→Visibility of external advertising accounts: new section Tag: New topic |
|||
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]].}} |
|||
{{talkheader}} |
|||
{{COI changes disclosure requirement}} |
|||
{| class="messagebox standard-talk" |
|||
{{talk header |sc=WT:COI}} |
|||
|- |
|||
{{Press |
|||
|align="center"|[[Image:Info-icon.png|Comment]] |
|||
| subject = page |
|||
|align="left" width="100%"|This page is for discussing edits concerning the [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest]] guideline. For assistance with concerns about an article relative to this guideline please utilize the [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard|conflict of interest noticeboard]]. |
|||
| author = Garber, Megan |
|||
|} |
|||
| title = Okay, Who Edited the 'Choco Taco' Wikipedia Page From Congress? |
|||
| org = ''[[The Atlantic]]'' |
|||
| url = http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/07/okay-who-edited-the-choco-taco-wikipedia-page-from-a-congressional-computer/374488/ |
|||
| date = July 15, 2014 |
|||
| author2 = Sali, Meghan |
|||
| org2 = ''[[Huffington Post]]'' |
|||
| title2 = Keeping Truth Alive In A World Of Anonymous Wikipedia Edits |
|||
| 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__ |
|||
*[[Wikipedia talk:Vanity guidelines/Archive 1]] (<small>'''~ 35 kb'''</small>) December 2004 — August 2006 |
|||
== Should we upgrade this to policy? == |
|||
*[[Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Archive2]] (<small>'''~ 30 kb'''</small>) August — September 2006 |
|||
*[[Wikipedia talk:Editing with a conflict of interest|Premerge talk page of third section]] (<small>'''~ 103 kb'''</small>) August — October 2006 |
|||
*[[Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Archive3]] (<small>'''~ 374 kb'''</small>) October 2006 — March 2007 |
|||
*[[Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Archive4]] (<small>'''~ ??? kb'''</small>) March 2007 — the mysterious future |
|||
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) |
|||
:{{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 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 == |
|||
== A new essay as a ''Further reading'' link? == |
|||
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) |
|||
Per [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman's]] comments here[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADurova&diff=120281535&oldid=120271205] about the new essay [[User:Durova/The dark side]] I'll suggest adding to the list of ''Further reading'' links over here. |
|||
{{tqb| |
|||
I specialize in complex investigations and have been concerned not only by the quantity of attempts to manipulate this site but also by mainstream publications outside Wikipedia that advocate site policy violations in pursuit of ideological or profit motive editing. The current links from this page explain and encourage the right way to participate but don't focus much on the reasons to avoid the other path. Since I authored the essay I'll propose the link here and leave it for others to evaluate. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''</sup> 18:08, 4 April 2007 (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=== |
|||
== Nutshell == |
|||
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=== |
|||
Problem: upset people see the guideline and see it as a blanket prohibition on fixing the only thing on the whole project which is right now actively spoiling their lives. |
|||
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=== |
|||
My proposed solution: add a "nutshell" which allows for the correction of unambiguous errors of fact, because that's what they want to do. |
|||
*'''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.}} |
|||
Result: Nutshell rewritten to remove that exception and reinforce still further the apparent blanket prohibition on fixing the only thing on the whole project which is right now actively spoiling their lives. |
|||
* 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) |
|||
Discuss. |
|||
*: Good point; switched to "Financial". [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk: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? [[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) |
|||
*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. |
|||
: This nutshell is a damn tough assignment! What you placed there was probably a bit too liberal, so I boldly tried something else. Feel free to try again. We need to be careful not to oversimplify this guideline. Every COI editor will say, "But I can be neutral," or "It was just a factual inaccuracy," when in fact they are crossing the line. As for helping people to participate, I have written an essay for Internet marketing types to explain productive ways to work with Wikipedia. Idle hands are the devil's tools, so lets provide an outlet for their energies. See [[Wikipedia:Search engine optimization]]. I'd appreciate your comments and edits there. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] (<sup>[[User_talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jehochman|Contrib]]</sub>) 21:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
: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) |
|||
:*Perhaps we could also redirect such editors to the talk page? [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><font color="#0000DD">><font color="#0066FF">R<font color="#0099FF">a<font color="#00CCFF">d<font color="#00EEFF">i</font>a</font>n</font>t</font><</font></b>]] 10:54, 5 April 2007 (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]]. |
|||
== Rewrite == |
|||
: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) |
|||
I just [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AConflict_of_interest&diff=120994077&oldid=120913843 rewrote] this guideline. The main thing I did was to trim the fat, including sections which were redundant to other policies and guidelines (discussion about deletion, for example) and some sections which were inappropriate to include (one section which bordered on giving legal advice). |
|||
: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) |
|||
I've given a tighter structure to the lists of situations in which conflicts of interest arise, and I've also included a generic definition of conflict of interest (interest v duty) in the lede and again throughout to reinforce that that is the test for when there is a conflict, and not whether the situation appears in the list. |
|||
::[[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) |
|||
:: 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) |
|||
:::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) |
|||
::::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) |
|||
:::::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) |
|||
::::::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) |
|||
:::::::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) |
|||
::::::::{{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) |
|||
:::::::::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) |
|||
:::[[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) |
|||
: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. - [[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) |
|||
:::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=== |
|||
I've also clarified some of the ambiguity in operation. The position before was contradictory and hovered between a complete prohibition on editing wherever there ''might'' be a conflict on the one hand, and "edit if you think you can do it neutrally" on the other. I've made it more strict: you are always discouraged from editing when you have a conflict unless an exception applies. Those are BLP edits, and edits with consensus. |
|||
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. |
|||
Related to this last point, I've also emphasised what people are encouraged to do instead of editing when they have a conflict, namely, that they should seek community input. |
|||
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. |
|||
Your comments are invited. --[[User:Thebainer|bainer]] ([[User_talk:Thebainer|talk]]) 16:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Maybe also post links to the proposed changes where appropriate, e.g., [[WP:COIN]] or the policy section of the village pump. I think your material is better written than the original, but the changes are extensive enough that there should be a community consensus for their adoption. [[User:Raymond arritt|Raymond Arritt]] 16:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::There is certainly a clear improvement, and the greater conciseness welcome. I think the policy is , or should be, more careful and discriminating than as stated. Objective reporting is possible regardless of COI. There is a risk of inaccuracy, and therefore material that might represent COI must be supported particularly well by independent reliable sources. I therefore think that some version of the previous statement that COI must be declared would be appropriate. It is ''undisclosed'' COI that represents the danger to WP. articles written by the subject can be judged accordingly--stringently, but with the realization tat some self-assertions of notability will be true. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' 05:58, 8 April 2007 (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. |
|||
::::I think the general feeling is that people really shouldn't edit at all when they have a conflict of interest, despite what is said about exercising caution and being careful to follow policy and so forth. But this needs to be substituted for something; it's not good enough just to tell people they can't edit. This is why I've tried to put emphasis on the things people are encouraged to do instead. |
|||
::::I decided to cut the section about disclosing conflicts partly because it's essentially implicit in the idea of seeking community input on material, and partly because of some old discussion about the section which resulted in the "neutral" stance it took, presenting pros and cons without advocating anything. Someone also mentioned that principles of disclosure have been much better discussed outside of Wikipedia and I'd like to research those before developing a section on disclosure. --[[User:Thebainer|bainer]] ([[User_talk:Thebainer|talk]]) 10:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::This is an attitude I often take issue with. If the person wants to make an honest effort to be neutral, why should they be punished or forced not to edit? <sighs> more of the problems with the WP community... The source of an edit does not automatically mean the edit benefits/harms the encyclopedia. [[User:74.38.33.68|74.38.33.68]] 23:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
[[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 22:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::I've spent a bit of time on [[WP:COI/N]] lately. Very few self-written articles are done well. I think we need to provide people with better outlets when they have the energy to write an article about themselves, their company or their client. For existing articles, COI affected editors can post to the talk page. For new articles, they can start in their own user space, and then find an experienced editor to check the article, edit as necessary, and copy to the main space.[[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] (<sup>[[User_talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jehochman|Contrib]]</sub>) 08:39, 8 April 2007 (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) |
|||
::::It's to this end that I've tried to emphasise in the rewrite that people's contributions are welcome even when they have a conflict of interest as long as they gain approval/input about them from the community first. This seems to be the best approach distilled from pieces of the old version, from discussions on this talk page and its archives and from general Wikipedia principles. |
|||
::::It may be better to emphasise this more, particularly ways for creating new articles. --[[User:Thebainer|bainer]] ([[User_talk:Thebainer|talk]]) 10:00, 8 April 2007 (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) |
|||
:::::The rewrite certainly trims some of the fat, but some of the crucial bits read like legalese now: |
|||
::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) |
|||
:::::''A conflict of interest occurs when your interests, or the interests of those that you represent, conflict or potentially conflict with your duties or obligations. A Wikipedia conflict of interest occurs when your interests in editing Wikipedia, or the interests of those that you represent, conflict or potentially conflict with your obligations as an editor to abide by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, particularly the neutral point of view policy''. |
|||
{{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 though the original definiton para was clearer and far more concrete. |
|||
: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. |
|||
:::::''A Wikipedia conflict of interest is an incompatibility between the purpose of Wikipedia, to produce a neutral encyclopedia, and the aims of individual editors. These include editing for the sake of promoting oneself, other individuals, causes, organizations, companies, or products, as well as suppressing negative information, and criticizing competitors''. |
|||
: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) |
|||
{{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. |
|||
:::::I'm not so sure about including "causes". It's difficult to apply a COI sticker unless it's a specific and provable close business or personal interest. On the WP:COI there have been plenty of cases where COI looks highly likely - say, proponents (or antagonists) of culty religions - but all you can do is watch out for breaches of [[WP:NPOV]]. [[User:Tearlach|Tearlach]] 11:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I agree with you about the orginal paragraph being better. On the "causes" front I'm very much in favor of keeping it in. The charity/nonprofit articles are rife with promotional editing by people who are just editing to mention their favorite mission-driven organization, and it results in crufty articles that fail to provide balanced and critical appraisal of their subjects. Cause-based editing is just as susceptible to COI as business or vanity, and our readers deserve articles in those areas that are as good as articles in other areas. -- [[User_Talk:SiobhanHansa|Siobhan Hansa]] 18:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
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. |
|||
::::::However, the why nix someone for simply having a "close relationship" to the subject? This first paragraph seems to suggest they must have an "interest" that conflicts with WP, ie. that they must ''actively want to edit non-neutrally'' and therefore someone who wants to edit ''neutrally'' instead but still has a close relationship should not be banned from editing (because their "interests" or wants would be in agreement with WP -- they'd want neutrality.). [[User:74.38.33.68|74.38.33.68]] 23:03, 11 April 2007 (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. |
|||
:::::Thebrainer, it may make sense to create an essay somewhere that explains to people how to gather up the info about an article they'd like, even one about themselves, post this info to their user space, and then go get it reviewed by somebody independent who can provide advice and potentially post the material to main space if suitable. We can diffuse a lot of sneaky editing if we provide a proper channel. This doens't really exist today for new articles. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] (<sup>[[User_talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jehochman|Contrib]]</sub>) 19:55, 8 April 2007 (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. |
|||
::::::Seems reasonable to offer a non-prescriptive option. I don't think the current system haws much teeth, unless editors have blatantly broken guidelines such as civility and NPOV. Personally, I'd like to see [[WP:COI]] as a policy rather than a guideline: since [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard]] started up, infringing editors have rapidly got wise to the idea that nothing much is going to happen if they break it. You get a lot of responses to the tune of "I hear what you say but it doesn't apply to me because ... ''fill in the excuse''") [[User:Tearlach|Tearlach]] 23:37, 8 April 2007 (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". |
|||
:::::::And if they do ''not'' break the NPOV Policy (not a "guideline", it's a policy, and a ''very'' fundamental one at that.). [[User:74.38.33.68|74.38.33.68]] 23:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
(reset massive indent) I've been using [[Template:uw-coi]] which is an official warning, combined with a prodwarning or AfD, and that seems to work pretty well. The policy seems to have enough teeth, because the perp is almost always breaking other policies in addition to COI. We do need more investigators for [[WP:COI/N]]. That's the bottleneck. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] (<sup>[[User_talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jehochman|Contrib]]</sub>) 01:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:The problem though is that there does not appear to be ''harm'' caused to Wikipedia if they do not break the important content policies, including NPOV. [[User:74.38.33.68|74.38.33.68]] 23:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::I agree. However, the warning assumes good faith and helps inform the user about the risk of COI. This is better than allowing an oblivious editor to embarrass themselves and start content disputes. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] (<sup>[[User_talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jehochman|Contrib]]</sub>) 23:15, 11 April 2007 (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) |
|||
See above under Nutshell. |
|||
: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. |
|||
Both the old and new versions of the guideline basically tell anyone who sees false information in an article about himself that he cannot remove it. A person in such a situation is likely to be a new user, and won't figure out that it's carefully worded so that he actually can edit if he keeps it neutral. The guideline discourages people from editing their article so strongly that it appears to a new user to be a complete ban. [[User:Ken Arromdee|Ken Arromdee]] 14:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
: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. |
|||
: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 == |
|||
== be honest or spill the [[WP:BEANS]]? == |
|||
{{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=== |
|||
Anonymity and pseudonymity are common and encouraged on Wikipedia; someone with a conflict of interest and poor integrity can easily exploit this. Suppose the [[Wikipedia:Congressional Staffer Edits|congressional staffers]] of unhappy memory had created accounts? (Actually, who can say some of them didn't?) They'd have been indistinguishable from average election-year partisan editors. Or what if [[Adam Curry]] had done his meddling under a pseudonym? And suppose one of these people had squawked about [[wikipedia:outing|outing]] when someone tried to reveal their conflicts 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<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=== |
|||
This sort of thing has happened before and will certainly happen again, but I've stuck to hypothetical situations here since this is about general principles rather than specific cases. Right now it seems that there's no effective way to deal with such a problem, and having a guideline discouraging editing with a COI rewards those who disregard it and hide the fact that they're doing so. Should the page be forthright about this ("Editors with a conflict of interest can choose not to reveal it or to actively conceal it. While this behavior is unethical. . ." and so forth), or would that be spilling the [[WP:BEANS]]? —[[User:Mirv|Charles P._]]<small>[[User talk:Mirv|(Mirv)]]</small> 14:16, 12 April 2007 (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=== |
|||
:: I think if someone has a conflict of interest, they should spill their own beans that, at least, they are acquainted with the person whose bio they are creatiubng or editing. I'll do that, too. Point taken. [[User:Bearian|Bearian]] 14:32, 12 April 2007 (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, they must disclose their conflict in the edit summary and in any location they discuss the topic. |
|||
===Exceptions=== |
|||
== Conflict of Interest Inquiry == |
|||
<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> |
|||
I run a philosophy club at my school, and I'd like to create a WikiPedia page for it. We have recently been getting a good deal of media attention (including, for instance, Fox News), and I'd like for those interested in the club to be able to look us up up WikiPedia. |
|||
==== General exceptions==== |
|||
Although our stand on various philosophical issues can be expounded upon, I'd stick to the basics and describe more so what the club is about, what it does, etc. |
|||
# 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==== |
|||
If anything, I'm concerned that because our views on a number of popular topics are rather controversial, the page would get vandalized, but so long as editors remained objective, I'm happy to leave it to the consensus. |
|||
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. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 02:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Please let me know what you think! |
|||
*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. |
|||
[[User:ArthurLZ|ArthurLZ]] 23:33, 13 April 2007 (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. |
|||
}} |
|||
* 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) |
|||
*: 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. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 06:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Guideline revision version 3 == |
|||
:Short answer. Don't. [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] 15:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
{{tqb| |
|||
== Academic Citation Farming == |
|||
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=== |
|||
I wonder if the policy could be written so that clear citation farming attempts by academics are prohibited. While many of these individuals have a lot to contribute to the project, I've also run into a great many who seem primarily interested in adding links to their own work to a wide variety of articles. Academics have a clear private interest in doing this because promotions are often distributed on the basis of the number of times one's work has been cited by others. For recent examples see [[Special:Contributions/162.84.241.54]] and [[Special:Contributions/Davidellerman]]. --[[User:Beaker342|Beaker342]] 20:18, 14 April 2007 (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: |
|||
:Another example: {{user|Kellym133}}. [[User:Athaenara|<span style="font-family: Edwardian Script ITC; font-size: 14pt"> — Athænara </font></span>]] [[User talk:Athaenara| <small>✉</small> ]] 22:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Direct Financial Benefits:''' These include receiving direct payment for editing Wikipedia articles. |
|||
::I doubt that anyone's application for tenure is going to be affected by how often their writings are cited on Wikipedia, since it's not a peer-reviewed journal or academic press. If the work is worth reading and relevant to the article, then I don't see any problem with the author adding it—anyone else doing the same would meet with no objection. (If it's crackpottery, or if they spam it where it's not relevant, or actively remove citations to other authors, then we have a problem.) Maybe there are egotistical motives at work, but if the encyclopedia gains thereby. . . —[[User:Mirv|Charles P._]]<small>[[User talk:Mirv|(Mirv)]]</small> 01:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Indirect Financial Benefits:''' Such benefits are not as overt as direct payments but are significant. Examples include: |
|||
:::You misunderstand what I was saying. Spamming articles with citations of your own work makes it more likely that others will happen upon the citation and use it in their own peer-reviewed work. COI as it stands seems to prohibit this: "Be careful about excessive citation of your own work, to avoid the appearance of self-promotion." I just wish it were stated more clearly in the guideline. --[[User:Beaker342|Beaker342]] 01:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
**'''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. |
|||
::::I think our approach to spam amounts to [[whack-a-mole]]. Rather than relying on our large number of users to deter a large number of people who spam, wouldn't it make more sense to automate this? It shouldn't be very hard to write a bot that would look for user accounts that add lots of external links to the same web site, without adding much content. These histories could be flagged for review, similar to the way AlexBot identifies probably COI articles and lists them on [[WP:COI/N]]. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] (<sup>[[User_talk:Jehochman|talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jehochman|contrib]]</sub>) 11:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
**'''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. |
|||
::::re Beaker342: If people are using Wikipedia in their academic research, then yes, this could be a problem. Why they would be using Wikipedia when they have the far superior resources of the average university library at their disposal, I do not know. —[[User:Mirv|Charles P._]]<small>[[User talk:Mirv|(Mirv)]]</small> 03:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I assure you that academics use Wikipedia, just like everyone else. JSTOR is crap for quick and dirty summaries.--[[User:Beaker342|Beaker342]] 04:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Not to mention coverage of very recent topics or subjects outside mainstream academia. --[[User:ElKevbo|ElKevbo]] 04:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::re ''quick and dirty summaries''—fine, but if one is preparing a work that's going to be peer-reviewed, Wikipedia's articles are almost always going to be inferior to library catalogs, various academic databases, etc. re '' very recent topics or subjects outside mainstream academia''—if a subject fits either of these categories, there won't be much academic literature about it anyway. I still think the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest&oldid=123225117#Citing_oneself current wording] is fine: do it if your work is relevant and reliable; don't do it excessively; when in doubt, ask disinterested parties. I might add "don't list your work as a reference unless it was actually used as such", but that could be excessive instruction creep. —[[User:Mirv|Charles P._]]<small>[[User talk:Mirv|(Mirv)]]</small> 15:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Just saw this. I agree with Mirv that nobody in mainstream science is likely to get additional citations from having their work visible in WP--this is simply not where people who are actually going to write peer-reviewed academic papers look to fine other people's work. The people who come here are the curious, and amateurs. I think any excessive citing--and there is some-- will be motivated by the ordinary desire to display oneself as widely as possible. But there are areas where there seems to be a group of people citing each other and doing this to an irresponsible degree, and those should be watched for --but it's a "group COI", better known here as a [[WP:WALL|Walled garden]]. The most striking example I know is [[Knowledge Engineering]] and related pages--but it is a respectable academic field, so it's a matter of cutting down articles, not deleting them--and this is much harder to accomplish against opposition. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' 18:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
===Non-financial Conflict of Interest=== |
|||
==Warning about indefinite blocks== |
|||
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 [[United States Electoral College|presidential elector]] for the Democratic Party would permanently have a conflict of interest. |
|||
===Managing Conflicts=== |
|||
I have added a warning about indefinite block being a possible outcome when single-purpose COI accounts continue to self-promote after being warned. Here's the argument as to why this isn't a change in policy, just a clarification. |
|||
*'''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=== |
|||
<div style="padding-left:10px;border-left:2px #ff0000 solid"> |
|||
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. |
|||
Arguably, this already fits within [[WP:BLOCK#Indefinite_blocks]]: ''Inappropriate usernames, policy-breaching sockpuppets, and '''single-purpose abusive accounts that have not made significant constructive edits''' can be indefinitely blocked on sight, and should be noted in the block summary.'' Is not single purpose violation of [[WP:COI|COI]], [[WP:SPAM]], [[WP:ADVERT]], and [[WP:AUTO]] abusive of Wikipedia, its volunteers, and its readership? <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''</sup> 16:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
</div> |
|||
==== General exceptions==== |
|||
If you do not understand the need for this clarification, I suggest you help us clear the backlog at [[WP:COIN]] so you can see what's going on first hand. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] (<sup>[[User_talk:Jehochman|talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jehochman|contrib]]</sub>) 11:56, 17 April 2007 (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==== |
|||
: We should really talk about this longer before adding it. Like I said, it could have a serious impact in content disputes. To continue our discussion on [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive84#Shall we expand principle of indef blocking vandalism-only accounts and nuke COI-only accounts?|WP:AN]], many times partisan or religious editors will be involved in content disputes on articles about their organisation. Should [[Catholic Church]] only be editable by non-Catholics? Wouldn't this result in [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias|systemic bias]] against Catholics in that article? Does it make a difference if it is a mainstream organisation like the Catholic Church, or a minority one like the [[Alliance for Green Socialism]]? Do we really want people in content disputes trying to get each other blocked for [[WP:COI|COI]] violations rather than [[WP:DR|working together]] to try to write a [[WP:NPOV|neutral]] article? — [[User talk:Armedblowfish |Armed Blowfish]] ([[Special:Emailuser/Armedblowfish |mail]]) 12:50, 17 April 2007 (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: |
|||
::The [[Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy#Blocks_for_COI-only_accounts|discussion at Blocking Policy]] is specifically restricted to the promotion of "a person, company, product, or service" by single purpose accounts, as in spamming, so it would not apply to the generic NPOV issues you raise above. [[User:Crum375|Crum375]] 13:04, 17 April 2007 (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''. |
|||
::: When it comes to "a person", there could be [[WP:BLP]] issues involved. As for companies, products, and services, conflicts of interest might be of the monetary variety, rather than real points of view. This conversation seems to be rather spread out. — [[User talk:Armedblowfish |Armed Blowfish]] ([[Special:Emailuser/Armedblowfish |mail]]) 13:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*'''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=== |
|||
*Sometimes vested-interest accounts are simply subjects upset by a biased or even defamatory article. They don't know how wikipedia works, so they simply blank the page or replace it with corporate blurb. Such accounts are often highly annoying, but should on no account be blocked. Stop and ask 'why is the subject so upset'? Is it just that they want to turn the article into an advert - or do they have a justifiable complaint that the article is far from NPOV? --[[User talk:Doc glasgow|Doc]]<sup>g</sup> 13:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
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. |
|||
<div style="padding-left:10px;border-left:2px #00cc00 solid"> |
|||
*'''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. |
|||
'''Proposed text'''<br/> |
|||
*'''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.}} |
|||
Users who appear to have no purpose other than to promote themselves or their own interests should be warned and listed at the [[WP:COIN|conflict of interest notice board]]. Those who continue to use Wikipedia for blatant self-promotion after being warned may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy| blocked]] indefinitely. |
|||
</div> |
|||
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) |
|||
:Doc, I don't think the type of user you describe should be covered by this statement. Clueless newcomers usually respond to comments or warnings. Certainly we should try to engage and convert them into productive Wikipedians. We are trying to clarify the right way to deal with users who don't respond, delete their warnings and continue adding self-promotional spam for as long as they can get away with it. These users already qualify under Durova's citation ''supra'' as abusive single-purpose accounts that should receive an indefinite blocking under existing policy. We just want to make this clear so admins aren't hesitating to nuke these accounts. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] (<sup>[[User_talk:Jehochman|talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jehochman|contrib]]</sub>) 15:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Just be very careful. You say "we should try to engage and convert them into productive Wikipedians" - not so. Some of the people we are speaking about have no desire to be wikipedians, no desire to learn our rules or work through our processes - why should they? All they want is for a biased, or scurrilous article to be removed or fixed. We shouldn't be warning them or blocking them at all. Perhaps the best thing to say is "before assuming a conflict of interest - look at both the article and the user's activities very carefully - make sure that the article is utterly and transparently NPOV, verifiable, balanced and fair - if there's any doubt about that, and I mean any, then the priority is to fix the article and patrol it against any negative pov pushers - not to deal with the angry subject." It is more important that we remove problematic content, than we remove problematic users. I'm afraid I'm quite jumpy about this whole direction; it might just encourage folk to block people for continually replacing an article with a spam ad, without stopping to ask why the 'spammer' so objects to the old article.--[[User talk:Doc glasgow|Doc]]<sup>g</sup> 15:30, 17 April 2007 (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, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 19:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::We should be extremely generous to COI accounts about pointing out WP policies and procedures. If they then show that they aren't interested we should show them the door. This may mean we deal with "bad" behavior for a little while longer than your average vandal. [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|SchmuckyTheCat]] 15:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Arbcom's [[Special:Diff/1225426349|announcement]] is live. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 14:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Absolutely not. Some COIs have no interest in WP policies - they are simply objecting to biased articles. Sort the article first - double check it - and ask the COI account what they object to. AGF at all times. (see above for my reasons).--[[User talk:Doc glasgow|Doc]]<sup>g</sup> 15:30, 17 April 2007 (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. |
|||
::I think if you look at some recent cases at [[WP:COI/N|the COI noticeboard]] you'll see AGF in action. The problem this policy clarification would address is those editors who don't respond at all when the COI is pointed out, or engage in Wikilawyer chit-chat while continuing to make flagrant COI postings. The problem of unresponsive COI editors, and the difficulty of getting attention for COI issues at [[WP:AN/I]], is mentioned in a thread at [[Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Refusal to cooperate]]. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] 16:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
: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) |
|||
:::Fine - but can we place in big bold letters somewhere: '''"Please check the article is scrupulously NPOV, balanced, and properly verified before throwing the book at someone who is reverting to their spammy version. As much as they may be appearing obnoxious, breaking the house-rules, or replacing the article with blatant advertising, it is possible the subject may have no real interest in wikipedia other than to remove biased or defamatory material. If that is the case, they should not have to turn into good little wikipedians before we apologise to them, and clean up the article to our highest standards."'''--[[User talk:Doc glasgow|Doc]]<sup>g</sup> 16:14, 17 April 2007 (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) |
|||
== Visibility of external advertising accounts == |
|||
:::: "Scrupulously" might be a bit much, but mostly I think you are right. That said, I am more concerned about articles about individual people than ones about companies. But when it comes to things where living people could be affected, it's better to err on the side of being biased in the positive direction than being biased in the negative direction. — [[User talk:Armedblowfish |Armed Blowfish]] ([[Special:Emailuser/Armedblowfish |mail]]) 16:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
About two weeks ago, I submitted [[:meta:Talk:Linking to external advertising accounts#Visibility of external advertising accounts|this proposal]] on Meta-Wiki seeking consensus on additional requirements. It has been observed in multiple cases that, after disclosing their off-wiki profile link, paid editors then protect their profile from public view, making it challenging to review their contributions. I believe the main purpose of the existing requirements is to facilitate the review process, so if a profile isn't publicly accessible, the disclosure is useless. Therefore, I invite everyone to share their thoughts. Thank you. [[User:GSS|<span style="font-family:monospace;font-weight:bold;font-size:16px;color:hsl(205, 98%, 55%);">GSS</span>]] [[User talk:GSS|<sup>💬</sup>]] 04:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
: The [[Wikipedia:Grief]] essay (denial, anger, bargaining, etc.) applies as well to the rapidly increasing varieties of [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest|COI]] editors and [[Wikipedia:single purpose account|single purpose account]]s. [[User:Athaenara|<span style="font-family: Edwardian Script ITC; font-size: 14pt"> — Athænara </font></span>]] [[User talk:Athaenara| <small>✉</small> ]] 23:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
How about this? |
|||
<div style="padding-left:10px;border-left:2px #ffcc00 solid"> |
|||
'''Proposed text'''<br/> |
|||
Accounts used solely for abusing Wikipedia may be blocked indefinitely, as explained in [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy]]. Blatant self-promotion qualifies as abuse. |
|||
</div> |
|||
It is shorter, and cleaner, and avoids instruction creep. [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy]] already contains the necessary language. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] (<sup>[[User_talk:Jehochman|talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jehochman|contrib]]</sub>) 02:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:That works for me. Admins already block spam-only accounts all the time, that's not even anything new. --[[User:Minderbinder|Minderbinder]] 12:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Conflict with policies against revealing personal information == |
|||
This has no teeth if users are not allowed to reveal what they know or suspect someone's real-life identity to be. I suggest deletion of the COI policy. --[[User Talk:Random832|Random832]] 02:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Clarification. I don't think that, while following these other policies, that we can fairly distinguish between ''self''-promotion and promotion ''by others'', '''nor should we'''. If material would be acceptable if added by someone known not to be the subject of the article, we MUST accept it even if added by the subject. If it would not be acceptable if added by the subject, it should be unacceptable added by anyone. This is especially true since we are forbidden to speculate that the user adding it is the subject. --[[User Talk:Random832|Random832]] 02:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Sometimes you have to reveal your own COI. [[User:Bearian|Bearian]] 14:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Often we see usernames that match the name of the product being promoted. That's a dead give away. Sometimes users volunteer their identity. Sometimes users edit only one single article and behave like they own it. There are lots of ways people reveal COI. We don't ever "out" people. We simply listen to what they tell us and judge them by their edits. Please consider helping clear the backlog at [[WP:COIN]] by investigating some of the cases. That exercise will help you understand what's going on in the trenches. Please come back and let us know what you think.[[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] (<sup>[[User_talk:Jehochman|talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jehochman|contrib]]</sub>) 14:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::I don't see why it should matter who's editing. The fact that it's possible for someone to exercise "their right to edit anonymously" thus immunizing themselves against any attempt to point out a conflict of interest, means we shouldn't be persecuting those who _do_ choose to be honest about it. If they can contribute constructively, let them, if they can't, block them. Same as anyone who doesn't have a conflict of interest --[[User Talk:Random832|Random832]] 00:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::That's right. Actions, not prejudice, are the final arbiter of how good a contributor someone is. [[User:Mike4ty4|mike4ty4]] 03:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::I think that Random832 is making a very good point. If the content one adds is inappropriate, it doesn't matter who the user is. And if it's appropriate, then who he/she is doesn't matter either. --[[User:Shyranoe|Shyranoe]] 08:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::I don't think it matters (to pick a hypothetical example) whether [[Tommy Popstar]] is edited by Tommy himself, by his publicist, or his "number one fan". The sort of edits done are likely to be the same. Arguably this guideline is nothing but a repackaging of other stuff (NPOV, verifiability, even BLP) in a way which is readily understood by someone who, one suspects, is too close to the subject. As such it shouldn't be making policy, just presenting it. [[User:Notinasnaid|Notinasnaid]] 13:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::(Further) the great majority of cases where this is applicable are for people who arrive with good faith, but without a detailed knowledge of the aims of the project. (Who does arrive with them?) This means that in many cases they "out" themselves. If they don't, it would be quite inappropriate to expose them or accuse people directly or indirectly, though it is OK to ''ask'', I feel, or to state messages in a neutral "If you should be ... then ...". But in the end, the edits speak for themselves. However, is someone denies COI, then there is no point arguing, or referring these guidelines to them, but there are planty of others. ''Enthusiasm is often indistinguishable from COI''. 13:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== What way has this page been going? == |
|||
See my comment [[User talk:Charles Matthews/Conflict of interest#Cat lovers and dog lovers should both edit both articles – and something else as well|here]], please. It's not long and the second part is about this page. --[[User:Shyranoe|Shyranoe]] 14:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Conflict of interest requires intention? == |
|||
Hi. |
|||
I saw this: |
|||
"Anyone who prioritizes outside interests over the interests of the project may be subject to a conflict of interest." |
|||
Doe this mean that if one does ''not'' prioritize such interest, then they can be very close to the subject and yet still not worry about editing it? If not, then should this be changed? [[User:Mike4ty4|mike4ty4]] 04:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
: We want avoid instruction creep. People are expected to apply common sense. Some ambiguity in this guideline may be intentional. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] (<sup>[[User_talk:Jehochman|talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jehochman|contrib]]</sub>) 12:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:: Ambiguity only serves to create lawyering, confusion, and other detrimental things. Terms need to be defined precisely. This does not mean long, exhaustive lists of bureaucratic criteria, however. [[User:Mike4ty4|mike4ty4]] 20:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== About the usage of the word "we" == |
|||
Wikipedia guidelines are something which everyone can (at least in theory) improve. They also apply to everyone (mostly). If the word "we" was used, it should refer to everyone. Like this: "When we edit Wikipedia, we should put the interests of the encyclopedia first." But if you put it like "''We'' think that ''you'' should" you are creating two parties. There would be "we" and then there would be "you". Who is we and who is you? I find it very unclear. --[[User:Shyranoe|Shyranoe]] 19:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Sorry Jehochman, I didn't notice your message up there. You said: ''"we" refers to us, the Wikipedia community, and "you" refers to the editor reading the guideline.'' One of the problems is, that they are often the same person... --[[User:Shyranoe|Shyranoe]] 19:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Or do you think there exists some perfect Wikipedia community, whose members never have to read any guidelines and never make any mistakes :) ? --[[User:Shyranoe|Shyranoe]] 19:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
(''Time order is unusual because I moved two comments to the more appropriate thread.'' [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] 19:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC) ) |
|||
:; A choice--passive or active voice |
|||
: Hi, if am not sure what you are up to, but you've now twice changed this article from active to passive voice. There's no reason to do that, in my opinion. I'm not the [[J.R.R. Tolkien|world's greatest writer]], but I have a copy of [[Strunk and White]] sitting here on my desk. It says that [[active voice]] is preferred, and that [[passive voice]] should not be overused. In this guideline, the word "we" refers to us, the Wikipedia community, and "you" refers to the editor reading the guideline. We can hardly be more clear. [[Wikipedia:Weasel words]] applies to guidelines just as much as articles. Before trying your changes again, why don't we get some other opinions? [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] (<sup>[[User_talk:Jehochman|talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jehochman|contrib]]</sub>) 19:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::I too own a copy of [[Strunk and White]] and I agree with [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] that we should prefer active voice. I see no problem with the use of 'we' because it's obvious who that is, the Wikipedia community. If we write a set of guidelines in the active voice it should sound less bureaucratic and more direct. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] 19:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Hi! I disagree with you. I think it sounds a bit unfriendly to new users and to those who can't feel that they are part of this "we". It sound's like there was "we" who are giving orders to "you". --[[User:Shyranoe|Shyranoe]] 19:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
This is one sentence which I find unclear: "As Wikipedians and encyclopedists, we put the interests of the encyclopedia first." Who belongs to this group of perfect Wikipedians? How big is it? I have known Wikipedians who have been active for years and who seem to have a conflict of interest, or are otherwise not always behaving very well (not refering to anyone around this page!) Should the impression given to new users be, that everyone already here are "perfect encyclopedists", and only new users need to learn? --[[User:Shyranoe|Shyranoe]] 20:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
: Point taken. Check my edit. Does that sound more friendly and inclusive? [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] (<sup>[[User_talk:Jehochman|talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jehochman|contrib]]</sub>) 20:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Yes, I think the sentence is better. Maybe the "we" there can refer to anyone acting that way. I still find other "we"s in the article not very good, though. --[[User:Shyranoe|Shyranoe]] 20:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::OK, let's look at those other sentences. We want everyone to feel like part of the team. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] (<sup>[[User_talk:Jehochman|talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jehochman|contrib]]</sub>) 23:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::(The next conversation was before this.) Would it be possible to take "you" out of the same sentences where there is "we"? Then it would sound more like everyone are expected to follow the same instruction. It's already that way in some sentences, for example "because of this, we strongly discourage editing when...". --[[User:Shyranoe|Shyranoe]] 10:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Hi again! I find it nice that you are at least ready to think about it with me. I went through the page more carefully and also some older versions. It is very difficult for me to suggest how to change only those particular sentences (if the passive voice won't do), because I think there is so much more that would need to be fixed. |
|||
This page is going into highly personal issues. Even the old version "Vanity guidelines" is a bit personal, but not as much as this one. There clearly has been trouble with these matters, as it stands in some old versions: "Wikipedia has had serious problems from people who feel they have been accused of being "vanity authors" in a deletion debate." Could one reason for these problems be, that it is already personal to call someone a "vanity author"? Shouldn't all the accusations be about content or actions, never to call the author with any names? Doesn't this apply also to administrators? I feel that this can't be solved by accusing that someone has a COI. It's still personal... it's about who the person is. |
|||
Why not to write this page to be more about content? If I wrote this, I would start with only content issues. After that I would move into an assume good faith theme. And then there could be a part with advices to those who have edited or plan to edit articles related to something close to them. Much of the material which is now in the beginning of the page could be there, formulated in some suitable way. I don't think the weight of this page would have to suffer. --[[User:Shyranoe|Shyranoe]] 18:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
: Why don't you write an essay about this topic in your user space, and then we can either reference it from the guideline, or we can incorporate whole sections, if there is a consensus to do so. You may find it easier to write a complete piece than to try to patch up this one. (Here's an essay I wrote: [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Search_engine_optimization]]. It's in Wikipedia space because I want others to edit it.) [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] (<sup>[[User_talk:Jehochman|talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jehochman|contrib]]</sub>) 18:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::What do you exactly mean with an essay? To write my opinions about this matter or to write a suggestion how this page could be like? --[[User:Shyranoe|Shyranoe]] 18:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::See [[Wikipedia:Essay]]. I think you could write your opinions on COI. A carefully written essay can be a good way explain proposed changes. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] (<sup>[[User_talk:Jehochman|talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jehochman|contrib]]</sub>) 19:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::I'll think about it. It might be more useful to write a suggestion for the page. There is one reason why I wouldn't like to write an essay. I don't especially enjoy stating opinions which might make some people feel that I wouldn't appreciate their work here. I do, but I had to bring out some opinions because I thought they were important. I would rather do something constructive than to keep criticizing. But this is a very difficult page to write, I have no idea if I can come up with a good suggestion. --[[User:Shyranoe|Shyranoe]] 19:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== A question == |
|||
Isn't there anyone watching this page who would like to try to work out a new suggestion with me? It doesn't have to be exactly as I proposed. We could try to include all or almost all material currently on the page (or not, depending how it will seem best), but also make some changes. --[[User:Shyranoe|Shyranoe]] 20:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:You don't understand the point of the COI guideline, so your attempts to change it are misguided. While this guideline has its roots in NPOV, "content" is not its focus. Its focus is "conflict of interest" which is about state of mind. [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] 01:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:: Whoa, WAS 4.250. Let's take it easy on the newcomer. Shyranoe, I encourage you to write a paragraph or two about your feelings and let us look at it. I think your ideas are valid. Whether they belong here or somewhere else in Wikipedia is an open question, but we can't know for sure until you reduce them to written form. I agree with WAS 4.250 that this guideline is about trust and motivation, not just the written substance. Wikipedia needs to keep COI motivated point of view from wrecking articles. If you go to [[WP:COIN]], you can see some COI cases in action. You can even help with the investigations. That's an excellent way to develop a more complete understanding of the problem and possible solutions. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] (<sup>[[User_talk:Jehochman|talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jehochman|contrib]]</sub>) 03:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::I will go there and try to learn more about this. WAS 4.250: I believe that you are right, I don't understand the meaning of this guideline well enough. I didn't mind you saying that, quite the opposite, it might help the conversation on. I have to try to converse, how else am I going to start to understand this? I find this guideline confusing and I think it should be improved somehow, but it is difficult to make suggestions without knowing as much as possible. You said that you understand it as being about a state of mind. This is what I find confusing: It states on the page, that you can report incidents related to this guideline. So Wikipedians are to report each other's wrong states of mind? I think that these two things should be separated: |
|||
:::*What kind of edit contents are not appropriate (I see that this should be the one reported) |
|||
:::*Advices related to personal matters like a state of mind, relationships, commitments or religion |
|||
:::I think that both are important, but the problem is that they get mixed up. Jehochman: You said that this is about trust and motivation. They are highly important issues. I tried to read the page imagining that it was an advice, and it sounded much better. But at the moment it doesn't sound like an advice, but more like a rule set by someone who is charging people's personal matters. --[[User:Shyranoe|Shyranoe]] 12:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::: Perhaps we need to clarify. We aren't opposed to dog lovers working on [[dog]] articles. Nor are we opposed to climatologists working on [[global warming]] articles. We are opposed to a dog breeder writing an article about his own business. We are opposed to an anti-global-warming-theory politico linking to his own website. COI requires both POV and some sort of unwholesome motivation that undermines trust. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] (<sup>[[User_talk:Jehochman|talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jehochman|contrib]]</sub>) 14:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::If an article is bad it could be deleted, if a user keeps putting in disruptive material he/she could be banned. Are personal accusations going to create trust in Wikipedia? With almost the same material which is now on the page it might be possible to write an encouraging and trust creating page. Many of the new users who appear to have COI might have good intentions, but they are making mistakes. They might use some friendly advices. If they are directed here as this page is now, they are going to feel unwelcome and an outsider... --[[User:Shyranoe|Shyranoe]] 17:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Please write an essay so that we may suggest "Please read [[WP:COI]] and [[User:Shyranoe/COI Essay]]". [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] 18:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Well, already two people are telling me to write an essay, so I will have to consider it. But my aim is not that you will say: "Please read [[WP:COI]] and [[User:Shyranoe/COI Essay]]". My aim is that my essay, if there is going to be one, will make itself useless and can then be destroyed. I am aiming at having some change on [[WP:COI]] page. I would rather do it without an essay, but I am uncertain how to proceed. --[[User:Shyranoe|Shyranoe]] 18:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== What does conflict of interest actually come from? == |
|||
Hi. |
|||
I've noticed a few quirks with this guideline, specifically about what causes conflict of interest. For one, does conflict of interest require ''intent'' on the part of the editor to be biased/create vanity/etc., or is it simply something that exists from a "sufficiently close" relationship to the subject of an article? Ther are things in the guideline that suggest one way and then the other. In the opener the term is defined as an incompatibility between WP's policies of NPOV and the "aims" of an editor. This suggests intent right there. But in other parts it simply says about a close relationship is all that is needed to activate the guideline and nothing about intent. What gives? [[User:Mike4ty4|mike4ty4]] 20:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:In straightforward cases I don't see a problem. 'I want to post my CV here to get employment'. Wikipedia is not interested in finding people jobs: this triggers COI, if an editor is thinking that way. Theoretically you can have the discussion 'but I thought encyclopedias printed CVs', but that's not of any consequence. In other words, if people use ignorance about Wikipedia as a defence, and say they didn't intend to infringe the guideline, that's not really an issue with the guideline. The COI guideline can be pointed out, in combination with WP:NOT or something, and that will explain in some cases not only why an article is going to AfD, but should not have been created in the first place. So for example if an editor was aiming to promote a product here, and wasn't intending to break policy, it changes little. [[User:Charles Matthews|Charles Matthews]] 19:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Bias in the ''other'' direction == |
|||
Hi. |
|||
Could not a "conflict of interest" scenario also arise where the afflicted editor is instead trying to ''disparage'' their organization 'cause they hate it, etc. instead of promoting it? For example, adding [[WP:WEIGHT|incredibly undue amounts of weight]] to even the slightest criticism, bloating criticism sections to massive proportions, and overall casting the thing in a negative light. This would still be a neutrality violation, and if the person comes in with this intention, then I would still say that a conflict of interest would exist. For example, say a disgruntled Microsoft employee were to come in and try editing the [[Microsoft]] article to add more criticism than is due, or otherwise put a negative spin on the article. This is not impossible. Why isn't the "other" direction of bias considered in this guideline? [[User:Mike4ty4|mike4ty4]] 20:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:POV editing is never acceptable, and 'undue weight' falls under that. To some extent all activism can be considered to fall under the 'Campaigning' section. [[User:Charles Matthews|Charles Matthews]] 19:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Alright. That makes a lot of sense. [[User:Mike4ty4|mike4ty4]] 18:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Suggestion for the page == |
|||
I started writing an essay, but then I got an idea and worked out a suggestion for this page. See it [[User:Shyranoe/Conflict of interest material|here]], please. I know it's not perfect, and you are very welcome to edit it. See how I'm defining the wrong type of content without a mention of some particular user's intentions. This way the guideline could be applied without making any personal accusation. --[[User:Shyranoe|Shyranoe]] 12:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I made two corrections to [[User:Shyranoe/Conflict of interest material]]. Perhaps you and Mike# above might care to view them. [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] 13:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::I think I understand what you mean, and I don't think it's wrong to have talk about a state of mind. But this is a guideline with a noticeboard, and people need to report the incidents. How can you report someone's "wrong state of mind" without making a [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks| personal attack]]? Sounds quite personal to me... it's very confusing. I had to revert your edits because they were not what I am suggesting. --[[User:Shyranoe|Shyranoe]] 13:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::It is not a personal attack to say to someone "I think that you are too close to the subject to fairly evaluate content on this article due to [this] and [this] so please restrict yourself to commenting on the talk page. Thanks." [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] 14:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::WAS 4.250: When you talk about this: "unconcious biases with regard to a subject (some not even for or against, just too close to the subject to see the issues in a balanced way." I think that this is not a conflict of interest, but POV. Everyone has some POV, if you think you don't have it, that's really POV :). And according to COI guideline POV questions should be handled separately from it. --[[User:Shyranoe|Shyranoe]] 13:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::COI is ''one'' type of POV. The COI type of POV is a specific problem handled by this guideline. [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] 14:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
This isn't getting any clearer. Once someone says "you are too biased", there is sometimes no end of personal fighting. It creates hostility. If I saw someone putting in too biased content, I don't want to say: "You have COI". I want to say: "You are putting in wrong type of content, I'm going to report that." --[[User:Shyranoe|Shyranoe]] 15:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Yes. [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] 21:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::"I am concerned that you may be too close to the subject to write about it from a neutral point of view. Please check [[WP:COI]] and see if this may be the case. Thank you." There are endless ways to raise this concern politely. I do it all the time, and am successfull 99% of the time. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] (<sup>[[User_talk:Jehochman|talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jehochman|contrib]]</sub>) 15:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::I don't have "authority" in the eyes of the users I'm dealing with. If I told someone to read COI, it would be taken personally. I wouldn't do that or report anyone. Even if I believe someone has COI it's too difficult to prove and he/she can always claim otherwise. --[[User:Shyranoe|Shyranoe]] 19:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::Jehochman: Not related to this, but can you look at my new suggestion under the title "about the usage of the word 'we' " please? You can find it in my latest edit. --[[User:Shyranoe|Shyranoe]] 19:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::Sorry, I made a mistake. I tried to edit this one and the edit summary was left out. I was trying to say: You are probably going to revert this, but I will try to modify these sentences a little. --[[User:Shyranoe|Shyranoe]] 17:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== What is wrong with this guideline == |
|||
We know Wikipedia is edited by fans, whose POV can be very strong, yet nobody ever It is rather bizzare that we allow users to offer monetary awards on [[Wikipedia:Reward board]] (or Wikimedia Fundation itself profit from similiar arrangement at [[Wikipedia:Bounty board]], but the idea of [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-08-14/Wikimercenaries|editor-for-hire]] generated so much controversy. |
|||
With Wikipedia popularity skyrocketing, COI situations will arise more and more often. By discouraging and/or forbidding them, we are simly forcing some editors to edit 'in secrecy', denying ther COIs, or preventing Wikipedia from gaining valuable articles (note that many COI articles are fine from the start, and many others are quickly brought up to standards by the community - this is why [[:Template:Advertisement]] is not the same as [[:Template:Db-spam]]. Consider the mentioned 'editor-for-hire': he has created many articles which were kept and are apparently noncontroversial: [[Zale Corporation]], [[KidsHealth]], [[KOHS-FM]], seriously suggested that being interested in something should keep one away from editing relevant articles. Yet we assume that all people who have a professional or family relationship to the subject are beyond hope and should avoid editing the articles. There are no reasons for those double standards. Instead of discouraging such editors from contributing, we should simply ask them to ask for a neutrality review at [[WP:RC]] or COI noticeboard. |
|||
[[Resorts Atlantic City]]... sure, some will be controversial and deleted ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norman Technologies]]), but others won't ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Converium Holding AG]]). |
|||
Bottom line is that while users with possible CoI should be asked to sumbit their articles for review, and while we should pay special attention to finding and reviewing such articles, there is no need to discourage editors from contributing to Wikipedia on basis of who they are / where they work / who are they related to / what do they like, as long as they try to respect our policies.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus| Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> talk </font>]]</span></sub> 23:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Check his entry in [[List of banned users]] if you think the example of [[User:MyWikiBiz]] is worthy of emulation. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] 00:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::I agree with Piotrus and have softened my own approach to citing this guideline. I image the phrase ''you should avoid or exercise great caution when...'' will see further discussion and move more toward simply ''excercise great caution..'' . Ideally editors will even list their biases on their user pages ;).. I would recommend against applying this guideline with excessive force, as with anything. '''∴''' [[user:here|here]]…[[user_talk:here|♠]] 03:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
It is wrong that ''we assume that all people who have a professional or family relationship to the subject are beyond hope''. We do assume, rightly, that most such people may have no idea what they are getting into, in editing WP in areas close to them. So the correct advice is not to start editing. Because most people, in real life, will not have met anything like an edit war, and are not prepared for what it will do to them. [[User:Charles Matthews|Charles Matthews]] 10:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I agree that it is a good idea to give advices. I also know that there are "advertisers", which I don't like. But I disagree with something else. This page gives the impression that being involved would make you a "bad guy" (and your edits less valuable?). That is just one possible perspective, a too simple one and not always right (am I misunderstanding when I feel it's the perspective of this guideline?). |
|||
:I have helped to write a page of a rare subject which I'm not involved myself. At the time I entered editing, there were insults going back and forth on the talk page. Among the editors there was one who was personally involved with the subject, and he/she was behaving well. He/she rarely edit fought, never insulted anyone, made good suggestions, and most of the good material on the page was written by him/her. Then there were two editors not personally involved, one being in favor of the subject, the other one against it. They kept putting in original research with poor or no sources and edit fighting constantly... |
|||
:I don't want to say it's always like that. I know it's not. But I believe that ''one'' of the big challenges of Wikipedia is how can people with different perspectives and thinking write together. It's not always the case that the "outsider" is somehow the "good guy", because many people have prejudices for things they know little about. --[[User:Shyranoe|Shyranoe]] 14:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::OK, but I should also point out that some of our worst disputes - ones that cannot ever be resolved by reasonable discussion - continue only because of COI. Serious conflict of interest makes dispute resolution impossible. [[User:Charles Matthews|Charles Matthews]] 14:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::I can believe there are disputes that cannot be solved by reasonable discussion. I guess those users are banned then? I wonder why they can't be banned because of their wrong kind of edits (they are doing such, right?). Or if it is necessary to charge their "wrong state of mind" and ban them for that, maybe this guideline could still be written to have a little wider perspective? It has a lot of good material, but somehow it sounds like directed against involved people, and some of them can be good editors, and some really try. For example this is one part that doesn't sound very good to me: "If editors on talk page suggest in good faith that you may have a conflict of interest, consider withdrawing from editing the article, ... " So anyone can suggest on talk page that someone else has a conflict of interest, and then this someone should consider withdrawing? If the "anyone" here is a very wise person, then there might be no problem. But what if he/she is not? --[[User:Shyranoe|Shyranoe]] 14:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Typically the remedy for COI is a topical ban: you are banned from all edits on some area of articles. In the end, the ArbCom can and does do this. But the problem is too big. Say there are 2000 universities in the USA; say they all employ at least one person to do public relations; say thay have all heard of Wikipedia by now. We ''do not want'' articles on educational establishments to read like publicity material. So we have a guideline to show to the PR people: just don't start. Tell your employer that it's against the rules of the site. |
|||
::It is ''not'' OK to cite COI to win an argument over content, unless the interest is already declared. Why do people declare interests? Remember, WP was founded with a rather positive view of people. We still assume most people are honest. [[User:Charles Matthews|Charles Matthews]] 19:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::The last one is a good thing :). You seem to have a clear idea what this guideline is for. But when I try to read it I'm reading it like the other guidelines, that it is maintained by Wikipedians for Wikipedians. If it is against big organisations and commercialism I wonder how could it be made clearer... I am worried about the effects this guideline could have in small scale situations, when editors try to interpret it and apply it to each other. If this is one of the first guidelines a new editor is directed to read, he/she might be really confused. The part where it is told that you must not use this to win an argument is almost in the end of the page. And I'm not sure if it's always easy to tell the difference. |
|||
:::How about telling in the beginning a little bit more about what this guideline is for? How about telling after that how it relates to other guidelines? How about putting ''after'' that everything about infering something about the tone of the edit (that is the most difficult part I think, because how to decide who can infer it? How to avoid personal hatred? If someone tries to infer that I'm not trying to edit neutrally, I take it very personally!) Well, these are just ideas. But I ''do'' think that this guideline is not clear enough. I had to talk here forever to try to start to understand it :). |
|||
:::Maybe there could even be two different guidelines... one for ordinary small scale advertising, where you could direct someone to go if their edits are too promotive. And another one for extreme cases, like those "worst disputes" you talked about. It doesn't seem nice that if someone tries a little bit advertise himself/herself/something else (maybe by accident at first), they are immediately accused somehow personally. It could be useful to have some page to direct that kind of an editor, but it's very difficult for me to imagine that I would direct him/her here. --[[User:Shyranoe|Shyranoe]] 20:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:The usual way with policies is to make them general statements, with which almost everyone can agree. The general statement here is this: editors shouldn't put outside interests ahead of Wikipedia's interests. That is what 'conflict' means to us. To that there is added enough types of examples, and advice. Accusations of COI are ''not'' acceptable. [[User:Charles Matthews|Charles Matthews]] 09:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Ok, there is a lot of agreement here. Giving advices is good, accusing is not so good. The page still talks about infering, suggesting and reporting COI, and I believe that if I did any of these it would be taken as an accusation. That's why it might be good to have two steps of the process. First a guideline where to direct someone to read all the good advices. Second one if someone continues acting disruptively and shows continuous lack of right motivation. These two matters could even be on the same page if they were somehow separated. Now it starts with the heavy part. Earlier I saw one advertiser, and I'm quite sure that if I had directed him/her here, it would have started a personal fight and made the person defensive. --[[User:Shyranoe|Shyranoe]] 16:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:As a person who rarely contributes here, but often comments on the issues at [[WP:COI/N]], I'm having trouble figuring how this discussion makes any difference. Actual cases are seldom decided by the rulebook. In recent months only one case that I've studied seemed to come down to rule interpretation, and that's the 'Arbuthnot' case that is still open, if anyone want to go over to COI/N and contribute to the discussion. Mostly we look at the actual stuff that the editor has done and see if it appears fishy. Oftentimes, negotiation is possible. It would be helpful if people who comment on this Talk page would occasionally mention specific noticeboard cases where their proposed rule change at [[WP:COI]] would have made a difference. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] 16:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Maybe I'm talking about a little bit different issue. I'm talking about the situation before it goes to that point that you are making decisions at [[WP:COI/N]] (in my latest comment). --[[User:Shyranoe|Shyranoe]] 17:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Indeed.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus| Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> talk </font>]]</span></sub> 04:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
I am glad my initatial post generated such an interesting discussion. Having reread the policy, I think one crucial points needs to be stressed even more: our goal of neutrality. Conflicts of interests increase the likelyhood of non-neutral contributions, but its perfectly normal: remember that nobody can be truly neutral - [[WP:NPOV]] acknowledges this with "All editors and all sources have biases" and other such statements. Editors should be aware of their possible COIs, delcare them and seek input and reviews using COI noticeboard; however they should not be discourgaged from editing subjects as long as they are aware of their bias and try to be neutral. We should assume good faith and assume that any contributors - even those who are getting paid for their edits - are trying to be neutral and are activly trying to balance their POV. Thus we should not seek to discourage editors who are making money for writing articles, as this will only drive them underground and encourage disruptive behaviour; we should embrace them and streamline our ways of dealing with them - for example by instituting an obligatory review for any article created 'for profit' (and for others COIs). But again, we should be assuming good faith and not discourage involved editors from editing as long as they are trying to be neutral.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus| Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> talk </font>]]</span></sub> 04:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
: Virtually every paid editor who's caught trying to spin an article will stand up and swear that they were being neutral, so that idea won't fly. Whoever pays the piper calls the tune. Improper paid editing is a serious threat to Wikipedia and should be discouraged. There are situations where a paid editor can participate, as the guideline explains: reverting true vandalism or spam, removing slander under [[WP:BLP]], and of course raising concerns on the article talk page. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] (<sup>[[User_talk:Jehochman|talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jehochman|contrib]]</sub>) 07:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::If it is really possible to have some kind of checking service, how about to make a guideline instruction: |
|||
:::''In order to assure the neutrality of paid edits, all editors who get paid need to |
|||
:::*''send new material to be checked first OR'' |
|||
:::*''report themselves on a noticeboard so that their edits can be followed.'' |
|||
::And this could be a friendly noticeboard, not the same place where all kind of negative things are handled. Even though people can edit anonymously, many companies and organisations would respect the rule. (Of course not all would know about it, but if someone were directed to read a related guideline he/she would find out.) The non-neutral parts could be sent back to the person and asked to be still improved. This would sound more cooperative than to talk about bad intentions, and it would be a clear message. --[[User:Shyranoe|Shyranoe]] 11:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Agreed, this is a good solution: incorporate such editors into community and double-check their work - a much better solution that forbidding them from contributing/forcing them underground.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus| Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> talk </font>]]</span></sub> 20:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::I disagree that we should single out paid contributors in any way: they are no more biased than people with social relationship to the subject, or hobbysts (many hobbysts who edit wikipedia are much more dedicated and POVed than any salaried employee). And if we forbid hobbysts to contribute to Wikipedia, we will ban 99% of our editors :) This shows the fallacy of this guideline.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus| Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> talk </font>]]</span></sub> 20:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Latest edit == |
|||
Hi! You added "or organized groups of editors" in the first line. I have no experience of organized groups like that, but doesn't that make things even more complicated? After all, everyone is here as an individual. --[[User:Shyranoe|Shyranoe]] 15:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
: And Wikipedia is itself an organized group of editors, as are most of its departments and WikiProjects. '''''[[User:The Transhumanist|<font color="#880088">Th<font color="#0000FF">e Tr<font color="#449900">ans<font color="#DD9922">hu<font color="#DD4400">man<font color="#BB0000">ist</font> ]]''''' |
|||
Reading the article [[conflict of interest]] it sounds like usually being a situation where a single person is in (there might be other meanings as well, though). Unless someone else has an opinion, I'm thinking it could be like this: "A Wikipedia conflict of interest is an incompatibility between the purpose of Wikipedia, to produce a neutral encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor." --[[User:Shyranoe|Shyranoe]] 16:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Why is this a guideline, and not a policy? == |
|||
'''''[[User:The Transhumanist|<font color="#880088">Th<font color="#0000FF">e Tr<font color="#449900">ans<font color="#DD9922">hu<font color="#DD4400">man<font color="#BB0000">ist</font> ]]''''' |
|||
:Can a policy exist as a mere recommendation? There are no strict rules in this guideline, only recommendations reinforcing existing policy. [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]] is the policy, this is just a special case deserving its own article. '''∴''' [[user:here|here]]…[[user_talk:here|♠]] 03:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Plus, it is not unambiguously defined what constitutes a COI, and it is not a given that someone with a COI automatically may never edit his article. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><font color="#0000DD">><font color="#0066FF">R<font color="#0099FF">a<font color="#00CCFF">d<font color="#00EEFF">i</font>a</font>n</font>t</font><</font></b>]] 09:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== One part == |
|||
There is this one part where I'm trying a small change ("Be guided by the advice of other editors. If editors on a talk page suggest in good faith that you may have a conflict of interest, consider withdrawing from editing the article, and try to identify and minimize your biases"). The reason is this: another editor is not always right. When I first started using Wikipedia I got "advices" from a very unfriendly person. Some of them were good, but many of them were groundless accusations. Would someone be against this: "Be careful and guided by the advice of other editors. If editors on a talk page suggest in good faith that you may have a conflict of interest, try to identify and minimize your biases, or consider withdrawing from editing the article." --[[User:Shyranoe|Shyranoe]] 09:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:That's not an improvement. "Be guided by the advice of other editors" does not mean to blindly believe what any random person says. [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] 13:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Maybe, but if the reader is a new user he/she might understand it that way. Am I the only one around here who remembers how difficult it is to be a new user? What about this: "Be guided by the advice of other editors. If editors on a talk page suggest in good faith that you may have a conflict of interest, try to identify and minimize your biases, or consider withdrawing from editing the article." --[[User:Shyranoe|Shyranoe]] 13:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::There is no practical difference as the English word "or" does not distinguish between "exclusive or" and "inclusive or". So I would not revert such a change as I see no real difference. [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] 20:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::Thank you. --[[User:Shyranoe|Shyranoe]] 09:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
(reset) |
|||
Shyranoe, I request that you discuss edits in advance here. Lately you've made a lot of changes that have been reverted for lack of consensus. Being bold once or twice is fine, but repeatedly making changes that others disagree with isn't the best way forward. Thank you for your kind understanding. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] (<sup>[[User_talk:Jehochman|talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jehochman|contrib]]</sub>) 02:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I have tried to make very subtle changes on this page. I know it is not possible for me to edit any big change here. I have tried to use the talk page, but maybe not enough. Sorry! --[[User:Shyranoe|Shyranoe]] 13:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== The nutshell == |
|||
The nutshell seems to tell you to not to edit even if you don't have a conflict of interest. One possible way to correct it would be to add these four words after "Avoid": "... or exercise great caution..." --[[User:Shyranoe|Shyranoe]] 16:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I think the sentence is clear that it's targeting people with a conflict of interest since it goes on to "where your close connection to the subject may cause a conflict between your agenda and Wikipedia's goal..". Even if this is unclear your suggestion would have no impact on whether the sentence targeted people with a conflict of interest or not, only on the strength with which we indicate a desire for them not to edit. -- [[User_Talk:SiobhanHansa|Siobhan Hansa]] 16:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::"where your close connection... may cause a conflict" is not the same thing than to have a conflict. And even if you have some kind of conflict, it's ok to edit sometimes, depending on what you do. I think my solution could be enough, because now it sounds like a strict rule, and then it would leave some space. --[[User:Shyranoe|Shyranoe]] 16:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::The point of a nutshell (or even a guideline) isn't to leave some space, it's to give a brief description so that a quick look that ''best'' encompasses the essence of the guideline. And the essence is - "Conflicted? Whoa!" |
|||
:::There are two separate issues in the statement - who is compromised; and what people in a compromised position should do. Your edit targets what people in a compromised position should do, but the issue you highlighted is who is compromised. To address who is compromised the nutshell could change the bit that addresses the who bit - from "may cause a conflict" to "causes a conflict" for instance. If you actually want to give people with a conflict of interest more leeway to edit in the nutshell then "Exercise great caution" wording does give them that, though it may as well replace rather than be added to the "Avoid" wording, since it's a nutshell and there's no room to indicate which of the two approaches is appropriate for the reader. Personally I think the nutshell is better off erring on the more restrictive interpretation of both these issues, since the times when the less restrictive interpretation is appropriate is more nuanced than when it isn't. And you can't get over nuance well in a nutshell. -- [[User_Talk:SiobhanHansa|Siobhan Hansa]] 17:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
I will tell you what I discovered today after seeing the disturbing level of COI among the very people who are shaping COI. I will always be as lost as I have been this last month, and I am not going to spend my free time around shills and spammers who will use the rules to beat me up, then smack me with an AGF if I talk back. I'm not really wanting to blame, or complain or bend wikipedia to fit my own MPOV, but I really am discouraged in ways that really get to me. [[User:Flowanda|Flowanda]] 07:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==[[WP:SPA|Single Purpose Account]] editing important guideline== |
|||
[[User:Shyranoe|Shyranoe]], sorry to put these questions to you, but I think it's time. Why have you created a single purpose account to edit this guideline? Why do you persist in making edits that clearly do not reflect consensus? I was assuming good faith, but I am not required to do so indefinitely in the face of contrary evidence. Are you concerned about your closeness to an article that you have been editing? Is this guideline inconvenient for you, so you are trying to make these changes? [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] (<sup>[[User_talk:Jehochman|talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jehochman|contrib]]</sub>) 17:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::[[User:Shyranoe|Shyranoe]]: While the single purpose account question above is a valid one, I would also like to ask you to also stop making changes to this guideline without first seeking consensus to make that change. Your changes are being continually opposed by other editors on this page but you persist in making them. As they have stated, consensus supports the current version of this guidelines. As such, you should first seek consensus before making any other changes. Best, --[[User:Alabamaboy|Alabamaboy]] 17:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::First I would like to say this: I made small changes. Mostly I talked here, and when I didn't, I was definitely ready to do so. I was all the time looking for conversation. Then I would like to say this: It is not wrong to create a single purpose account, if I don't use any other account to edit the same pages (and I'm not doing so). I have been very honest that this is a single purpose account writing it on my user page. And then I would like to say this: The moment Jehochman stopped me and said I was going too fast and not looking for consensus enough, I didn't try more of my changes on the page. And for Jehochman: you said you were assuming good faith, what stopped you of doing so? That I edited too much? Maybe I'm not used to editing guidelines. I really didn't know what's too much here. And then this: The biggest way this guideline is inconvenient to me is, that I feel that directing someone here or reporting someone could create a personal fight or make the person unnecessarily defensive, as I have described above. I don't have a conflict of interest, at least I don't think so. I'm not working for any company to do this. I don't want to tell who I am, because I'm putting in so critical opinions. I have known all the time that the chance of making a change here is almost nothing. But I have a right to be here. --[[User:Shyranoe|Shyranoe]] 18:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
You absolutely have a right to be here, and you have a right to make critical opinions. However, it will be best if we discuss all changes fully on the talk page before making edits to the guideline. Single purpose accounts get less weight than other editors because we can't see your contribution history to judge your reputation. You can post whatever suggestions you like on the talk page, but don't edit the guideline further unless we achieve a consensus. |
|||
Have you ever tried patrolling [[WP:COIN]]? There's a big backlog and you are welcome to help out. If you look at the COI problems that come up day to day, you may find that this guideline isn't so bad. In fact, you'll probably see that this guideline is quite necessary to prevent Wikipedia from being overrun by commercial interests. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] (<sup>[[User_talk:Jehochman|talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jehochman|contrib]]</sub>) 18:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:The guideline might be useful there, but it doesn't mean it's wording couldn't be improved. --[[User:Shyranoe|Shyranoe]] 18:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== The next day after that == |
|||
Before putting more of my opinions or ideas here I think I should say something about my intentions. I got a feeling that Jehochman practicly said that he thought I have COI. I took it personally, and I had to use a lot of strength to not to reply unpolitely. I can't think of any situation I would personally benefit this guideline to change. There is no article about me or anyone close to me, and I have never advertised anything on Wikipedia. I have always tried to follow the policies and respected the idea of Wikipedia. I have a very clear reason why I came to this page. I have seen some both good and not-so-good sides about Wikipedia. I know how difficult it is for editors to cooperate sometimes. That is what I'm after, more understanding on Wikipedia between editors. The biggest difficulty writing on this talk page is, that I believe that the people working with COI matters also want to create peace, and I have to criticize. Every day I wonder if it's the last day I will be able to overcome that feeling. --[[User:Shyranoe|Shyranoe]] 19:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
: It's odd, very odd, for somebody to come to Wikipedia and immediately try to change the COI guideline. If you have nothing to hide, let us see what else you are working on here. Why have you created a single purpose account? I see no legitimate reason to do that. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] (<sup>[[User_talk:Jehochman|talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jehochman|contrib]]</sub>) 19:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::It's odd in your eyes: as I said, I'm not used to editing guidelines and I can't know how everything works. It's not yours to judge what kind of choices I make. I'm making a choice of using a single purpose account, because I know how easily things get personal. I already feel that you hate me because I have said opinions you don't like. Maybe I have not said them the best possible way, but this has been the best I have been able to. --[[User:Shyranoe|Shyranoe]] 20:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Irrespective of what name you may use to contribute elsewhere, it's not clear why you're unhappy with the current state of the guideline. If I could perceive what problem you are trying to fix, I might be more sympathetic to your edits. In general, it doesn't make sense to have a COI guideline unless we take account of *who* it is that is applying the edits. Many of the changes you have made recently to the guidelines appear to be trying to weaken them. Very often these changes have been reverted. It would help if you could explain why you don't like the guidelines in their current state. Even your comment above is very vague; lots of discussion about good faith and creating peace but not much discussion of what is actually wrong with the guidelines. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] |
|||
::It's probably best that I'll try to describe what I have done and why. |
|||
::*I wrote one suggestion on [[User:Shyranoe/Conflict of interest material]]. I wanted to show that it might be possible to write this to be more about content. |
|||
::*I made some suggestions that the guideline could be written in another order or have two different guidelines. This is because then the person directed to the guideline could first read the advices and think about them, before getting a feeling of being a wrong person or something like that. |
|||
::*I just made one new suggestion up there (section title ''What is wrong with this guideline''), which could be combined with any other way of writing the page. |
|||
::*I have also made small suggestions: |
|||
:::*To get "we" and "you" out of the same sentences (section title ''About the usage of the word we''). There are many confusing things about this, I already wrote some up there. I could say more about this. |
|||
:::*I suggested that it's not good to use the word "avoid" or similar to that without another option (both section titles ''The nutshell'' and ''One part''). You thought I wanted to weaken the guideline, but I want to weaken it only unless it can be written clearer. Now the page sounds like a rule against just about any kind of connections to wide area of things. |
|||
:::*There has not been much discussion about this, but "and organized groups of" was added in the first line. I tried to ask about it after the edit was made, because it brings a new and complicated aspect on this page. This far it has been enough for everyone to worry about themselves. The "organized" seems to refer something outside of Wikipedia. Even though there might be such organizing, everyone is in charge of their own edits on Wikipedia, not someone elses. I think it would be good to carefully consider this edit, I would have something more to say about this matter as well. |
|||
::I tried to be brief now. I am trying to think of as concrete suggestions I can, I know it's the best way to get something done. I would like to create a more complete suggestion for the whole page, but that might be beyond me on my own. --[[User:Shyranoe|Shyranoe]] 13:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Wikipedia isn't for Paid Editing== |
|||
If I understand correctly, [[User:Shyranoe]] proposes to modify this guideline so paid editors, or conflicted editors, can have a place to leave their proposed contributions. Such a place already exists for each and every article. That's the article talk page. If a paid editor wants to create a new article, they can go to the talk page for the relevant category or a topic. There's no need to create additional bureaucracy or noticeboards. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] (<sup>[[User_talk:Jehochman|talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jehochman|contrib]]</sub>) 14:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:That one suggestion is not my main issue at all. I made it because you and some others seem to be thinking that the paid editors are a big problem and they need to be send a clear message. I thought maybe it would be clear to give them exact instructions. --[[User:Shyranoe|Shyranoe]] 16:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:: We try to avoid instruction creep. For what it's worth, I've written an essay on how marketers can interact with Wikipedia. See [[Wikipedia:Search engine optimization]]. I believe this is referenced from the bottom of this guideline. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] (<sup>[[User_talk:Jehochman|talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jehochman|contrib]]</sub>) 16:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Is there any rule that such conflicts must be stated or acknowledged by paid editors? How would anyone even know if an editor is paid for his or her edits? [[User:Commodore Sloat|csloat]] 16:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::: There's no rule about disclosure, and there is no way to know for sure who's being paid. By disclosing, people may be more inclined to help if asked nicely. Those who don't disclose risk being embarrassed if somebody learns about the commercial relationship, or if the edits show an obvious pattern of abuse. You'd be surprised how easy it is to spot a shill. When confronted, they just hang on and argue against all reason or logic. That's the problem with being paid -- the client expects a result, and doesn't care about the good of the project. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] (<sup>[[User_talk:Jehochman|talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jehochman|contrib]]</sub>) 16:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Hello Jehochman! I read your essay, and I can see that it's your area. I will write here something about the difference in the way we see this subject. I know close to nothing about marketing, I have a degree of some scientific field. When I'm reading the guideline my concern is not the marketers but people with different kind of connections to their hobbies, areas of interest, and uncommercial associations. Of course they can have a conflict of interest, too, but I'll come to this shortly. The reason I made the suggestion about paid editors was that to be more clear with them would allow to make difference between these groups. (My suggestion might have been bad, I'm not arguing for it now.) Even though non-paid editors can also have a conflict of interest, going against commercialism needs so much energy, that I think the same amount of energy directed towards ordinary people is really a lot. When first reading this guideline I tried to relate it to my experiences, and I didn't find connection because the world where you live in is not familiar to me. The guideline is read by many users, also good ones. Reading it can make ordinary people wary of writing anything about themselves on their user pages. There is so much energy in this guideline that I feel it could affect athmosphere also in those situations where there isn't any intention to go against Wikipedia's purposes. That is, unless any change is made. I don't want to have your perspective out of the page, but I think it would be good to have it balanced somehow. --[[User:Shyranoe|Shyranoe]] 19:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
: I agree with that. People who love astronomy should write about astronomy; Buddhists should write about Buddha. Maybe we need to add a section to this guideline that says, "You should feel free to write about subjects that matter to you, or where you have professional expertise. As long as you aren't trying to promote yourself, or your <s>business</s> organization, that isn't a conflict of interest." Maybe we need a section and an additional sentence in the lead paragraph. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] (<sup>[[User_talk:Jehochman|talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jehochman|contrib]]</sub>) 20:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Ok, it's great we have some communication between us. Could we still look at that sentence which has both we and you in it? Changing that would have nothing to do with marketing or the message of the page. --[[User:Shyranoe|Shyranoe]] 11:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::: Check my last two edits to see if that is to your liking. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] (<sup>[[User_talk:Jehochman|talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jehochman|contrib]]</sub>) 13:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::It is very good the way you took we and you away. However, could this be discussed: Before your change, it said ”add content” (and later "the content"), and now it says "to edit" (and later "proposed edits"). It conflicts with what it says later under the title ''Defending interests''. I think the earlier version was better in this respect. I don't mean I want to weaken your message, but it was already a strong statement. There is not always someone to talk to on an article talk page, and it can make you feel helpless if you don't know how to communicate with older Wikipedians, but you need to correct something. --[[User:Shyranoe|Shyranoe]] 14:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::Maybe even change the same thing in the nutshell? To put "editing" into "writing". It doesn't practicly change it much and might not weaken it too much, but it could be an important difference in some situations. It's not only me on this talk page and the page history of the article who have tried to change the nutshell. Maybe this could be a good compromise? I made this suggestion about the nutshell quite fast, if you don't like it, please tell how you see this thing. --[[User:Shyranoe|Shyranoe]] 14:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
;arbitrary break 1 |
|||
How about changing "edit" to "make controversial edits"? We agree there are some non-controversial edits that are always allowable, such as reverting vandalism. The problem with "adding content" is it fails to address negative forms of bias, such as deleting unfavorable content that may be properly sourced and necessary to present the topic in a neutral way. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] (<sup>[[User_talk:Jehochman|talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jehochman|contrib]]</sub>) 17:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I thought you would probably think that way. However, "controversial edits" do have some problems too. It's not easy for a new user to know what they are, and overall it's not a simple concept to define. It might end up with a fight about what is controversial ;). Could you think about this: If it was written in the form "adding content", could some of the edits be treated with other policies/guidelines? It would have these advantages: To tell a new user to read important parts of core policies again (and again) helps them to familiarize with Wikipedia and it's culture. And it would help them to avoid feeling that they are "hit" hard by just one guideline. --[[User:Shyranoe|Shyranoe]] 18:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:: We want to avoid instruction creep. If you make an edit, and I object, it's controversial. That common sense definition is sufficient. We can add this into the article. If there is obvious vandalism. For instance, if somebody replaces the entire content of a page with the word "PENIS!", nobody will object to the subject of the article reverting that. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] (<sup>[[User_talk:Jehochman|talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jehochman|contrib]]</sub>) 18:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::The page seems much better. If there are any problems with it, it is always possible to think about them then. Thank you for communicating! --[[User:Shyranoe|Shyranoe]] 09:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Per my comments above, I want to ask what is the basis for assuming that paid editors would be more biased than hobbists? I think that we have many hobbists much more POVed/biased/dedicated to a given area than most salaried (paid) editors would ever be. I think that as long as we stress that POVed edits are unethical/unwelcomed/etc., we don't need to signle out paid editors in any way, although I agree that having a place they could list their contributions and ask for review would go a long way to improving NPOV of the entire project. Bottom line is, if a person with vested interest wants to contribute to Wiki, as long as they try to be neutral, they should be welcomed to (and assuming they would not try to be neutral is a clear-cut violation of [[WP:AGF]], one of the fundations of this project).--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus| Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> talk </font>]]</span></sub> 20:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Can you please cite one or more examples where paid editors have behaved well? This whole discussion is a little abstract. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] 20:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::See my first post, [[#What is wrong with this guideline]].--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus| Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> talk </font>]]</span></sub> 17:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== First paragraph == |
|||
Jehochman, you just made a change in a sentence of the first paragraph. If you meant to change its meaning, could it be discussed? --[[User:Shyranoe|Shyranoe]] 05:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
I checked the page history more carefully and I can see that someone changed it before you. Now that it's changed it doesn't carry the meaning I was after anymore. When it said "merely... is not" it meant, that there has to be some ''other aspect'' which brings the COI in. I think that was an important part of the sentence. --[[User:Shyranoe|Shyranoe]] 08:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
We agreed with the first paragraph after a very long debate here on the talk page. Would it be possible that if someone wants to change it there would first be a consensus? --[[User:Shyranoe|Shyranoe]] 09:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
: Yeah a third party came in. I tried to restore the original meaning as much as possible while taking their concerns onboard. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] (<sup>[[User_talk:Jehochman|talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jehochman|contrib]]</sub>) 13:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::This user has not yet come to the talk page with it. I do hope that it wouldn't be treated as a simple matter that this guideline might be misused to make personal attacks. If "merely..." can count as a conflict of interest, there is a problem who decides that. If "merely..." doesn't count as such, then some other aspect - that is for example being a close person to someone, getting paid for your edits, being involved in a court case, writing an article about yourself etc. - is needed. That was an important difference. --[[User:Shyranoe|Shyranoe]] 13:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Jehochman: Thank you for trying to restore it, but you probably did it out of memory, because it's not the same than in a page history. Could you still check it up please? --[[User:Shyranoe|Shyranoe]] 14:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:I am fine with the words you wrote there. --[[User:Shyranoe|Shyranoe]] 09:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
This is not about the first paragraph, but someone passing by put "you" in a sentence where it was taken out. I would suggest ''you to avoid'' into ''avoiding'', it could continue ''avoiding to edit''. --[[User:Shyranoe|Shyranoe]] 15:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
: I'll have a look. By the way, you a free to edit the article, as long as you think there is consensus. Just making one attempt shouldn't offend anybody. If somebody disagrees, come here to discuss. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User_talk:Jehochman|☎]]</sup> / <sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jehochman|✔]]</sub> 13:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
: This 'you' has to stay for grammar. One problem is that we have lots of people from different cultures. The same words can mean different things to different people. Please excuse us if the guideline isn't perfect. We try our best to accommodate everybody. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User_talk:Jehochman|☎]]</sup> / <sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jehochman|✔]]</sub> 13:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== User subspace to publish short autobiographies == |
|||
There seems to be a consensus on [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion]] that when a user page is pure vanity, and its user has no good edits (or nearly none), it should be deleted, as per [[WP:NOT]] and [[WP:USER]]. Can the [[WP:COI#User subspace to publish short autobiographies|User subspace to publish short autobiographies]] paragraph have the word "Contributing" put at its start, for clarity? I asked this question [[Wikipedia talk:Vanity guidelines/Archive 1#When vanity is allowed|before]], but unexpectedly became very busy before I could follow it up. --[[User:Hughcharlesparker|Hugh<small>Charles</small>Parker]] <small>([[User talk:Hughcharlesparker|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Hughcharlesparker|contribs]])</small> 10:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:OK. No objections, so I'm going ahead. --[[User:Hughcharlesparker|Hugh<small>Charles</small>Parker]] <small>([[User talk:Hughcharlesparker|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Hughcharlesparker|contribs]])</small> 17:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== COI being used as a sole justification for deletion == |
|||
There seems to be a growing misconception amongst editors that COI should be resolved by deletion rather than correction. There's been very strong opinion expressed in AfD debates that something should be deleted 'per [[WP:COI]]'. Maybe something should be done to correct the impression that Conflict of Interest is reason for an AFD nomination? --[[User:Barberio|Barberio]] 13:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
: There used to be a statement to the effect of what you are saying. It must have been lost during recent clean ups. I've restored that. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User_talk:Jehochman|☎]]</sup> / <sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jehochman|✔]]</sub> 14:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::I'd be interested to see some diffs from AfD debates where [[User:Barberio]] believes that wrong conclusions have been drawn from a COI. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] 14:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::: From the past few days, the following have been nominated, or had significant "votes" based on COI - [[Mike Summers (media/wrestling personality)]], [[Alexander Arbuthnot (bishop)]], [[Walter A. Perez]], [[Stacy Meyer]], [[Panorama Stitchers, Viewers and Utilities]]... --[[User:Barberio|Barberio]] 18:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::: The issue with these articles is lack of notability. COI plays a role because the writer is usually making inflated claims of notability in order to enhance their own reputation or promote their own interests. COI is the motivation. Lack of notability is the result. The two often occur together. Can you show us an article where the only allegation is COI, where notability isn't in dispute? [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User_talk:Jehochman|☎]]</sup> / <sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jehochman|✔]]</sub> 19:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::: COI shouldn't be raised ''at all'', it's a non-issue as far as AfD is concerned. COI is often employed to promote an 'its not notable' argument which wouldn't stand alone. [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Norilana_Books]]'s AfD was almost entirly based on COI, with a veil of 'notability' issues. --[[User:Barberio|Barberio]] 23:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::: I don't think you can justify such a broad statement. When people think COI is relevant to an AfD, they are free to say so. If you have concerns about deletion criteria, you are free to discuss them at [[Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy]]. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User_talk:Jehochman|☎]]</sup> / <sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jehochman|✔]]</sub> 01:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::The publisher of [[Norilana Books]], who created the article herself, canvassed for support on an external blog during the AfD debate! That does give the impression that undue influence is being exerted, which is a very pure form of COI. I've seen some previous debates about articles on book publishers, and many of those articles were highly promotional and un-encyclopedic. This article (after the improvements added during the debate) seems better than the average, though the current version is still very thinly sourced. Some AfD participants alluded to many print sources to attest to the publisher's notability, but those sources don't seem to have been added to the article yet. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] 02:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::: You demonstrate my point. Rather than being about the article's notability, the AfD argument on [[Norilana Books]] seems to have rotated around COI and Perceived COI. There are even accusations that people entering into the discussion have irredeemable COI because they are ''Science Fiction writers''! In the end the AfD ended with no consensus, but it also managed to insult [[Cory Doctorow]] and [[Elizabeth Moon]], and generate some bad press amongst the Science Fiction community. --[[User:Barberio|Barberio]] 09:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I believe you continue to misunderstand the reason editors raise the issue of COI. COI is not by itself reason to delete an article. But when the ''creator'' of an article has a COI, that is a strong indication that the subject is not notable. The insertion of such articles into Wikipedia must be regarded as attempts at self-promotion, and they should receive more scrutiny than articles about non-notable subjects where COI is not a concern. [[User:Pan Dan|Pan Dan]] 13:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::If [[User:Barberio]] is arguing that the COI whereby the publisher of [[Norilana Books]] created an article on her own company should *not* have been discussed during the debate, I disagree. If she had created a good, neutral, well-sourced article it should have been allowed to survive anyway. The COI implied by canvassing outside Wikipedia during an AfD is *highly* relevant, and it's hard to dismiss that as a non-issue. (Policy violations by the creator of a disputed article are always worthy of discussion in an AfD). The article DID get better during the debate. If it had not, it would IMHO correctly have been deleted, based on article quality. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] 13:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
<s>;Concern about the possibility of disruptive editing by [[User:Barberio]] |
|||
[[User:Barberio]] seems to be on a mission to gut this guideline. He's already nominated {{tl|COI}} and {{tl|COI2}} for deletion.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_May_18#Template:COI_and_Template:COI2] In an apparent effort to create an advantage for his position, he improperly added and re-added {{tl|Not a ballot}} because "a lot of people have come into this discussion from the COI notice board." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_May_18&diff=prev&oldid=132210772] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_May_18&diff=prev&oldid=132323099] He also inserted his own comments at the top of the discussion, out of order. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_May_18&diff=prev&oldid=132059345] Furthermore, [[User:Barberio]] watered down one template and redirected the other while the discussion was ongoing, in an apparent effort to circumvent consensus. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:COI&diff=prev&oldid=132209405] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:COI2&diff=prev&oldid=132209897] I strongly urge [[User:Barberio]] to respect the consensus, and not to engage in disruptive editing. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User_talk:Jehochman|☎]]</sup> / <sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jehochman|✔]]</sub> 17:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)</s> |
|||
:You shouldn't bring up this concern here Jehochman because it comes across as a clear argumentum ad hominem on Barberio and not any of the points he raised. Some people obviously agreed with him because the AFD changed the status of the templates. Not a ballot being added to contentious AFD's is standard practice as well. I suggest you use [[Wp:rfc|Requests for Comment]] or a subsidiary such as [[Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts|Wikiquette alerts]] in future, if you have a broad opposition to Barberio's behaviour. |
|||
:In regards to this: |
|||
{{cquote|I believe you continue to misunderstand the reason editors raise the issue of COI. COI is not by itself reason to delete an article. But when the ''creator'' of an article has a COI, that is a strong indication that the subject is not notable. The insertion of such articles into Wikipedia must be regarded as attempts at self-promotion, and they should receive more scrutiny than articles about non-notable subjects where COI is not a concern. [[User:Pan Dan|Pan Dan]] 13:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)}} |
|||
:This paragraph manages to contradict itself, and obviously. If COI being raised is not a reason on its own to delete an article, how does COI showing it might not be as notable be a reason to delete it? This is clearly insinuated, while it essentially is saying the same thing. Notability and COI are NOT interlinked in anyway. If someone creates an article with COI, then it suggests the article may not follow [[WP:NPOV|a neutral point of view]], but it doesn't necessarily extenuate that the article is not notable. |
|||
:With this in mind, the template should really be similar to the NPOV templates. Something like this would be far more technically accurate, and would stop the pointless and increasingly worrying debates where COI is relied upon solely to delete articles that could be improved to a neutral standpoint in line with notability guidelines and policy: |
|||
{| class="messagebox" style="max-width: 50em; background: #FFF0D9;" |
|||
|- |
|||
| [[Image:Unbalanced scales.svg|none|40px]] |
|||
|'''Due to a [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest|conflict of interest]] of one or more editors, the [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutrality]] of this article is [[Wikipedia:NPOV dispute|disputed]].'''<br /><center><small> Please see the discussion on the [[:{{NAMESPACE}} talk:{{PAGENAME}}#{{{1|}}}|talk page]].</small></center>{{#if:{{{date|}}}|<br><small>This article has been tagged since {{{date}}}.</small>}}<includeonly>[[Category:Articles which may be biased|{{PAGENAME}}]]</includeonly> |
|||
|- |
|||
|} |
|||
If the conflict of interest doesn't do the article any harm neutrality wise, then it isn't really a problem. If it isn't notable, then that's a separate matter. [[User:Blightsoot|Blightsoot]] 13:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
: There is broad, longstanding consensus that conflict of interest is very harmful. Have you investigated any of the problems on [[WP:COIN]]? If you get down in the trenches, I think you will find that your theoretical view is entirely mistaken. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User_talk:Jehochman|☎]]</sup> / <sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jehochman|✔]]</sub> 14:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Promotion of own research == |
|||
IMO the case of person's theories and research must be covered somewhere. There already are quite a few disgruntled experts who fall into rage or depression after their favorite neologismd get deleted. Right out of my memory I can name [[Cultural inhibitor]], [[Dancecraft]], [[Dechronification]], [[Omnitopia]], [[Odin Brotherhood]], [[Siberian language]], [[Subsistent worker]], [[Syntax pretentious]]. I am sure you may add more. Notice, these are not just [[urban dictionary]] type neologisms or [[kook]]ery; these are result of hard work of decent researchers which just didn't happen to gain a sufficiently broad attention yet. |
|||
Please someone versed in "policywriting" add a paragraph or two, since it is one of typical cases IMO. |
|||
Since this section is supposed to be addressed to good-faith researchers, only a bit too much preoccupied with self-promotion, a word of hope must be incorporated. `'[[user:mikkalai|mikka]] 20:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== TfD nomination of Template:{{ucfirst:COI}} == |
|||
[[Template:{{ucfirst:COI}}]] has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at [[Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#{{{2|Template:COI}}}|the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page]]. Thank you.<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> |
|||
== TfD nomination of Template:{{ucfirst:COI2}} == |
|||
[[Template:{{ucfirst:COI2}}]] has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at [[Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#{{{2|Template:COI2}}}|the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page]]. Thank you.<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> |
|||
Nominated for deletion since they're functionally redundant to issue specific clean-up tags, and offer no special utility. Tags should be used to identify the problems with the page, not a vague 'there may be problems here we think, but we don't know what'. If there's an issue with an article that was caused by COI, use a relevant template from one of [[Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes]] or [[Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup]] that identifies the problem with the article. --[[User:Barberio|Barberio]] 12:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Captions on [[Logo]]s == |
|||
Is this guideline applicable to captions for logos? Namely the removal of simple descriptive captions like "company logo" under logo graphics in infoboxes?--[[User:In1984|In1984]] 22:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
: In general, non-controversial edits, like fixing format, spelling and grammar are always allowed, as are reversions of vandalism and spam. Does the edit you ask about intend to bias the article, or is it simple housekeeping? (added) One more thing: subjects are allowed to enforce [[WP:BLP]] on their own articles. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User_talk:Jehochman|☎]]</sup> / <sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jehochman|✔]]</sub> 02:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::No, not biographical. Company and product related. Here are a few eamples: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=McDonald%27s&curid=2480627&diff=132555904&oldid=132536655 McDonlad's], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DuPont&diff=prev&oldid=132569311 Dupont], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fox_News_Channel&diff=prev&oldid=132588996 Fox News], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Altria_Group&curid=52638&diff=132569456&oldid=130737183 Altria] |
|||
::: Are you working for these companies? If so, I don't think there's much problem with housekeeping edits like these to help bring the article into compliance with the style guidelines. However, if you are connected to the articles, you have to ask yourself if it is worth the risk of what can happen should you make a mistake and go to far with your edits. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User_talk:Jehochman|☎]]</sup> / <sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jehochman|✔]]</sub> 03:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::: The infobox templates have been fixed to provide a consistent "Company logo" on all. I am trying to get them all to be more NPOV. My question is less personal and more conceptual. Namely, beyond the question of who is editing an article, does COI apply to types of edits and organization similar to [[WP:NPOV#Fairness_of_tone]] and [[WP:NPOV#Bias]] - commercial.--[[User:In1984|In1984]] 04:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::: I don't see how COI is involved in that situation. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User_talk:Jehochman|☎]]</sup> / <sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jehochman|✔]]</sub> 04:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Promotional article production == |
|||
Added a brief section on promotional article production. This isn't intended to represent new policy, but to make existing policy clearer. --[[User:Shirahadasha|Shirahadasha]] 03:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Template talk:COI]] and [[Template talk: COI2]] == |
|||
[[User:Barberio]] asserts that a rewrite of these templates is now "required" and has set himself up as the boss of this process. I've objected strongly. The person who sought to delete the templates should hardly be the one to coordinate a rewrite. Please see the above pages. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User_talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 03:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
: Are you really accusing me of malicious editing? Do you dispute that my edits were in line with the discussion on how the template should be rewritten in it's TfD? Are you prepared to argue against the edits, and all the arguments made in favour of these edits on the TfD, rather than making personal attacks against me? The opinion in favour of a rewrite seems pretty well settled consensus in the TfD, can you please identify the exact problems you found with the edits to the template, and argue why your preferred version should remain. Otherwise, you're just asserting a claim to authority over who should do what with your template, and we don't allow that here. --[[User:Barberio|Barberio]] 11:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
: You can read all the comments from people saying why the template should be rewritten, and how the template should be rewritten, [[Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_May_18#Template:COI_and_Template:COI2|here]]. There's a strong amount of opinion behind rewriting these templates, and only using them on talk pages. The templates are currently inappropriately targeting users instead of article content, inappropriately placed in main article space, misquoting the guideline, and just plain ugly. I'd have preferred them to be deleted, but I'm okay with abiding with consensus and just rewriting them instead. --[[User:Barberio|Barberio]] 11:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::At least you should provide some kind of analysis or reflection on the deletion debate. Otherwise your claim of 'consensus' seems like playing with words. (It seems like you're just repeating the arguments you used in the unsuccessful deletion debate, making no concession to gain the support of those who thought the templates useful). |
|||
::Reducing the total volume of articles with the COI-tagged status should be considered. I note that [[Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:COI]] has about 300 entries. Rather that let those templates sit indefinitely, perhaps we should start processing all these articles through the COI noticeboard in batches and, if we can't get any cooperation from the creator, start doing stubbifies or AfDs. |
|||
::Simply replacing these templates with conventional tags may not be a win. Take a look at [[:Category:Wikipedia articles with topics of unclear importance]], and look at the cute graph showing the increase in number of articles tagged for notability. It's pushing 2000 right now. I think there's more hope of clearing COI issues quickly than notability issues. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] 16:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::: To quote the closing admin in the TfD, "The arguments for deletion aren't trivial, and it doesn't seem like they were really addressed well" and "There seems to be consensus for at least rewording the templates". |
|||
::: You're also still making the fundamental mistake of saying there are 'COI Issues'. COI in its self is not an issue, but a potential cause of issues. The presence of an editor with potential COI does not automatically mean there are issues with an article, so there are almost certainly articles in this 'backlog' which have no issues at all. --[[User:Barberio|Barberio]] 16:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::If an article is neutrally written and backed by reliable sources that ensure its notability, I see no reason for keeping a COI template on it. The interesting case is the one where the person who added most of the article content has a COI, and the article lacks neutrality or sources. There is a pretty good argument for deletion if the article creator can't get around to improving it up to our standards. IMHO, the onus is on the creator to fix it. The average member of [[:Category:Wikipedia articles with topics of unclear importance]] can't be dealt with so easily, unless you want to apply an equivalent burden to the article creator in those cases as well. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] 19:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==Promotion to policy== |
|||
I'd like to see this become policy. We'd need to tighten the writing, check for inconsistencies and so on, but otherwise I see no reason not to promote it as it's pretty well accepted. Any thoughts? [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 19:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
: Strong '''no''' to this. People are already pushing COI as a reason to delete articles, and using templates to mark 'tainted articles', this will just add more to that. The COI guidelines are worthwhile, but they need to be kept guidelines not absolute policy. --[[User:Barberio|Barberio]] 19:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:SlimVirgin, I'm not clear on what the benefit would be of promoting this to policy. Nothing here is actionable except the part about blocking, and that's already in [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy]]. [[User:Pan Dan|Pan Dan]] 20:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Support''' - COI editors have tried the excuse, "but this is just a guideline, it's not policy." More than a few editors wishing to promote their own (drop in something) have sought to water down this guideline. If it becomes policy, it would be easier to fend off those sorts of changes. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User_talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 21:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
: I would support if inconsistencies are removed, and a section on "past employees", "ex-partners", "detractors", "advocates for and against a subject, person, organization, or belief" and similar, whose interactions with articles about their former employers, partner, organization, belief, etc. puts them in a conflicted situation (e.g. those with an [[WP:NOT#SOAP|ax to grind]]). Similar to the current sub-section on "Legal antagonists." The main consistency issue would be the wording on restrictions putting a stronger emphasis on avoiding breaching content policies and guidelines. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] <small>[[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]]</small> 22:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Pan Dan, that's my point. The actionable part is already policy. The rest of it is respected and acted upon for the most part; therefore, there's no reason to keep this as a guideline. Conflicted editors do use its status as an excuse. I agree with Jossi that a good copy edit is needed before it can be policy to make sure there are no loose threads or contradictions. Jossi, I think we'd have to be careful about extending it to "advocates for or against a subject," because that starts to cover everyone if we're not careful. The wording has to be very precise if it's to become policy. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 22:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::: Yes, "advocates for or against a subject" is too wide. Still, we need wording for those with an obvious ax to grind such as the examples given. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] <small>[[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]]</small> 22:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::: For example, as currently written, an employee of Microsoft may have a potential COI on [[Microsoft]]. I would argue that an ex-employee of Microsoft that was fired, feel wronged, and runs a website Microsoftsucks.com, would have as much potential for COI as that employee, but that is not covered in the current formulation. (Notwithstanding the fact that both employee and ex employee could be excellent contributors to that article if they both are mindful of COI and abide by content policies) [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] <small>[[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]]</small> 22:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:but this also applies to anyone else competent to edit on the subject. Any computer user either uses MS products and likes them, uses MS products and doesn't like them, or knows about MS products and uses something else because of not wanting to use MS. The same is true about any controversy: is there anyone likely to be discussing Near-East politics who does not have an opinion about it, and usually a very strong one? Most such editors are frank about their national/ethnic/religious affiliations, if only because they are very difficult to hide. Does anyone edit Intelligent Design articles who is not committed firmly to one or another position? we cannot avoid COI. Perhaps the best thing to do is to admit it, and edit taking it into account. I haven't the least difficult editing an article about a company edited by its PR agent--it's clear what needs to be cut. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' 05:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::It is true that the guideline has become widely accepted, and has stood up really quite well to scrutiny, over half a year and more. The main issue with promoting it to a policy is with enforcement, I suppose. |
|||
:::::Cast in the form of advice, it sits naturally as a guideline: with good intentions, Wikipedia advises people not to edit about themselves (for example), because (not wholly explicit in the page) without much experience of the site it is hardly possible to know what you are getting into, and how you will react to edits you see as hostile. So, I think that is all fine: edit wars are a morass, and this as guideline sets up a signpost 'boggy areas ahead'. |
|||
:::::The snag comes with having a form of COI in which admins (and others) might feel should be enforceable, not through general considerations of POV editing (which is nothing new), but simply on the basis of some deduction of COI in an editor. The ArbCom has been citing COI frequently in cases, because it turns out that many of the cases that simply will not be resolved by discussion are powered by some sort of COI (e.g. blinkered nationalism). I certainly feel that for the worst cases, the AC is the right place to discuss (typically in private) matters relating to the real-world identities and interests of pseudonymous editors. This is playing with bare wires, and admins acting alone are in some hazard in doing that. |
|||
:::::Summary: To take this forward as a policy, it probably needs strengthening with better implementation notes. To give one example, there has been an AC case where everyone has known that an editor is a certain figure in real life, and yet the equation has scrupulously not been put in evidence. Given the tendency in messy editing situations of people to use anything to hand, it should be made utterly clear that Wikipedia does not properly do its business by outing contributors, except under some strict conditions. [[User:Charles Matthews|Charles Matthews]] 10:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Something like this: '''Dealing with suspected conflicted editors''': ''The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor, referring to what is set out on WP:COI. If this brings no improvement, an early recourse to dispute resolution with an RfC is strongly advised. Admins may act as in any case of POV pushing. It is most strenuously pointed out that potentially conflicted editors do not lose their rights to edit Wikipedia pseudonymously, and that outing editors in terms of their real names is in all cases against basic policy. Persistent cases may have to be brought to Arbitration.'' [[User:Charles Matthews|Charles Matthews]] 10:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::::: Added. Very often we see editors who's username matches the topic of the article. In these cases, I don't think there's much problem because the editor has self-identified a connection to the article. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User_talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 12:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::You'll even see ones who say who they are. Some of these are naive family members, some PR people who just don't realize. |
|||
'''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' 04:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
=== Promotion to policy -- continued (Arbitrary section break) === |
|||
I'd like to ask if anyone can provide pointers to notable Arbcom cases that mention COI, or even recent AN/I debates where COI is a key concern. I'm aware of the Arbuthnot case. It is not surprising that we do not see many cases from [[WP:COIN]] that lead to blocks, because the average administrator who does not frequent that noticeboard may be baffled by the subtleties, and concerned about doing something stupid. So it may fall to Arbcom to finally do something about a difficult COI issue. If anyone has some favorite cases to mention, it would be helpful to see the pointers. Making [[WP:COI]] into a policy may influence the situation, and we need to look at some data to see if that change would be beneficial. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] 00:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
: A few cases that included COI issues: |
|||
:*[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2]] |
|||
:*[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Free_Republic]] |
|||
:*[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Barrett_v._Rosenthal]] |
|||
:*[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Midnight_Syndicate]] |
|||
:[[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] <small>[[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]]</small> 03:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*I believe the OTRS may have issues with this? As I recall there have been a number of cases where a person (or representative of a company) made quite reasonable edits to an article on himself - it's just that the people who are ''un''reasonable about it attract more attention, as a "screaming minority". Thus I think calling it policy may be overly broad. As a side point I believe this page is way too long and could benefit from some concisifying. [[User_talk:Radiant!|<b><font color="#0000DD">><font color="#0066FF">R<font color="#0099FF">a<font color="#00CCFF">d<font color="#00EEFF">i</font>a</font>n</font>t</font><</font></b>]] 16:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==[[Wikipedia:Self Involvement]]== |
|||
I made [[Wikipedia:Self Involvement]] to redirect to this page. The page had only been edited twice. Anyone who objects can erm, do something about it. [[User:Mglovesfun|Mglovesfun]] 17:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Recent edits... == |
|||
... have resulted in missing the wording related to exercising great caution, and the reference to content policies of NPOV, NOR and V. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] <small>[[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]]</small> 00:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Conflict of Interest template suggestion == |
|||
I was looking at some of the pages that have been tagged with COI templates and think that template wording does not match the spirit of Wikipedia. As a person who has been the subject of a COI complaint I would like to make some suggestions. The current template says: |
|||
:''The creator of or main contributor to this page may have a conflict of interest with the subject of this article. Due to issues of maintaining neutrality and avoiding promotional articles, Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines strongly advise that editors do not directly edit articles on topics where they have a close personal or business connection. If this applies to your edits, you are advised to collaborate with independent editors via the article's talk page only.'' |
|||
It should be always be reasonable for any editor to add properly sourced material directly to any article. For example, as the CEO of my company, I have access to secondary sources that other editors will have trouble finding. If I have a source about my company in a magazine such as 'Newsweek' then there really should be no need to discuss the addition of the source with other editors first. In another case, where I am a published expert on a disputed conviction, I have had other editors try to use COI to stop me adding extra sources to the article. |
|||
If an editor doesn't like any text that is added they should object using the standard dispute resolution process. The text should meet [[WP:NOTE]], [[WP:ATT]], [[WP:NPOV]], [[WP:OR]], [[WP:UNDUE]] etc first. As it stands this template and policy is being used by some editors to say 'You've got a COI so stop editing completely', which I believe is not helpful to Wikipedia's growth and accuracy. Editors should always have a chance to improve articles. |
|||
I should also be noted that the COI guideline has several examples where it is acceptable to edit with a COI, but that these are not mentioned on the template. My suggested text is something like: |
|||
:''Contributors to this page may have a business, financial, or personal relationship to the subject of this article. To maintain neutrality and avoiding promotional articles, Wikipedia policies say that articles added to Wikipedia should meet a minimum standard for notability and attribition. All editors should improve this article by providing reliable secondary sources for claims and facts about the subject. Non-notable articles and unsourced promotional, libelous, defamatory items may be deleted at any time." |
|||
Update: Sorry, I didn't realise that there already had been substantial discussion about this topic. However, having had a COI brought against me and having found the implications in the template to be misleading, I hope that other editors will consider my proposed text, or at least the issues involved. Thank you for your time. -- [[User:Sparkzilla|Sparkzilla]] <small>[[User_talk:Sparkzilla|talk!]]</small> 06:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
: The problem that this gets into, if we open this up just a bit, is people just dumping stuff into WP without anyone having any recourse and then editors having to fight like crazy to get it taken out again. The approach of [[WP:COI]], as I understand it, is to raise the bar such that any impression of potential COI can be dealt with using a peer-review process (i.e. posting it on the Talk page for the article). I see too many discussions from people who believe that they are the exception to [[WP:COI]] - if they are, then they should be able to point to a discussion somewhere that shows that there is a consensus among editors about this. Without this in place and enforced, I see chaos ensuing. -- [[User:Alucard (Dr.)|Alucard (Dr.)]] | [[User talk:Alucard (Dr.)|Talk]] 21:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Editors who feel there is a COI on the article are free to remove any item that violates WP policy at any time. Those with a COI can then discuss it on the talk page to gain consensus to put it back in. But to give such a harsh warning goes against the assumption of good faith. -- [[User:Sparkzilla|Sparkzilla]] <small>[[User_talk:Sparkzilla|talk!]]</small> 01:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Consistency with blocking policy == |
|||
The guideline formerly said that indef blocks were permitted for single purpose COI accounts. Another editor wants to change this to "for up to one week, and indefinitely if the problem continues after that." In my view this creates an unnecessary burden. Ultimately, we need to change [[WP:BLOCK]] so that COI-only accounts can be indef blocked more rapidly. Until that happens, I agree that this guideline should match the policy wording. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User_talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 03:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:It's inappropriate instruction creep for this guideline to attempt to dictate an incremental block schedule. If that discussion takes place it ought to be at [[WP:BLOCK]]. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''</sup> 06:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== initial block length == |
|||
As it is not typical to instruct admins how long to block for on a first offense (per other examples at [[WP:BLOCK]]), I have removed the phrase from [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Blocks]]. --[[User:After Midnight|After Midnight]] <sup><small>[[User talk:After Midnight|0001]]</small></sup> 03:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
: There was another statement near the top that said the same thing. I completely removed that because it was unnecessary and potentially confusing. I will also make the same change in {{tl|uw-coi}}. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User_talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 03:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Wikipedia:Business' FAQ]] == |
|||
Currently a FAQ is being written at [[Wikipedia:Business' FAQ]] to hopefully answer common COI questions before people go to OTRS and so on. The more input we can get on this, the better. --[[User talk:W.marsh|W.marsh]] 13:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==COI: Actual versus Potential== |
|||
Consider an expert of a subject, who we are supposed to welcome. |
|||
#If the expert has a book published on the subject, they could potentially gain financially. COI? |
|||
#If the expert has a theory published in a paper, they could make their theory seem more favorable. COI? |
|||
#If the expert is a member of the Democrats, edits to articles on Republicans or Democrats may not be objective. COI? |
|||
#If the expert is a Creationist, edits to articles on science may not be objective. COI? |
|||
#If the expert runs a bookshop and sells books on most subjects, editing articles on most subject could be a COI? |
|||
#If the expert has a positive opinion on a subject, their input may be biaised. COI? |
|||
#If the expert has a personal web site on a subject, edits may inadvertently drive people to it. COI? |
|||
It seems that every editor has a '''potential''' conflict of interest. But that it is '''actual''' conflict of interest, ie, actual self-promotion, advertising-for-gain, that is subject to criticism? --[[User:Iantresman|Iantresman]] 10:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:That's right. However it is possible that the things you mentioned could bring closer scrutiny of the person's edits in the relevant arena even if an actual COI does not arise, because one is possible. And you are right that there is always the possibility of conflict of interest -- that's what the purpose of this guideline is, to prevent real conflict of interest from occuring and/or damaging the encyclopedia. [[User:Mike4ty4|mike4ty4]] 06:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:59, 22 June 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 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. RoySmith (talk) 17:49, 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)
- 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. Thryduulf (talk) 00:15, 19 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)- It is relevant whether or not the people who decide what is and what is not NPOV have a COI. Levivich (talk) 15:43, 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)
- That makes sense. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:43, 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)- Is there? Please point me to it. – Joe (talk) 10:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- The most recent example is the arbitration case. Thryduulf (talk) 10:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Is there? Please point me to it. – Joe (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)
- Those edits are ones that even an indisputably paid editor should not be sanctioned for making, further demonstrating the "no exceptions" is incorrect. Thryduulf (talk) 15:46, 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)- 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. – Joe (talk) 14:02, 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)
- Arbcom's announcement is live. 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
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
Visibility of external advertising accounts
About two weeks ago, I submitted this proposal on Meta-Wiki seeking consensus on additional requirements. It has been observed in multiple cases that, after disclosing their off-wiki profile link, paid editors then protect their profile from public view, making it challenging to review their contributions. I believe the main purpose of the existing requirements is to facilitate the review process, so if a profile isn't publicly accessible, the disclosure is useless. Therefore, I invite everyone to share their thoughts. Thank you. GSS 💬 04:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)