policy, not the privacy policy - that's just a bit distracting, I reckon, Crum...) - we certainly don't have clear practice, and I guess what I want to say is that I'm not really unhappy with the status quo - that people are enjoined to not mention names, but when good faith editors do, we don't cause a big fuss (or a small one!) - we just take it in our stride and move along... [[User:Privatemusings|Privatemusings]] ([[User talk:Privatemusings|talk]]) 20:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
If you work for a company/organization in a non-promotional role, or own a small percentage of a company (either stocks, employee owned businesses or similar), or volunteer in a significant way for any organization, even if you aren't being paid, you might have a '''simple conflict of interest''' when it comes to editing articles related to that company. Great care should be taken when editing those articles, or it should be avoided altogether. While disclosure isn't required, your relationship may be questioned if the content of your edits appear to be advocacy. In some cases, you are better off using the article talk pages to request edits instead of direct editing. |
|||
(outdent) We are not allowed to disclose personal details (such as names or addresses) of anonymous editors. If someone does, they may be blocked. There is no "balancing act". To pursue COI allegations, use the pseudonym — say editor X may be associated with topic Y and may have a COI, and when someone (established editor, admin or arb) legitimately needs more specific details that may invade X's privacy, supply them via email. [[User:Crum375|Crum375]] ([[User talk:Crum375|talk]]) 20:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
: Crum, you might like that idea but that's not how we do things. For example if you look at COIN on any given day you'll see people noting that usernames of new editors are the same as the head of a company or is their initials or similar things all the time. That's generally considered acceptable. If we didn't consider that acceptable COIN really wouldn't function at all. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 20:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::There are things we do wrong all the time all over WP. That doesn't make them right. Can you provide an example that we can analyze in detail, showing why there was an absolute and unavoidable need to publicly reveal an anonymous user's real name or personal details? I have yet to see such a case. [[User:Crum375|Crum375]] ([[User talk:Crum375|talk]]) 20:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::josh is right you know Crum - honest! We're in danger of talking past each other here - I don't want to annoy you, but rather than rely on others to explain stuff, consider taking a look through the noticeboard, and understand that what we / I am trying to communicate to you is simply 'hey, people do mention names without getting blocked, or having their posts edited, and it kinda works ok...' - are you happy enough with the status quo too? [[User:Privatemusings|Privatemusings]] ([[User talk:Privatemusings|talk]]) 20:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::ps - please please please don't go through the noticeboard editing other folk's comments! I think that would be a bad idea - and p'raps I'm being silly for even mentioning it...! cheers, [[User:Privatemusings|Privatemusings]] ([[User talk:Privatemusings|talk]]) 20:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::: Crum, I'm not asserting that it is always necessary but rather that it is a) sometimes much more efficient and b) regardless it happens frequently when the users are blatant about their COIs. See for example [[User:Bcamenker]] who was edit warring on [[MassResistance]] which was founded by [[Brian Camenker]]. Now, the COI there was pretty obvious and was discussed on Wiki before Bcamenker explicitly said that he was in fact Brian Camenker. Now, there's no community desire to make such discussions not acceptable and frankly it would be ridiculous to say that one couldn't point out on Wiki the striking resemblance of the usernames. One also sees examples all the time where the username seems somewhat connected. See for example [[Wikipedia:COIN#James_The_Funny_Funny_DJ]] where no one had any objection to the matter (and that just happens to be the one that is most recent on the bottom of the page). And I scroll up a little bit I find another where it was written by one Sdod2 about ... [[Stirling Dodd]]. Scrolling up a few more we come to [[Wikipedia:COIN#Cardinal_Health]] where the user in question was Gdowdy and a tiny amount of research found that one vice-president there was named Gary Dowdy. If I wanted to I could easily provide many more examples. The community seems to accept these as necessary. And moreoever, they are necessary for the COIN board to function. If you think that people discussing such matters should be blocked, I suggest you start blocking them and redacting COIN and see if the community supports you. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 20:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
[[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 22:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
(outdent) Joshua, I am not asking for an example where it's '''easier''' to handle a COI case by revealing a person's name. I am sure almost ''every'' case is like that, just like it's easier (or more "efficient") for law enforcement to ignore the [[Miranda warning|Miranda rule]]. What I asked for is one single solitary example where it was absolutely necessary to publicly disclose an anonymous editor's personal information in order to pursue the COI case. Note that [[WP:COI]] is only a guideline, while [[WP:BLOCK]] is policy, as is the Foundation privacy policy. Do you have such an example? [[User:Crum375|Crum375]] ([[User talk:Crum375|talk]]) 20:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
: If that's your standard I can't help matters. Anything in reality can be done more inefficiently without it being impossible. What you are suggesting would make COIN effectively non-functional due to to the massive inefficiency involved. The community has already made and continues to support the current procedure based on this understanding. This is again a view endorsed by the community and by the ArbCom and reflected in our daily practices. If you disagree I suggest you start blanking comments in COIN and start blocking people there and see what happens. Policy reflects what we do. And what we do is clearly not what you want us to do. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 21:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::I think people on COIN need to be clear that BLOCK trumps COI with respect to revealing anonymous editors' private information. They should learn to find ways to pursue their goals (which we all agree with) with increased sensitivity to people's privacy and greater reliance on email where needed. Perhaps this will be less efficient, but it's correct way of doing it. [[User:Crum375|Crum375]] ([[User talk:Crum375|talk]]) 21:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::: Crum, apparently you are the only person who thinks this is "correct" and again the community has decided that this isn't helpful or necessary. Indeed, this isn't even reasonably feasible. I suggest you try to spend a little time looking at the COIN board and try to help out there. Then come back in a few weeks if you think this would work at all. We have a massive problem with COIs and we don't need to severely hobble our handling of it because of your personal interpretation of policy. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 21:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::The policy says "A user may be blocked ... in response to ... disclosing personal information (whether or not the information is accurate)." |
|||
::::This is not my "personal interpretation," this is what our policy says. [[WP:COI]] is not policy, only a guideline (which someone had recently changed to "essay" and I reverted back to guideline because I do think COI is very important.) The point is, you can't enforce the law while breaking it. This is true for [[Miranda warning|Miranda]] and true here. [[User:Crum375|Crum375]] ([[User talk:Crum375|talk]]) 21:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::: Crum and yet no one else other than you seems to think that this prohibits all discussions of COI. Among other problems with that wording there is that nice little word "may" and there's the fact that the community simply doesn't do this. If you could convince us that the policy as written forced what you want, the community response would be to the change the policy not change our practices. Policies reflect practice not the other way around. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 21:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Policies are both prescriptive and descriptive. In this case, we have a core Foundation policy that tells us that users may edit anonymously, and a Wikipedia policy that says that those publicly revealing an anonymous editor's private information may be blocked. If there is absolutely no other way to pursue a COI allegation without publicly revealing the information, and email cannot be used instead, then there may be a problem, and we may need to modify the policies. But at this point, you have not presented a single example where such problem would exist. Saying that it's less efficient to follow the policies does not trump the policies. [[User:Crum375|Crum375]] ([[User talk:Crum375|talk]]) 21:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Policies are prescriptive when they accurately describe what the community does, but you still haven't responded in the several times it has been pointed out that [[WP:Block]] says editors "may" be blocked for outing, not that discussion of identity is always inappropriate. You also haven't shown how email does anything other than defer the problem. The problem with your method is that it would require editors on a page all to somehow know about a COI and address it, but never to say what it is. Regardless, continuing to say there is no justification for ignoring policy, when no one agrees that your assessment of policy is correct, doesn't get us anywhere. [[User:Mackan79|Mackan79]] ([[User talk:Mackan79|talk]]) 21:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::You are missing some points. First, we need to pursue COI by using the anonymous handles, while supplying information without disclosing names. For example: "I suspect editor X works for IBM, and his edits are COI, see diffs. Email me if you need more information." Also, the policy does say "may be blocked" not "must be blocked" as it does for virtually any offense. Admins always have discretion for extenuating circumstances. But the basic policy remains that private information may not be disclosed, per above. [[User:Crum375|Crum375]] ([[User talk:Crum375|talk]]) 22:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::That's fine, but your argument still doesn't get the prohibition you're seeking. Where does policy say that discussing identity is always impermissible? You haven't shown this. You have shown a blocking policy that says editors may be blocked for discussing identity, and claimed that it means the former. But of course we all know that editors can be blocked for discussing identity, and nobody disputes this. In many cases such a block would be necessary, and thus it needs to be in the blocking policy. The question here is whether any discussion of COI, acknowledging the identity of an editor who may not explicitly have said it, violates basic policy. To say that the blocking policy is definitive on this is simply incorrect, and obviously so; this is not how a ban on any discussion of an editor's identity would look if we wanted to write one. It's also not where we would place such a prohibition. In this context, the fact that several editors have disagreed with you that there would be any consensus for that position should also be relevant. It seems you could stand to acknowledge some of this. [[User:Mackan79|Mackan79]] ([[User talk:Mackan79|talk]]) 22:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::The policy tells us that we may block an editor for publicly revealing an anonymous editor's personal information. There are no exceptions mentioned. It does not say that there is a special exclusion if the discussion involves COI. And COI is not even policy. So the situation is clear, and COI discussions, like all discussions, must conform to policy. [[User:Crum375|Crum375]] ([[User talk:Crum375|talk]]) 22:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::Of course there aren't exceptions, since all it says is that editors "may" be blocked. For that matter, I don't think anyone would support total immunity for anything relating to COI, or would think COI is the only circumstance where discussing an account's identity might be appropriate. It's hardly a reason to assume a prohibition that still doesn't exist, and wouldn't, since it simply ignores the balance that many editors have discussed as inherent in this guideline. [[User:Mackan79|Mackan79]] ([[User talk:Mackan79|talk]]) 22:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
(outdent) An editor '''''may''''' be blocked for: |
|||
* persistently making personal attacks; |
|||
* making personal, professional or legal threats (including outside the Wikipedia site); |
|||
* performing actions that place users in danger; |
|||
* disclosing personal information (whether or not the information is accurate); |
|||
* persistently violating copyrights; |
|||
* persistently posting material contrary to the biographies of living persons policy; |
|||
* accounts that appear to have been compromised, as an emergency measure. |
|||
So by your laissez-faire logic, we might as well ignore all of these, and keep on making personal attacks, legal threats, endanger users, and persistently violate copyright and BLPs with impunity, because the operating word was '''''may'''''? Clearly "disclosing personal information" is in the exact same category as all of these offenses, and is prohibited and blockable just the same. [[User:Crum375|Crum375]] ([[User talk:Crum375|talk]]) 23:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
: We don't always block for personal attacks for example. Furthermore, the words "personal information" are presumably relevant; the actual name of an editor with a conflict might be relevant, but for example more personal information such as addresses and phone numbers are clearly never acceptable. But as we've already tried to explain to you if your argument has any validity it is an argument for changing the blocking policy to reflect what we actually do. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 23:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
: The basic problem is you're trying to turn [[WP:Block]] into our general behavioral guideline, when that's not what it is, and that's not how it is written. In any case, saying an editor may be blocked for something doesn't mean the action is a violation of "basic policy" in every instance; I and others have discussed the difference above. We'd need a lot clearer evidence to say that what goes on at [[WP:COIN]] somehow violates basic policy. [[User:Mackan79|Mackan79]] ([[User talk:Mackan79|talk]]) 23:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::If people violate a policy they are blockable, especially if they justify their violation of a policy by saying it makes enforcing a guideline more effective. [[User:Crum375|Crum375]] ([[User talk:Crum375|talk]]) 23:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::: Crum, if you think this is blockable then start blocking people. Otherwise stop. This is getting tendentious. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 00:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::I agree that we have probably exhausted the subject. We have a policy and a guideline that clearly say we may not out people, with no exception carved out. Some people do it anyway, and it is in violation of policy and guideline, and blockable. I don't think there is much more to add. [[User:Crum375|Crum375]] ([[User talk:Crum375|talk]]) 00:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Please read [[WP:Consensus]], Crum. Believing that you alone are right doesn't exactly cut it on a wiki. [[User:Mackan79|Mackan79]] ([[User talk:Mackan79|talk]]) 00:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:This all makes sense. I would add that, for the benefit of the encyclopedia, we ''want'' people to edit what they're interested in. We need subject matter experts. We want doctors to edit about medicine, lawyers to edit about law, biologists to edit about biology, mathematicians to edit about mathematics. Our COI policies need to allow this kind of editing. Clearly our policy should discourage lawyers from trying to create articles about their own law firms and doctors from trying to promote the niche surgery they happen to specialize in. But we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot if we only allowed people to edit articles they have absolutely zero affiliation with. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~[[User:Awilley|Awilley]] <small>([[User talk:Awilley|talk]])</small></span> 00:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
----- |
|||
<-- you're certainly very focused in your discussion, Crum! - and I say that with a smile, because I'm still not sure if we (any of us here) actually disagree on anything at all! - are you unhappy with the way the noticeboard is running? Do you wish to modify any policy or behaviour at all? - maybe we're all signing from the same hymn sheet after all! [[User:Privatemusings|Privatemusings]] ([[User talk:Privatemusings|talk]]) 21:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:I'd still like to make the change [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest&diff=prev&oldid=203298961 here], since I don't think the previous version was accurate (or particularly focused). Possibly it isn't important, but I'd think we should want the guidelines to be accurate, and particularly not to say people have privileges when they don't. People who come to edit about their employer, for instance, shouldn't think they'll be entirely protected from discussion that they've done so, and probably Wikipedia shouldn't advertise a policy of disregarding that kind of thing. [[User:Mackan79|Mackan79]] ([[User talk:Mackan79|talk]]) 22:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Your proposed change to a guideline would contradict policy, so you'd need to change policy first. Specifically here, no one is saying that COI is acceptable. This is why we have the COI guideline. All we are saying is that we must pursue COI allegations without publicly revealing personal details of anonymous editors. [[User:Crum375|Crum375]] ([[User talk:Crum375|talk]]) 22:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::My edit removed a statement about basic policy which hasn't been supported here, and which the talk page shows lacks consensus. Even if the statement did have consensus, my change couldn't have contradicted anything since all I did was remove the statement. In terms of all we are saying, I think this is discussed above. My concern remains that it misstates policy as well as general practice. [[User:Mackan79|Mackan79]] ([[User talk:Mackan79|talk]]) 22:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::I understand your concern, but it's wrong. Both guideline and policy are correct. [[User:Crum375|Crum375]] ([[User talk:Crum375|talk]]) 23:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::In the nicest possible way, Crum - there is another explanation! :-) [[User:Privatemusings|Privatemusings]] ([[User talk:Privatemusings|talk]]) 00:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::Good idea. It seeks to address a very problematic area regarding this behavioral guideline. I could quibble that it seeks to define it is a "yes/no" situation in an area which is really matters of degree, but such is the reality of trying to move forward. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> ([[User talk:North8000#top|talk]]) 00:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== betwixt black, white; the big grey mushy bit == |
|||
::Our COI policies do allow this kind of editing, [[WP:EXTERNALREL|quite]] [[WP:SELFCITE|explicitly]]. Literally the only time it comes up is when anyone suggests maybe making this 4000 word guideline a bit clearer – then it's suddenly crucial that we discuss WiRs and academics and Dennis 'AT&T' Brown and all sorts of other pointless whataboutisms that bear absolutely no relation to the day-to-day efforts of volunteers trying to stop the project being overrun by commissioned articles, PR departments, and self-serving autobiographies. – [[User:Joe Roe|Joe]] <small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 08:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::you just can't resist can you? You have to insult when others don't feel like it's as pointless as you do. It's not enough to say you disagree, you have to try to discredit those that disagree with you. [[User:Farmer Brown|<b>Farmer Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] <small>(alt: Dennis Brown)</small> 01:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{tpq|pointless whataboutisms that bear absolutely no relation to the day-to-day efforts of volunteers trying to stop the project being overrun by commissioned articles [etc]}}. Except they are not "pointless" nor "whataboutisms", indeed they are directly related to the policies and guidelines that are the basis of the activities you describe - we are attempting to make sure it is fit for purpose and excludes from the encyclopaedia those things that should, by consensus, be excluded but doesn't exclude those things that should, by consensus, not be excluded. It's equally harmful to the encyclopaedia for it to be overrun by non-notable articles and for it exclude notable articles for fear of being overrun by non-notable articles. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 02:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I have been following this thread, and I fully agree with what is being said here. In my experience, the COI tag has been thrown around to "discredit" an authors edits to an article, even if those edits are in no way promotional or against policies. I do not see the benefit in putting a COI tag on an article (unless it is a clear paid editing) unless the editor is adding unnecessary promotional material or editing against policies. |
|||
::How would we go about getting a consensus on this? [[User:XZealous|XZealous]] ([[User talk:XZealous|talk]]) 18:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
I just noticed that the proposal used the term "this policy". Unless that's typo or I missed something, proposing making this whole bundle into a policy would make me a strong "oppose" This has such a wide range of what could be considered a COI, and is so open to abuse and often abused to get the upper hand in a dispute (including [[McCarthyism|McCarthy-esque]] drilling of people) that upgrading it to a policy would be harmful. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> ([[User talk:North8000#top|talk]]) 01:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
following the above, I thought I'd point folks at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=203867886#Avirab this] recent thread, which I reckon illustrates quite nicely the grey areas involved in pinning this stuff down. I reckon it might be very helpful to be very concise, and just say whether or not we think this sort of post is ok, or not. I'm not 100% certain, but I think it probably is. [[User:Privatemusings|Privatemusings]] ([[User talk:Privatemusings|talk]]) 23:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
{{collapse top|this isn't relevant to the actual proposal <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Dennis Brown|Dennis Brown]] ([[User talk:Dennis Brown#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Dennis Brown|contribs]]) </small>}} |
|||
:I think this was the spirit of policy c. 2012. Over the years consensus has shifted towards a broader definition of paid editing. The clearest way this is evidenced is the introduction of the term "financial conflict of interest", which refers to something more serious than a "simple conflict of interest" but isn't as narrow as "paid advocacy" (the ToU's term), and this was present by 2015.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest&diff=prev&oldid=666790922] It is notably absent from your summary here. |
|||
== context, and a suggestion.... == |
|||
:The difference between owning 5% of a company and 15% of a company may be obvious to the kind of person that invests in stocks, but I think expecting it to be self-evident to most people is a failure to recognise your own privileged viewpoint. Similarly, 10% of the median income where I live is USD$2000. Are we really prepared to say that sums less than that are insigificant? For comparison, the going rate for creating a Wikipedia page on freelancer sites is about $500-1000. Or another way to say "10% of your income", for working people, is "more than a month's salary". – [[User:Joe Roe|Joe]] <small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 08:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
to offer a bit of context - the specific wording of the section below doesn't really matter all that much to me - I'm not really sure that people read these things all that thoroughly, and generally just adopt a common sense / someone will tell me if I make a mistake approach. I mean this as a call for calm, because of course it doesn't mean we shouldn't try and have a clear a guideline as possible! Here's my idea; |
|||
{{od}}The average US wage is $53,383, median is $46,625, not $20,000 (source: Wikipedia), so where you live (your example) is much lower than the US average, yet 3 to 5x higher than many places. It's all relative, which is why percentages work and dollar figures don't. The going rate for someone to edit a Wikipedia page is not $500-1000, it is significantly less because most of it is coming from Nigeria, the Philippines, Pakistan, and India, places that some of the highest numbers of English speakers. It is driven by both poverty and greed, and it makes the bulk of paid editing because it is the cheapest, $50 or less. But my opinions above weren't really about paid editing, they concerned the different types of lesser issues, conflict of interest without being a paid editor. |
|||
;Dealing with suspected conflicted editors |
|||
The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor, referring to this guideline. If persuasion fails, consider whether you are involved in a content dispute. If so, an early recourse to [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] may help. Editors and admins may act in conflict of interest situations as in any case of [[WP:NPOV|point of view pushing]]. You can also file a case at [[WP:COIN]], where experienced editors may be able to help you resolve the matter without recourse to publishing assertions and accusations on Wikipedia, which is prohibited, as it exacerbates the situation. |
|||
One example would be someone who tries to edit the Bitcoin article to make Bitcoin look more attractive, because they want to dump some coin. This has happened. This poses a serious threat to article neutrality. Another example is the Starbucks manager, who edits to reflect that the newest, most popular drink new drink is some new flavor of latte. This is still a conflict, but doesn't really affect neutrality and is more benign. Both should be reverted, but they have different effects on the encyclopedia and are inherently different. |
|||
thoughts? [[User:Privatemusings|Privatemusings]] ([[User talk:Privatemusings|talk]]) 00:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Claiming this view is "2012" is a bit silly, Joe. Relatively little paid editing was taking place then. I know because I spent most of 2013 and 2013 working paid cases as an SPI clerk, so I saw it every day. The amount of COI and paid editing dwarfs what took place then, as does the breadth of it. It is clearly more of a problem now, which is why most people recognize there are different types of conflict that need to be dealt with differently. This includes recognizing COI at the lowest level and addressing it, and encouraging people with COI to do what is best for the encyclopedia, instead of slapping them down and pushing them to the shadows, or simply running off editors who do mostly good work but also have a COI. |
|||
ps. on review I've taken out "(with very few exceptions)" from the final sentence.... that clause may be the total of our disagreement! - [[User:Privatemusings|Privatemusings]] ([[User talk:Privatemusings|talk]]) 00:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
As for 5% or 10% or 15%, you have to draw a line somewhere. If I was earning 20% of my income in dividends, I would instictively not edit the article, or declare I have a conflict of interest. If I am earning a few percent, there is no need because it is not enough to financially benefit me, relatively speaking. 10% is strict enough, even if arbitrary. You are welcome to suggest a different line in the sand. |
|||
pps. happy to drop the final clause (after the ,) too - which may be contentious / redundant.... [[User:Privatemusings|Privatemusings]] ([[User talk:Privatemusings|talk]]) 00:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
And saying "''failure to recognise your own privileged viewpoint''" is bordering on ad hominem. I live in a developing country (Davao, Philippines), working remotely part time, with water and electricty that doesn't always work. I don't own a home or a car and either walk or take jeepneys or tricycles everywhere I go. I'm not complaining, but you know nothing of my situation or lifestyle, and likely nothing about my education or background. You are not in a position to judge how "privileged" I am, nor should you be judging '''anyone''' here as "privileged". |
|||
:That would be closer to practice, but still states that what is done at [[WP:COIN]] is prohibited. I'll suggest another version for comment, which would be: |
|||
;Dealing with suspected conflicted editors |
|||
The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor, referring to this guideline. If persuasion fails, consider whether you are involved in a content dispute. If so, an early recourse to [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] may help. Another option is to initiate discussion at [[WP:COIN]]. However, using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is strongly discouraged. |
|||
:This makes a bit clearer that harassment is one of the main concerns, while staying within general practice. [[User:Mackan79|Mackan79]] ([[User talk:Mackan79|talk]]) 00:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
I've laid my cards on the table, opened my ideas for debate, spelled out in plain English. It seems obvious that you and I are fundamentally different types of people. and I am not afraid of having my ideas, my history, or my conduct examined. If you have a better '''idea''', then by all means, present it and lets discuss it. But lets stop the baseless AN reports, baseless quotes, the "2012 thinking", the "privileged" claims and other failed attempts at intimidation, because it doesn't work with me. How about we actually talk about concrete ''ideas''. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 09:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
taking about 6 of 1 and half a dozen of the other.. hows about; |
|||
:Right... I don't live in the US. What's your point? Although you're right I did get the wrong figure. The median annual income in Denmark is actually USD$50000. Which rather underlines my point that, whether you live here or in the US, 10% of your income is an extremely high threshold to propose triggering a "close financial relationship", one which we apparently both agree would exclude the vast majority of real, documented articles written for pay. In my opinion, any "line in the sand" would be too high: if there's any possibility that you'll receive money as a result of your editing, you shouldn't be doing it, full stop. |
|||
;Dealing with suspected conflicted editors |
|||
:I've probably investigated hundreds of paid editing cases. The going rate is certainly not $50 – maybe as an hourly rate. To verify this, make an account on upwork.com, search for freelancers with the keyword "Wikipedia", and look at their completed job history. Prices are variable but it's ~$200 minimum for a new article and anyone who's good enough at socking to actually be able to do it is in the $500-1000 range. |
|||
The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor, referring to this guideline. If persuasion fails, consider whether you are involved in a content dispute. If so, an early recourse to [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] may help. Another option is to initiate discussion at [[WP:COIN]], where experienced editors may be able to help you resolve the matter without recourse to publishing assertions and accusations on Wikipedia. Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban. |
|||
:I think we're well past the point of diminishing returns in this conversation. You seem convinced that "how you see it" is very important, but you working SPI over a decade ago is the first I've heard of you actively working in this area (please correct me if I'm wrong), and your supposedly genuine concern that overzealous COI enforcement would see you persecuted for holding AT&T stock turned out to be complete bullshit, because you've never actually done any editing that would make it relevant. You also seem convinced that I'm out to get you, even though I don't recall us having a single conversation before yesterday. If you're "not afraid of having my ideas, my history, or my conduct examined", why has the mere prospect of that happening caused you to fly off the handle and start seeing conspiracies to silence and intimidate you? |
|||
:I don't care where you live or how many wheels you use to get about and I can't imagine why you think anybody would. I'm sorry you take exception to the implication that owning a significant amount of stock in large corporations is a form of privilege, but you've also just said "a few percent" of your income (so $460-$1500 annually, in terms of the figures above) is "not enough to financially benefit me", which kind of does say something. If you are upset about comments "bordering on ad hominem", please take the time to review the comments I've listed above, which are a long way away from any borders. – [[User:Joe Roe|Joe]] <small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 12:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::You've done everything except propose a better solution, Joe. Are you "after me"? You made a veiled threat to block me, you dragged me to WP:AN, and you continue to be insulting, your arrogance is dripping in how your experience trumps the consensus of the community. You keep holding to the fantasy that policy outlaws paid editing when it doesn't. I've offered an interpretation with substance, in detail. You've only tried to intimidate me, but you can't. You keep trying to paint me as privileged when it isn't your job or anyone else's to judge me. And you see nothing wrong with this. I stand by what I said in the failed WP:AN report, you are not fit to be admin because of your actions in these discussions. Any admin that (multiple times) tries to intimidate any editor into not participating isn't fit for the bit. So put up or shut up, and offer a an solution instead of trying to bully people. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 12:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::And I didn't say a few percent of my income was derived. I said if that is what it is, then I wouldn't consider it enough to trigger a required disclosure, just as 20% obviously would trigger it. For someone who investigates at COIN, your reading comprehension seems lacking, or simply lazy. So quit mischaracterizing what I am saying. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 12:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Mate, you ''asked me'' why I hadn't blocked you. Answering that question honestly is not a threat, veiled or not. In contrast, we can now add a third call for me to be desysopped and a second and third baseless accusation of intimidation to your tally over the last 30 hours. And I'm the "bully"? – [[User:Joe Roe|Joe]] <small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 12:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::No, you've used your position and the processes here to derail a valid discussion and intimidate myself and others. I haven't called for your bit, I just pointed out the fact that you're unfit to have it and have given specific examples as to why. Your gaslighting is very transparent. [[User:Farmer Brown|<b>Farmer Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] <small>(alt: Dennis Brown)</small> 22:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{collapse bottom}} |
|||
== Updated proposed text for a shorter and clearer COI guideline == |
|||
keeps the prevention language strong, and offers useful ways forward? - [[User:Privatemusings|Privatemusings]] ([[User talk:Privatemusings|talk]]) 01:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
{{tqb| |
|||
To preserve the integrity, neutrality, and public trust in Wikipedia, it is crucial to effectively manage conflicts of interest among editors. A conflict of interest arises when an editor's personal or financial connections might compromise the objectivity of their contributions. This guideline outlines the types of conflicts and specifies the conduct required for editors who may be affected by them. |
|||
===Financial Conflict of Interest=== |
|||
== Brought up on block policy talk page. == |
|||
An editor has a financial conflict of interest when they stand to gain, or can reasonably be expected to gain, financial benefits from the coverage of a topic on Wikipedia. This conflict arises in various forms: |
|||
*'''Direct Financial Benefits:''' These include receiving direct payment for editing Wikipedia articles. |
|||
*'''Indirect Financial Benefits:''' Such benefits are not as overt as direct payments but are significant. Examples include: |
|||
**'''Business Exposure:''' Gaining from increased visibility when a product, service, or company is featured in an article. |
|||
**'''Reputation Enhancement:''' Benefiting indirectly from an enhanced reputation due to having a personal article on Wikipedia<s> or being cited as a source in one</s> <u>or being prominently featured as an expert</u>. This can lead to increased professional opportunities, such as book sales, speaking engagements, or consultancy work. |
|||
===Non-financial Conflict of Interest=== |
|||
Given the concerns above I've brought the matter up at [[Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy]]. Presumably BLOCK should be clarified to unambiguously reflect consensus and practice. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 00:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
An editor has a non-financial conflict of interest when their personal or professional connections may compromise their ability to present a subject objectively. This type of conflict arises in various forms: |
|||
*'''Personal Relationships:''' Editing articles about friends, colleagues, family members, romantic partners, or personal adversaries can lead to biased content, whether overly favorable or unduly negative. |
|||
*'''Professional Connections:''' Editing articles related to one's employer or competitors in the industry can introduce biases that may either unfairly promote one’s own organization or undermine others. <u>Similarly, citing oneself or ones close acquaintances as sources can introduce bias, influencing the content to unduly favor personal or professional interests.</u> |
|||
*'''Political and Ideological Beliefs:''' Editing articles that cover political or religious movements in which an individual holds an active role. It is important to note that simply being a supporter or member of such movements does not constitute a conflict of interest. For example, a member of the Democratic Party does not inherently have a conflict of interest when editing articles related to the party unless they hold an official role within it. |
|||
===Managing Conflicts=== |
|||
== off topic... == |
|||
*'''Editors with a Financial Conflict:''' Must not directly edit affected articles. Instead, they should propose changes using the [[Template:Edit COI|Edit COI template]], disclosing the nature of their conflict on their user page and in any location they discuss the topic. |
|||
*'''Editors with Non-financial Conflicts:''' While not strictly forbidden from directly editing affected articles, they must disclose their conflict in the edit summary and in any location they discuss the topic. |
|||
===Exceptions=== |
|||
but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest&diff=203884945&oldid=203879975 this] edit summary did tickle me! - p'raps we need a category for 'johnny-come-lately guidelines' - tee hee! - [[User:Privatemusings|Privatemusings]] ([[User talk:Privatemusings|talk]]) 01:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
<s>No exceptions, except those explicitly listed here, exist to this guideline; edits made in violation of it are indefensible, regardless of their perceived harmlessness or quality. Editors who wish to avoid disclosing their conflict of interest may do so only be avoiding topics affected by it.</s> |
|||
<u>Aside from those explicitly listed here, no exceptions exist to this guideline; edits must abide by it regardless of their perceived harmlessness or quality. Editors who wish to avoid disclosing their conflict of interest may do so only be avoiding topics affected by it.</u> |
|||
==Page protected== |
|||
Since there was an active edit war, I have protected the page for 48 hours. I know that some of the participants are admins and don't have to honor the protection, but I am asking you to please abide by it. Please work things out here at talk, thanks. --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 01:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==== General exceptions==== |
|||
I think the current discussion boils down to consideration of these two sentences; "Remember, conflicted editors do not lose their privileges to edit Wikipedia pseudonymously. Revealing the names of pseudonymous editors is in all cases against basic policy." - I'm not sure that either is particularly helpful, and think they might cause more harm than good. Per the above, we seem to have a particular issue with the second sentence not really reflecting current practice...... thoughts? [[User:Privatemusings|Privatemusings]] ([[User talk:Privatemusings|talk]]) 01:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
# Reverting '''obvious''' [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalism]]—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as [[Wikipedia:Page_blanking|page blanking]] and adding offensive language. |
|||
# Removal of clear [[Wikipedia:Copyright violations|copyright violations]] or content that '''unquestionably''' violates [[Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria|the non-free content policy]] (NFCC). What counts as exempt under NFCC can be controversial, and should be established as a violation first. Consider opening a deletion discussion at [[Wikipedia:Files for discussion]] instead of relying on this exemption. |
|||
# Removal of content that is clearly illegal under U.S. law, such as [[child pornography]] and [[Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works|links to pirated software]]. |
|||
# Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|biographies of living persons]] (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard|BLP noticeboard]] instead of relying on this exemption. |
|||
# Reverting unambiguous [[Wikipedia:Spam|spam]], where the content would be eligible for page deletion under criterion [[WP:CSD#G11|G11]] if it were a standalone page. |
|||
====Wikipedians in residence==== |
|||
:It's very much against both policy and current practice. I don't know why you would think outing people was suddenly acceptable, because there's a strong consensus against it. All the editors who think it's okay to out people might want to start the ball rolling by outing themselves. :-) <font color="Brown">[[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]]</font> <small><sup><font color="darkgreen">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|talk|]]</font><font color="Light green">[[Special:Contributions/SlimVirgin|edits]]</font></sup></small> 02:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
A Wikimedian in Residence (WIR) is a professional role in communications for an organization to share its knowledge within the Wikimedia platform, measure the impact of the same, and promote Wikipedia through training, education, and edit-a-thons. While WIRs can greatly benefit Wikipedia, there is a risk of edits that could unduly benefit their employers. To manage this risk, the following guidelines apply: |
|||
::Possibly we should say something about private discussion being required for long term editors, which I think is where harassment would be most significant. However, [[WP:COIN]] makes pretty clear that new editors who show a conflict can't exactly expect protection, whether we think they should have it or not. It's not that I disagree that this is a concern, but that even so, the statement isn't the right way to say this. [[User:Mackan79|Mackan79]] ([[User talk:Mackan79|talk]]) 02:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Scope of Editing''': WIRs may edit articles related to but not directly involving their institution. They must not edit articles where their institution is the primary subject or could reasonably be seen as directly benefiting from the article's content; if they wish to make changes to such articles they must follow the instructions at [[#Managing Conflicts]] for ''Editors with a Financial Conflict''. |
|||
*'''Disclosure Requirements''': WIRs must clearly disclose their role and association with their institution on their user page, as well as in any discussions or edits related to their role as a WIR}} |
|||
I have updated the proposed changes per the discussion above. In particular, this has included the expansion of exceptions based on the exceptions listed at [[WP:3RRNO]], and changed this from a proposed policy to a guideline - this would replace the current content, with most of the current content becoming part of a supplementary essay. Personally, I do believe this would be better as a policy, but better to handle one change at a time. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 02:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
I think we've hit the nail on the head of the disagreement here - a conflation between noticing that at the conflict of interest noticeboard people tend to mention names, and a position that 'outing' is ok. My feeling is that the noticeboard is kinda working ok - that the experienced editors there seem to be handling it all quite well, and posts like the one I mentioned above ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=203867886#Avirab this one]) actually help grease the wheels of the wiki. Harassing people is wrong, and must be strongly sanctioned, especially if that harassment takes the form of aggressive 'outing' - but I also see it as a different thing to saying that the noticeboard has some mentions of names which actually kinda help.... hope this helps explain my perspective... cheers, [[User:Privatemusings|Privatemusings]] ([[User talk:Privatemusings|talk]]) 02:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*This is clearer, but it doesn't reflect the actual enforcement. It is trying to propose something that is much stronger than actual practice, which is something we generally do not do here. In particular, the "Editors with a Financial Conflict: Must not directly edit affected articles.", which either means "outlawing" all paid editing which the TOU currently allows. Plus it bans all non-problematic edits in articles someone just has a weak connection to (my AT&T example), and isn't really enforceable. "Significant" isn't a very good delineator, because it doesn't mean the same thing to everyone. For example, when I did a rewrite about "tanning beds", I was wise enough to do it with someone who had no COI (I had a strong COI at the time, but that was the source of my expertise) who had final say. I had announced my COI on my user page, but I wasn't going to just make requests on a talk page, that is too cumbersome, particularly when I had already gone to great lengths to make sure any bias that I might inject had oversight. In other words, it would have made someone either not improve the article, or more likely, lie about their COI and not get any oversight from a disinterested party. Neutrality would have been reduced. And I use my own editing because it isn't ''theoretical'', it can be examined by anyone here, and I would argue that I used best practices. I think the community needs to accept they will never stop Paid or COI editing, and instead focus on ''managing it'', because it is impossible to prove or verify and it is pretty easy to game strict rules. The harder you squeeze, the less neutrality (and disclosure) you will have. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 03:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*: Regarding your AT&T example, my understanding is that we have already established that it wouldn't constitute a conflict of interest. |
|||
*: Regarding your COI with tanning beds, was it a financial conflict of interest or a non-financial one? [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 03:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::We didn't establish the "signficance" with AT&T, as I never said how much I had, people just assumed one way or another. As for the tanning beds, I had previously worked for a very small tanning bed manufacturer. Even the guys on WPO have talked about and found humor in it. I've never hidden the fact, had it on my user page at one point. At the time, I owned Solacure, which designs and sells UV lights for several industries (animal husbandry, cannabis, luthier, etc), but not human tanning, so unrelated to the article. I had that on my user page for a time as well. People will see it however they want, but there was no financial motivation or gain that I could have possibly realized by editing it. The COI meant I have some expertise in the field, however, so it made sense for me to be a part of the editing, along with {{noping|SlimVirgin}}, who took the lead. |
|||
:::Real world practice is more complicated than you can put in a paragraph of "should"s and "must"s. I support firmer disclosure rules, and I actually understand how it affects the editor. I'm against making rules that no one will follow and will lead to less disclosure, but make us "feel good". I'm pretty sure a consensus won't approve of a ban of Paid and COI editing anyway, so it wastes time that could be spent on practical changes. Hard rules that ban COI editing simply won't work even if passed. It would just drive COI into the shadows, with less oversight. That is harder to manage than having a set of reasonable rules that don't ostracize editors and allow for oversight of COI edits in plain view. If the edits are promotional or spam, this is already covered by other policies and easily dealt with the same as we do any other spam. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 05:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I like these changes. Some feedback: |
|||
:#I would rephrase "No exceptions, except...," to something that doesn't repeat the word. |
|||
:#I would change "indefensible" to something else. The important part of that sentence is "regardless of their perceived harmlessness or quality," that message should be kept, but "indefensible" sounds too combative or judgmental to me; like the policy/guideline shouldn't suggest that it's immoral, just explain the rules matter-of-factly. |
|||
:#I know we want to keep it short, but perhaps it could benefit from some examples of direct/indirect financial COIs, like perhaps some (not necessarily all, not sure which are best to include if any) of the following situations: |
|||
:#* owning a business, or being a director, officer, executive, or other high level position v. low level positions |
|||
:#* being paid to edit v. working in marketing v. just working in a business |
|||
:#* working in a small biz v. a large one (ie being one of few v. one of many) |
|||
:#* "de minimis" connections, like owning one share of stock in a company (which probably shouldn't be considered a COI) |
|||
:#* "attenuated" connections, like having a retirement plan that invests in a mutual fund (that the editor does not direct) that owns some shares in a company (prob not a COI) |
|||
:#* "stale" connections, like having worked in a company many decades ago (as opposed to left employment last year) (prob not a COI) |
|||
:#Maybe it should explain COI is a continuum: the closer the connection and the more significant the relationship, the stronger the COI. So indirectly owning a few shares ten years ago isn't as serious as currently owning a majority stake that provides most of your income or constitutes most of your assets. |
|||
:#What's the logic behind having different rules for financial and non-financial COI? I feel like people might have a stronger COI/bias editing about family members than employers. |
|||
:#Does anybody like the "if you put it on your resume/CV, you have a COI with it" formulation? |
|||
:Thanks, I'll shut up now. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 05:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::{{tq|Does anybody like the "if you put it on your resume/CV, you have a COI with it" formulation?}} I'm not very fond because it seems prone to the unconstructive interpretation 'because you are a member of/participate in this academic society (since you want to attend its conferences and/or receive its periodical so as to be aware of and have access to scholarly knowledge in this field), adding citations to its periodical is conflict-of-interest editing'. To reiterate my comment in the earlier discussion, {{tq|I think we go too far if the impression is given that a user who is a member of a professional association like the Society for Historians of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era or the [[American Association of Physics Teachers]] shouldn't add citations with DOI links or wikilinks to the organization's peer-reviewed journal, in these cases [[The Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era]] or the [[American Journal of Physics]].}} [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] ([[She (pronoun)|she/her]] | [[User talk:Hydrangeans#top|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Hydrangeans|edits]]) 11:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Thank you; I've implemented #1 and #2 - what do you think? |
|||
::I also like the idea of #3, but I can't yet see how to do it. I will give it some more thought. |
|||
::With #4, I'm concerned that editors will result in disputes about whether it was appropriate for an editor to not report; I think it is better to simply set up clear lines and say that regardless of whether you are an inch or a mile over the line you have to comply with the restrictions. However, I'm not set on this position, and if other editors feel strongly I am willing to change it. |
|||
::The logic is mainly that I don't think we will get a consensus to merge the rules; editors won't agree that editors who are paid to edit should be allowed to edit directly, and editors won't agree that editors who are writing about a colleague shouldn't be allowed to edit directly. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 18:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::The #1/#2 changes LGTM, thanks. I see #3 and #4 as being related... overall, #3 lays out that continuum, and to your point, also provides various places to draw lines. Insofar as we want the COI guideline/policy to draw clear lines rather than leaving things fuzzy, perhaps it can draw lines that would clearly include/exclude certain things listed in #3. One thing I'm thinking of in particular is the "de minimis/attenuated/stale" trifecta: the guideline could specify that none of those are COI. That would take care of the "AT&T issue" raised by Trystan below. Trystan's "significant roles in organizations" language would be an example of drawing lines around some of the categories in #3 (first and third bullet points). I understand the logic of #5, thanks for explaining that. "The art of what is possible." [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 20:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:The current guideline notes that COI investigation doesn't justify violating [[WP:OUTING|the policy against harassment]]. This proposed draft does not. As this same absence was pointed out in the earlier discussion about your earlier drafts, is this an intentional elision? The importance of the policy against harassment has been affirmed in an [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict_of_interest_management/Proposed_decision#Editor_privacy|Arbitration Committee finding of principle]], and the boldness with which editors have violated it makes this a bad time for obscuring the intersection of [[WP:COI]] and [[WP:HARASS]]. Any version of the COI guideline or elevation of it to policy should maintain our strong reminders that editors must abide the policy against harassment. |
|||
:I'll add that I find the claims about indirect benefits, particularly {{tq|This can lead to increased professional opportunities, such as book sales, speaking engagements, or consultancy work}}, unconvincing when applied to both articles and citations. I also notice that an equivalent doesn't seem to appear in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest&oldid=1223086347 current version of the guideline] (in fact, it contradicts the guidance that citations to one's own work are {{tq|[[WP:SELFCITE|allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive]]}}), making this not a shorter rephrasing but a novel alteration). I could believe there is potentially some benefit a person gain from there the existence of a biographical article about them—a Wikipedia article about a person is relatively visible on the Internet, and an editor making or sans-exception contributing to a biographical article about themselves is definitely a bright line—but it's my understanding that few non-editor readers look at the citations in articles. The notion that appearing in the citations of a Wikipedia article could so measurably benefit a writer's career strikes me as an inflated sense of readers' engagement with Wikipedia citations. Wikipedia citation sections aren't being combed by event coordinators at universities and libraries but by high schoolers and undergrads trying to follow rote instructions about media literacy who probably forget the authors' names within days of turning in their homework. |
|||
:I continue to share, as I described in the earlier thread, ElKevbo's skepticism of trying to handle Conflict of Interest in such a bright line, black-and-white way as this proposal would—especially one that makes no effort of caution about adhering to the the policy against harassment. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] ([[She (pronoun)|she/her]] | [[User talk:Hydrangeans#top|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Hydrangeans|edits]]) 06:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I've made a few changes to address your concerns; below I've created a draft section on how to handle suspected violations, and I've adjusted the draft above to consider citing oneself, one one's close acquaintances, as a non-financial COI rather than a financial one. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 19:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*To a degree, no editor should be adding any source to any article unless they think, 'this is a source to be read on this subject (and indeed, the source to read on this bit)' -- add in a financial and probably more so, a reputational or personal motive, to make the source the editor had published, one of the few sources to read on this subject out millions and billions of sources, self-cite is in need of a check. Few publishing writers would not want be relevant, just to be relevant. In [[American Fiction (film)]], one of the funny and truthful bits for writers was the lengths the author would go to get his writing out there (and it's certainly not just financial motive, it is personal). Mostly we don't ban self-cite for the sake of writers with expertise, who may actually be the author of the source you should read on this subject, so I agree we should bring back some the wording (perhaps modified) of the current guideline (even though the exception also applies to, for example, journalists where there may be dozens sources just as good -- and for journalists there is an added conflict, as much as we try to say we are NOT, Wikipedia is probably in direct market competition with their publication - eyes on)). -- [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 11:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:As revised, I think there is still the "AT&T" issue, where someone with a relatively trivial financial conflict of interest would be barred from editing, which isn't how I read the current guideline. I think keeping the bright line between paid editing and all other COI editing is more feasible. |
|||
:The "Political and Ideological Beliefs" subsection is a bit confusing to me, and I think potentially risks creating confusion between COI and bias. As I understand it, COI is about a personal connection to the subject. A significant role in any organization, whether or not it is religious or political in nature, creates a COI. Religious and political beliefs may create bias, but are not relevant to whether a COI exists. I would suggest considering replacing it with something like: {{tq|'''Signficiant roles in organizations''': Editing articles that cover organizations in which an individual holds a significant role. It is important to note that simply being an ordinary member of such organizations does not constitute a conflict of interest. For example, a member of the Democratic Party does not inherently have a conflict of interest when editing articles related to the party unless they hold an official role within it.}}--[[User:Trystan|Trystan]] ([[User talk:Trystan|talk]]) 19:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::How about: |
|||
::{{tqb|'''Signficiant roles in organizations''': Editing articles related to organizations in which an individual holds a significant role, or recently held a significant role, may introduce biases and a lack of objectivity in content related to the organization's interests. This is a spectrum, with whether an editor has a conflict of interest depending both on the level of authority or influence their role granted them, and the recency of the role. For example: |
|||
::*A general volunteer for the Democratic Party would have no conflict of interest. |
|||
::*A [[precinct captain]] would have a conflict of interest for a few years after they hold the role. |
|||
::*A [[United States Electoral College|presidential elector]] would permanently have a conflict of interest.}} |
|||
::I think this addresses your concerns, while also being a step towards laying out a continuum and providing examples per [[User:Levivich|Levivich]]'s comment. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 07:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{tqb| |
|||
===Reporting suspected violations=== |
|||
When violations of this policy are suspected or identified it is crucial to address them with transparency and caution, balancing protecting the encyclopedia with respect for the editors involved. Always adhere strictly to our [[WP:OUTING|no-outing policy]]; only post personal information if the editor has disclosed it on Wikipedia. |
|||
*'''User talk page''': Non-urgent issues can be raised on the editor's talk page, using the [[:Template:Uw-coi|COI warning template]] as appropriate. |
|||
or to put it really simply; does behaviour at the noticeboard need to change? [[User:Privatemusings|Privatemusings]] ([[User talk:Privatemusings|talk]]) 02:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*'''COI noticeboard''': If issues remain unresolved after user talk page discussions, or if the user talk page is an unsuitable venue, escalate the matter to the [[WP:COIN|Conflict of Interest Noticeboard]]. This noticeboard also provides guidance for editors dealing with their own conflicts. |
|||
*'''Private communication''': For issues requiring confidentiality, including where posting the information on Wikipedia would violate our policies on the posting of personal information, email evidence to the appropriate channels: for general COI issues, contact ''functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org'', and for paid editing concerns, reach out to ''paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org''. Always consult these channels for advice before sending private information. |
|||
:The current situation is working fine. If someone appears to out someone gratuitously on COI, admins there can take action if they feel it's warranted. Perhaps we could add a note to the top of the page saying that naming people who have not named themselves should be avoided wherever possible. |
|||
}} |
|||
* This addition would improve the proposal, though I still don't support it overall. Additionally, I object to the phrasing of the first sentence, {{tq|address them with transparency and caution, balancing protecting the encyclopedia with respect for the editors involved}}, as it suggests that respecting editors is somehow in tension with "protecting the encyclopedia", entrenching an attitude of aggrieved defensiveness and hostility. Respecting editors ''is'' protecting the encyclopedia, and we're ignoring [[WP:5P4]], [[WP:CIV]], and [[WP:HARASS]] if we neglect civility and respect as core pillars and policies of the project. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] ([[She (pronoun)|she/her]] | [[User talk:Hydrangeans#top|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Hydrangeans|edits]]) 20:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Imagine if I were now to use everything I know about you to find out who you are. I then went through all your contribs from your different accounts, and I found something where you had been editing just a little close to the bone, and I used that as an excuse to out you on COIN. Would you support that? I'm assuming not, as you seemed very upset when your previous user names were posted without your permission. |
|||
*: I don't see the issue you see here; the two aren't in opposition or alignment; they are complementary and we can often achieve both, but sometimes we need to carefully balance them. |
|||
*: We respect editors by avoiding baseless COI accusations while protecting the encyclopedia by allowing editors to express COI concerns supported by evidence, even when the editor has denied a COI. We respect editors by forbidding the public disclosure of personal information they haven't shared on Wikipedia, while protecting the encyclopedia by allowing private presentation of such evidence when necessary, and allowing the public sharing of previously disclosed personal information. |
|||
:This is a situation where we need to do as we would be done by. <font color="Brown">[[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]]</font> <small><sup><font color="darkgreen">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|talk|]]</font><font color="Light green">[[Special:Contributions/SlimVirgin|edits]]</font></sup></small> 02:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*: However, if other editors see an issue I have no objection to adjusting it. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 06:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I think one requirement should be that any conflict is only raised as a current issue. I also agree with a "least intrusive means" approach. The problem is only with saying that this is always against policy, if people do often discuss this without complaint. [[User:Mackan79|Mackan79]] ([[User talk:Mackan79|talk]]) 02:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::it's cool to see that you feel the current situation is working fine - I largely agree with you, so we've got some common ground. I'll happily talk about my editing history until the cows come home too, but here's probably not a good spot! - my talk page is always open... |
|||
::I reckon that the conversation about changing this guideline relates to the sense that if the current system is working ok, then the guideline shouldn't appear to prohibit it! - You mightn't agree that such a tension exists, or needs to be dealt with explicitly, (or that the guideline or noticeboard say any such thing) but I'm pretty sure that's where most recent participants on this talk page are coming from..... and I reckon we're actually making progress through pretty difficult ground... [[User:Privatemusings|Privatemusings]] ([[User talk:Privatemusings|talk]]) 02:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::PM, you didn't answer my question, and I'd really appreciate a reply. It was: Imagine if I were now to use everything I know about you to find out who you are. I then went through all your contribs from your different accounts, and I found something where you had been editing just a little close to the bone, and I used that as an excuse to out you on COIN. Would you support my right to out you in that way? <font color="Brown">[[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]]</font> <small><sup><font color="darkgreen">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|talk|]]</font><font color="Light green">[[Special:Contributions/SlimVirgin|edits]]</font></sup></small> 19:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::sorry slim, I was trying to depersonalise things a bit, but have no intention to be evasive. I would trust the editors at the noticeboard to deal with such an approach appropriately. If such an approach were determined to constitute 'harassment' (and depending on it's nature, I might assert that it crossed a line) then I would except blocks, oversight etc. I think we agree that the current situation is working fine, but may disagree about what that means for this particular page.... still thinking though! - [[User:Privatemusings|Privatemusings]] ([[User talk:Privatemusings|talk]]) 20:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Thanks for the response, PM. I have to say that, based on your reaction to your previous usernames being posted, I think if someone were to post your real name and try to justify it, you'd have a hairy conniption, simply because it would be completely unnecessary. |
|||
:::::What you have to ask yourself is this — ''why'' is anyone arguing in favor of outing people? What is their motivation? It is '''never''' necessary to do it onwiki. If you disagree, please give me one example of a situation (real or imagined), where the ''only way'' to deal with a COI would be to name the culprit onwiki, where he hadn't already named himself. <font color="Brown">[[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]]</font> <small><sup><font color="darkgreen">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|talk|]]</font><font color="Light green">[[Special:Contributions/SlimVirgin|edits]]</font></sup></small> 22:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::If you see people arguing in favor of outing people you seem to be reading a different page than me. But the reason why I take issue with this statement are: 1. It is inaccurate about policy, 2. It states editors have a privilege they are not actually given, 3. It's inconsistent with practice, 4. Unenforced rules cause problems when they are inconsistently applied, 5. Pushing all discussion of COI off of Wikipedia would harm Wikipedia's neutrality, transparency and credibility. Or in other words, I don't believe we should retain a sentence that is inaccurate, misleading, prone to misuse, and harmful to Wikipedia. Does it mean a change in current practice? No, it leaves things exactly as they are, but simply doesn't make an inaccurate statement about what happens in these situations. This is all that has been proposed. [[User:Mackan79|Mackan79]] ([[User talk:Mackan79|talk]]) 22:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
FYI, I've raised the recent events for discussion on AN/I [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Reverting_on_WP:COI here], as I don't believe these recent reversions are how discussion on a policy page are supposed to take place. Thanks, [[User:Mackan79|Mackan79]] ([[User talk:Mackan79|talk]]) 02:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
I remember a case where the anti-creationist cabal here at wikipedia outed an anon for being the wife of the creationist whose article she was editing (Durova was also involved). I remember numerous anons being outed as being Jon Awbrey (a banned editor). We out ''all the time'' and always have. [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] ([[User talk:WAS 4.250|talk]]) 09:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Awbrey had outed himself. I am talking about situations where people have only ever edited with pseudonyms, and where someone has posted onwiki what they think is the person's real name. <font color="Brown">[[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]]</font> <small><sup><font color="darkgreen">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|talk|]]</font><font color="Light green">[[Special:Contributions/SlimVirgin|edits]]</font></sup></small> 22:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:I remember seeing articles that were totally POV, violating NPOV. And ones which had no sources, and poor sources, violating V and NOR. I remember seeing editors using despicable language towards each other, violating CIV. In fact, all these egregious policy violations, and many more, are going on every day here. So should we throw away all our policies because they are being violated all the time? [[User:Crum375|Crum375]] ([[User talk:Crum375|talk]]) 10:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::My examples are of policy being followed. Your examples are of policy not being followed. The point is that outing when it improves the encyclopedia ''is'' policy and always has been. You and Slim out all the time yourselves when you think some anon editor is the enemy. But the enemy of wikipedia is POV, not any specific persons. And COI is the mother of POV editing. [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] ([[User talk:WAS 4.250|talk]]) 14:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::I don't understand what you mean; are you saying that ''we'' outed [[User:Jon Awbrey]]? I would imagine the username he chose did that. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 02:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::We've outed numerous accounts as being Awbrey or other known individuals. If that isn't apposite, see Crum's comment above that if someone wants to return to anonymity we should help them do so. [[User:Mackan79|Mackan79]] ([[User talk:Mackan79|talk]]) 02:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Identifying sockpuppets of banned editors is not "outing", and it's pure [[Wikipedia:Wikilawyering|wikilawyering]] to pretend it is. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 03:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I admit I'm not sure where these back and forths are going. Of course, some would say it's wikilawyering to argue that [[WP:Block]], in stating what editors may be blocked for, amounts not just to a total prohibition on discussing the identity of pseudonymous editors "in all cases," but requires us to include such a statement in this guideline. On the other hand, perhaps there's been too much wikilawyering on both sides of the issue and we could try to be a little more substantive. [[User:Mackan79|Mackan79]] ([[User talk:Mackan79|talk]]) 04:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
==Let's put this in the open== |
|||
There seem to be a variety of issues here which aren't be stated explicitly so lets put them out in the open. Some of this discussion is occurring due to the Wordbomb matter. Crum edit warred (and was blocked) on the RfAr page about material related to outing, claims related to which SV blocked Wordbomb for posting in the first place. Some editors may be attempting to phrase things in a way that justifies Crum's edit warring while others may be doing what they are doing so they will be in a position to claim that SV's block of Wordbomb was justified. Both of these goals miss the real point; first, no one can say that SV didn't act in a reasonable fashion given the situation. Even if the community attitudes have changed about precisely what outings are considered acceptable, SV's blocking of Wordbomb would likely be considered ok given that he had been told to stop and to email the claims. Furthermore, even if the block would not have occured under current understanding, that was then and this was now. To accuse someone of bad-faith in such circumstances is about as unreasonable as to complain if someone violated 3RR before 3RR was established or to block people who uploaded images with copyrights that were acceptable at the time but are no longer acceptable. Let's try to make this guideline and the block policy actually reflect what we do and what the community considers acceptable and not try not to use Wikipedia policies and guidelines as pawns in personal vendettas. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 19:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:I don't see what any of this has to do with WB, Joshua. That outing is not allowed has been in the WP:BLOCK policy in one form or another for a long time, and that is reflected in this guideline. <font color="Brown">[[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]]</font> <small><sup><font color="darkgreen">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|talk|]]</font><font color="Light green">[[Special:Contributions/SlimVirgin|edits]]</font></sup></small> 19:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:: Ok, so assuming I'm completely and utterly wrong, can you explain to me what the resistance is to clarifying this and BLOCK to reflect actual practice? Again, COIN deals with minor outings of SPAs all the time. The ArbCom endorsed such behavior under limited circumstances in the Agapetos Angel arbitration. Obviously outing to harass is blockable. What then is the issue here? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 19:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::Policies reflect best practice, and it's not best practice to go around outing people. There is in fact a very strong consensus against doing so, and people's details are for that reason routinely oversighted if they request it. You're relying on a couple of examples where the person has more or less outed themselves (or has in fact outed themselves completely), and someone has asked about them on COIN. |
|||
:::The only people arguing here to change the policy that I have seen are Mackan79 and PrivateMusings. And you, but you seem to have misunderstood what's being said. <font color="Brown">[[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]]</font> <small><sup><font color="darkgreen">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|talk|]]</font><font color="Light green">[[Special:Contributions/SlimVirgin|edits]]</font></sup></small> 20:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::: I'd like to think that I'm misunderstanding but Crum's comments above don't seem to indicate that. Crum seems for example to think that if someone has a username of First initial Lastname and is editing an article about a company run by First Name Lastname that we can't say on the project that they are likely the same person. That's exactly what I outlined in for example the [[Brian Camenker]] case above and Crum seems to not be ok with that. Indeed, Crum argued that essentially all those minor outings on COI are blockable. If you think Crum is wrong then I suggest you say so explicitly. Otherwise I'm forced to agree with PM and Mackan. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 20:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::That's not exactly what I said. If we have a case where there is reason to believe someone has a COI, and the evidence includes personal information of an anonymous editor, we can say that "editor X has a COI — he is editing article Y, and I can email any admin or established editor my evidence." Then, the email may include any pertinent information. I doubt this would slow the COI vetting process very much. [[User:Crum375|Crum375]] ([[User talk:Crum375|talk]]) 20:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::: Ok, so do you think that something like the [[Brian Camenker]] case constitutes unacceptable outing or not? Your reply in the section above seems to indicate you think it is a problem. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 20:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::I don't know what the Brian Camenker example is, or what Crum's arguments are (too much to read above). What I'd say is that we always need to apply common sense. If someone is editing [[John Burton Engineering]], and his user name is John B, and he's turning it into a vanity piece, then obviously we can say, "COI problem with User:X, and judging by the user name he may be connected to the company." But even then, some care is needed, because it might be someone just using that name. |
|||
:::::::We had a situation like that once where someone pretended to be an expert on something, and was editing articles without sources. Someone else worked out who that editor was in real life, and posted somewhere that he didn't, in fact, have any expertise (I think he also had an article on himself where he was claiming the expertise). So anyway, quite a few of the articles he had created were deleted. Then the real person got in touch with Jimbo to say he was not, in fact, the person behind the pseudonym, and he complained about the insults that had been posted about him, and it all got horribly complicated. (Had the pseudonym just pretended to be the real person, or was the real person now pretending he had not been the pseudonym?) |
|||
:::::::The lesson to extract is that introducing a real name is almost always an unnecessary complication that could backfire in future, and which never helps the editing process. It's always enough to say, "This person's edits look as though he may be personally connected to the issue; more eyes needed, please." That request is just as powerful as, "It's him, I know it's him!" <font color="Brown">[[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]]</font> <small><sup><font color="darkgreen">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|talk|]]</font><font color="Light green">[[Special:Contributions/SlimVirgin|edits]]</font></sup></small> 22:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::: I don't think anyone has any disagreements with the above except possibly Crum. So in that case, what is the objection to making that clear in the policy and guidelines? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 01:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::I see it as pretty clear already. It says conflicted editors don't lose the right to edit pseudonymously. We could add something to the top of the COIN page asking people to be careful when naming people, but I'd prefer to let the regular edits/admins on the page handle it as they see fit. The BLOCK policy gives them the right to take action if someone crosses the line, but it's left to them to judge what crossing the line means. <font color="Brown">[[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]]</font> <small><sup><font color="darkgreen">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|talk|]]</font><font color="Light green">[[Special:Contributions/SlimVirgin|edits]]</font></sup></small> 02:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::The problem is squaring this with "is in all cases against basic policy." Even in closing, you say, "almost always." If you recognize that it's "almost always" and not "always," then it seems you should be able to help in coming up with a wording that protects what we'd like to protect more accurately. [[User:Mackan79|Mackan79]] ([[User talk:Mackan79|talk]]) 23:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::There is no issue, really. It's against policy, so if it's done at all (and it's hard to really see a reason why it should be), then there'd better be a damned good reason for doing so. Frankly, WP:COI has been an abused guideline from the start; it's ''intended'' as a guide for the editors with the COI, to help them recognize when they might have difficulty editing in accord with policy. However, in reality, it is all too often used by others as means of trying to force editors to stop editing pages, regardless of the quality of their edits. If someone who works for IBM is able to edit the [[IBM]] article in accord with [[WP:NPOV]], [[WP:NOR]], and [[WP:V]], then more power to them. The issue is not the "COI" itself, but violating the core content policies with edits - and those are violated all the time, mostly by people who have no "COI" at all. As it is, I've seen COI being rather horribly abused, with editors using it as a means of trying to bully other editors into avoiding topics altogether - for example, insisting that because an editor has a "COI", he's not allowed to even comment on an article Talk: page, or because an editor happens to be a subject matter expert on the topic of a specific organization, having written about them professionally, he now has a "COI" and cannot edit articles about that organization. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 02:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::A fine perspective also, Jayjg, but still not an answer for why this guideline inaccurately describes policy. If you disagree with practice, it seems the general approach is to convince editors that what they're doing is wrong. Right now, people clearly don't think it is. [[User:Mackan79|Mackan79]] ([[User talk:Mackan79|talk]]) 02:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::The guideline doesn't inaccurately describe policy. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 03:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::Are you also saying, then, that to state an editor may be blocked for something is to say that it is a violation of basic policy in every case? Without being facetious, I wonder how you would write it differently if discussion which revealed someone's name might in some cases be permitted. To me it's clear that the [[WP:Block]] doesn't specify when such discussion violates policy or should result in a block. [[User:Mackan79|Mackan79]] ([[User talk:Mackan79|talk]]) 05:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Just a suggestion, but perhaps it might be helpful here to discuss actual wording? Instead of an absolute "it can be either A or B", can the different sides try to wordsmith some wording that both are happy with? --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 04:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:This would be helpful. The text in question is: "Remember, conflicted editors do not lose their privileges to edit Wikipedia pseudonymously. Revealing the names of pseudonymous editors is in all cases against basic policy." All editors agree that outing that looks like harassment should be prohibited, and that this needs to be clear; however, a number of editors don't agree the statement about policy is correct. [[User:Mackan79|Mackan79]] ([[User talk:Mackan79|talk]]) 04:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::The problem is that the extremest language in the written policy does not accord with what we seem to all agree is actual policy in practice, which is as SlimVirgin said "apply common sense. [...] The lesson to extract is that introducing a real name is almost always an unnecessary complication that could backfire in future, and which never helps the editing process." Self-outing is not a binary proposition; there are all degrees of self-outing. We need to replace the absolutist terminology with something more nuanced yet very firm that revealing real names is to be as avoided as possible so long as doing so does not cause lasting damage to Wikipedia's NPOV. [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] ([[User talk:WAS 4.250|talk]]) 09:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::: Why not include both then? Say, "According to policy <describe policy>; however in actual practice <describe actual practice>. ArbCom decisions on the matter have been <describe decisions>. Certain elements <describe elements> remain controversial and are enforced in different ways depending on context, and the judgment of the reviewing admins." --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 21:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
::::We could say "According to policy a user may be blocked for outing the identity of a pseudonymous editor; however in practice the names of accounts are sometimes discussed where there are ongoing issues with a clearly conflicted editor, particularly with new editors who edit only in a narrow area. Outing the identity of established editors is highly controversial and will almost always be seen as harassment. Editors should always remember that Wikipedia generally protects pseudonymous editing, and that because of the high ranking of Wikipedia in search engines, any discussions of private individuals by name should be avoided." [[User:Mackan79|Mackan79]] ([[User talk:Mackan79|talk]]) 02:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== another go...... == |
|||
I wonder if a parallel approach might be to consider the words before the contentious bit, which maybe we'll all agree on. How's this for the section..; |
|||
;Dealing with suspected conflicted editors |
|||
The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor, referring to this guideline. If persuasion fails, consider whether you are involved in a content dispute. If so, an early recourse to [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] may help. Another option is to initiate discussion at [[WP:COIN]], where experienced editors may be able to help you resolve the matter without recourse to publishing assertions and accusations on Wikipedia. Introducing a real name is almost always an unnecessary complication that could backfire in future, and which never helps the editing process. Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban. |
|||
Remember, conflicted editors do not lose their privileges to edit Wikipedia pseudonymously. Revealing the names of pseudonymous editors is in all cases against basic policy. |
|||
I've added WAS' bit from above - and leaving aside the last para for now, I wonder what folk think..... [[User:Privatemusings|Privatemusings]] ([[User talk:Privatemusings|talk]]) 09:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Well, "almost always" I don't mind, but "never helps the editing process" is still iffy, and a bit contradictory with the previous statements. One of the problems is that we're not necessarily talking about someone saying "I think User:JD is John S. Doe, employee of this company," but under our current language anything that would "reveal" the name of a pseudonymous editor. A name could be revealed even without saying it. Even so, it seems clear to me that accounts will routinely come along where you need to know that this is the author of the article, or the litigant in the dispute, etc., and the answer needs to be tact and responsibility, not to say that all discussion is entirely pushed off site. |
|||
:In terms of additional clarification, I think it may be a mistake to say too much in this section, even that aims to protect. I might suggest: "Also remember that Wikipedia is a top rated website which generally protects pseudonymous editing. For this reason, speculation about identity can be harmful and should almost always be avoided. One exception is often new accounts which indicate an identity in their username and edit only in a narrow topic area." If that helps, it might be adjusted as needed. [[User:Mackan79|Mackan79]] ([[User talk:Mackan79|talk]]) 16:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== Guideline revision version 3 == |
|||
Could somebody please write an article on James Newton Chadwick, 21 year-old singer-songwriter? He is my favourite musician in the world but I'm always surprised he doesn't get a mention on here. |
|||
{{tqb| |
|||
[[User:Simple Chickpea|Simple Chickpea]] ([[User talk:Simple Chickpea|talk]]) 22:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
To preserve the integrity, neutrality, and public trust in Wikipedia, it is crucial to effectively manage conflicts of interest among editors. A conflict of interest arises when an editor's personal, professional, or financial connections might compromise the objectivity of their contributions. This guideline outlines the types of conflicts and specifies the conduct required for editors who may be affected by them. |
|||
===Financial Conflict of Interest=== |
|||
== Dealing with merge discussions == |
|||
An editor has a financial conflict of interest when they stand to gain, or can reasonably be expected to gain, financial benefits from the coverage of a topic on Wikipedia. This conflict arises in various forms: |
|||
*'''Direct Financial Benefits:''' These include receiving direct payment for editing Wikipedia articles. |
|||
*'''Indirect Financial Benefits:''' Such benefits are not as overt as direct payments but are significant. Examples include: |
|||
**'''Business Exposure:''' Gaining from increased visibility when a product, service, or company is featured in an article. For example, an editor who is a major shareholder or partner in a business could materially benefit from increased sales due to enhanced visibility of their product on Wikipedia. Conversely, an individual who holds a inconsequential stake, such as a small fraction of a percent of shares in a publicly traded company, would not be positioned to experience noticeable financial gains from such coverage. |
|||
**'''Reputation Enhancement:''' Benefiting indirectly from an enhanced reputation due to having a personal article on Wikipedia or being prominently featured as an expert. This can lead to increased professional opportunities, such as book sales, speaking engagements, or consultancy work. |
|||
===Non-financial Conflict of Interest=== |
|||
;'''''How to avoid COI edits''''' |
|||
An editor has a non-financial conflict of interest when their personal or professional connections may compromise their ability to present a subject objectively. This type of conflict arises in various forms: |
|||
;''Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit," but if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution when:'' |
|||
*'''Personal Relationships:''' Editing articles about friends, colleagues, family members, romantic partners, or personal adversaries can lead to biased content, whether overly favorable or unduly negative. |
|||
*''Participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,'' |
|||
*'''Professional Connections:''' Editing articles related to one's employer or competitors in the industry can introduce biases that may either unfairly promote one’s own organization or undermine others. Similarly, citing oneself or ones close acquaintances as sources can introduce bias, influencing the content to unduly favor personal or professional interests. |
|||
*'''Significant Roles''': Editing articles related to organizations in which an individual holds a significant role, or recently held a significant role, may introduce biases and a lack of objectivity in content related to the organization's interests. This is a spectrum, with whether an editor has a conflict of interest depending both on the level of authority or influence their role granted them, and the recency of the role. For example: |
|||
**A general volunteer for the Democratic Party would have no conflict of interest. |
|||
**A [[precinct captain]] for the Democratic Party would have a conflict of interest for a few years after they hold the role. |
|||
**A [[United States Electoral College|presidential elector]] for the Democratic Party would permanently have a conflict of interest. |
|||
===Managing Conflicts=== |
|||
This text makes sense, but does it go far enough? In Wikipedia editing merging articles is often an alternative to deleting, and often has nearly the same effect. Is there any opposition to making it "deletion <u>or merge</u> discussions"? [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:· ]][[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] [[User talk:Will Beback|·:·]] 10:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Editors with a Financial Conflict:''' Must not directly edit affected articles. Instead, they should propose changes using the [[Template:Edit COI|Edit COI template]], disclosing the nature of their conflict on their user page and in any location they discuss the topic. |
|||
*'''Editors with Non-financial Conflicts:''' While not strictly forbidden from directly editing affected articles, transparency is required; they must disclose their conflict in the edit summary and in any location they discuss the topic. |
|||
===Exceptions=== |
|||
== Removal of WP:N material from this guideline == |
|||
Aside from those explicitly listed here, no exceptions exist to this guideline; edits must abide by it regardless of their perceived harmlessness or quality. Editors who wish to avoid disclosing their conflict of interest may do so only be avoiding topics affected by it. |
|||
==== General exceptions==== |
|||
I just [[wp:bold|boldly]] removed quite a bit of text from the guideline because it dealt ''exclusively'' with [[wp:N|notability]] and other than 1 sentence did not even mention COI. I reintegrated that 1 sentence. This was done because (A) this is a guideline on WP:COI not WP:N and (B) notability is not the only or even the most common reason for deletion, placing this one-of-many-reasons into such prominence gives it undue weight in the minds of new WP editors. -- [[User:Low Sea|Low Sea]] ([[User talk:Low Sea|talk]]) 00:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
# Reverting '''obvious''' [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalism]]—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as [[Wikipedia:Page_blanking|page blanking]] and adding offensive language. |
|||
# Removal of clear [[Wikipedia:Copyright violations|copyright violations]] or content that '''unquestionably''' violates [[Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria|the non-free content policy]] (NFCC). What counts as exempt under NFCC can be controversial, and should be established as a violation first. Consider opening a deletion discussion at [[Wikipedia:Files for discussion]] instead of relying on this exemption. |
|||
# Removal of content that is clearly illegal under U.S. law, such as [[child pornography]] and [[Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works|links to pirated software]]. |
|||
# Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|biographies of living persons]] (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard|BLP noticeboard]] instead of relying on this exemption. |
|||
# Reverting unambiguous [[Wikipedia:Spam|spam]], where the content would be eligible for page deletion under criterion [[WP:CSD#G11|G11]] if it were a standalone page. |
|||
====Wikipedians in residence==== |
|||
:''Refer to this revision:'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest&diff=207489379&oldid=207487484] per--[[User:Newbyguesses|NewbyG]] ([[User_talk:Newbyguesses|talk]]) 03:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC) |
|||
A Wikimedian in Residence (WIR) is a professional role in communications for an organization to share its knowledge within the Wikimedia platform, measure the impact of the same, and promote Wikipedia through training, education, and edit-a-thons. While WIRs can greatly benefit Wikipedia, there is a risk of edits that could unduly benefit their employers. To manage this risk, the following guidelines apply: |
|||
*'''Scope of Editing''': WIRs may edit articles related to but not directly involving their institution. They must not edit articles where their institution is the primary subject or could reasonably be seen as directly benefiting from the article's content; if they wish to make changes to such articles they must follow the instructions at [[#Managing Conflicts]] for ''Editors with a Financial Conflict''. |
|||
*'''Disclosure Requirements''': WIRs must clearly disclose their role and association with their institution on their user page, as well as in any discussions or edits related to their role as a WIR |
|||
===Reporting suspected violations=== |
|||
== Flawed policies == |
|||
When violations of this policy are suspected or identified it is crucial to address them with transparency and caution, balancing protecting the encyclopedia with respect for the editors involved. Always adhere strictly to our [[WP:OUTING|no-outing policy]]; only post personal information if the editor has disclosed it on Wikipedia. |
|||
*'''User talk page''': Non-urgent issues can be raised on the editor's talk page, using the [[:Template:Uw-coi|COI warning template]] as appropriate. |
|||
[[WP:SPAM]] and [[WP:COI]] would appear to be deeply flawed policies if they can be cited cogently to justify the warnings recently directed against [[user talk:jamesfranklingresham|James Franklin]]. [[Squaring the circle]] is on my watchlist and I came across [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Squaring_the_circle&diff=222819536&oldid=219942260 this edit]. In the edit summary, [[user:Hu12]] called this edit "spam". That didn't make sense at all. It was a link to a lecture by a respected professor on the topic that the article was about! That's a valuable contribution. I restored the link. |
|||
*'''COI noticeboard''': If issues remain unresolved after user talk page discussions, or if the user talk page is an unsuitable venue, escalate the matter to the [[WP:COIN|Conflict of Interest Noticeboard]]. This noticeboard also provides guidance for editors dealing with their own conflicts. |
|||
: |
|||
*'''Private communication''': For issues requiring confidentiality, including where posting the information on Wikipedia would violate our policies on the posting of personal information, email evidence to the appropriate channels: for general COI issues, contact ''functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org'', and for paid editing concerns, reach out to ''paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org''. Always consult these channels for advice before sending private information.}} |
|||
Then I looked at Hu12's edits. He was systematically deleting external links to lectures at [[Gresham College]]. The edits were put there by James Franklin, who is employed by Gresham College. Apparently this raised two concerns: (1) that the purpose of the links was only to promote Gresham College's web site, and (2) that there was a conflict of interests of the sort treated at [[WP:COI]]. Understandable concerns, but there's a difference between valid grounds to '''suspect''' a problem, and valid grounds to '''conclude finally''' that there is. The latter requires more information than the former. One must look at, among other things, the nature and purpose of the links. They are a valuable contribution to Wikipedia. A neutral person with no such conflict could reasonably add them. Hu12 actually '''blocked''' the user, James Franklin. Maybe a dozen or so people stepped in and started saying the links are good and the user should not be blocked. I might have been the fourth or fifth one, and I unblocked the user and at the suggestion of one of the others I posted to [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/incidents]] about it. Two views emerged: (1) That '''I''' was making far too much of the matter and I should apologize to Hu12; and (2) That Hu12 was vastly overreacting and should apologize for blocking the user. |
|||
: |
|||
Now the thing that really surprised me is that AFTER all this, [[user:BozMo]], who was aware of all of this discussion, still posted a warning on James Franklin's user page telling him not to post links to lectures at Gresham College. |
|||
: |
|||
I think that is wrong. But he cited [[WP:SPAM]] and [[WP:COI]] in support of his position. If those policies can really justify his position, then those policies need to change. If someone who works for [[Encyclopædia Britannica]] starts posting large numbers of links to on-topic articles at Encyclopædia Britannica, it may be reasonable to '''suspect''' something amiss, but for that to be the bottom-line conclusion even AFTER the nature of the links is examined is wrong. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not to worship rules and regulations. I've posted these same comments at the SPAM policy talk page. [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] ([[User talk:Michael Hardy|talk]]) 21:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Updated to incorporate suggestions from the previous discussion; I'm also notifying [[WP:VPI]] for additional input. The intention is that this will replace the current guideline; the current text will be moved to an explanatory essay where it can be adjusted as needed. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 17:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Oriental Ruthless Boys == |
|||
:Big picture: I think this puts our guideline out of compliance with the global policy on paid editing and thus needs revision, to at minimum provide a useful link to what the policy requires. I also would hope that the intention is that an RfC would be held to replace the current text rather than attempting to do it as a BOLD edit. Small picture: Functionaries-en does not accept emails from non-members (with the exception of WMF emails) for the last 18-24 months. ArbCom should be announcing something on the UPE/COI private evidence side in the next day or so, so that can be updated. I also personally don't think the significant roles represents my thinking or understanding of that concept and think that we should not have an example that is so American centered. Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 19:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
ORB(Oriental Ruthless Boys AKA OR-B) was originated in Saint Paul,MN in the 1980's. Made to protect themselves from the White Tigers Gang and other Asian Bloods Gang. Many ORB's beated all the White Tigers From Minnesota and Wisconsin down to California..O.R.Bs are identified in Navy Blue and Gray articles of clothings,with tattoo or numbers 023,also identified with bald-headed and other names known as "Chollocs" and "Freeways". The Oriental Ruthless Boys were known to be the most feared Hmong gang in the United States during the years "94" through "98"..Rivalries included the AC(Asian Crips AKA AceGangster),MOD(Menace of Destructions),URC(Unknown Rapist Crew)and PB(Purple Brothers)and other Bloods Gang. Alliance with the Oriental Ruthless Boys may include the M.A.B(Mount Airy Boys AKA Mount Airy Crips) and 612 Hardcore Crips from Minneapolis,MN..O.R.Bs are nearly all Crips. Though some O.R.B may be found wearing red clothings known as the Oriental Red Brothers, they do not alliance with any Bloods gang nor do they claim Bloods at all..The Oriental Red Brothers has the same identifications and enemies as the Oriental Ruthless Boys(ORB Crips)except for the colors, they wear red not navy blue..Most OR-Bs are known to be the "98 OR-B" in Minnesota and California...ORB sets are found in Minnesota,California,Wisconsin,North Carolina,Colorado,Michigan and other Hmong States..But the largest ORB sets are still in Saint Paul,MN, Fresno,CA, Colorado,Michigan,North Carolina and parts of Wisconsin. The Oriental Ruthless Boys sets are mainly found in Minnesota,California,Wisconsin,parts of Colorado and other States where Hmong people may exist, well as the Oriental Red Brothers are mainly found in North Carolina,Michigan and parts of Colorado only. Till this date the O.R.B are still known to be as the second biggest and is still the most Feared Hmong Gang throughout the United States. |
|||
::Arbcom's [[Special:Diff/1225426349|announcement]] is live. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 14:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I'm still not very convinced by the presumed pipeline between being cited in a Wikipedia article and {{Tq|increased professional opportunities, such as book sales, speaking engagements, or consultancy work}}. This still seems like an inflated sense of Wikipedia readers' engagement with sources and attribution, or a misguided sense of people in charge of events at universities schedule book tours and talks. The discouragement of citing oneself in the non-financial conflict of interest section on the grounds that it may tilt content toward one's personal professional interests seems sufficient and more suitable. |
|||
:Does exception #4, {{tq|Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption}} contradict [[WP:BLP]]'s guidance?: {{tq|Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion}}. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] ([[She (pronoun)|she/her]] | [[User talk:Hydrangeans#top|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Hydrangeans|edits]]) 14:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I also remain of the sense that the "Reporting suspected violations" section continues to unduly frame respect for editors in tension with protection of the encyclopedia. Your earlier explanation was that {{tq|the two aren't in opposition}}, but you then go on to describe them as if oppositional: {{tq|We respect editors by... while protecting the encyclopedia by...}} etc., as if the former isn't also the latter. All policies and guidelines exist for the benefit of the encyclopedia, so both identifying COI and respecting editors serve to protect the project. I would encourage a rephrase to {{tq|When violations of this policy are suspected or identified it is crucial to address them with compliance to relevant guidelines and policies, balancing concern for undisclosed COI editing with respect for the editors involved}}. This avoids implying the latter policy somehow doesn't benefit the encyclopedia. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] ([[She (pronoun)|she/her]] | [[User talk:Hydrangeans#top|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Hydrangeans|edits]]) 15:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:11, 24 May 2024
Should we upgrade this to policy?
We have always treated policies as codification of existing practice. The recently closed Conflict of interest management cited failure to meet the conduct standards expected of an administrator, specifically as pertains to conflict of interest editing and conflict of interest disclosure
as sufficient reason to revoke sysop status, with essentially unanimous agreement. So it seems to me it's time to make it official and upgrade this from a guideline to a policy. This would recognize that demanding adherence to this is indeed existing practice, and would be consistent with the community's increasing intolerance of COI editing. RoySmith (talk) 16:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- @RoySmith: I'm pretty sure we would need an RfC for that. If you plan on starting one, I would most likely support, since I thought that it was already policy. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think so. Though that case also highlighted some ambiguities in the definitions of paid editing and financial COI, and relatedly this guideline's relationship to WP:PAID (see Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict_of_interest_management/Proposed_decision#Statement_by_Joe_Roe for both). It might be a good idea to try and iron those out first. – Joe (talk) 18:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- The general principles of the conflict of interest guideline are widely accepted. However, I'm inclined to think revision of the text would be necessary before accepting it as a policy would be possible, in order to have more clarity about what are conflicts and what are acceptable practices. I say this as someone who has been confused by gaps between what the guideline says and what some members of the community expect (and gaps between what different members of the community expect, as this interaction between Donald Albury, Teratix, and Levivich indicates). For instance, the current guideline's examples and language emphasize articles about current (
being an owner, employee, contractor
, rather than "having been") and close relationships, like an article about a business that one owns or an article about a direct family member. This has led, at least for myself personally, to being surprised to learn there are editors who consider since terminated institutional employment relationships a conflict as well. If this is going to be a policy, I think it's going to need to be shored up to avoid these confusions. I get desires to avoid rules creep, but if the community expects something as a rule but doesn't communicate it, that just creates more muddles and makes it harder to apply, follow, and enforce the potential policy. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)- Regarding previous employment, I'd say it's not black and white. If I retired from XYZ Corp on good terms and with a generous pension after 30 years of high-ranking service then I would likely still have a COI with the company for at least a few years, especially if I'm still in contact with current employees. Similarly, if I was fired by MegaCorp in a manner that I thought unfair then I would almost certainly still have a COI for probably some months (maybe a double digit number) after my employment ended. However, if I spent a short time temping at Joe Bloggs Ltd or had a summer job at Bob's Burger Franchise then any lingering COI would be measured in weeks at absolute most. If I am a self-employed plumber contracted to fix the toilet at Chain Restaurant then my COI with my client ends pretty much as soon as I walk out the door. This is all generally speaking of course - stronger COIs will last longer than weaker ones for example.
- Reading this back, I'd say this is actually a good argument for it remaining a guideline. Thryduulf (talk) 23:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- FWIW, I have tried to clarify what I did to articles I may have a COI on, and what the relevant policies and guidelines said at the time, at: User:Donald_Albury#Conflict of interest declaration. - Donald Albury 21:50, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, but as Joe Roe points out, some ambiguities need resolving before starting the formal procedures. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- I could support something along these lines. ——Serial Number 54129 21:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- IMO another point point of clarification is what should disclose your COI actually means. I've always interpreted should to be opposed to must. So if an editor fails to disclose their non paid COI, this isn't actually a violation of anything and by itself is unsanctionable. Now if an editor fails to disclose their CoI and then we may have much lower tolerance for any problematic behaviours, so we may block or topic ban them or whatever much more readily but we do actually need something else for it to be sanctionable. However I know from discussions as far back as 15 years or so ago, there are plenty of people who interpret it as a "must" and consider failure to disclose a non paid CoI by itself sanctionable unless perhaps the editor can provide a sufficiently compelling reason for not disclosing. While I haven't followed this case that well, I'm fairly sure I read several commentators who still interpret it as a must and this also seems to be the direction arbconm has lent. Yet I read back in long ago discussions as well as ones when this blew up people who share my view. Nil Einne (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Just post a simple proposal at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Moxy🍁 22:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- I can envision a slew of problems with trying to make it a policy. It's important not to undercut the harassment policy by giving fuel to those who argue that outing is no big deal if there's a COI; there's been a ton of previous discussion at the harassment policy talk page about the balance between the two. And whereas undisclosed paid editing has an important place in the terms of use, COI covers such a broad spectrum of degrees of "conflict" (just look at some of the talk sections above this one) that it probably lends itself better to a guideline. I recently saw a thread on a good-faith editor's user talk page, where a POV-pusher asked the editor if they were a physician, implying that physicians cannot impartially edit pages about fringe medical theories or quackery. Just imagine where that could go if this were raised to policy-level. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- It wasn't so much NihonJoe's failure to disclose the COI that resulted in the desysop, but the manner in which he did not disclose. It's almost certain that had his initial response to a civil question of "Do you have a COI with X?" been "Yes, and I also have COIs with A, B and C." it wouldn't have reached arbitration let alone a desysop. Thryduulf (talk) 23:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Quibbling about should? "Should" is not hard to understand, should means, you should do it. Should is used throughout the consensus policies and guidelines: eg. you "should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias" is the nutshell of perhaps Wikipedia's most fundamental editorial policy. That does not mean, it's just fine not to do it. Do it, if nothing else, because Wikipedia, which as there is a guideline means Wikipedians by consensus have asked you to. But really, why not take real stock of what we are doing here, Wikipedia is a publisher and responsible writers and publishers disclose COI. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- 'Should' does not mean 'must', and very few policies/guidelines use 'must'. COI isn't something that there should be any doubt around, so this should be one of the exceptions where 'must' is used. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don't understand the concern people have about inviting harassment. Of course you shouldn't be subjected to harassment, and people who do harass you should be sanctioned. But as I said earlier nobody's making you edit COI articles. One perfectly good way to avoid being harassed about COI is to just not edit COI articles. We've got 6,812,642 articles right now; surely there's other topics which interest you that you could edit. And if you do chose to edit articles with a COI, all we're asking is that you disclose it. If you're unsure if your association meets the definition of COI, just say what your association is and let other people figure out for themselves. This really doesn't seem like an onerous requirement. And if you do find it onerous, then there's still those 6,812,641 other articles. RoySmith (talk) 16:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Having been pressed in the past about alleged COI for a topic I did not actually edit articles about (different than the matter I mentioned earlier), I find the concern about harassment credible. When there do exist editors who claim COI investigation justifies harassment (something the Arbitration case, so long as it's been brought up, unanimously agreed wasn't a legitimate excuse), I worry that advice along the lines of
just
[do]not edit COI articles
inadvertently veers a little too near to victim blaming. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)- In addition to Hydrangeans comment, there was also a case recently of a good-faith editor being subject to borderline harassment, to the extent oversight was needed, when a different editor refused to take "no" for answer when accusing them of having a financial COI. We must be careful not to accidentally encourage or legitimise such behaviour. Thryduulf (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- That sounds like you are positively encouraging COI writing. "Don't edit COI articles" prevents readers and Wikipedia from being misled, and also editors who don't want to be publicly connected to the subject from being publicly connected. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Having been pressed in the past about alleged COI for a topic I did not actually edit articles about (different than the matter I mentioned earlier), I find the concern about harassment credible. When there do exist editors who claim COI investigation justifies harassment (something the Arbitration case, so long as it's been brought up, unanimously agreed wasn't a legitimate excuse), I worry that advice along the lines of
- In re very few policies/guidelines use 'must': Guidelines use must more often than policies, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style uses it the most. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don't understand the concern people have about inviting harassment. Of course you shouldn't be subjected to harassment, and people who do harass you should be sanctioned. But as I said earlier nobody's making you edit COI articles. One perfectly good way to avoid being harassed about COI is to just not edit COI articles. We've got 6,812,642 articles right now; surely there's other topics which interest you that you could edit. And if you do chose to edit articles with a COI, all we're asking is that you disclose it. If you're unsure if your association meets the definition of COI, just say what your association is and let other people figure out for themselves. This really doesn't seem like an onerous requirement. And if you do find it onerous, then there's still those 6,812,641 other articles. RoySmith (talk) 16:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- I would support upgrading this guideline to policy unchanged. Not saying I wouldn't support changes. I'd appreciate a ping when this goes to VPP. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Something that I don't think has really been addressed so far in this discussion, and needs to be carefully thought through and spelled out before making a formal proposal, is what is the problem that the proposal to make it a policy is going to address? Are we having a problem that results from it being only a guideline, that will be fixed by making it a policy? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, and that's the main reason I'd support a change to it being a policy. People frequently break out the "it's just a guideline, not a policy" argument when they disagree with a guideline. HJ Mitchell mentioned that in the case. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. So if I restate that, it becomes: the problem that needs to be addressed is that users often treat COI as unimportant, because "it's only a guideline". I think I could get on-board with that. But I still have serious concerns about whether the community will have consensus about enforcing this as a policy. I understand the comments about "should". But consider someone who has a significant and problematic COI, leading them to make biased edits, and they are not disclosing it, and they have always been very careful not to make it possible to dox them. They should disclose that COI, and arguably they must, but if they don't, what do we do to enforce it? As a guideline, we focus on enforcing NPOV, which is is a policy, and enforcing NPOV as a policy also effectively enforces the COI guideline. So, if we take "COI is only a guideline" off the table, how does this change? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think the community is treating COI like a policy most of the time. This could be problematic for users who are treating it like a guideline and who might think their cases are exceptions. There are, and there will continue to be, COI cases that remain undetectable for a long period, or forever. I don't think upgrading COI to a policy will have much of an effect on those either way. I agree that the quality of the edits made by COI editors is a factor, but it's not just about NPOV. I don't think—if this is what you were implying—that NPOV enforcement is sufficient to handle all COI problems. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, just like there are NPOV violations that remain undetected for a very long time or forever, that's clearly not a reason for not having policy or guideline and enforcing them when they come up. Moreover, part of the purpose of the guideline is to promote ethics, and also honesty with readers, which should be what we always try to enforce and reinforce in almost every policy and guideline. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
I agree that the quality of the edits made by COI editors is a factor
I strenously disagree; the quality of their edits makes no difference at all (notably, this was a repeated defense made for Rachel Helps and she still got topic-banned.) There are clear red lines for COIs where, once crossed, nothing else can serve as a defense. We wouldn't accept "I like their edits tho" as a defense in a sockpuppetry case, I don't see how a COI case is any different. --Aquillion (talk) 23:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)We wouldn't accept "I like their edits tho" as a defense in a sockpuppetry case
: Perhaps you or I wouldn't; but the community has done just that and is again considering doing just that (permanent link). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 23:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)- The purpose of the COI policy is to maintain the quality of the encyclopaedia. If editors have found that the contributions of an editor with a COI are beneficial to the encyclopaedia (i.e. the articles they've contributed to are notable, neutral, due, etc) why would we want to block them? What benefits would we gain? Thryduulf (talk) 00:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think you're thinking about direct benefits. The more obvious benefits are indirect: expressing certain views about COI signals that you're part of the in-group, that you share values with those in power (that'd be most of us in this discussion), that you support the current social order, etc. Groups use words and intensification to help strengthen the group's power and identity.
- In the song "Ding-Dong! The Witch Is Dead", there's a solo that runs:
- I think the community is treating COI like a policy most of the time. This could be problematic for users who are treating it like a guideline and who might think their cases are exceptions. There are, and there will continue to be, COI cases that remain undetectable for a long period, or forever. I don't think upgrading COI to a policy will have much of an effect on those either way. I agree that the quality of the edits made by COI editors is a factor, but it's not just about NPOV. I don't think—if this is what you were implying—that NPOV enforcement is sufficient to handle all COI problems. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. So if I restate that, it becomes: the problem that needs to be addressed is that users often treat COI as unimportant, because "it's only a guideline". I think I could get on-board with that. But I still have serious concerns about whether the community will have consensus about enforcing this as a policy. I understand the comments about "should". But consider someone who has a significant and problematic COI, leading them to make biased edits, and they are not disclosing it, and they have always been very careful not to make it possible to dox them. They should disclose that COI, and arguably they must, but if they don't, what do we do to enforce it? As a guideline, we focus on enforcing NPOV, which is is a policy, and enforcing NPOV as a policy also effectively enforces the COI guideline. So, if we take "COI is only a guideline" off the table, how does this change? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, and that's the main reason I'd support a change to it being a policy. People frequently break out the "it's just a guideline, not a policy" argument when they disagree with a guideline. HJ Mitchell mentioned that in the case. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Something that I don't think has really been addressed so far in this discussion, and needs to be carefully thought through and spelled out before making a formal proposal, is what is the problem that the proposal to make it a policy is going to address? Are we having a problem that results from it being only a guideline, that will be fixed by making it a policy? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
As coroner I must aver
I thoroughly examined her
And she's not only merely dead
She's really most sincerely dead
- What's the difference between "only merely dead" and "really most sincerely dead"? Well, nothing, in practice. But the point isn't to change the practicalities; it's to indicate an emotional state. IMO the same thing happens here: We have said for years that you should normally disclose a COI before editing (except when that would require self-OUTING); now we want to say that you really most sincerely should disclose a COI before editing. The practical difference is zero. The psychological difference is significant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
They should disclose that COI, and arguably they must, but if they don't, what do we do to enforce it?
We topic-ban them or block them as soon as sufficient evidence emerges. The recent ArbCom case and the ANI cases for Rachel Helps and Thmazing have made that obvious (though it was obvious already, since that has always been our practice.) Obviously some policies (like sockpuppetry) might not always be obvious or could be hard to prove, but once it comes out, what happens is clear. --Aquillion (talk) 23:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- But that wasn't what I asked. I asked about when they are very careful about not leaving any way to identify them, and therefore "as soon as sufficient evidence emerges" never arrives. You make a comparison with the sock policy, where we have the checkuser tool, but we wouldn't use checkuser to "out" someone who might or might not have a COI. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Aquillion, that hasn't "always" been our practice. The COI rules were very different back when we made our first edits. We have admins who created articles about themselves, their family members, or their employers, and nobody thought that was a problem back in the day. The idea back then was that if your personal interest aligned with Wikipedia's interests, then there was no "conflict", so writing an autobiography was acceptable, so long as the result was neutral. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- A neutral autobiography has got to be an oxymoron, but sure there was a time when this project had no real concept of COI. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- neutrality is judged by the words on the page, not by who wrote them. Thryduulf (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Nonsense. A person writing their autobiography is POV writing. They are creating their life story -- now, part of their life story is the writing their autobiography. He wrote that, '[he] was born in a car seat', or he wrote a paragraph on his first job, is not neutral information no matter how it is written, it is important self-information, it is him, telling you about himself, indeed him telling you what's worth knowing. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- You are conflating notability, neutrality, DUE, and other factors into a mess that accurately reflects nothing more than your personal, rather extreme, point of view:
- Whether the subject of an article is notable or not is completely independent of who wrote the article.
- It is more likely that an autobiography will be written by a non-notable person than a notable person (simply because there are fewer notable than non-notable people and a significant proportion of notable, living, people with the necessary skills and opportunity to write an article on the English Wikipedia already have an article) but that does not mean that everybody who writes an autobiographical article is non-notable.
- What information about the subject of an article is encyclopaedic and due is completely independent of who wrote the article.
- What information the article should contain is solely determined by what reliable sources write about the subject, and the consensus of editors deem is important. This always overlaps with what the subject of the article thinks it should contain - sometimes the overlap is tangential, sometimes it's (almost) complete, most often it is between the two extremes. The exact same is true when you substitute "fans of the subject", "haters of the subject", "the subject's family and friends" and many other groups of people.
- What information is present in the article is present in the article is completely independent of who wrote the article, what should be in the article, and whether it is neutrally phrased.
- Only a featured article contains everything it should contain and nothing else. Every other article contains either omissions or excesses. Given the overlap between what the subject wants in the article and what independent editors want in the article, an autobiography will contain at least some material that consensus says it should (e.g. both an autobiography and an independent biography of a notable actor will include information about their career and at least a partial filmography). How much (and what) is missing and how much (and what) is present that shouldn't be can (obviously) only be judged by the actual content of the specific article.
- Whether the information in the article is written neutrally is completely independent of who wrote the article, and of what information is in the article.
- It is obvious that this can also only be judged by the words on the page, but it is entirely possible to write both neutrally and non-neutrally about both encyclopaedic and non-encyclopaedic information, and all combinations are possible for both the article subject and for others. It is less likely that an auto-biography will be neutrally written, but that is not the same thing as impossible.
- Whether the subject of an article is notable or not is completely independent of who wrote the article.
- Thryduulf (talk) 14:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Your statements are the complete mess. Indeed, its as if you have no idea what you are responding to, it's like you just rattling off random talking points. Nothing I said addressed notability, nor encyclopedic. And your pretense of divorcing DUE form neutrality just demonstrates a complete lack understanding of neutrality. You appear to not even understand autobiography. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Now try reading what I actually wrote and responding to that rather than assuming that someone who disagrees with you must not be understanding you. Thryduulf (talk) 16:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, I read what you wrote. It is a complete mess of random irrelevant talking points, and nothing but misunderstanding or lack of understanding on your part. And as I said, which you apparently did not read, your misunderstanding goes far beyond me, to neutrality and biography. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not misunderstanding anything, it's a detailed explanation of why you are wrong, but as you have no interested in listening I'll end the conversation here. Thryduulf (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- No, your comment is not. It is about other things, not responding to what I wrote, its either pretending that due is not part of neutrality or you are fundamentally misinformed or spreading misinformation. Your comment further betrays a misunderstanding or misinformation about biography and autobiography. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not misunderstanding anything, it's a detailed explanation of why you are wrong, but as you have no interested in listening I'll end the conversation here. Thryduulf (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, I read what you wrote. It is a complete mess of random irrelevant talking points, and nothing but misunderstanding or lack of understanding on your part. And as I said, which you apparently did not read, your misunderstanding goes far beyond me, to neutrality and biography. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Now try reading what I actually wrote and responding to that rather than assuming that someone who disagrees with you must not be understanding you. Thryduulf (talk) 16:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Your statements are the complete mess. Indeed, its as if you have no idea what you are responding to, it's like you just rattling off random talking points. Nothing I said addressed notability, nor encyclopedic. And your pretense of divorcing DUE form neutrality just demonstrates a complete lack understanding of neutrality. You appear to not even understand autobiography. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- A person writing their autobiography is POV writing. They are creating their life story – I think this is overstated. If the article says "Alice Expert is the chair of the Expert Department at Big University", and that's what independent sources say about Alice, then the article is neutral, no matter who wrote it. (Articles were usually shorter back then. A single-sentence or two-sentence substub was pretty typical.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- No, not neutral, it's the thing the very subject thinks is important to say about the very subject.
- (As for creating their life story, it is them living it, which now for your author includes writing their autobiography but deceivingly so, as independent biography.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Alanscottwalker You need to explain how the words "Alice Expert is the chair of the Expert Department at Big University" are neutral when written by an independent editor but the exact same words are non-neutral when written by Alice Expert. Until you can do that the foundation of your argument is baseless. Thryduulf (talk) 11:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- You said you were done talking to me, now you ping me back. I have already explained. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Except you haven't explained anything. Please answer the question asked. Thryduulf (talk) 12:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- I certainly have.
- And your latest flip-flop further decreases trust in your commenting, so just stop. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Forget personalising the dispute and just answer the question asked. Thryduulf (talk) 12:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Already answered. Your badgering is not in the least useful to Wikipedia. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for acknowledging that you cannot answer the question. Thryduulf (talk) 13:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- I did answer the question. Your last comment is just further evidence of your untrustworthy commenting. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Thryduulf the answer to your question is that when an independent editor writes that, they have made the independent (and presumably, unbiased) decision that it is important enough to put in an encyclopedia. The same cannot be said when Alice Expert writes the exact same words. RoySmith (talk) 14:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- That still doesn't answer the question. If an independent editor makes a judgement that those words are neutral and DUE, but those identical words are not neutral and DUE when written by someone who isn't independent then there must be some way of distinguishing the words without knowledge of who wrote them. Given that the words are identical that isn't possible, therefore you still haven't answered the question. Thryduulf (talk) 14:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Now you're just being pig-headed. RoySmith (talk) 14:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Now you're just making personal attacks. Thryduulf (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think Thryduulf is correct about the article. An article's neutrality is judged by its contents, not by its author(s). If a given string of words is neutral when I write it, then it's neutral when anybody writes it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Now you're just making personal attacks. Thryduulf (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Now you're just being pig-headed. RoySmith (talk) 14:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- That still doesn't answer the question. If an independent editor makes a judgement that those words are neutral and DUE, but those identical words are not neutral and DUE when written by someone who isn't independent then there must be some way of distinguishing the words without knowledge of who wrote them. Given that the words are identical that isn't possible, therefore you still haven't answered the question. Thryduulf (talk) 14:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Thryduulf the answer to your question is that when an independent editor writes that, they have made the independent (and presumably, unbiased) decision that it is important enough to put in an encyclopedia. The same cannot be said when Alice Expert writes the exact same words. RoySmith (talk) 14:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- I did answer the question. Your last comment is just further evidence of your untrustworthy commenting. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for acknowledging that you cannot answer the question. Thryduulf (talk) 13:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Already answered. Your badgering is not in the least useful to Wikipedia. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Forget personalising the dispute and just answer the question asked. Thryduulf (talk) 12:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Except you haven't explained anything. Please answer the question asked. Thryduulf (talk) 12:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- You said you were done talking to me, now you ping me back. I have already explained. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Alanscottwalker You need to explain how the words "Alice Expert is the chair of the Expert Department at Big University" are neutral when written by an independent editor but the exact same words are non-neutral when written by Alice Expert. Until you can do that the foundation of your argument is baseless. Thryduulf (talk) 11:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Well, since we're talking about nuance: the basic logic behind the COI policy, as I see it, is to recognise that, like all text, text in Wikipedia articles comes with paratext. The text "Alice Expert is the chair of the Expert Department at Big University" written by Alice Expert and "Alice Expert is the chair of the Expert Department at Big University" written by Bob Volunteer are identical; the paratexts are very difficult. One says this is an editorially independent encyclopaedia, the other says this is Who's Who. One imbues a degree of confidence that Alice being the chair of the Expert Department at Big University is neutral without qualification, the other raises the possibility that Alice might in fact be a disgraced former chair at Big University Degree Mill Inc, working in the hotly-disputed field of Expertise. And so on. In theory we could make the paratext irrelevant by rigorously assessing the verifiability and neutrality of every piece of text contributed. In practice we don't have time, so we take the reasonable shortcut of trusting some contributors of text more than others. – Joe (talk) 12:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- How does the paratext differ if both statements are supported by a reliable source? Especially if they are supported by the same reliable source? Thryduulf (talk) 12:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- In exactly the same way. – Joe (talk) 12:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- So you are saying that identical text, supported by an identical citation to a reliable source, magically changes from neutral to non-neutral based on whether the person writing the words is the subject or not? I seriously don't understand how you can say that with a straight face. Thryduulf (talk) 13:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Make sure you never find yourself in the literature department of a university then, it'll blow your mind.
- But seriously, I agree that the text either neutral or it's not. What I'm trying to say is that in practice, we all know that it's not that easy to tell. It sounds neutral and has a reliable source, great, but does that source really check out? Has it been fairly represented? Is it independent? Has it been cherry-picked from other sources that say something different? Given time you can answer all those questions, but in day-to-day editing we usually take a shortcut by rely on contextual clues. WP:COI just extends that logic into a guideline. If I see a potentially non-neutral edit to Alice Expert from User:Thryduulf, with admin bits and 95k edits, I'm not going to blink an eye. If I see the same text as one of the first ten edits from User:McNewbie, I'll probably check out the source. If I see it from User:AliceExpertOfficial, I'm going to be so suspicious that I'd really rather they didn't make it in the first place.
- And just as importantly, I think readers have a similar logic. Luckily, few people actually understand who writes Wikipedia articles or how to check, but everybody I know assumes that our articles are written by random nerds, because if they wanted to read what people and companies had to say about themselves, they'd be on Facebook. – Joe (talk) 14:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- So what you are actually saying is that, no, the neutrality of identical text supported by an identical citation to a reliable source doesn't change depending on who wrote it. What you are saying is that your assumptions about the text change based on things other than the words on the page. That is a very different claim to the one you were making previously. Thryduulf (talk) 14:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- That's a very good way of putting it, yes. I didn't intend to claim anything different. – Joe (talk) 14:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Another way to look at this is to consider that if Bob Volunteer thinks about making that edit about Alice Expert, and then decides that it would be better not to, then Alice Expert making the edit herself is objectionable. But then if Alice Expert made the edit first, and it got reverted because of COI, after which Bob Volunteer decides to reinstate the edit and assume responsibility for it, then the edit has been vouched for. In that way of looking at it, Alice Expert making the edit by herself is not the same as Bob Volunteer making the edit by himself, although Bob Volunteer can take a positive action to make Alice Expert's edit effectively the same as if he had first made it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- That's a very good way of putting it, yes. I didn't intend to claim anything different. – Joe (talk) 14:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think some literary departments would disagree. Sincerely, Dilettante 21:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Joe, it sounds like your analysis is less about whether the article actually is neutral, and more about how the RecentChanges patroller feels about the edit (e.g., confident because it's a familiar face vs. suspicious because it's not). That's a popular heuristic for everyday patrolling activities, but as you say, it's not really about the article itself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- So what you are actually saying is that, no, the neutrality of identical text supported by an identical citation to a reliable source doesn't change depending on who wrote it. What you are saying is that your assumptions about the text change based on things other than the words on the page. That is a very different claim to the one you were making previously. Thryduulf (talk) 14:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- So you are saying that identical text, supported by an identical citation to a reliable source, magically changes from neutral to non-neutral based on whether the person writing the words is the subject or not? I seriously don't understand how you can say that with a straight face. Thryduulf (talk) 13:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- In exactly the same way. – Joe (talk) 12:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- How does the paratext differ if both statements are supported by a reliable source? Especially if they are supported by the same reliable source? Thryduulf (talk) 12:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- You are conflating notability, neutrality, DUE, and other factors into a mess that accurately reflects nothing more than your personal, rather extreme, point of view:
- Nonsense. A person writing their autobiography is POV writing. They are creating their life story -- now, part of their life story is the writing their autobiography. He wrote that, '[he] was born in a car seat', or he wrote a paragraph on his first job, is not neutral information no matter how it is written, it is important self-information, it is him, telling you about himself, indeed him telling you what's worth knowing. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- neutrality is judged by the words on the page, not by who wrote them. Thryduulf (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- A neutral autobiography has got to be an oxymoron, but sure there was a time when this project had no real concept of COI. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Aquillion, that hasn't "always" been our practice. The COI rules were very different back when we made our first edits. We have admins who created articles about themselves, their family members, or their employers, and nobody thought that was a problem back in the day. The idea back then was that if your personal interest aligned with Wikipedia's interests, then there was no "conflict", so writing an autobiography was acceptable, so long as the result was neutral. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- But that wasn't what I asked. I asked about when they are very careful about not leaving any way to identify them, and therefore "as soon as sufficient evidence emerges" never arrives. You make a comparison with the sock policy, where we have the checkuser tool, but we wouldn't use checkuser to "out" someone who might or might not have a COI. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. The recent arbitration case highlights the complex interplay between managing conflict of interest in editing and upholding our privacy through the harassment policies. While the case underlines the necessity for clear COI guidelines, escalating these to a policy could rigidify processes that need to remain adaptable to context and sensitivity. The intricacies revealed through the case, where concerns about COI were mishandled or led to heightened disputes, show that a flexible approach is crucial. By codifying the current practices into a rigid policy, we risk not only an increase in administrative disputes but also potential misuse in contentious cases, thereby exacerbating challenges rather than providing clarity. The existing guideline allows for nuanced application that can be adapted as needed, which is more appropriate in handling the varied scenarios of COI that arise in an environment as diverse as Wikipedia. FailedMusician (talk) 23:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per FailedMusician. I couldn't have said it better. COI isn't a black and white thing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose The biggest reason is that the the COI def here is far too broad and vague. North8000 (talk) 00:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. WP:COI is large, unweildy, and not well defined. The only "policy" we need, in my view, are a few items derived from the guideline: Don't write about yourself or associates in main space, don't cite yourself or associates in main space, don't link to places with which you have an association, use the talk page to propose any substantive change in any article where you have an association with the topic. Something like that, short and sweet. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- While I do think these shorter and sweeter principles are generally good, the last two I think still would need clarification before further elevation as policy. For instance, with
don't link to places with which you have an association
: I think it makes sense that we want to avoid promotionalism—the owner of a business wikilinking to their business, or someone who runs, say, a personal online warship database adding their website to external links. On the other hand, I think we go too far if the impression is given that a user who is a member of a professional association like the Society for Historians of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era or the American Association of Physics Teachers shouldn't add citations with DOI links or wikilinks to the organization's peer-reviewed journal, in these cases The Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era or the American Journal of Physics. Andany article where you have an association with the topic
is a phrasing that's too capacious, imbricating as it would trans editors contributing to biographical articles about transgender people, or Americans editing U. S. president biographies, or maths teachers editing mathematics articles. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 04:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)- In addition to Hydrangeans poitns,
any article where you have an association with the topic
would prevent any (established) editor from editing the Wikipedia article. Thryduulf (talk) 09:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC) - Both your comments suggest you did not read what was written. The brief comment were grounded in the guideline which is based on defined relationships, so your parade of horribles are a waste of pixels. Alanscottwalker (talk) Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- In addition to Hydrangeans poitns,
- Oppose per the above, and per the things I was pointing out in my earlier comments. (I was beginning to wonder if community sentiment had changed suddenly, and I was an outlier. In fact, I was starting to wonder if Jytdog had simply been ahead of his time.) I do want to say that I appreciate the views of those editors who want to treat COI more seriously, but I also want to suggest that trying to make a formal proposal of elevation to policy would be a waste of time and effort. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- This isn't an RfC so I won't !vote. But if this were an RfC then I would oppose making the current guideline a policy. There is too much in the current guideline - and how many editors interpret it - that assumes that COIs exist in a binary state and that all COIs are equal. In my professional experience, the organizations and people with whom I have worked recognize that COIs exist on a very large spectrum. Some bright lines are helpful and appropriate - WP:PAID is a good example - but this concept is much more nuanced than currently described and handled in this project. ElKevbo (talk) 22:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think we absolutely do need a policy about this, because in practice we are already using it as policy, because it is extremely serious and because there are clear red lines; in recent disputes over this many people who ultimately ended up topic-banned or blocked have breezily defended their actions (and had their actions defended by others) by arguing that the whole thing was not policy and therefore they weren't required to follow it. They were wrong, as can be seen from the numerous recent blocked; and fact that there gray areas makes it more important to have a well-thought-out, clearly-defined set policies for how we approach COI issues, not less. That doesn't necessarily mean that the current wording is ideal and should be translated directly into policies, but we need to think about what the red lines are, what the gray areas are, and when and how people have responsibilities to disclose potential COIs or to avoid editing in an area entirely. Clearly they do have such responsibilities; editors are regularly being blocked for failing to meet it. We need to make at least some effort to have a policy page that reflects current practice and makes it clear to people what their responsibilities are, because otherwise we're going to end up with more situations where editors go "ah I don't have any responsibilities, it's not policy" and then end up blocked by ANI or ArbCom. That is not ideal - the ideal situation is to have clear policies that make the requirements as clear as we can in advance, so editors don't find out where the red lines are only after being blocked. --Aquillion (talk) 23:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- I see several editors saying that we use this as a policy, and I wonder if we all agree on what the difference between policies, guidelines and essays actually is. I suspect that we don't, and what's meant is "we enforce this pretty strictly". We enforce a lot of "mere guidelines" pretty strictly. We even block people for violating "mere essays". On the other hand, RecentChanges patrollers violate the WP:PRESERVE section Wikipedia:Editing policy every hour of the day, and none of them get blocked. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Our enforcement is haphazard at best in most things, because many of our policies and guidelines rely on decentral enforcement, decentralized judgement, and fuzzy (or is that, nuanced) lines, content or editing policies or guidelines are probably the most haphazard, as there is minimal barrier of entry for any edit. Perhaps, the best we can do here is stress and reenforce for an amature encyclopedia writing publisher, the ethics of the matter. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:14, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- That's true, but I think what's more relevant is that policies tend, on average, to articulate more general principles (e.g., "Wikipedia is not a place to publish new ideas", "Wikipedia is not a web directory", "Thou must not violate copyrights") and the other pages get into the details (e.g., all the different pages about identifying and dealing with POV pushers, spammers, and copyvios).
- We might need a different way of talking about this. Perhaps we'll end up with the Wikipedia:Editing policy being classified as "gently recommended best practices" as well as "policy", and Wikipedia:Spam as "strictly enforced" and yet "guideline". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but that seems less relevant than, some things are easier and some things are harder, but it is the harder that are usually more central to complex tasks. And functionally it does not compare to decentralization as a reason for uneveness. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Our enforcement is haphazard at best in most things, because many of our policies and guidelines rely on decentral enforcement, decentralized judgement, and fuzzy (or is that, nuanced) lines, content or editing policies or guidelines are probably the most haphazard, as there is minimal barrier of entry for any edit. Perhaps, the best we can do here is stress and reenforce for an amature encyclopedia writing publisher, the ethics of the matter. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:14, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- I see several editors saying that we use this as a policy, and I wonder if we all agree on what the difference between policies, guidelines and essays actually is. I suspect that we don't, and what's meant is "we enforce this pretty strictly". We enforce a lot of "mere guidelines" pretty strictly. We even block people for violating "mere essays". On the other hand, RecentChanges patrollers violate the WP:PRESERVE section Wikipedia:Editing policy every hour of the day, and none of them get blocked. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Per FFF above, I'd support promoting the guideline to a policy unchanged, and I'd also support some changes. (Shorter, clearer, probably stricter.) Levivich (talk) 06:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Well, I'd need to know what problem this is solving. The case OP cites did end with the person getting the heave-ho on COI grounds, so it didn't seem necessary there. We have a lot of policies here, and a some of them suck, so I would support a trade: enact this as a policy in return for demoting another one, leaving no net change in number of policies. Which one to demote would be up to the community, I can think of several. Herostratus (talk) 01:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, I'm a paid editor who has recently been banned for a lack of COI disclosure (but which I believe was actually an issue of NPOV that other editors were unable to articulate well). I believe that we should get rid of this whole guideline. It promotes suspicion of editors, and since Wikipedia allows anonymous editing, requires some editors to be known publicly while allowing others to remain anonymous. This creates an environment that motivates outing and discrimination based on an editor's relationships and background. It is inherently unfair. Instead, we should focus on whether or not edits maintain NPOV. I would support making the policies surrounding NPOV clearer and having an environment of enforcing NPOV more strictly. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ltbdl (talk) 06:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Ltbdl: I'm not sure what you find funny here. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- While the response is unnecessarily rude, I do see the humor in a paid editor arguing that COI editing can produce neutral results, as if people can be immune to implicit bias, confirmation bias, and, well, just bias. As if Wikipedia doesn't have a 20-year history of COI editing leading to NPOV problems. As if we didn't just prove that again in recent months. As if COI editing leading to NPOV problems isn't the reason why this particular paid editor is now topic banned. There's this very famous Upton Sinclair quote, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." And, indeed, paid editors and COI editors seem to have difficulty understanding that paid editing and COI editing invariably leads to non-neutral editing. Funnier still is the argument that restrictions on COI editing are "inherently unfair" -- unfair to whom? The COI editors? The idea that fairness requires letting people edit about subjects with which they have a COI is, well, laughable. Levivich (talk) 17:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
invariably leads to non-neutral editing
: Recent months don't indicate this is invariably true, per a finding of fact from an Arbitration Committee case aboutediting while having a conflict of interest
[that]did not, in general, violate other content policies or guidelines
; this would include WP:NPOV (the case maintained that conflict of interest editing is against guidelines; the point is that the claim about an invariable chain between COI and POV isn't, well, invariably true).unfair to whom?
Unfair to those who become targets of discrimination and harassment. If a Wikipedia guideline inadvertently motivates harassment or discrimination, I can understand why an editor might consider it unfair. I'm reminded of recent experience at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:No queerphobes, where it became apparent that some detractors to the essay believe that being LGBTQ+ constitutes a Conflict of Interest for LGBTQ+ topics (see for instance the comment claiming the essay isreally only going to be
[..]used to claim that editors do not have a conflict of interest even when it's obvious
)—a claim that WP:No Queerphobes rightly says is a queerphobic claim—to the point that the deletion discussion was taken to Deletion review to overturn the keep decision on the claim that notifying WikiProject LGBT Studieshad the effect of prejudicing the discussion
. While the XfD decision was not overturned, it was pretty chilling to see editors so willing to try to justify excluding LGBTQ+ editors from matters pertaining to LGBTQ+ topics. Among the comments opposing overturning, there were even a few that apparently agreed that notifying WikiProject LGBT Studies did wrongfully prejudice the discussion, which was unsettling.laughable
: I don't see what's funny about someone being concerned about harassment; that'd seem to entail supposing, however inadvertently, that people being harassed is funny. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- While the response is unnecessarily rude, I do see the humor in a paid editor arguing that COI editing can produce neutral results, as if people can be immune to implicit bias, confirmation bias, and, well, just bias. As if Wikipedia doesn't have a 20-year history of COI editing leading to NPOV problems. As if we didn't just prove that again in recent months. As if COI editing leading to NPOV problems isn't the reason why this particular paid editor is now topic banned. There's this very famous Upton Sinclair quote, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." And, indeed, paid editors and COI editors seem to have difficulty understanding that paid editing and COI editing invariably leads to non-neutral editing. Funnier still is the argument that restrictions on COI editing are "inherently unfair" -- unfair to whom? The COI editors? The idea that fairness requires letting people edit about subjects with which they have a COI is, well, laughable. Levivich (talk) 17:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Ltbdl: I'm not sure what you find funny here. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- It may be my inability to articulate well Rachel, but I fail to understand how the following sentences are logically coherent: "It promotes suspicion of editors, and since Wikipedia allows anonymous editing, requires some editors to be known publicly while allowing others to remain anonymous. This creates an environment that motivates outing and discrimination based on an editor's relationships and background. It is inherently unfair." Could you also please expand on which NPOV policies you think should be made clearer, and how they should be enforced? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry if that wasn't clear. WP:PAID requires that paid editors reveal the identity of their employer; we assume, correctly, that any paid editor has a financial COI regarding their employer. However, there are other COIs, which the policy proposed on this page would cover. For example, it's a COI to edit the page of a friend or relative. However, this relationship is not apparent unless the identity of the author is revealed (encouraging authors who want to edit pages for people they have a COI for to be anonymous, because of the scrutiny declaring a COI often causes). Since so many people are editing anonymously with a COI, other editors become suspicious that their fellow editors have undisclosed COIs. This leads them to wonder what the identity of the other editors is, sometimes resulting in harassment. So here is a possible alternative. Let's say that an editor whose identity is unknown is making a lot of edits that seem to be promoting a living author. Rather than questioning them about a possible connection to the author, a fellow editor could ask them to comply with NPOV. If they disagree, they could ask for a third opinion, or take things to the NPOV noticeboard. When an admin agrees that they are not up to NPOV editing standards, they could give that editor a warning. After this formal warning, continued NPOV editing could result in a topic ban. That way we could use an existing policy (NPOV) to enforce what we actually care about, which is NPOV. We don't have to ask the editor what their relationship to the author is. There is no hidden information! We could make WP:UNDUE more detailed about what constitutes undue weight, with examples, so it is easier to understand. I think my own past editing had issues with NPOV, and in conjunction with my topic ban, and to demonstrate I understand what the problems with my editing were, I am in the process of drafting guidelines for NPOV specific to religious topics. To comply with my topic ban, this is off-wiki. Please email me if you would like to know more. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- They ask for a third opinion and then a third editor comes and gives an opinion and turns out that third editor is also a friend of the article subject and doesn't disclose it. This is what actually happens in reality. Levivich (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- "So here is a possible alternative..." Yes, a perfectly normal procedure. Take a discussion I participated in today on Talk:Bachelor, where two editors got in a dispute, and I answered a third opinion request; one of the editors attempted to continue their non-neutral editing, and was subsequently page-blocked by an admin. Again, this is common. The "process" you seem to be pushing back against, where editors take the time to extensively investigate undisclosed COIs, is much rarer (I do sometimes have a life). I think you are overestimating the extent to which your topic ban represents a widespread problem (the case was in reality unique in nearly every way), among other things. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
one of the editors attempted to continue their non-neutral editing
The point is that it is irrelevant whether they were doing that because they have a COI with the topic or for some other reason. If they are unable or unwilling to edit neutrally they should not be contributing (to that article/subject), regardless of why that is. If they are able and willing to edit neutrally there is no benefit to preventing them contributing. Thryduulf (talk) 08:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry if that wasn't clear. WP:PAID requires that paid editors reveal the identity of their employer; we assume, correctly, that any paid editor has a financial COI regarding their employer. However, there are other COIs, which the policy proposed on this page would cover. For example, it's a COI to edit the page of a friend or relative. However, this relationship is not apparent unless the identity of the author is revealed (encouraging authors who want to edit pages for people they have a COI for to be anonymous, because of the scrutiny declaring a COI often causes). Since so many people are editing anonymously with a COI, other editors become suspicious that their fellow editors have undisclosed COIs. This leads them to wonder what the identity of the other editors is, sometimes resulting in harassment. So here is a possible alternative. Let's say that an editor whose identity is unknown is making a lot of edits that seem to be promoting a living author. Rather than questioning them about a possible connection to the author, a fellow editor could ask them to comply with NPOV. If they disagree, they could ask for a third opinion, or take things to the NPOV noticeboard. When an admin agrees that they are not up to NPOV editing standards, they could give that editor a warning. After this formal warning, continued NPOV editing could result in a topic ban. That way we could use an existing policy (NPOV) to enforce what we actually care about, which is NPOV. We don't have to ask the editor what their relationship to the author is. There is no hidden information! We could make WP:UNDUE more detailed about what constitutes undue weight, with examples, so it is easier to understand. I think my own past editing had issues with NPOV, and in conjunction with my topic ban, and to demonstrate I understand what the problems with my editing were, I am in the process of drafting guidelines for NPOV specific to religious topics. To comply with my topic ban, this is off-wiki. Please email me if you would like to know more. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ltbdl (talk) 06:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment It seems like this accidentally evolved into an RFC. Do we consider this discussion to be one? If so, we should probably update the formatting and list it at CENT. If not, we should probably go ahead and start one to figure out community consensus. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Initially, I understood this discussion to be a sort of testing-the-waters, prior to starting any sort of formal proposal. Based on the discussion so far, it's not clear to me that there is enough support for upgrading to make a formal RfC worth the effort. (But of course anyone who wants to start an RfC is free to do so.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Proposed text for a shorter and clearer COI policy
To throw out a possible summarized and clarified wording, either for this guideline or for a hypothetical policy. This is only a first draft, and feedback would be appreciated. BilledMammal (talk) 07:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
To preserve the integrity, neutrality, and public trust in Wikipedia, it is crucial to effectively manage conflicts of interest among editors. A conflict of interest arises when an editor's personal or financial connections might compromise the objectivity of their contributions. This policy outlines the types of conflicts and specifies the conduct required for editors who may be affected by them.
Financial Conflict of Interest
An editor has a financial conflict of interest when they stand to gain, or can reasonably be expected to gain, financial benefits from the coverage of a topic on Wikipedia. This conflict arises in various forms:
- Direct Financial Benefits: These include receiving direct payment for editing Wikipedia articles
- Indirect Financial Benefits: Such benefits are not as overt as direct payments but are significant. Examples include:
- Business Exposure: Gaining from increased visibility when a product, service, or company is featured in an article.
- Reputation Enhancement: Benefiting indirectly from an enhanced reputation due to having a personal article on Wikipedia or being cited as a source in one. This can lead to increased professional opportunities, such as book sales, speaking engagements, or consultancy work.
Non-financial Conflict of Interest
An editor has a non-financial conflict of interest when their personal or professional connections may compromise their ability to present a subject objectively. This type of conflict arises in various forms:
- Personal Relationships: Editing articles about friends, colleagues, family members, romantic partners, or personal adversaries can lead to biased content, whether overly favorable or unduly negative.
- Professional Connections: Editing articles related to one's employer or competitors in the industry can introduce biases that may either unfairly promote one’s own organization or undermine others.
- Political and Ideological Beliefs: Editing articles that cover political or religious movements in which an individual holds an active role. It is important to note that simply being a supporter or member of such movements does not constitute a conflict of interest. For example, a member of the Democratic Party does not inherently have a conflict of interest when editing articles related to the party unless they hold an official role within it.
Managing Conflicts
- Editors with a Financial Conflict: Must not directly edit affected articles. Instead, they should propose changes using the Edit COI template, disclosing the nature of their conflict on their user page and in any location they discuss the topic.
- Editors with Non-financial Conflicts: While not strictly forbidden from directly editing affected articles, they must disclose their conflict in the edit summary and in any location they discuss the topic.
No exceptions exist to this policy; edits made in violation of it are indefensible, regardless of their perceived harmlessness or quality. Editors who wish to avoid disclosing their conflict of interest may do so only be avoiding topics affected by it.
- The first section talks about "financial conflict of interests" but the third talks about "paid" and "non-paid conflicts". That the existing text uses these terms interchangeably was a major source of confusion in the recent arb case; I think we ought to stick to one or the other. – Joe (talk) 09:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Good point; switched to "Financial". BilledMammal (talk) 09:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- I appreciate this attempt although I'm very skeptical that any attempt to approach this inherently nuanced topic without nuance is fatally flawed. For example, a proposed policy must account for (a) employment that isn't directly related to editing Wikipedia or promoting the employer (e.g., marketing, public relations) and (b) editing by experts who are connected to a topic but perhaps not directly connected to a specific article subject (e.g., scholars). The draft language for "Non-Financial Conflict of Interest" (why the weird capitalization?) would seem to disallow edits by scholars and experts which is certainly not what we intend. And in the areas in which I focus - US colleges and universities - we also deal with edits made by students and alumni who arguably have a COI. And what about GLAM editors and Wikipedian-in-residence programs who have project-approved exemptions to our typical COI policies and practices? ElKevbo (talk) 12:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the reply; I agree that the text can be improved, but I hope that we will be able to do so.
employment that isn't directly related to editing Wikipedia or promoting the employer (e.g., marketing, public relations)
- I think that is accounted for by the section on "Professional Connections"
The draft language for "Non-Financial Conflict of Interest" (why the weird capitalization?) would seem to disallow edits by scholars and experts which is certainly not what we intend.
- My intent was to allow such edits; for example, if you are an expert in Austro-Hungarian history, then there should be no issue contributing to the article October Diploma, so long as you avoid citing yourself or your colleagues. However, the fact that you think the wording would prevent this means that the wording can be improved; why do you think the wording would prevent this? (Also, edited the capitalization; feel free to edit it further)
And what about GLAM editors and Wikipedian-in-residence programs who have project-approved exemptions to our typical COI policies and practices
- Regarding GLAM and WIR editors, that's a good point; I've drafted an expanded "Exceptions" section below, which would exempt them from the financial COI restrictions with limited exceptions; the intent is to allow them to share the knowledge of their institution without promoting it, in line with meta:Wikimedian in residence. Do you feel it meets this intent? BilledMammal (talk) 12:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- If you are an expert in Austro-Hungarian history, we actually do want you to cite yourself and your colleagues, within reasonable limits. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Why? In this circumstance, I don’t think you are well placed to decide whether your work, or the work of your colleagues, is WP:DUE; better to make an edit request and let editors without a conflict of interest figure that out. BilledMammal (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Honestly, if an article is getting to the point where only a tiny community is knowledgeable enough to edit it accurately, the content is no longer suitable for a general encyclopedia anyway. We shouldn't "need" experts to edit in their sub-sub-specialty. JoelleJay (talk) 14:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- As well-meaning as this sentiment is, this sense the project doesn't "need" experts who are well-versed in their specialities seems too near to the anti-intellectualism that permeates Wikipedia and contributes to the the project's imbalanced content coverage (this linked article focuses on exclusion of certain kinds of sources based on reliability, but I would take this observation to instead point out that experts can be aware of academic sources in other languages, or that are available primarily through academic libraries rather than convenient Google searches). Furthermore, there are plenty of plainly notable topic areas that suffer from the lack of expert intervention, such as the soft-pedaling of Anglo/British settler colonialism (permanent). The project does need, desperately, for experts to contribute in their specialities and sub-sub-specialities. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)talk
- Honestly, if an article is getting to the point where only a tiny community is knowledgeable enough to edit it accurately, the content is no longer suitable for a general encyclopedia anyway. We shouldn't "need" experts to edit in their sub-sub-specialty. JoelleJay (talk) 14:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Why? In this circumstance, I don’t think you are well placed to decide whether your work, or the work of your colleagues, is WP:DUE; better to make an edit request and let editors without a conflict of interest figure that out. BilledMammal (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- If you are an expert in Austro-Hungarian history, we actually do want you to cite yourself and your colleagues, within reasonable limits. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- This completely misses the point of my comment. JoelleJay (talk) 21:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- It may or may not have been the point you intended to make, but it does not miss the point that you actually made. Thryduulf (talk) 21:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see where I said Wikipedia does not need editors with expertise. I said a page should not require editors with such super-specialized expertise that only a tiny handful of people would be qualified to evaluate it. This isn't a controversial statement. JoelleJay (talk) 22:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Except that the editors of Wikipedia does not represent the universe of people who would be interested in a topic. A topic may have plenty of interest to be worthy of a Wikipedia article, but only tiny handful of Wikipedia editors are qualified to evaluate it. Rlendog (talk) 13:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- A subtopic that is so complex and niche that only the people who have a conflict of interest with it are capable of summarizing it accurately is clearly too technical to be described on WP. JoelleJay (talk) 01:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- I don't disagree if everyone was an active Wikipedia editor. But since most people are not active Wikipedia editors, there are topics that only a few Wikipedia editors are capable enough of summarizing it accurately, and those might have some conflict of interest, especially if interpreted broadly. Rlendog (talk) 00:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- A subtopic that is so complex and niche that only the people who have a conflict of interest with it are capable of summarizing it accurately is clearly too technical to be described on WP. JoelleJay (talk) 01:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- Except that the editors of Wikipedia does not represent the universe of people who would be interested in a topic. A topic may have plenty of interest to be worthy of a Wikipedia article, but only tiny handful of Wikipedia editors are qualified to evaluate it. Rlendog (talk) 13:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see where I said Wikipedia does not need editors with expertise. I said a page should not require editors with such super-specialized expertise that only a tiny handful of people would be qualified to evaluate it. This isn't a controversial statement. JoelleJay (talk) 22:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- It may or may not have been the point you intended to make, but it does not miss the point that you actually made. Thryduulf (talk) 21:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- This won’t prevent those experts using those non-English sources, unless those non-English sources are written by the expert or their colleagues - and in such a circumstance, it’s worth the additional oversight of the edit request process to make sure they’re adding them in accordance with our core policies and not to promote themselves or their work. BilledMammal (talk) 03:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- This completely misses the point of my comment. JoelleJay (talk) 21:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- In my experience, academics are aware of their place in their field's hierarchy, sometimes acutely so. In particular, when their views are rejected or ignored, they know it. They might still think they're right, but they are aware. Consider Katalin Karikó, who won last year's Nobel Prize in Medicine: she'd been demoted, had her pay cut, and was told she wasn't good enough for tenure. There is no way that she would have thought her views were the most dominant in her field. But if were were lucky enough to have her as a Wikipedia editor, having her cite a paper or two of her own would not have been a significant problem.
- WP:CITESELF has been our rule for many years. We get some WP:REFSPAM from people who don't read the directions (but Wikipedia:Nobody reads the directions, so that's hardly surprising) and occasionally from a self-promoter, but overall it seems to work out for us. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- How would we know if it isn't working out for us? I know at least two people in my department who have added their own findings to numerous articles and even created articles based on their research papers. Wikipedia currently strongly emphasizes primary results that we now know were incorrectly interpreted and misleading, but the paper that recently came out showing some of the deficiencies in their previous findings is also primary and not suitable to use for context. I can't edit the affected articles myself or even suggest edits under this username, so a splashy unreproducible narrative will persist for a topic that itself never would have even been mentioned on here if we had more stringent COI rules/patrolling and stricter discouragement of primary sources. How many other pages reflect a highly distorted perspective on what is relevant, accepted science in a subfield due to undetected self-promotion? JoelleJay (talk) 06:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- More stringent rules wouldn't have changed anything. People who aren't following the existing rules can't be counted on to follow other rules.
- More stringent patrolling is difficult. If someone edits as "User:AliceExpert" and cites a paper by Alice Expert, that usually gets reverted. If someone edits as "User:InnocentVolunteer", then patrollers don't wonder whether that's Alice, unless our InnocentVolunteer cites multiple papers, or the same paper in multiple articles, all of which were written or co-written by Alice.
- I have seen several academics over the years who cite not only their own work, but others as well. I have seen them write articles that say there are two camps, A and not-A, and cite strong sources on both sides. I would not want to give that up. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- How would we know if it isn't working out for us? I know at least two people in my department who have added their own findings to numerous articles and even created articles based on their research papers. Wikipedia currently strongly emphasizes primary results that we now know were incorrectly interpreted and misleading, but the paper that recently came out showing some of the deficiencies in their previous findings is also primary and not suitable to use for context. I can't edit the affected articles myself or even suggest edits under this username, so a splashy unreproducible narrative will persist for a topic that itself never would have even been mentioned on here if we had more stringent COI rules/patrolling and stricter discouragement of primary sources. How many other pages reflect a highly distorted perspective on what is relevant, accepted science in a subfield due to undetected self-promotion? JoelleJay (talk) 06:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Can you explain more about why you are proposing defining
Editing articles related to one's employer or competitors in the industry
to be a Non-financial Conflict of Interest, which differs from the current policy? To be fully transparent, I'm someone who falls into this category and I've declared a Financial Conflict of Interest accordingly. I strongly believe I am not biased toward my employer in this case as, for example, I hold no fear whatsoever that I could be fired or punished by my employer for "disparaging" the business in an article. That being said, I agree with the widely shared sentiment that this is not the case the vast majority of the time. I fully support the current practice of submitting the article to AfC and not touching it afterward, so I don't support language that saysnot strictly forbidden from directly editing affected articles
in this scenario. Mokadoshi (talk) 03:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)- Fear of retaliation is not the only concern about bias. The above type of editing is also problematic due to what it emphasizes; what might seem important to an employee may not reflect what is important in independent sources. JoelleJay (talk) 14:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- What do you propose? Mokadoshi (talk) 18:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- ...Not editing pages related to one's employer. JoelleJay (talk) 22:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- That would be highly restrictive for some large companies. Apple, for example, is involved in computing, AI, photography, videography, filmed content production and distribution, telecommunications, cloud computing, music, electronic payment, ... The list goes on and on. isaacl (talk) 02:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Apple isn't involved in every aspect of those topics. An employee could easily edit in those areas without touching material related to Apple. JoelleJay (talk) 06:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Editing aspects of topics unrelated to your employer is not the same standard as not editing pages related to one's employer. Which are you actually proposing? Thryduulf (talk) 07:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- It is when those aspects are standalone pages. JoelleJay (talk) 12:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Apple Inc. makes Safari (web browser). Google makes Google Chrome. Microsoft makes Microsoft Edge. Mozilla makes Firefox. Opera (company) makes Opera (web browser).
- Web browser is a standalone page. Do you think that article should be forbidden for all the employees of those companies? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- If your standard is "do not edit pages related to one's employer" then an employee of Apple Inc would not be able to edit pages like Computer, Portable music player, Smartwatch, Wearable technology, and many other pages.
- If your standard is "do not edit aspects of topics related to your employer" then at least some parts of all those articles would be able to be edited.
- The two standards are very clearly not the same, which standard are you proposing we should use?
- Do you intend to prohibit an Apple retail assistant from adding third-party sources to the LocalTalk article, because both of your above standards would do that. Thryduulf (talk) 22:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Its "related", not "related, broadly defined". However, I think we can improve the proposed wording and make things clearer by saying "editing content about/related to" rather than "editing pages about/related to"? BilledMammal (talk) 01:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- How is an Apple product not "related" to Apple Inc? Thryduulf (talk) 02:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- An Apple product is; however, Computer isn’t an apple product, it’s a generic term. BilledMammal (talk) 02:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- How is an Apple product not "related" to Apple Inc? Thryduulf (talk) 02:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Its "related", not "related, broadly defined". However, I think we can improve the proposed wording and make things clearer by saying "editing content about/related to" rather than "editing pages about/related to"? BilledMammal (talk) 01:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- It is when those aspects are standalone pages. JoelleJay (talk) 12:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Editing aspects of topics unrelated to your employer is not the same standard as not editing pages related to one's employer. Which are you actually proposing? Thryduulf (talk) 07:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Apple isn't involved in every aspect of those topics. An employee could easily edit in those areas without touching material related to Apple. JoelleJay (talk) 06:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- That would be highly restrictive for some large companies. Apple, for example, is involved in computing, AI, photography, videography, filmed content production and distribution, telecommunications, cloud computing, music, electronic payment, ... The list goes on and on. isaacl (talk) 02:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- ...Not editing pages related to one's employer. JoelleJay (talk) 22:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- What do you propose? Mokadoshi (talk) 18:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Fear of retaliation is not the only concern about bias. The above type of editing is also problematic due to what it emphasizes; what might seem important to an employee may not reflect what is important in independent sources. JoelleJay (talk) 14:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Exceptions
No exceptions, except those explicitly listed here, exist to this policy; edits made in violation of it are indefensible, regardless of their perceived harmlessness or quality. Editors who wish to avoid disclosing their conflict of interest may do so only be avoiding topics affected by it.
Wikipedians in residence
A Wikimedian in Residence (WIR) is a professional role in communications for an organization to share its knowledge within the Wikimedia platform, measure the impact of the same, and promote Wikipedia through training, education, and edit-a-thons. While WIRs can greatly benefit Wikipedia, there is a risk of edits that could unduly benefit their employers. To manage this risk, the following guidelines apply:
- Scope of Editing: WIRs may edit articles related to but not directly involving their institution. They must not edit articles where their institution is the primary subject or could reasonably be seen as directly benefiting from the article's content; if they wish to make changes to such articles they must follow the instructions at #Managing Conflicts for Editors with a Financial Conflict.
- Disclosure Requirements: WIRs must clearly disclose their role and association with their institution on their user page, as well as in any discussions or edits related to their role as a WIR
LGTM Levivich (talk) 16:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- I also share ElKevbo's skepticism of trying to handle nuance in a bright line, black-and-white way. Both proposals also seem hasty in light of the lack of consensus in the thread further up for policy elevation in the first place. This seems well intended but misbegotten. More specifically, I'm also troubled by the draft's elision of the policy on harassment. The current guideline reminds editors that COI investigation does not justify harassment. Any policy version of COI should include similar reminders of similar strength. Finally,
edits made in violation of it are indefensible
seems contrary to our guideline for being patient with newcomers: a new user's ignorance doesn't make COI editing not a violation, but it does make the behavior defensible in the sense that it's a mitigating factor for how we respond to said hypothetical newcomer's COI editing. We educate before expelling. All this reminds me of the reasons Thryduulf and Tryptofish laid out for not supporting elevation to policy at this time, and right now I share their view. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)- IMO the community has, for some years now, been leaning towards the idea that everything is black and white, everything can be pigeonholed, everything that is not allowed is forbidden, etc. We have accomplish this dubious goal through the simple means of telling lies to children, rather than trying to teach newcomers the complexity and shades of gray. Since we teach the rules via a telephone game (because Wikipedia:Nobody reads the directions), and distorting them further through teach step, we begin with "I don't think that ____ is a good idea for this particular article because WP:UPPERCASE", and a couple of years later, we end up with "You horrible newcomer! WP:YOU WP:VIOLATED the WP:MOST WP:IMPORTANT WP:POLICY and WP:I will WP:SEE you WP:BLOCKED WP:IF WP:YOU WP:MAKE WP:ANOTHER WP:MISTAKE!" What we don't manage to communicate is that Wikipedia:The rules are principles, and Wikipedia:If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.. In this context, it's hardly surprising if editors think that problems are solved by writing increasingly powerful rules, rather than individually (and expensively) investing time in teaching the principles to each promising newcomer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I was about to write something substantially like Hydrangeans and WhatamIdoing (edit: before their most recent comment) did, but probably less well articulated. Stating "no exceptions exist", even with an accompanying list of exceptions, is naive at best. The real world is complicated and messy, and ill-suited to such inflexible language. For example everybody should be allowed to revert very obvious vandalism, fix obvious typos, and make similar edits that are identical to ones an editor without a COI would always make. Not every organisation has a clear delineation between those with and without official roles within them, and even when they do it's not always the case that someone with an official role is more conflicted than someone without (e.g. a volunteer, unofficial spokesperson for a charity vs the directly employed HR person). This is a good faith attempt, but it is fundamentally flawed. Thryduulf (talk) 00:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- No comment on the "Exceptions" section, but regarding the WIR section, I support the overall effort to clarify when a WIR has a conflict of interest. I understand the background to this proposal is due to WIRs not declaring a COI, but from my experience recently I've seen the exact opposite problem: I've seen WIRs submit a ton of COI edit requests in order to make sure everything is above board when they aren't always necessary. I'm not naming names because I am happy they are being so transparent, but my concern is that a WIR creating 20+ COI edit requests take a lot of time to review. Mokadoshi (talk) 03:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- I would oppose this. This is a radical change, but more importantly, it is unenforceable and clearly doesn't have consensus. The best example I can give is the one I gave at the COI Arb case. I own AT&T stock. I have edited History of AT&T. Should I now stop? What exactly is "significant" benefit mean when it comes to the dividends I earn on that stock? Significant compared to the average worker where I live, in the Philippines? That wouldn't take much. Significant compared to the average stock broker on Wall Street? That would require a great deal more than I have. Where do you draw the line in defining "significant"? More importantly, how do you enforce it? You don't know if I own 1 share or 1 million shares, and I'm not going to declare it, so should I be blocked for refusing to declare my holdings? "Financial benefit" is so vague, so nebulous, that it doesn't work. Paid editing is simple. Editing for your employer is simple. After that, it gets muddy.
- You can't make a black and white policy to "outlaw" COI editing and have it be effective. You CAN look at my edits and say "they look normal" or say "your edits look promotional, full of puffery" and remove those edits based on existing policy, and then block me if it is a pattern. Existing policy covers this. What matters is the CONTENT of my edits and whether they are obviously designed to improve the encyclopedia, or if they appear to serve another purpose. Regardless, forbidding COI editing is just going to guarantee that people with a COI will simply stop declaring the COI, so you will have less transparency, so this would backfire spectacularly. What the COI guideline needs is MORE disclosure, not less. If you treat all COI editors as the enemy, they will respond in kind and simply ignore policy and sock. You are better off engaging and getting them to declare and become invested in their editorship (and reputation) here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 03:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- It seems neither the extensive rebuttals on Wikipedia nor on Wikipediocracy have convinced you to give up the "I own stock" line of argument. Levivich (talk) 03:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- No, because there hasn't been a single successful rebuttal that address the actual circumstance. The real question is "where do we draw the line?", and it serves as an excellent example because it isn't hypothetical and is extremely common. Writing bad policy without considering real world implications is what I'm trying to get the community to avoid, just as I tried to get Arb to avoid. Now, do you have an actual argument against the example, or are you just wasting everyone's time and saying "I don't like this example". Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- All policy and guidelines here are line drawing, and regularly the lines are fuzzy (or nuanced). As presumably (you say you support the guideline) your not saying there is no such thing as conflict of interest, it means even you are aware that lines can be drawn for conflict of interest, indeed probably some are easy to draw. And as for Wikipedians being able to hash out lines, that's most of what Wikipedians do all the time. So, let's say your position is you don't have a conflict, submit your situation to the community, and no doubt they will guide you as best they can. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- No, because there hasn't been a single successful rebuttal that address the actual circumstance. The real question is "where do we draw the line?", and it serves as an excellent example because it isn't hypothetical and is extremely common. Writing bad policy without considering real world implications is what I'm trying to get the community to avoid, just as I tried to get Arb to avoid. Now, do you have an actual argument against the example, or are you just wasting everyone's time and saying "I don't like this example". Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- It seems neither the extensive rebuttals on Wikipedia nor on Wikipediocracy have convinced you to give up the "I own stock" line of argument. Levivich (talk) 03:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- There's room for refinement but overall I think this is a significant improvement over the current guidelines, especially in terms of readability. The thing is, strategically, you're never going to get consensus to adopt it, because any attempt is going to be blocked by people who oppose the current guideline (see the !vote directly above...). This is a project-wide phenomenon and the reason why we have so many PAGs that everyone agrees are shit but that haven't changed substantially in a decade. But I digress. The upshot is I think it's more realistic to make these changes incrementally. – Joe (talk) 08:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don't oppose the currently policy, Joe. You've been told again and again by others, YOUR interpretation is not correct and you are very much in the minority, in particular at the last Arb case. I think refinement is a good idea, but refinement that makes people want to lie about any conflict is not in the best interest of the encyclopedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- There is, clearly, room for differing interpretations of the current guideline. I am not interested in battling it out to see whose is "correct". However, I've been active in enforcing COI for nearly a decade, so what I can tell you is that what actually happens (e.g. at WP:COIN) is that when someone has an obvious financial stake in a topic, editors don't fuss around trying to establish whether they've been "paid by an entity for publicity" (because how would they even do that?) before acting to protect the project's integrity. That this practice differs from how some interpret the guideline is a problem that needs to be solved, one way or the other, for sure. But I think all you achieve by going around talking about your AT&T stock is to make people wonder why on earth you think "this can't be paid editing, because Dennis Brown is doing it!" is an argument that would convince anyone except Dennis Brown. – Joe (talk) 10:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
There is, clearly, room for differing interpretations of the current guideline.
whether that is true or not, there is a very clear consensus that your interpretation is not one that is correct. Thryduulf (talk) 10:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)- "this can't be paid editing, because Dennis Brown is doing it!" is s strawman argument, and someone would have to be rather simple to believe that is an actual position. If you sincerely believe that my example is paid editing, surely you wouldn't show favoritism, and you would instead block me. Your stance on COI smacks of politicking. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- I mean, I've considered it, more than once... – Joe (talk) 12:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Given that you haven't blocked Dennis, it seems safe to assume that you concluded either that he wasn't violating policy or that a consensus of uninvolved administrators would conclude that he was not violating policy. That sounds rather similar to your interpretation of the policy either being different to what you say it is in discussions or, more likely, different from the community consensus interpretation of the policy. Thryduulf (talk) 14:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Or maybe I'm just too much of a coward to apply the same rules that are applied to regular editors to an admin with a tonne of social capital in the midst of a contentious arbitration case about the selfsame issue. – Joe (talk) 14:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- And maybe it's because Dennis hasn't actually edited AT&T or History of AT&T, so what Dennis describes as
The best example I can give
is actually a poor example of COI editing. Levivich (talk) 14:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)- Dennis also has three edits to AT&T Corporation, but those are also a nothingburger. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- And maybe it's because Dennis hasn't actually edited AT&T or History of AT&T, so what Dennis describes as
- Or maybe I'm just too much of a coward to apply the same rules that are applied to regular editors to an admin with a tonne of social capital in the midst of a contentious arbitration case about the selfsame issue. – Joe (talk) 14:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Given that you haven't blocked Dennis, it seems safe to assume that you concluded either that he wasn't violating policy or that a consensus of uninvolved administrators would conclude that he was not violating policy. That sounds rather similar to your interpretation of the policy either being different to what you say it is in discussions or, more likely, different from the community consensus interpretation of the policy. Thryduulf (talk) 14:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- I mean, I've considered it, more than once... – Joe (talk) 12:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- There is, clearly, room for differing interpretations of the current guideline. I am not interested in battling it out to see whose is "correct". However, I've been active in enforcing COI for nearly a decade, so what I can tell you is that what actually happens (e.g. at WP:COIN) is that when someone has an obvious financial stake in a topic, editors don't fuss around trying to establish whether they've been "paid by an entity for publicity" (because how would they even do that?) before acting to protect the project's integrity. That this practice differs from how some interpret the guideline is a problem that needs to be solved, one way or the other, for sure. But I think all you achieve by going around talking about your AT&T stock is to make people wonder why on earth you think "this can't be paid editing, because Dennis Brown is doing it!" is an argument that would convince anyone except Dennis Brown. – Joe (talk) 10:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don't oppose the currently policy, Joe. You've been told again and again by others, YOUR interpretation is not correct and you are very much in the minority, in particular at the last Arb case. I think refinement is a good idea, but refinement that makes people want to lie about any conflict is not in the best interest of the encyclopedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Some of us live on the other side of the globe, and slept during most of the buffoonery. The claims of "non-trivial" amounts of stock were absurd, since I never said I owned non-trivial amounts. I was intentionally vague because it isn't anyone's business. The concept of an absurd de minimis example are lost on some. Again, I can only conclude that Joe's reference to blocking me here, and then dragging out an ANI case, are to try to silence me, which won't work on me, but it might work on others, which is what made me question his competency to be an admin. He knew I only had a few minor edits to AT&T, but the value of dragging someone through the mud wasn't to get action on me, it was to silence critics of his unique interpretation. Even above, he seems worried that others will cite my example "this can't be paid editing, because Dennis Brown is doing it!", so it seems the ends justify the means in his eyes. As for being a "coward", that is an amazing display of gaslighting Joe. I'm not trying to silence debate, Joe, but you clearly are and have made it personal. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- It's gaslighting that my own explanation for why I didn't do something differs from yours? Okay. I didn't know that you only made minor edits to AT&T, because you strongly implied otherwise, and I foolishly took you at your word. Now I am wondering why on earth you brought this up at all, then, given there is already a well-established exception for minor COI edits.
- In the mean time, for the crime of daring to take you seriously when you repeatedly asked "is this paid editing?", and so asking for the community's answer to that question, you have:
- I eagerly await the evidence you will be providing for these aspersions and personal attacks. – Joe (talk) 08:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- You say "we have a well-established exception for minor COI edits." But the proposed wording says "No exceptions, except those explicitly listed here, exist to this policy; edits made in violation of it are indefensible, regardless of their perceived harmlessness or quality." And the WP:COIADVICE exceptions are not listed in the proposed wording. Rlendog (talk) 14:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
We have some good exceptions listed at WP:COIU. I'd love to know what the reason is for removing them. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'd flip it: why do we need them? Why do we need someone with undisclosed COI to be able to "fix spelling, grammatical, or markup errors" or "add independent reliable sources when another editor has requested them, although it is better to supply them on the talk page for others to add"? I mean I'm fine with having WP:3RRNO-like "obvious" exceptions sitewide--same exceptions not just for 3RR and WP:INVOLVED but also for TBANs, COI and PAID, but we actually don't have that right now. Here's an interesting wiki policy question: why should certain edits be exempt from COI if they're not exempt from TBANs? Levivich (talk) 04:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Because we are the encyclopedia that anyone can edit? Assuming the edits aren't undermining the goals of the encyclopedia, of course. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 05:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think they're most helpful for editors with declared COI. Our COI requested edit backlog is usually significant, so keeping uncontroversial changes out of it is helpful. Interesting thought experiment about TBANned editors, but they're ones who have already been disruptive in that topic area. The burden of evaluating the acceptability of their edits falls back on those who were affected by the disruption. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- A long backlog of COI edit requests is arguably a feature, not a bug. – Joe (talk) 12:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- In what possible world is that is good thing!? We want COI editors to engage with the edit request process, and the best way to do that is to make it responsive - anything else incentivises them to ignore it. When requested edits are good delaying making the changes harms the encyclopaedia, when requested edits are bad leaving them hanging around benefits nobody and indeed makes it harder for the editors making the requests to learn which edit requests get accepted and which don't. If your primary goal is eliminating COI rather than improving the encyclopaedia then you are here for the wrong reasons. Thryduulf (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- It is a good thing in the world where we don't want COI editors to edit at all. I understand that you don't agree with that aim, but you must surely acknowledge that many others do, and let's not forget that the nutshell of this guideline—its message stripped of all the ifs and buts—is
do not edit Wikipedia in your own interests, nor in the interests of your external relationships
. Eliminating COI editing is an important goal for many people, even if it's not our primary one. – Joe (talk) 12:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)- If we didn't want COI editors to edit at all, we would ban COI editing rather than regulate it. The reason that we don't do that is twofold - first we recognise that in the real world we can't actually ban it, people will just edit without disclosing and the encyclopaedia will be worse off. Secondly we recognise that COI editors can make valuable input that improves the encyclopaedia. I'm increasingly of the opinion that you've become so blinded by your view towards COI editing that you've lost sight of the bigger picture. Thryduulf (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Your use of a collective "we" is a bit misleading here because there is a lot of disagreement about COI and there has been for as long as I can remember. I'm aware that my view is on one of the end of the spectrum—I think yours is too, to be fair—but I'm not alone and I don't think I'm blind. I think this is just another one of those judgement calls that make consensus difficult to achieve: is the risk presented by COI editors worth the value they can add? Is a total prohibition of paid editing something that we could enforce within an acceptable margin for error? I'm more and more realising that one of the major shortcomings of our decision-making model is that we lack mechanisms for resolving disputes like this when different editors bring different and incompatible premises to the discussion. – Joe (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
is the risk presented by COI editors worth the value they can add?
Yes.Is a total prohibition of paid editing something that we could enforce within an acceptable margin for error?
No, but yet again it's worth noting that you are conflating paid editing and COI editing - the former is just a small subset of the latter. I'm also uncertain why we would want to attempt to completely prohibit either, given the harm it would do to the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 13:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Your use of a collective "we" is a bit misleading here because there is a lot of disagreement about COI and there has been for as long as I can remember. I'm aware that my view is on one of the end of the spectrum—I think yours is too, to be fair—but I'm not alone and I don't think I'm blind. I think this is just another one of those judgement calls that make consensus difficult to achieve: is the risk presented by COI editors worth the value they can add? Is a total prohibition of paid editing something that we could enforce within an acceptable margin for error? I'm more and more realising that one of the major shortcomings of our decision-making model is that we lack mechanisms for resolving disputes like this when different editors bring different and incompatible premises to the discussion. – Joe (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- If we didn't want COI editors to edit at all, we would ban COI editing rather than regulate it. The reason that we don't do that is twofold - first we recognise that in the real world we can't actually ban it, people will just edit without disclosing and the encyclopaedia will be worse off. Secondly we recognise that COI editors can make valuable input that improves the encyclopaedia. I'm increasingly of the opinion that you've become so blinded by your view towards COI editing that you've lost sight of the bigger picture. Thryduulf (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- It is a good thing in the world where we don't want COI editors to edit at all. I understand that you don't agree with that aim, but you must surely acknowledge that many others do, and let's not forget that the nutshell of this guideline—its message stripped of all the ifs and buts—is
- In what possible world is that is good thing!? We want COI editors to engage with the edit request process, and the best way to do that is to make it responsive - anything else incentivises them to ignore it. When requested edits are good delaying making the changes harms the encyclopaedia, when requested edits are bad leaving them hanging around benefits nobody and indeed makes it harder for the editors making the requests to learn which edit requests get accepted and which don't. If your primary goal is eliminating COI rather than improving the encyclopaedia then you are here for the wrong reasons. Thryduulf (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- WP:COIU isn't clear as to whether those are examples of edits that editors with a COI can make if they disclose the COI, or if they're examples of edits that editors with a COI can make without disclosing the COI. I think it's the latter? I don't really have a problem with the former, but I do have a problem with the latter. Because why not make the same exceptions for UPE, or even socking? The reason why not is that it'd be next to impossible to police, and rife with abuse if it was on the honor system. "I'll make an undisclosed alt account but only use it to revert obvious vandalism and BLP vios," or "I'll UPE but only take payment for edits that are reverting obvious vandalism and BLP vios" wouldn't fly with anyone, and I don't think it should fly for undisclosed COI. I wouldn't mind those exceptions for disclosed COI, but even then, COIU goes too far IMO, insofar as it goes beyond self-reverting, vandalism, and BLP. Levivich (talk) 15:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- A long backlog of COI edit requests is arguably a feature, not a bug. – Joe (talk) 12:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- I understand where this is coming from, but I tend to think that simpler rules are easier to follow. If we have fewer exceptions people know what is expected of them - don't edit articles where you are getting paid; disclose before making edits where you are not paid but do have a COI. The only real emergency situations which I see as exceptions are blatant vandalism and BLP violations. Everything else can wait.
- It is why I like 3RR. I know that if I make that third revert I better be convinced that it is a BLP violation or absolutely blantant vandalism. I need to mentally check myself to make sure it is definitly ok, because if I am not sure then it probably isn't an emergency. - Bilby (talk) 06:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- You cite 3RRNO as a positive example, and it includes a longer list of exceptions than COIU does! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- True enough. But I think of it as "don't revert unless you are absolutely convinced it is ok". I like that approach. :) And when you look at the list, it is actually pretty sensible - you can revert yourself (ok, that makes sense), you can revert on your own talk page (again makes sense), but otherwise it is serious policy concerns. I think we could use a similar list here. If it isn't a serious policy issue (BLP violation, obvious vandalism, child pornography), do not edit the article with a COI. Makes it easy to follow. - Bilby (talk) 12:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- You cite 3RRNO as a positive example, and it includes a longer list of exceptions than COIU does! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I was a Wikimedian in Residence with Consumer Reports from 2012-2018 and now I am at the School of Data Science at the University of Virginia since 2018. I am a data scientist but my actual title that I registered with the university is "Wikimedian in Residence". I also organize meta:Wikimedians in Residence Exchange Network.
- My views are not aligned with most other Wikimedians in Residence so what I am about to say is my individual and personal opinion. I think for most cases the primary problem is not COI versus non-COI, but rather marketing versus non-marketing. If we defined the taboo as being paid to edit biographies, organizations, and products then I think that hits the target of problematic editing 99% of cases. I would like to support, for example, paid public health communication professionals in developing medical articles about medical conditions with advice on the level of government and professional society recommendations. I sponsored development of the general topic of Software maintenance (before, after), currently at Good Article review because we as a research department care about certain aspects of software development. I have biased ideologies here - advocacy for open-source software mostly - but if we wanted a simple rule for preventing most problems, I think it should separate specific commercial interest editing versus broad interest Wikipedia articles and cited sources that are unlikely to give benefit to any specific interest. I especially want to accept paid editing when it improves Wikipedia:Vital articles in such a way that skeptical review would not identify particular bias. A lot of organizations invest a lot of money in trying to communicate general reference information and I think Wikipedia is losing out by not having pathways to accept some of that. I am not sure how to draw the lines but universities are knowledge centers and right now, there are not good paid editing pathways for universities to invest in Wikipedia for public education campaigns. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
How I see it
This is how I see the spirit of existing policy, worded differently and perhaps defined a little more clearly:
If you are paid to directly edit on behalf of a company, or you are paid to promote a company's interests (social media, marketing, advertising) and you edit the article of that company or create edits that mention that company or their products (broadly construed), then you are a paid editor and must fully disclose your relationship, even if your edits are trivial, or are limited to talk pages. How much you are paid is not relevant. Adminship is not consistent with paid editing.
If you own at least 10% of a company, or derive at least 10% of your income from a company (including stocks), but you have have no official role in promoting that company, you have a clear conflict of interest when it comes to that company. It is strongly preferred that you don't directly make significant edits to the content of any article that is directly related to that company, and instead make suggestions on the talk page of those articles. If you are making direct edits to those articles, then disclosure on your user page is required. If you are only making edits to the talk pages of those articles, disclosure is strongly recommended. The 10% threshold isn't a brightline rule, it is a common sense rule of thumb, to say that any company that provides an important source of your income, even if indirectly, should be considered as a conflict when it comes to editing. While direct editing is not forbidden, it is discouraged and you should expect those edits to be closely scrutinized. You are required to be forthcoming in explaining your direct edits if questioned in good faith.
If you work for a company/organization in a non-promotional role, or own a small percentage of a company (either stocks, employee owned businesses or similar), or volunteer in a significant way for any organization, even if you aren't being paid, you might have a simple conflict of interest when it comes to editing articles related to that company. Great care should be taken when editing those articles, or it should be avoided altogether. While disclosure isn't required, your relationship may be questioned if the content of your edits appear to be advocacy. In some cases, you are better off using the article talk pages to request edits instead of direct editing.
Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- This all makes sense. I would add that, for the benefit of the encyclopedia, we want people to edit what they're interested in. We need subject matter experts. We want doctors to edit about medicine, lawyers to edit about law, biologists to edit about biology, mathematicians to edit about mathematics. Our COI policies need to allow this kind of editing. Clearly our policy should discourage lawyers from trying to create articles about their own law firms and doctors from trying to promote the niche surgery they happen to specialize in. But we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot if we only allowed people to edit articles they have absolutely zero affiliation with. ~Awilley (talk) 00:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Good idea. It seeks to address a very problematic area regarding this behavioral guideline. I could quibble that it seeks to define it is a "yes/no" situation in an area which is really matters of degree, but such is the reality of trying to move forward. North8000 (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Our COI policies do allow this kind of editing, quite explicitly. Literally the only time it comes up is when anyone suggests maybe making this 4000 word guideline a bit clearer – then it's suddenly crucial that we discuss WiRs and academics and Dennis 'AT&T' Brown and all sorts of other pointless whataboutisms that bear absolutely no relation to the day-to-day efforts of volunteers trying to stop the project being overrun by commissioned articles, PR departments, and self-serving autobiographies. – Joe (talk) 08:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- you just can't resist can you? You have to insult when others don't feel like it's as pointless as you do. It's not enough to say you disagree, you have to try to discredit those that disagree with you. Farmer Brown - 2¢ (alt: Dennis Brown) 01:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
pointless whataboutisms that bear absolutely no relation to the day-to-day efforts of volunteers trying to stop the project being overrun by commissioned articles [etc]
. Except they are not "pointless" nor "whataboutisms", indeed they are directly related to the policies and guidelines that are the basis of the activities you describe - we are attempting to make sure it is fit for purpose and excludes from the encyclopaedia those things that should, by consensus, be excluded but doesn't exclude those things that should, by consensus, not be excluded. It's equally harmful to the encyclopaedia for it to be overrun by non-notable articles and for it exclude notable articles for fear of being overrun by non-notable articles. Thryduulf (talk) 02:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- I have been following this thread, and I fully agree with what is being said here. In my experience, the COI tag has been thrown around to "discredit" an authors edits to an article, even if those edits are in no way promotional or against policies. I do not see the benefit in putting a COI tag on an article (unless it is a clear paid editing) unless the editor is adding unnecessary promotional material or editing against policies.
- How would we go about getting a consensus on this? XZealous (talk) 18:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
I just noticed that the proposal used the term "this policy". Unless that's typo or I missed something, proposing making this whole bundle into a policy would make me a strong "oppose" This has such a wide range of what could be considered a COI, and is so open to abuse and often abused to get the upper hand in a dispute (including McCarthy-esque drilling of people) that upgrading it to a policy would be harmful. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
The average US wage is $53,383, median is $46,625, not $20,000 (source: Wikipedia), so where you live (your example) is much lower than the US average, yet 3 to 5x higher than many places. It's all relative, which is why percentages work and dollar figures don't. The going rate for someone to edit a Wikipedia page is not $500-1000, it is significantly less because most of it is coming from Nigeria, the Philippines, Pakistan, and India, places that some of the highest numbers of English speakers. It is driven by both poverty and greed, and it makes the bulk of paid editing because it is the cheapest, $50 or less. But my opinions above weren't really about paid editing, they concerned the different types of lesser issues, conflict of interest without being a paid editor.
One example would be someone who tries to edit the Bitcoin article to make Bitcoin look more attractive, because they want to dump some coin. This has happened. This poses a serious threat to article neutrality. Another example is the Starbucks manager, who edits to reflect that the newest, most popular drink new drink is some new flavor of latte. This is still a conflict, but doesn't really affect neutrality and is more benign. Both should be reverted, but they have different effects on the encyclopedia and are inherently different. Claiming this view is "2012" is a bit silly, Joe. Relatively little paid editing was taking place then. I know because I spent most of 2013 and 2013 working paid cases as an SPI clerk, so I saw it every day. The amount of COI and paid editing dwarfs what took place then, as does the breadth of it. It is clearly more of a problem now, which is why most people recognize there are different types of conflict that need to be dealt with differently. This includes recognizing COI at the lowest level and addressing it, and encouraging people with COI to do what is best for the encyclopedia, instead of slapping them down and pushing them to the shadows, or simply running off editors who do mostly good work but also have a COI. As for 5% or 10% or 15%, you have to draw a line somewhere. If I was earning 20% of my income in dividends, I would instictively not edit the article, or declare I have a conflict of interest. If I am earning a few percent, there is no need because it is not enough to financially benefit me, relatively speaking. 10% is strict enough, even if arbitrary. You are welcome to suggest a different line in the sand. And saying "failure to recognise your own privileged viewpoint" is bordering on ad hominem. I live in a developing country (Davao, Philippines), working remotely part time, with water and electricty that doesn't always work. I don't own a home or a car and either walk or take jeepneys or tricycles everywhere I go. I'm not complaining, but you know nothing of my situation or lifestyle, and likely nothing about my education or background. You are not in a position to judge how "privileged" I am, nor should you be judging anyone here as "privileged". I've laid my cards on the table, opened my ideas for debate, spelled out in plain English. It seems obvious that you and I are fundamentally different types of people. and I am not afraid of having my ideas, my history, or my conduct examined. If you have a better idea, then by all means, present it and lets discuss it. But lets stop the baseless AN reports, baseless quotes, the "2012 thinking", the "privileged" claims and other failed attempts at intimidation, because it doesn't work with me. How about we actually talk about concrete ideas. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
|
Updated proposed text for a shorter and clearer COI guideline
To preserve the integrity, neutrality, and public trust in Wikipedia, it is crucial to effectively manage conflicts of interest among editors. A conflict of interest arises when an editor's personal or financial connections might compromise the objectivity of their contributions. This guideline outlines the types of conflicts and specifies the conduct required for editors who may be affected by them.
Financial Conflict of Interest
An editor has a financial conflict of interest when they stand to gain, or can reasonably be expected to gain, financial benefits from the coverage of a topic on Wikipedia. This conflict arises in various forms:
- Direct Financial Benefits: These include receiving direct payment for editing Wikipedia articles.
- Indirect Financial Benefits: Such benefits are not as overt as direct payments but are significant. Examples include:
- Business Exposure: Gaining from increased visibility when a product, service, or company is featured in an article.
- Reputation Enhancement: Benefiting indirectly from an enhanced reputation due to having a personal article on Wikipedia
or being cited as a source in oneor being prominently featured as an expert. This can lead to increased professional opportunities, such as book sales, speaking engagements, or consultancy work.Non-financial Conflict of Interest
An editor has a non-financial conflict of interest when their personal or professional connections may compromise their ability to present a subject objectively. This type of conflict arises in various forms:
- Personal Relationships: Editing articles about friends, colleagues, family members, romantic partners, or personal adversaries can lead to biased content, whether overly favorable or unduly negative.
- Professional Connections: Editing articles related to one's employer or competitors in the industry can introduce biases that may either unfairly promote one’s own organization or undermine others. Similarly, citing oneself or ones close acquaintances as sources can introduce bias, influencing the content to unduly favor personal or professional interests.
- Political and Ideological Beliefs: Editing articles that cover political or religious movements in which an individual holds an active role. It is important to note that simply being a supporter or member of such movements does not constitute a conflict of interest. For example, a member of the Democratic Party does not inherently have a conflict of interest when editing articles related to the party unless they hold an official role within it.
Managing Conflicts
- Editors with a Financial Conflict: Must not directly edit affected articles. Instead, they should propose changes using the Edit COI template, disclosing the nature of their conflict on their user page and in any location they discuss the topic.
- Editors with Non-financial Conflicts: While not strictly forbidden from directly editing affected articles, they must disclose their conflict in the edit summary and in any location they discuss the topic.
Exceptions
No exceptions, except those explicitly listed here, exist to this guideline; edits made in violation of it are indefensible, regardless of their perceived harmlessness or quality. Editors who wish to avoid disclosing their conflict of interest may do so only be avoiding topics affected by it.Aside from those explicitly listed here, no exceptions exist to this guideline; edits must abide by it regardless of their perceived harmlessness or quality. Editors who wish to avoid disclosing their conflict of interest may do so only be avoiding topics affected by it.
General exceptions
- Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language.
- Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC). What counts as exempt under NFCC can be controversial, and should be established as a violation first. Consider opening a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion instead of relying on this exemption.
- Removal of content that is clearly illegal under U.S. law, such as child pornography and links to pirated software.
- Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.
- Reverting unambiguous spam, where the content would be eligible for page deletion under criterion G11 if it were a standalone page.
Wikipedians in residence
A Wikimedian in Residence (WIR) is a professional role in communications for an organization to share its knowledge within the Wikimedia platform, measure the impact of the same, and promote Wikipedia through training, education, and edit-a-thons. While WIRs can greatly benefit Wikipedia, there is a risk of edits that could unduly benefit their employers. To manage this risk, the following guidelines apply:
- Scope of Editing: WIRs may edit articles related to but not directly involving their institution. They must not edit articles where their institution is the primary subject or could reasonably be seen as directly benefiting from the article's content; if they wish to make changes to such articles they must follow the instructions at #Managing Conflicts for Editors with a Financial Conflict.
- Disclosure Requirements: WIRs must clearly disclose their role and association with their institution on their user page, as well as in any discussions or edits related to their role as a WIR
I have updated the proposed changes per the discussion above. In particular, this has included the expansion of exceptions based on the exceptions listed at WP:3RRNO, and changed this from a proposed policy to a guideline - this would replace the current content, with most of the current content becoming part of a supplementary essay. Personally, I do believe this would be better as a policy, but better to handle one change at a time. BilledMammal (talk) 02:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- This is clearer, but it doesn't reflect the actual enforcement. It is trying to propose something that is much stronger than actual practice, which is something we generally do not do here. In particular, the "Editors with a Financial Conflict: Must not directly edit affected articles.", which either means "outlawing" all paid editing which the TOU currently allows. Plus it bans all non-problematic edits in articles someone just has a weak connection to (my AT&T example), and isn't really enforceable. "Significant" isn't a very good delineator, because it doesn't mean the same thing to everyone. For example, when I did a rewrite about "tanning beds", I was wise enough to do it with someone who had no COI (I had a strong COI at the time, but that was the source of my expertise) who had final say. I had announced my COI on my user page, but I wasn't going to just make requests on a talk page, that is too cumbersome, particularly when I had already gone to great lengths to make sure any bias that I might inject had oversight. In other words, it would have made someone either not improve the article, or more likely, lie about their COI and not get any oversight from a disinterested party. Neutrality would have been reduced. And I use my own editing because it isn't theoretical, it can be examined by anyone here, and I would argue that I used best practices. I think the community needs to accept they will never stop Paid or COI editing, and instead focus on managing it, because it is impossible to prove or verify and it is pretty easy to game strict rules. The harder you squeeze, the less neutrality (and disclosure) you will have. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 03:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Regarding your AT&T example, my understanding is that we have already established that it wouldn't constitute a conflict of interest.
- Regarding your COI with tanning beds, was it a financial conflict of interest or a non-financial one? BilledMammal (talk) 03:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- We didn't establish the "signficance" with AT&T, as I never said how much I had, people just assumed one way or another. As for the tanning beds, I had previously worked for a very small tanning bed manufacturer. Even the guys on WPO have talked about and found humor in it. I've never hidden the fact, had it on my user page at one point. At the time, I owned Solacure, which designs and sells UV lights for several industries (animal husbandry, cannabis, luthier, etc), but not human tanning, so unrelated to the article. I had that on my user page for a time as well. People will see it however they want, but there was no financial motivation or gain that I could have possibly realized by editing it. The COI meant I have some expertise in the field, however, so it made sense for me to be a part of the editing, along with SlimVirgin, who took the lead.
- Real world practice is more complicated than you can put in a paragraph of "should"s and "must"s. I support firmer disclosure rules, and I actually understand how it affects the editor. I'm against making rules that no one will follow and will lead to less disclosure, but make us "feel good". I'm pretty sure a consensus won't approve of a ban of Paid and COI editing anyway, so it wastes time that could be spent on practical changes. Hard rules that ban COI editing simply won't work even if passed. It would just drive COI into the shadows, with less oversight. That is harder to manage than having a set of reasonable rules that don't ostracize editors and allow for oversight of COI edits in plain view. If the edits are promotional or spam, this is already covered by other policies and easily dealt with the same as we do any other spam. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 05:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- I like these changes. Some feedback:
- I would rephrase "No exceptions, except...," to something that doesn't repeat the word.
- I would change "indefensible" to something else. The important part of that sentence is "regardless of their perceived harmlessness or quality," that message should be kept, but "indefensible" sounds too combative or judgmental to me; like the policy/guideline shouldn't suggest that it's immoral, just explain the rules matter-of-factly.
- I know we want to keep it short, but perhaps it could benefit from some examples of direct/indirect financial COIs, like perhaps some (not necessarily all, not sure which are best to include if any) of the following situations:
- owning a business, or being a director, officer, executive, or other high level position v. low level positions
- being paid to edit v. working in marketing v. just working in a business
- working in a small biz v. a large one (ie being one of few v. one of many)
- "de minimis" connections, like owning one share of stock in a company (which probably shouldn't be considered a COI)
- "attenuated" connections, like having a retirement plan that invests in a mutual fund (that the editor does not direct) that owns some shares in a company (prob not a COI)
- "stale" connections, like having worked in a company many decades ago (as opposed to left employment last year) (prob not a COI)
- Maybe it should explain COI is a continuum: the closer the connection and the more significant the relationship, the stronger the COI. So indirectly owning a few shares ten years ago isn't as serious as currently owning a majority stake that provides most of your income or constitutes most of your assets.
- What's the logic behind having different rules for financial and non-financial COI? I feel like people might have a stronger COI/bias editing about family members than employers.
- Does anybody like the "if you put it on your resume/CV, you have a COI with it" formulation?
- Thanks, I'll shut up now. Levivich (talk) 05:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Does anybody like the "if you put it on your resume/CV, you have a COI with it" formulation?
I'm not very fond because it seems prone to the unconstructive interpretation 'because you are a member of/participate in this academic society (since you want to attend its conferences and/or receive its periodical so as to be aware of and have access to scholarly knowledge in this field), adding citations to its periodical is conflict-of-interest editing'. To reiterate my comment in the earlier discussion,I think we go too far if the impression is given that a user who is a member of a professional association like the Society for Historians of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era or the American Association of Physics Teachers shouldn't add citations with DOI links or wikilinks to the organization's peer-reviewed journal, in these cases The Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era or the American Journal of Physics.
Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 11:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)- Thank you; I've implemented #1 and #2 - what do you think?
- I also like the idea of #3, but I can't yet see how to do it. I will give it some more thought.
- With #4, I'm concerned that editors will result in disputes about whether it was appropriate for an editor to not report; I think it is better to simply set up clear lines and say that regardless of whether you are an inch or a mile over the line you have to comply with the restrictions. However, I'm not set on this position, and if other editors feel strongly I am willing to change it.
- The logic is mainly that I don't think we will get a consensus to merge the rules; editors won't agree that editors who are paid to edit should be allowed to edit directly, and editors won't agree that editors who are writing about a colleague shouldn't be allowed to edit directly. BilledMammal (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- The #1/#2 changes LGTM, thanks. I see #3 and #4 as being related... overall, #3 lays out that continuum, and to your point, also provides various places to draw lines. Insofar as we want the COI guideline/policy to draw clear lines rather than leaving things fuzzy, perhaps it can draw lines that would clearly include/exclude certain things listed in #3. One thing I'm thinking of in particular is the "de minimis/attenuated/stale" trifecta: the guideline could specify that none of those are COI. That would take care of the "AT&T issue" raised by Trystan below. Trystan's "significant roles in organizations" language would be an example of drawing lines around some of the categories in #3 (first and third bullet points). I understand the logic of #5, thanks for explaining that. "The art of what is possible." Levivich (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- The current guideline notes that COI investigation doesn't justify violating the policy against harassment. This proposed draft does not. As this same absence was pointed out in the earlier discussion about your earlier drafts, is this an intentional elision? The importance of the policy against harassment has been affirmed in an Arbitration Committee finding of principle, and the boldness with which editors have violated it makes this a bad time for obscuring the intersection of WP:COI and WP:HARASS. Any version of the COI guideline or elevation of it to policy should maintain our strong reminders that editors must abide the policy against harassment.
- I'll add that I find the claims about indirect benefits, particularly
This can lead to increased professional opportunities, such as book sales, speaking engagements, or consultancy work
, unconvincing when applied to both articles and citations. I also notice that an equivalent doesn't seem to appear in the current version of the guideline (in fact, it contradicts the guidance that citations to one's own work areallowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive
), making this not a shorter rephrasing but a novel alteration). I could believe there is potentially some benefit a person gain from there the existence of a biographical article about them—a Wikipedia article about a person is relatively visible on the Internet, and an editor making or sans-exception contributing to a biographical article about themselves is definitely a bright line—but it's my understanding that few non-editor readers look at the citations in articles. The notion that appearing in the citations of a Wikipedia article could so measurably benefit a writer's career strikes me as an inflated sense of readers' engagement with Wikipedia citations. Wikipedia citation sections aren't being combed by event coordinators at universities and libraries but by high schoolers and undergrads trying to follow rote instructions about media literacy who probably forget the authors' names within days of turning in their homework. - I continue to share, as I described in the earlier thread, ElKevbo's skepticism of trying to handle Conflict of Interest in such a bright line, black-and-white way as this proposal would—especially one that makes no effort of caution about adhering to the the policy against harassment. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- I've made a few changes to address your concerns; below I've created a draft section on how to handle suspected violations, and I've adjusted the draft above to consider citing oneself, one one's close acquaintances, as a non-financial COI rather than a financial one. BilledMammal (talk) 19:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- To a degree, no editor should be adding any source to any article unless they think, 'this is a source to be read on this subject (and indeed, the source to read on this bit)' -- add in a financial and probably more so, a reputational or personal motive, to make the source the editor had published, one of the few sources to read on this subject out millions and billions of sources, self-cite is in need of a check. Few publishing writers would not want be relevant, just to be relevant. In American Fiction (film), one of the funny and truthful bits for writers was the lengths the author would go to get his writing out there (and it's certainly not just financial motive, it is personal). Mostly we don't ban self-cite for the sake of writers with expertise, who may actually be the author of the source you should read on this subject, so I agree we should bring back some the wording (perhaps modified) of the current guideline (even though the exception also applies to, for example, journalists where there may be dozens sources just as good -- and for journalists there is an added conflict, as much as we try to say we are NOT, Wikipedia is probably in direct market competition with their publication - eyes on)). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- As revised, I think there is still the "AT&T" issue, where someone with a relatively trivial financial conflict of interest would be barred from editing, which isn't how I read the current guideline. I think keeping the bright line between paid editing and all other COI editing is more feasible.
- The "Political and Ideological Beliefs" subsection is a bit confusing to me, and I think potentially risks creating confusion between COI and bias. As I understand it, COI is about a personal connection to the subject. A significant role in any organization, whether or not it is religious or political in nature, creates a COI. Religious and political beliefs may create bias, but are not relevant to whether a COI exists. I would suggest considering replacing it with something like:
Signficiant roles in organizations: Editing articles that cover organizations in which an individual holds a significant role. It is important to note that simply being an ordinary member of such organizations does not constitute a conflict of interest. For example, a member of the Democratic Party does not inherently have a conflict of interest when editing articles related to the party unless they hold an official role within it.
--Trystan (talk) 19:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)- How about:
Signficiant roles in organizations: Editing articles related to organizations in which an individual holds a significant role, or recently held a significant role, may introduce biases and a lack of objectivity in content related to the organization's interests. This is a spectrum, with whether an editor has a conflict of interest depending both on the level of authority or influence their role granted them, and the recency of the role. For example:
- A general volunteer for the Democratic Party would have no conflict of interest.
- A precinct captain would have a conflict of interest for a few years after they hold the role.
- A presidential elector would permanently have a conflict of interest.
- I think this addresses your concerns, while also being a step towards laying out a continuum and providing examples per Levivich's comment. BilledMammal (talk) 07:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Reporting suspected violations
When violations of this policy are suspected or identified it is crucial to address them with transparency and caution, balancing protecting the encyclopedia with respect for the editors involved. Always adhere strictly to our no-outing policy; only post personal information if the editor has disclosed it on Wikipedia.
- User talk page: Non-urgent issues can be raised on the editor's talk page, using the COI warning template as appropriate.
- COI noticeboard: If issues remain unresolved after user talk page discussions, or if the user talk page is an unsuitable venue, escalate the matter to the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. This noticeboard also provides guidance for editors dealing with their own conflicts.
- Private communication: For issues requiring confidentiality, including where posting the information on Wikipedia would violate our policies on the posting of personal information, email evidence to the appropriate channels: for general COI issues, contact functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org, and for paid editing concerns, reach out to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org. Always consult these channels for advice before sending private information.
- This addition would improve the proposal, though I still don't support it overall. Additionally, I object to the phrasing of the first sentence,
address them with transparency and caution, balancing protecting the encyclopedia with respect for the editors involved
, as it suggests that respecting editors is somehow in tension with "protecting the encyclopedia", entrenching an attitude of aggrieved defensiveness and hostility. Respecting editors is protecting the encyclopedia, and we're ignoring WP:5P4, WP:CIV, and WP:HARASS if we neglect civility and respect as core pillars and policies of the project. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)- I don't see the issue you see here; the two aren't in opposition or alignment; they are complementary and we can often achieve both, but sometimes we need to carefully balance them.
- We respect editors by avoiding baseless COI accusations while protecting the encyclopedia by allowing editors to express COI concerns supported by evidence, even when the editor has denied a COI. We respect editors by forbidding the public disclosure of personal information they haven't shared on Wikipedia, while protecting the encyclopedia by allowing private presentation of such evidence when necessary, and allowing the public sharing of previously disclosed personal information.
- However, if other editors see an issue I have no objection to adjusting it. BilledMammal (talk) 06:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Guideline revision version 3
To preserve the integrity, neutrality, and public trust in Wikipedia, it is crucial to effectively manage conflicts of interest among editors. A conflict of interest arises when an editor's personal, professional, or financial connections might compromise the objectivity of their contributions. This guideline outlines the types of conflicts and specifies the conduct required for editors who may be affected by them.
Financial Conflict of Interest
An editor has a financial conflict of interest when they stand to gain, or can reasonably be expected to gain, financial benefits from the coverage of a topic on Wikipedia. This conflict arises in various forms:
- Direct Financial Benefits: These include receiving direct payment for editing Wikipedia articles.
- Indirect Financial Benefits: Such benefits are not as overt as direct payments but are significant. Examples include:
- Business Exposure: Gaining from increased visibility when a product, service, or company is featured in an article. For example, an editor who is a major shareholder or partner in a business could materially benefit from increased sales due to enhanced visibility of their product on Wikipedia. Conversely, an individual who holds a inconsequential stake, such as a small fraction of a percent of shares in a publicly traded company, would not be positioned to experience noticeable financial gains from such coverage.
- Reputation Enhancement: Benefiting indirectly from an enhanced reputation due to having a personal article on Wikipedia or being prominently featured as an expert. This can lead to increased professional opportunities, such as book sales, speaking engagements, or consultancy work.
Non-financial Conflict of Interest
An editor has a non-financial conflict of interest when their personal or professional connections may compromise their ability to present a subject objectively. This type of conflict arises in various forms:
- Personal Relationships: Editing articles about friends, colleagues, family members, romantic partners, or personal adversaries can lead to biased content, whether overly favorable or unduly negative.
- Professional Connections: Editing articles related to one's employer or competitors in the industry can introduce biases that may either unfairly promote one’s own organization or undermine others. Similarly, citing oneself or ones close acquaintances as sources can introduce bias, influencing the content to unduly favor personal or professional interests.
- Significant Roles: Editing articles related to organizations in which an individual holds a significant role, or recently held a significant role, may introduce biases and a lack of objectivity in content related to the organization's interests. This is a spectrum, with whether an editor has a conflict of interest depending both on the level of authority or influence their role granted them, and the recency of the role. For example:
- A general volunteer for the Democratic Party would have no conflict of interest.
- A precinct captain for the Democratic Party would have a conflict of interest for a few years after they hold the role.
- A presidential elector for the Democratic Party would permanently have a conflict of interest.
Managing Conflicts
- Editors with a Financial Conflict: Must not directly edit affected articles. Instead, they should propose changes using the Edit COI template, disclosing the nature of their conflict on their user page and in any location they discuss the topic.
- Editors with Non-financial Conflicts: While not strictly forbidden from directly editing affected articles, transparency is required; they must disclose their conflict in the edit summary and in any location they discuss the topic.
Exceptions
Aside from those explicitly listed here, no exceptions exist to this guideline; edits must abide by it regardless of their perceived harmlessness or quality. Editors who wish to avoid disclosing their conflict of interest may do so only be avoiding topics affected by it.
General exceptions
- Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language.
- Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC). What counts as exempt under NFCC can be controversial, and should be established as a violation first. Consider opening a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion instead of relying on this exemption.
- Removal of content that is clearly illegal under U.S. law, such as child pornography and links to pirated software.
- Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.
- Reverting unambiguous spam, where the content would be eligible for page deletion under criterion G11 if it were a standalone page.
Wikipedians in residence
A Wikimedian in Residence (WIR) is a professional role in communications for an organization to share its knowledge within the Wikimedia platform, measure the impact of the same, and promote Wikipedia through training, education, and edit-a-thons. While WIRs can greatly benefit Wikipedia, there is a risk of edits that could unduly benefit their employers. To manage this risk, the following guidelines apply:
- Scope of Editing: WIRs may edit articles related to but not directly involving their institution. They must not edit articles where their institution is the primary subject or could reasonably be seen as directly benefiting from the article's content; if they wish to make changes to such articles they must follow the instructions at #Managing Conflicts for Editors with a Financial Conflict.
- Disclosure Requirements: WIRs must clearly disclose their role and association with their institution on their user page, as well as in any discussions or edits related to their role as a WIR
Reporting suspected violations
When violations of this policy are suspected or identified it is crucial to address them with transparency and caution, balancing protecting the encyclopedia with respect for the editors involved. Always adhere strictly to our no-outing policy; only post personal information if the editor has disclosed it on Wikipedia.
- User talk page: Non-urgent issues can be raised on the editor's talk page, using the COI warning template as appropriate.
- COI noticeboard: If issues remain unresolved after user talk page discussions, or if the user talk page is an unsuitable venue, escalate the matter to the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. This noticeboard also provides guidance for editors dealing with their own conflicts.
- Private communication: For issues requiring confidentiality, including where posting the information on Wikipedia would violate our policies on the posting of personal information, email evidence to the appropriate channels: for general COI issues, contact functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org, and for paid editing concerns, reach out to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org. Always consult these channels for advice before sending private information.
Updated to incorporate suggestions from the previous discussion; I'm also notifying WP:VPI for additional input. The intention is that this will replace the current guideline; the current text will be moved to an explanatory essay where it can be adjusted as needed. BilledMammal (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Big picture: I think this puts our guideline out of compliance with the global policy on paid editing and thus needs revision, to at minimum provide a useful link to what the policy requires. I also would hope that the intention is that an RfC would be held to replace the current text rather than attempting to do it as a BOLD edit. Small picture: Functionaries-en does not accept emails from non-members (with the exception of WMF emails) for the last 18-24 months. ArbCom should be announcing something on the UPE/COI private evidence side in the next day or so, so that can be updated. I also personally don't think the significant roles represents my thinking or understanding of that concept and think that we should not have an example that is so American centered. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm still not very convinced by the presumed pipeline between being cited in a Wikipedia article and
increased professional opportunities, such as book sales, speaking engagements, or consultancy work
. This still seems like an inflated sense of Wikipedia readers' engagement with sources and attribution, or a misguided sense of people in charge of events at universities schedule book tours and talks. The discouragement of citing oneself in the non-financial conflict of interest section on the grounds that it may tilt content toward one's personal professional interests seems sufficient and more suitable. - Does exception #4,
Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption
contradict WP:BLP's guidance?:Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion
. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 14:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)- I also remain of the sense that the "Reporting suspected violations" section continues to unduly frame respect for editors in tension with protection of the encyclopedia. Your earlier explanation was that
the two aren't in opposition
, but you then go on to describe them as if oppositional:We respect editors by... while protecting the encyclopedia by...
etc., as if the former isn't also the latter. All policies and guidelines exist for the benefit of the encyclopedia, so both identifying COI and respecting editors serve to protect the project. I would encourage a rephrase toWhen violations of this policy are suspected or identified it is crucial to address them with compliance to relevant guidelines and policies, balancing concern for undisclosed COI editing with respect for the editors involved
. This avoids implying the latter policy somehow doesn't benefit the encyclopedia. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 15:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- I also remain of the sense that the "Reporting suspected violations" section continues to unduly frame respect for editors in tension with protection of the encyclopedia. Your earlier explanation was that