Tryptofish (talk | contribs) |
Tag: Undo |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Warning|To discuss conflict of interest problems with specific editors and articles, please go to<br />[[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard]].}} |
{{Warning|To discuss conflict of interest problems with specific editors and articles, please go to<br />[[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard]].}} |
||
{{COI changes disclosure requirement}} |
|||
{{notice|1=Editors discussing proposed changes to [[WP:COI]] or related pages should disclose during those discussions whether they have been paid to edit Wikipedia.}} |
|||
{{talk header}} |
{{talk header |sc=WT:COI}} |
||
{{Press |
{{Press |
||
| subject = page |
| subject = page |
||
Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
||
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
||
|counter = |
|counter = 35 |
||
|minthreadsleft = |
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
||
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
||
|algo = old(18d) |
|algo = old(18d) |
||
|archive = Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Archive %(counter)d |
|archive = Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Archive %(counter)d |
||
}} |
}} |
||
__TOC__ |
__TOC__ |
||
== 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. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 07:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
==Sources on conflict of interest== |
|||
:''(chronological)'' |
|||
*[[Michael Davis (philosopher)| Michael Davis]], "Conflict of Interest," ''Business and Professional Ethics Journal'', 1(4), 1982, pp. 17–27 (influential) |
|||
*Luebke, Neil R. "Conflict of Interest as a Moral Category," ''Business & Professional Ethics Journal'', 6, 1987, pp. 66–81. {{jstor|27799930}} (influential) |
|||
*[[Michael Davis (philosopher)| Michael Davis]], "Conflict of Interest Revisited," ''Business & Professional Ethics Journal'', 12(4), Winter 1993, pp. 21–41. {{jstor|27800924}} |
|||
*[[Michael Davis (philosopher)| Michael Davis]], Andrew Stark (eds.). [http://books.google.com/books?id=UlnkFoWsPCkC&printsec=frontcover ''Conflict of Interest in the Professions''], University of Oxford Press, 2001. |
|||
*Andrew Stark, [http://books.google.com/books?id=CxjXZkCRAMoC&printsec=frontcover ''Conflict of Interest in American Public Life''], Harvard University Press, 2003. |
|||
*[[Sheldon Krimsky]], [http://books.google.com/books?id=uhMH3mis9UAC&pg=PA63 "The Ethical and Legal Foundations of Scientific 'Conflict of Interest'"], in Trudo Lemmings and Duff R. Waring (eds.), ''Law and Ethics in Biomedical Research: Regulation, Conflict of Interest, and Liability'', University of Toronto Press, 2006. |
|||
*Bernard Lo and Marilyn J. Field (eds.), [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22937/ ''Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice''], National Academies Press, 2009. |
|||
*[[Wayne Norman]], Chris McDonald, [https://books.google.com/books?id=mfJWvB8nkhkC&pg=PA441 "Conflicts of Interest"], in George G. Brenkert, [[Tom Beauchamp|Tom L. Beauchamp]] (eds.), ''The Oxford Handbook of Business Ethics'', Oxford University Press, 2012, pp. 441–470. |
|||
{{tqb| |
|||
==Deceptive advertising, FTC on Native advertising== |
|||
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. |
|||
Please see |
|||
[https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/896923/151222deceptiveenforcement.pdf FTC policy] and [https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/native-advertising-guide-businesses FTC Native advertising guide] [[User:Smallbones|Smallbones]]<sub>([[User talk:Smallbones|<span style="color: #cc6600;">smalltalk</span>]])</sub> 05:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
===Financial Conflict of Interest=== |
|||
This was brought up by SarahSV. The FTC came out with the policy and guide in December 2015, so this is after the ToU change. The ToU FAQs read to me like "Any paid editing for businesses on Wikipedia is probably against the FTC rules, but that's for the businesses to deal with." - or perhaps a bit more subtle. There should not be any doubt that the 2015 FTC rules make paid editing for businesses illegal in the US. A few quotes from the policy: |
|||
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: |
|||
*“The Commission has long held the view that advertising and promotional messages that are not identifiable as advertising to consumers are deceptive if they mislead consumers into believing they are independent, impartial, or not from the sponsoring advertiser itself.” (p.1) |
|||
*'''Direct Financial Benefits:''' These include receiving direct payment for editing Wikipedia articles |
|||
*“Regardless of an ad’s format or medium of dissemination, certain principles undergird the Commission’s deceptive format policy.... Such misleadingly formatted advertisements are deceptive even if the product claims communicated are truthful and non-misleading.” (p.10) - Note that this effectively says that "NPOV material" inserted by a business is deceptive advertising. |
|||
*'''Indirect Financial Benefits:''' Such benefits are not as overt as direct payments but are significant. Examples include: |
|||
*“material misrepresentations as to the nature or source of a commercial communication are deceptive, even if the truth is subsequently made known to consumers.” (p.14) |
|||
**'''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=== |
|||
*The guide repeats the same idea “Advertisements or promotional messages are deceptive if they convey to consumers expressly or by implication that they’re independent, impartial, or from a source other than the sponsoring advertiser – in other words, that they’re something other than ads.” |
|||
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=== |
|||
There are 2 outs possible, but I don't think they apply to Wikipedia |
|||
*'''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. |
|||
*the text is so clearly an ad - say "Stop by for a test drive today"- that no reasonable person would mistake it for an independent article; or |
|||
*'''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. |
|||
*it's clearly labeled as an advertisement ''very close on the same page as the ad in very clear, simple, and direct words'' |
|||
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.}} |
|||
So any posting of text by a business or its paid editors in a Wikipedia article is deceptive advertising, a violation of FTC rules, illegal under the FTC act and a type of fraud. [[User:Smallbones|Smallbones]]<sub>([[User talk:Smallbones|<span style="color: #cc6600;">smalltalk</span>]])</sub> 05:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:Perhaps a link to [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Covert advertising, consumer protection]] should be added to [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Solicitations by paid editors]], as part of its list emphasizing what a paid editor cannot do, namely, make any edits that consist of advertising? [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 06:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::The thing is "advertising" is a very broad word, even when you limit it to advertising by a business. Some reasonable definitions: |
|||
::*1 the action of calling something to the attention of the public especially by paid announcements” Merriam-Webster |
|||
::*1
A notice or announcement in a public medium promoting a product, service, or event or publicizing a job vacancy.
‘advertisements for alcoholic drinks’
(from Oxford Dictionary) |
|||
::*from Jeremy Bullmore in [https://www.adassoc.org.uk/advertisings-big-questions/what-is-advertising/ “What is Advertising” Advertising Association of the UK
] writing about businesses “Advertising is any communication, usually paid-for, specifically intended to inform and/or influence one or more people.“ |
|||
::My favorite example is a classified advertisement, e.g. "Hay for sale. Inquire at McDonald's farm." Actually it doesn't have to be in the classifieds - anywhere that appears - whether nailed on a fencepost, painted on a barn, on a billboard, etc. it's an advertisement as long as it is being communicated ''by the business''. |
|||
::If that is not broad enough consider that [[WP:NOT]] also prohibits marketing, promotion, public relations text, advocacy, soap-boxing. Note that marketing is a very general term, including promotion, PR, adverts, and even distribution and transportation of the completed goods. Promotion is a subset of marketing, PR and advertising are subsets of promotion. All the wiggle room has been squeezed out of our definition of "advertising" - though I haven't seen a formal Wikipedia definition. [[User:Smallbones|Smallbones]]<sub>([[User talk:Smallbones|<span style="color: #cc6600;">smalltalk</span>]])</sub> 16:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::Leaving aside the question of what is advertising for a moment, should we provide additional guidance and links to those who might hire a paid editor to understand the limitations imposed by regulators in the section I suggested? [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 18:14, 5 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::<s>I don't think so, </s>{{u|Isaacl}} – guidance is not enough here. I think we should start work on a [[:Category:Wikipedia legal policies|Wikipedia policy with legal considerations]]. If it is illegal for businesses to advertise in Wikipedia then we will want to make very sure that we are not facilitating, aiding or abetting that illegal practice in any way, and that we have a proper policy that sets out how we will do that. [[User:Justlettersandnumbers|Justlettersandnumbers]] ([[User talk:Justlettersandnumbers|talk]]) 18:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC) <small>Correct username and re-ping {{u|Isaacl}} – sorry! [[User:Justlettersandnumbers|Justlettersandnumbers]] ([[User talk:Justlettersandnumbers|talk]]) 18:46, 5 December 2017 (UTC)</small> |
|||
:::::Can we start with adding a link? The conversation about stopping advertising has been going on for a long time, and will continue to take a long time to develop any further steps. It's a hard problem, because it affects all conflict of interest editing and all non-neutral point of view editing (paid or unpaid), which in turn has implications on editing without known real-world identities. None of this will be resolved any time soon. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 19:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Of course that would be sensible, {{u|Isaacl}}, I'm sorry to have expressed myself so poorly above (now struck through). All I meant to say say, was "no, that isn't enough ...''. [[User:Justlettersandnumbers|Justlettersandnumbers]] ([[User talk:Justlettersandnumbers|talk]]) 10:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
* The first section talks about "financial conflict of interests" but the third talks about "paid" and "non-paid conflicts". That the existing text uses these terms interchangeably was a major source of confusion in the recent arb case; I think we ought to stick to one or the other. – [[User:Joe Roe|Joe]] <small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 09:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
===Break=== |
|||
*: Good point; switched to "Financial". [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 09:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{u|Smallbones}}, thanks for opening this thread. Pinging others who have discussed this issue: {{u|Doc James}}, {{u|Coretheapple}}, {{u|Kudpung}}. |
|||
* 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) |
|||
The [[Federal Trade Commission]]'s article on [[native advertising]], "Native Advertising: A Guide for Businesses" (2015),<ref name=FTCDec2015>[https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/native-advertising-guide-businesses "Native Advertising: A Guide for Businesses"], Federal Trade Commission, December 2015.</ref> relates directly to our problem of hosting pages that are arguably advertisements mimicking the format of Wikipedia articles. The FTC says: |
|||
*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. |
|||
{{quotes|Marketers and publishers are using innovative methods to create, format, and deliver digital advertising. One form is “native advertising,” content that bears a similarity to the news, feature articles, product reviews, entertainment, and other material that surrounds it online. ...{{pb}}In digital media, native ads often resemble the design, style, and functionality of the media in which they are disseminated. ... The more a native ad is similar in format and topic to content on the publisher's site, the more likely that a disclosure will be necessary to prevent deception.<ref name=FTCDec2015/>}} |
|||
:You can't make a black and white policy to "outlaw" COI editing and have it be effective. You CAN look at my edits and say "they look normal" or say "your edits look promotional, full of puffery" and remove those edits based on existing policy, and then block me if it is a pattern. Existing policy covers this. What matters is the CONTENT of my edits and whether they are obviously designed to improve the encyclopedia, or if they appear to serve another purpose. Regardless, forbidding COI editing is just going to ''guarantee'' that people with a COI will simply stop declaring the COI, so you will have less transparency, so this would backfire spectacularly. What the COI guideline needs is MORE disclosure, not less. If you treat ''all'' COI editors as the enemy, they will respond in kind and simply ignore policy and sock. You are better off engaging and getting them to declare and become invested in their editorship (and reputation) here. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 03:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::It seems neither the extensive rebuttals on Wikipedia nor on Wikipediocracy have convinced you to give up the "I own stock" line of argument. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 03:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::No, because there hasn't been a single successful rebuttal that address the actual circumstance. The real question is "where do we draw the line?", and it serves as an excellent example because it isn't hypothetical and is extremely common. Writing bad policy without considering real world implications is what I'm trying to get the community to avoid, just as I tried to get Arb to avoid. Now, do you have an actual argument against the example, or are you just wasting everyone's time and saying "I don't like this example". [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 07:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::All policy and guidelines here are line drawing, and regularly the lines are fuzzy (or nuanced). As presumably (you say you support the guideline) your not saying there is no such thing as conflict of interest, it means even you are aware that lines can be drawn for conflict of interest, indeed probably some are easy to draw. And as for Wikipedians being able to hash out lines, that's most of what Wikipedians do all the time. So, let's say your position is you don't have a conflict, submit your situation to the community, and no doubt they will guide you as best they can. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 13:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*There's room for refinement but overall I think this is a significant improvement over the current guidelines, especially in terms of readability. The thing is, strategically, you're never going to get consensus to adopt it, because any attempt is going to be blocked by people who oppose the ''current'' guideline (see the !vote directly above...). This is a project-wide phenomenon and the reason why we have so many PAGs that everyone agrees are shit but that haven't changed substantially in a decade. But I digress. The upshot is I think it's more realistic to make these changes incrementally. – [[User:Joe Roe|Joe]] <small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 08:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:I don't oppose the currently policy, Joe. You've been told again and again by others, YOUR interpretation is not correct and you are very much in the minority, in particular at the last Arb case. I think refinement is a good idea, but refinement that makes people want to lie about any conflict is not in the best interest of the encyclopedia. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 09:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::There is, clearly, room for differing interpretations of the current guideline. I am not interested in battling it out to see whose is "correct". However, I've been active in enforcing COI for nearly a decade, so what I can tell you is that what ''actually happens'' (e.g. at [[WP:COIN]]) is that when someone has an obvious financial stake in a topic, editors don't fuss around trying to establish whether they've been "paid by an entity for publicity" (because how would they even do that?) before acting to protect the project's integrity. That this practice differs from how some interpret the guideline is a problem that needs to be solved, one way or the other, for sure. But I think all you achieve by going around talking about your AT&T stock is to make people wonder why on earth you think "this can't be paid editing, because Dennis Brown is doing it!" is an argument that would convince anyone except Dennis Brown. – [[User:Joe Roe|Joe]] <small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 10:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::{{tpq|There is, clearly, room for differing interpretations of the current guideline.}} whether that is true or not, there is a very clear consensus that ''your'' interpretation is not one that is correct. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 10:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::Is there? Please point me to it. – [[User:Joe Roe|Joe]] <small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 10:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::The most recent example is the arbitration case. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 10:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::{{green|"this can't be paid editing, because Dennis Brown is doing it!"}} is s strawman argument, and someone would have to be rather simple to believe that is an actual position. If you sincerely believe that my example is paid editing, surely you wouldn't show favoritism, and you would instead block me. Your stance on COI smacks of politicking. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 12:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::I mean, I've considered it, more than once... – [[User:Joe Roe|Joe]] <small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 12:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::Given that you haven't blocked Dennis, it seems safe to assume that you concluded either that he wasn't violating policy or that a consensus of uninvolved administrators would conclude that he was not violating policy. That sounds rather similar to your interpretation of the policy either being different to what you say it is in discussions or, more likely, different from the community consensus interpretation of the policy. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 14:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::::Or maybe I'm just too much of a coward to apply the same rules that are applied to regular editors to an admin with a tonne of social capital in the midst of a contentious arbitration case about the selfsame issue. – [[User:Joe Roe|Joe]] <small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 14:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::::And maybe it's because Dennis hasn't actually edited [https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Dennis+Brown&page=AT%26T&server=enwiki&max= AT&T] or [https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Dennis+Brown&page=History_of_AT%26T&server=enwiki&max= History of AT&T], so what Dennis describes as {{tqq|The best example I can give}} is actually a poor example of COI editing. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 14:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::::::Dennis also has three edits to [https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Dennis+Brown&page=AT%26T_Corporation&server=enwiki&max= AT&T Corporation], but those are also a nothingburger. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 15:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::::::Those edits are ones that even an indisputably paid editor should not be sanctioned for making, further demonstrating the "no exceptions" is incorrect. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 15:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{od}}Some of us live on the other side of the globe, and slept during most of the buffoonery. The claims of "non-trivial" amounts of stock were absurd, since I never said I owned non-trivial amounts. I was intentionally vague because it isn't anyone's business. The concept of an ''absurd de minimis'' example are lost on some. Again, I can only conclude that Joe's reference to blocking me here, and then dragging out an ANI case, are to try to silence me, which won't work on me, but it might work on others, which is what made me question his competency to be an admin. He knew I only had a few minor edits to AT&T, but the value of dragging someone through the mud wasn't to get action on me, it was to silence critics of his unique interpretation. Even above, he seems worried that others will cite my example {{green|"this can't be paid editing, because Dennis Brown is doing it!"}}, so it seems the ends justify the means in his eyes. As for being a "coward", that is an amazing display of gaslighting Joe. I'm not trying to silence debate, Joe, but you clearly are and have made it personal. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 20:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:It's gaslighting that my own explanation for why I didn't do something differs from yours? Okay. I didn't know that you only made minor edits to AT&T, because you strongly implied otherwise, and I foolishly took you at your word. Now I am wondering why on earth you brought this up at all, then, given there is [[WP:COIADVICE|already a well-established exception for minor COI edits]]. |
|||
To judge whether an ad is deceptive under the [[Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914|FTC Act]], the FTC considers "both what the ad says and the format it uses to convey that information ... Advertisements or promotional messages are deceptive if they convey to consumers expressly or by implication that they’re independent, impartial, or from a source other than the sponsoring advertiser ...".<ref name=FTCDec2015/> |
|||
: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) |
|||
One example of an article that looks to me like native advertising is [[Whistle (company)]]. Whistle makes one product, an activity tracker for dogs. The company sent out press kits with samples to journalists, who responded by publishing stories about the company and product. In 2016 Whistle was acquired by [[Mars, Incorporated|Mars Petcare]] for $117 million. [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-01/mars-said-to-spend-117m-to-acquire-whistle-s-fitbit-for-dogs] Mars hired a paid editor to write a Wikipedia article about the company, which contained lots of information about the product based on the sources generated by the press kits. The article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Whistle_(company)&oldid=760435668 was declined] at AfC and nominated for speedy deletion as "unambiguous advertising or promotion". But that decision was overturned, so Wikipedia now hosts a free ad for Mars Inc.'s pet tracker (Mars had revenue of US$35 billion in 2017), without signalling the company's involvement to the reader. |
|||
: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) |
|||
Can the FTC help us deal with this kind of article? I like {{u|Justlettersandnumbers}}' idea of drafting a [[:Category:Wikipedia legal policies|policy with legal implications]]. Would {{u|Doc James}} be willing to take a request to the Board that they ask the WMF lawyers to write a briefing paper on whether this type of article (we could collect a few examples) violates the FTC Act? Just to be clear, the purpose would not be to cause a problem for individual editors, but to address the companies who pay for this content. [[User:SlimVirgin|SarahSV]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</sup></small> 07:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::[[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=== |
|||
{{reflist-talk}} |
|||
This is how I see the ''spirit'' of existing policy, worded differently and perhaps defined a little more clearly: |
|||
:Indeed, {{u|SlimVirgin}}, I believe that asking the advice of the WMF legal team is the next step. I've no idea whether such a request needs to go through the board, or if it can come directly from en.wp editors following consensus here. [[User:Justlettersandnumbers|Justlettersandnumbers]] ([[User talk:Justlettersandnumbers|talk]]) 10:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
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. |
|||
*This is significant. Thanks for the ping and thanks for raising this issue. This is spot-on as far as paid editing is concerned, and drives a stake through the heart of all mechanisms that evade our porous COI rules. [[User:Coretheapple|Coretheapple]] ([[User talk:Coretheapple|talk]]) 17:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*What Coretheapple just said is also exactly what I now think. I'm pleased that this issue has been identified. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 17:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*[[User:Slaporte (WMF)]] can hopefully weight in. I know legal has said they are willing to accept data around particularly egregious cases. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 18:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*While I have no issue with saying we would like to address the issue of companies paying for content first, I do believe the same concerns apply to all editors, and so the conflict of interest guidance ought to eventually provide guidance for everyone. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 20:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*Should we create a new template for articles that appear to be [[native advertising]]—to be placed on the article, not talk page? "This article may violate the United States [[Federal Trade Commission]]'s rules against [[native advertising]]". It could be added to articles promoting a commercial entity where we know or have strong reason to believe that paid editing was involved. If yes, would we have to restrict it to American companies or could we add it to all (given that the WMF is based in the US)? [[User:SlimVirgin|SarahSV]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</sup></small> 03:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
**If there is agreement for a template, my suggestion is that it should not mention specific regulations within the template text, and instead refer to something like [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Covert advertising, consumer protection]]. Given Wikipedia's global nature, I feel it is better to be more generalized on any displayed warnings. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 03:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
***I'm not a lawyer, and I don't even play one on TV, but I'm uncomfortable with labeling any of our content as potentially unlawful, because that means that we are knowingly displaying something that is potentially unlawful. If, in fact, it turns out that such content really is unlawful, it should simply be removed right away (much as with copyright violations). --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 20:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::*Indeed, {{u|Tryptofish}}. When I mentioned a "Wikipedia policy with legal considerations" above, it was precisely our copyright policy that I had in mind, and our zero-tolerance practice in attempting to enforce it. With advertising as with copyvio, if there is a possibility that content is illegally hosted, Wikipedia must be seen to be taking the the necessary steps to remove it immediately it is discovered – and also be seen to be taking all possible precaution to prevent it from being added to the project in the first place. So if we are to have a template, it should be one that blanks out the article text until questions surrounding it have been answered. For those who don't already know this: our {{tl|copyviocore}} template can be added by anyone, but can only be removed by an admin (or one of a handful of copyright clerks). This would be a good pattern to follow. [[User:Justlettersandnumbers|Justlettersandnumbers]] ([[User talk:Justlettersandnumbers|talk]]) 21:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::*If there is consensus for a template, I would suggest something milder saying that the article is suspected of containing promotional content, and linking to a guidance page with more details of problematic edits. I'm not sure we should be pre-emptively blanking content that is even slightly suspicious, though. Promotional editing is a problem even with non-paid editors and editors completely unaffiliated with the article's subject; we'd start having blanking wars with accusations of promotional editing. Unmoderated crowdsourced content is only manageable when legal liability is retained by the individual editors. Once the community takes on the role of judging liability (and there are many laws that would have to be taken into consideration), it becomes a lot harder to avoid active moderation. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 22:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Yes, I don't want editors making legal judgments. But it would be very good if WMF legal would comment, and we should be guided by their legal interpretation. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 23:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*We already have {{tl|Advert}}, so perhaps mention of the Federal Trade Commission could be added to that, but worded differently, avoiding the word ''violation''. |
|||
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. |
|||
:{{u|Doc James}}, as a trustee, can you say what the best way is to approach the legal department for help? {{u|Slaporte (WMF)}} and {{u|Jrogers (WMF)}}, I'm wondering whether it would make sense for a group of editors, or the WMF, to approach the Federal Trade Commission with concerns that companies are inserting [[native advertising]] disguised as articles into Wikipedia, and that the community has been too divided to stop it. Can you say whether the legal department has ever looked into that issue? [[User:SlimVirgin|SarahSV]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</sup></small> 00:18, 8 December 2017 (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. |
|||
* The WMF is the publisher here and it would have to comply with this FTC policy, just like it has to comply with copyright law. Just like the NYT does. |
|||
:What in the world would you go to the FTC about? They would say "Wait... you let ''anybody'' edit your website? There is ''no'' review before changes to articles are published? Are you crazy? Of course you cannot permit companies to slip ad copy into articles about themselves." ... "Wait, you are ''committed'' to being open, and to protecting the privacy of your "editors"??! We probably should just shut you down and protect the public from you idiots." That is about how I imagine that conversation would go. |
|||
:These "let's get all serious about advertising law" conversations kill me because there is no way for Wikipedia-as-it-is to comply. Something drastic would have to change so that the WMF would have control over what gets published. Like any normal publisher does. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 05:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
[[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 22:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::The companies who pay for native advertising can be asked to comply. [[User:SlimVirgin|SarahSV]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</sup></small> 06:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::Sure, one can ask them. We already do, actually. Disclose + prior review is what we ask. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 06:12, 8 December 2017 (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) |
|||
::::That doesn't help the reader, and the reviews are rarely thorough. I'm wondering whether those companies can be asked by the FTC to comply. [[User:SlimVirgin|SarahSV]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</sup></small> 06:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::We should be careful what we wish. Given current U.S. regulatory trends, the outcome could be affrimation of a corporation's unfettered right to place paid advertising on Wikipedia. — [[User:Neonorange|Neonorange]] ([[User talk:Neonorange|talk]]) 06:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::If Wikipedia.en appeals for protection based on server location in the U.S. it should be based on the ''strongest'' constitutional protection available—free press, not a requlatory process subject to who's in power. That keeps government ''and'' corporate forces out. (Forgive me for my bias—when one has a hammer, every target looks to be a nail.) — [[User:Neonorange|Neonorange]] ([[User talk:Neonorange|talk]]) 06:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I'm not quite sure what you mean; violations can always be reported to the FTC, and it will decide on what appropriate action to take. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 08:22, 8 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::Well this is why the WMF's legal opinion is being sought, so the legal responsibilities of all affected parties can be determined. If Wikipedia must change to continue to exist, then everyone should know sooner rather than later. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 08:22, 8 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::I will be surprised if they say anything... [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 13:50, 8 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::I think it would be a mistake to take it onto ourselves to ask the FTC. If anyone ends up asking them, it should be WMF legal. Otherwise, we are putting ourselves in the position of taking a legal role on behalf of the WMF. If WMF legal gives ''us'' guidance, great. And if there really are legal liability issues that affect WMF websites, they ''will''. But if they are non-committal, then we are always free to enact stricter local policies than the global ToU. But don't template this stuff: just delete it. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 17:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*I see no problem with a template message inspired by the FTC rule. Websites can protect themselves as they see fit. they are not regulatory bodies but have a right to see to it that their sites are not abused in that fashion. Wikipedia is noted for not being good at that. The only problem is one of implementation. If an article is already unambiguous advertising it is usually deleted, or should be. [[User:Coretheapple|Coretheapple]] ([[User talk:Coretheapple|talk]]) 15:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::Well, {{u|Coretheapple}}, I think it's much more that it should be, and only occasionally that it is. Some editors seem to take the view that if a paid or COI contribution is not grossly and irredeemably promotional in tone, it is not advertisement. My own view is that if something was created in order to promote, then it is by its nature unambiguous promotion, irrespective of its tone or appearance. It seems to me that the FTC may be taking a similar view. It was suggested [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheryl Nields|in this AfD]] that it may be time to see if there has been a change in community consensus on this, which might lead to a change in policy. I note with interest that [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secrets of a digital marketing ninja |this more recent AfD]] followed a very different path. [[User:Justlettersandnumbers|Justlettersandnumbers]] ([[User talk:Justlettersandnumbers|talk]]) 10:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{ping|Justlettersandnumbers}} I agree with you 100% that tone or appearance is irrelevant. If the community position on this is changing then I would be both surprised and pleased. [[User:Coretheapple|Coretheapple]] ([[User talk:Coretheapple|talk]]) 15:46, 9 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::The first of those two AfDs raises an interesting question: whether, regardless of what the FTC determines, the community might be ready to expand policy to be stronger than the ToU, to make promotional content a sufficient reason to default to delete at AfD unless the topic is unambiguously notable. I think that might be worth exploring. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 16:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Wildly disparate outcomes in AfDs are not unusual. [[User:Coretheapple|Coretheapple]] ([[User talk:Coretheapple|talk]]) 16:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::In cases where there is no identified conflict of interest, tone and appearance is all we have to go by to evaluate promotional content. Some of the quoted examples in the FTC guidance page cover this, too, where a link that would normally be expected to bring you to a non-promotional page instead takes you to an advertisement, regardless of who wrote the destination page. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 17:26, 9 December 2017 (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) |
|||
===Another break=== |
|||
::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) |
|||
Sorry to start a conversation and then just disappear - real world obligations. It looks like this has all been discussed before, e.g. at [[User:Smallbones/Questions on FTC rules]] (the talk page there is also very interesting). This was a petition for information that I sent to the FTC in February 2014. Was it effective? Well, the FTC didn't send a reply to me or make one in public. OTOH, I have good reason to believe, via private conversations, that it reached the right people. |
|||
:::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) |
|||
Specific replies to the above section: |
|||
*Our rules on copyright are a very good model for what we can do here. Who'd have thunk that WP could have stopped the deluge of ripped-off images that flood other internet sites? But - with help from the WMF - we made policies and enforcement mechanisms to stop this and it works - usually less than a dozen DMCA takedown requests each year. |
|||
*Sarah is correct that we need to be very careful to avoid legal threats here. No editor should ever threaten to take another editor to court. If we allowed that, much of our writing would come to a screeching halt. But we do need to be able to discuss in general how one group of editors (probably a large majority) can deal with another group of editors who appear to be breaking the law. One possible response would be "if you, as an individual want to exercise your right (or duty) as a citizen to report a crime in progress, you are free to do so - just keep it off-Wiki." That would be in many ways worse than simple legal threats. Surely, we as a community can come up with something better than that. But doing nothing is not an option. |
|||
* We certainly need to get an opinion from WMF legal, but sometimes when they get asked a direct question their response is something like "We can't advise editors, only the WMF." If they can't answer there might be something else we could do before asking the FTC. Any possible options appreciated here, but the only thing I can think of is going to a public interest lawyer (perhaps [[Chris Hoofnagle]] of UC Berkeley, who wrote a book on the FTC). [[User:Smallbones|Smallbones]]<sub>([[User talk:Smallbones|<span style="color: #cc6600;">smalltalk</span>]])</sub> 17:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::These are all very good points, especially the analogy to copyright. We are not copyright lawyers but we act against copyright violations every day. [[User:Coretheapple|Coretheapple]] ([[User talk:Coretheapple|talk]]) 15:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::At a minimum we ought to know what the WMF considers to be necessary to cover its own liability. If it doesn't feel that immediate article blanking is necessary, for example, to protect its status as a distributor of information without editorial control, then this would be useful to know. For individual editors, I think the question will come down more to what process can be agreed upon that will not be unduly onerous. Unless a lot of volunteers appear to review everything for promotional editing, it's going to be difficult to be proactive in monitoring it. As I mentioned previously, I think getting researchers to help with automated detection would be highly desirable. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 17:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::Frankly I'm not concerned with the WMF's liability. They have a paid staff and can reach out to the community if they feel there is an issue from the Foundation perspective. On paid editing their actions have been limited and grudging. I do agree with you in general however. [[User:Coretheapple|Coretheapple]] ([[User talk:Coretheapple|talk]]) 23:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::It's not a personal concern; it's just closing the loop on what might keep the servers from running. Otherwise, they'll be a lot of speculation about what may or may not be necessary. If the answer is "nothing more is needed", then it removes some potential constraints. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 23:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:WMF's own liability? We already can assume what they will say, they have no liability because they do not create the content. Liability falls on the advertiser. -- [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 13:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::We can assume a lot of things; nonetheless, it would be nice to hear the WMF's own take on their role as an unmoderated content distributor versus a publisher, and how this interacts with the relevant advertising regulations. (As evidenced by some earlier posts, some editors have a different view than yours.)[[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 15:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::If you expect them to say anything other than they have no liability, it's a waste of time. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 15:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::Our responsibility as editors is to ask them and be interested in any substantive reply that they might give. But beyond that, yeah, if they say nothing after a reasonable amount of time or just blow it off like that, then we as a community should feel free to enact policies that are more strict than the ToU. We just should not be making legal determinations; simply base it on editing policy. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 15:54, 10 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Our responsibility as editors to ask them? No, it's not. At any rate, you are free to ask them anything you want, but why you would expect them to tell you they have any liability is beyond reason. -- [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 15:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::::''Sigh.'' Anyway, it's smart to ask them, albeit no need to be overly concerned with whether they reply. I'm not in the business of assuming that I already know what other people are going to say, but you personally can do or not do whatever you want. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 16:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Not as editors, but as people who work together on a project, it's nice to ask each other what we think, even if it's just a double-check to confirm what some already believe (others have expressed other opinions). I don't want to get into what I expect, because it's not really important; asking is just a reasonable way to try to stay in sync. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 17:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::If there is no additional input, then I think any arguments along the lines of "X is necessary to avoid Wikipedia being shut down" become specious. The community can take upon itself the task of increasing screening, if it wishes, but there's no collective legal responsibility to do so. (On a side note, because the current Terms of Use only deals with disclosure of paid editing (while of course covering other matters), and this discussion is on promotional editing in general, I'd as soon not compare the two since they have different scopes, though I understand why in some sense you are calling it a stricter policy than the Terms of Use.) [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 17:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::::The Terms of Use already ban every illegal act. If you want them to amend the Terms of Use feel free, but all illegal conduct is already forbidden. As for "collective legal responsibility", that's a concept that really makes no sense for a whole host of reasons. -- [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 17:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Sure, I agree with that (on a side note, there's been no discussion of amending the Terms of Use). Some people feel there is a legal obligation for the community to perform certain actions to protect Wikipedia from being shut down, though. If after raising concerns to the WMF on this matter no response is forthcoming, then as I alluded to, this argument becomes irrelevant. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 17:54, 10 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::I agree with what Isaacl is saying. Since we are parsing words more than I had originally expected, I'd like to clarify what I intended to say. When I used the word "responsibility", what I had in mind is that, so long as we ask WMF legal, then they are never going to say that we failed to contact them, regardless of whether they do or do not offer a legal opinion. I don't think that any editors are legally liable for asking WMF legal; I just think that it makes sense to draw their attention to it and be interested in anything that they might say. I have zero expectation that anyone in the US is going to try to shut us down. In the hypothetical instance that WMF legal offers an opinion that anything spammy might be violating FTC regulations, then that would be a good reason for us to make an en-Wiki policy that bans all paid editing and makes it easier to remove all promotional or COI-ish content. That's hypothetical, and if it's not what happens, then it's up to the community what our policies should be. I think it would be a good idea for us to place more restrictions on paid editing, beyond the minimal requirements for disclosure that are set by the ToU, and ''that'' is what I mean by "stricter". --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 18:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Let's back-up, because now you both have at least two different questions for the WMF. Issacl, is the one as far as I can tell, that came up with this question 'What, WMF, is your liability?' Which I think I have indicated is a terrible question -- you won't get any responsible person/corporation to speculate on their liability publicly. Typtofish's question is more amorphous to capture but perhaps is, 'What, WMF, does the FTC require in its rules for me as an editor?' The response to that will likely be 'we cannot give you legal advice.' At any rate, I am pointing out the differences and deficiencies in these questions and was only focused on the liability one, till now. -- [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 11:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::I suggest that we simply ask them to take a look at the discussion here, and to comment on anything that they want to say about how the FTC regulations do or do not apply to paid editing content at en-Wiki. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 17:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::The question that was raised by others (*) is for the WMF to provide comments on how FTC regulations affect the editing process on English Wikipedia. As previously stated, the WMF has historically only commented on what affects itself, so if previous trends hold, if they comment at all, this is what they'd discuss. (*) Personally, I don't feel a strong need to engage the WMF, but since others are interested, I think it may be helpful so we can save some time by avoiding unnecessary speculation. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 21:14, 11 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::Indeed, we've been spending too much time in unnecessary speculation. So, done: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASlaporte_%28WMF%29&type=revision&diff=814957264&oldid=704908123]. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 22:11, 11 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
{{collapse top|this isn't relevant to the actual proposal <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Dennis Brown|Dennis Brown]] ([[User talk:Dennis Brown#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Dennis Brown|contribs]]) </small>}} |
|||
=== Note from Wikimedia Legal === |
|||
We looked at some similar rules in the United States and elsewhere when we were drafting the disclosure requirement in the Terms of Use. The FTC's Enforcement Policy Statement on Deceptively Formatted Advertisements came out after the Wikimedia's disclosure requirement in the Terms of Use, but the FTC did have disclosure rules for deceptive online marketing at the time. The [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/FAQ_on_paid_contributions_without_disclosure#What_is_the_"applicable_law"_for_paid_contributions_on_Wikipedia_and_its_sister_sites?_Are_undisclosed_paid_contributions_potentially_illegal? FAQ response explains] that users are responsible for following these rules when they contribute to Wikipedia, in addition to following community policies. |
|||
: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. |
|||
I cannot say exactly where the FTC is likely to take an enforcement action. I expect given their limited resources that they are likely to focus on cases where there was a significant misrepresentation that caused harm to many consumers in the United States. If you see a case where you believe that has happened on Wikipedia, please send it privately to [Mailto:legal@wikimedia.org legal@wikimedia.org] so we can evaluate it. |
|||
: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. |
|||
Starting in January, I can work with one of our Legal Fellows to prepare a more detailed statement on what the FTC disclosure rules mean for Wikipedia, but please be aware that this will probably take a few months of research to complete. If there are particular questions that you would like the Legal Fellow's research to address (if possible), you can add a note on my talk page. Thanks, [[User:Slaporte (WMF)|Stephen LaPorte (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Slaporte (WMF)|talk]]) 23:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:I'll ask at his talk about whether there are implications for whether we should permit paid edits. I encourage other editors to add other questions if they wish. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 23:39, 14 December 2017 (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. |
|||
:{{u|Slaporte (WMF)|Stephen}}, thank you, it would be very helpful to have a statement from you about what the FTC rules mean for Wikipedia. [[User:SlimVirgin|SarahSV]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</sup></small> 18:29, 15 December 2017 (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. |
|||
===Advertising?=== |
|||
I'd like to weigh in from the perspective of a paid consultant (always disclosed, no direct editing, guideline-compliant) who is both a veteran of Wikipedia and the PR / marketing industry. In reading the threads above, the question I kept coming back to was: should we so readily accept the notion that a Wikipedia article may constitute "advertising"? The definition is notoriously difficult to pin down (as {{u|Smallbones}} observes above). But there are reasons to be skeptical. |
|||
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. |
|||
Wikipedia is very cautious about discussing [[WP:ENDORSEMENTS]] and makes none of its own, while [[WP:NOR]] specifically prohibits making unverified claims. Active projects like [[WP:COI/N]] prove that Wikipedia is far from negligent in dealing with undisclosed paid editing. When things do go wrong, as {{u|SlimVirgin|SarahSV}} has already pointed out, Wikipedia has an <nowiki>{{advert}}</nowiki> tag to highlight overly promotional content. |
|||
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". |
|||
Meanwhile, the [https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/press-releases/ftc-staff-revises-online-advertising-disclosure-guidelines/130312dotcomdisclosures.pdf FTC's guidelines], which never mention Wikipedia, are focused on prescribing rules for a vast number of independent commercial entities operating across a number of social networks and blogging platforms; Wikipedia of course is a non-commercial educational resource with specific and transparent rules for its many contributors, not the least of which is [[WP:NOTADVERTISING]]. |
|||
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) |
|||
All of which is to say, I think Wikipedia's community should make up its own mind about how to handle paid contributions. Wikipedia's model is very different from any other globally popular website, and it would be a mistake to preemptively adapt itself to rules never intended for it. |
|||
: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. |
|||
Two final points: I think asking WMF Legal is a fine idea, even if it's unlikely to produce clarity. And, if this discussion does lead to policy changes, my team will abide by whatever the community decides. [[User:WWB|WWB]] ([[User talk:WWB|talk]]) 18:58, 13 December 2017 (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. |
|||
*To your first question: Yes. As I told one of your colleagues on IRC the other day, the ultimate question to ask here is ''Would an article on the fifth most popular website in the world be the most significant coverage the subject has received?'' If the answer to that question is ''yes'' and the client has paid for the article, it is clearly a paid advertisement by any reasonable use of the term. This means it is already disallowed by Wikipedia policy (i.e. NOTSPAM). To use a directly relatable example from other websites: news media that accept articles on their websites that are sponsored content clearly mark it as such precisely because it is an advertisement, even if the content is written to mimic the style of neutral journalism, and you're going to be hard pressed to find someone who doesn't consider that paid advertising. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 19:10, 13 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
: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? |
|||
*Of course a Wikipedia article can constitute advertising (if the company/paid editors are breaking our rules). The FTC is completely consistent in repeating that all forms of media can be (illegally) used for advertising, even just talking to potential customers. If they're selling something (which all businesses are), and their communication here can in any way help the sales effort, then it is advertising. Feel free to prove me wrong on this - but please don't come in with a touchy-feely "I've got a feeling that ..." type of argument. [[User:Smallbones|Smallbones]]<sub>([[User talk:Smallbones|<span style="color: #cc6600;">smalltalk</span>]])</sub> 19:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
: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 == |
|||
::Other websites that include sponsored content allow the company to say whatever they like, unedited, whereas Wikipedia volunteers can make changes to submitted content at any time. That's a very significant difference; no company can [[WP:OWN]] what is said about them here. (Because I take this seriously, we only submit content for review, never editing directly, even though this is not required by policy.) Besides which, Wikipedia's high visibility does not alone make its content an advertisement, it just raises the stakes for only accepting guideline-compliant content. [[User:WWB|WWB]] ([[User talk:WWB|talk]]) 19:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
{{tqb| |
|||
:::I think that's pretty disingenuous and presenting the issue in a way that is most favourable to yourself. I recently went through some of the articles your firm created on BLPs with Drmies, and they were obvious promotional biographies written in violation of the promotion policy ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_Karp&oldid=810990532 commissioned work], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_Karp&oldid=815058798 current version]). No neutral editor would have ever constructed them in that way, but they got through AfC because they weren't deletion-worthy offenses and were of major figures in their industries. While it is correct that COI is a guideline, NOTSPAM is a policy and is not optional. I think you all are trying to be white hats here, but it goes to the point that some of us have been making that even those who ''want'' to follow the policies and guidelines more often than not are not able to do so.{{pb}}By drafting articles for companies and presenting them for review, you give the subject a leg up over a person or company that has to wait for a volunteer to write the article: obviously the client already approves of everything that is presented in the biography and how it is written. If a part is removed, it likely won't be a complete rewrite, and the core of the draft written to positively reflect the client will still be there. Most subjects that pay for articles are also normally not major figures who receive a lot of attention: meaning that the article once approved through AfC is exceptionally likely to stay in the same state undisturbed for years. The simple fact that anyone ''can'' edit it doesn't mean that the content is ''actually'' edited. The problem here is structural in that once a draft of anything is written, that initial version controls how subsequent versions develop. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 19:48, 13 December 2017 (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 guideline outlines the types of conflicts and specifies the conduct required for editors who may be affected by them. |
|||
::::I'm sorry you think I'm being disingenuous; I did make clear I was offering my perspective as someone who does this kind of work. While we always strive to produce neutral, well-sourced drafts, I also recognize that opinions will differ about specific content—again, this is why we always work through existing processes. Separate from the FTC discussion, I would welcome a more orderly and visible process for the submission and review of COI contributions; it would be good for Wikipedia and for companies (who find this place so confusing) alike. [[User:WWB|WWB]] ([[User talk:WWB|talk]]) 20:01, 13 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::First, your comment that "websites that include sponsored content allow the company to say whatever they like, unedited" is wrong -- they would get into all kinds of trouble for that, harming their good will, bottom line, and their legal liability. It's just required that those who sponsor content disclose (and follow the editing/publishing control) of the website, whether they want to or not, it's simply the right, legal, and ethical thing to do. [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 14:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::::{{ping|Alanscottwalker}} It stands to reason some have tighter restrictions than others, as editorial standards differ among all publications. My contention is that there is a material difference here: with native ads in digital publications, only the business ends of both parties know where the line is. On Wikipedia, protocols for permitting transparent COI suggestions have existed for years, and the volunteer community always has final say. [[User:WWB|WWB]] ([[User talk:WWB|talk]]) 20:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
===Financial Conflict of Interest=== |
|||
On {{u|WWB}}'s talk page he says that some of my comments on this page seem to imply that talk page edits by paid editors are illegal. I can't find that here, but I'll emphasize that I'm always referring to article page in discussions here *and* that even when talking about article pages, if I say "illegal" it means not following US law and Wikipedia rules at the same time, e.g. when not fully disclosing on the article page. I support paid editors posting on talk pages, while making a full disclosure there (which is allowed under Wikipedia rules). The ToU FAQs say this very well: |
|||
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: |
|||
{{quote|Where legally-required disclosures cannot be made in a way that complies with community rules, the community rules take precedence. For example, if local laws require disclosure of sponsorship of an edit in the article text itself, and putting such a message in the article text violated community rules (as it likely does in most projects), then such edits would be prohibited.[https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/FAQ_on_paid_contributions_without_disclosure#What_is_the_%22applicable_law%22_for_paid_contributions_on_Wikipedia_and_its_sister_sites?_Are_undisclosed_paid_contributions_potentially_illegal? ToU FAQs]}} |
|||
*'''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=== |
|||
The Wikipedia rules that would prevent a full disclosure on the article page are fundamental, including [[WP:OWN]], [[Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles]], [[WP:RS]], WP:NOADS, WP:NOR, probably privacy rules, and some things that are so fundamental and obvious that we haven't even written rules for them, e.g. everybody can edit any words (except direct quotes). I just can't imagine that we'd change those rules so as to put ads in articles, or how we'd put in full disclosure without changing those rules. |
|||
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: |
|||
[[User:Smallbones|Smallbones]]<sub>([[User talk:Smallbones|<span style="color: #cc6600;">smalltalk</span>]])</sub> 17:01, 15 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Personal Relationships:''' Editing articles about friends, colleagues, family members, romantic partners, or personal adversaries can lead to biased content, whether overly favorable or unduly negative. |
|||
*'''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=== |
|||
:Got it, thanks for clarifying. I don't mean to say you ''explicitly'' claimed COI talk page participation would be prohibited but, reading between the lines, it wasn't entirely clear to me there was always a distinction being made. Glad to know I was reading too much into it. [[User:WWB|WWB]] ([[User talk:WWB|talk]]) 00:35, 16 December 2017 (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=== |
|||
<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> |
|||
:Hello, there, {{u|RedditRabbit}}. I am one of the administrators named in that post as being a paid editor. As is well known, I am Jim Heaphy. I hereby forcefully and unequivocally deny doing any paid editing whatsoever. I reveal my real world identity openly, and have been self employed for nearly 25 years. I have sometimes agreed with William Buetler and sometimes disagreed strongly, as any reader of my talk page can confirm. Spreading lies can damage real world professional reputations. Please stop spreading lies. [[User:Cullen328|<b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328</sup>]] [[User talk:Cullen328|<span style="color:#00F">''Let's discuss it''</span>]] 04:54, 17 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::I've reverted the trolling. Totally agree with {{u|Cullen328}}, but let's not feed this troll. [[User:Smallbones|Smallbones]]<sub>([[User talk:Smallbones|<span style="color: #cc6600;">smalltalk</span>]])</sub> 05:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
==== General exceptions==== |
|||
== DPE tag (disclosed paid) == |
|||
# 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==== |
|||
{{DPE}} |
|||
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: |
|||
Was there a discussion about creating and applying this {{Tl|DPE}}? I see a request at [[Wikipedia:Requested templates]] but no discussion there. ☆ [[User:Bri|Bri]] ([[User talk:Bri|talk]]) 15:42, 11 December 2017 (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''. |
|||
:No. Some discussion was had at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Disclosed_paid] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:144_Edward_Street,_Brisbane#Unhelpful], but nothing official.--[[User:SamHolt6|SamHolt6]] ([[User talk:SamHolt6|talk]]) 16:08, 11 December 2017 (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}} |
|||
::I see that on December 7, {{U|Kerry Raymond}} recommended it go to Village Pump before being applied to articles. ☆ [[User:Bri|Bri]] ([[User talk:Bri|talk]]) 20:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::I wouldn't want to use it on an article page, perhaps on a talk page. [[User:Smallbones|Smallbones]]<sub>([[User talk:Smallbones|<span style="color: #cc6600;">smalltalk</span>]])</sub> 06:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:According to the [[Conflict-of-interest_editing_on_Wikipedia#European_fair_trading_law|position taken by a German judge]], a disclosure on the article page is required by European fair trading law, correct? [[User:Rentier|Rentier]] ([[User talk:Rentier|talk]]) 18:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::I think that is correct as far as it goes, but it doesn't go far enough. It might be giving the impression that any commercial editing is legal on Wikipedia, as long as you slap that tag on it. I believe that is incorrect. There is a question on whether enWiki needs to deal with German law (and how about Canadian, UK, French, Indian, Australian, California state, New York state, etc.) If it is the case that all these laws have to be followed, I believe that any commercial edit would be against the law, whether it has a tag or not. Even if the only laws that have to be followed are US federal, California state, and the country where the editor is editing from, the likely outcome is that no commercial edits are legal, with or without a tag. US FTC rules likely prohibit 98% of commercial edits (other agencies regulate some areas like drugs and stock issue ads), if we combine them with current core Wikipedia rules. |
|||
::FTC rules say that the advertising text has to be clearly identified as an ad on the same page near the ad - essentially readers have to know that it is an ad before they read it. "Advertisements" would include almost any communication from the company, even if it is NPOV. So let's see how this would work on Wikipedia. The paid editor or employee puts a box like the above that says "this is an ad" and in many articles, which company is adding it. Of course if they add that notice, somebody will immediately delete the edit per [[WP:NOADS]]. The part of the article that is an ad would likely have to be identified - maybe by a box. But then that could not be edited because it is attributed to a specific company. We don't have un-editable text in articles and we would need a method to make sure the text really comes from the specified company, and it would seem to violate [[WP:Own]]. It just wouldn't work under our editing rules. There are other ridiculous outcomes that would come from assuming that a tag would make everything legal. The only way to make company edits legal is to keep them off the article page. Tags just don't do it. [[User:Smallbones|Smallbones]]<sub>([[User talk:Smallbones|<span style="color: #cc6600;">smalltalk</span>]])</sub> 04:57, 13 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
I have updated the proposed changes per the discussion above. In particular, this has included the expansion of exceptions based on the exceptions listed at [[WP:3RRNO]], and changed this from a proposed policy to a guideline - this would replace the current content, with most of the current content becoming part of a supplementary essay. Personally, I do believe this would be better as a policy, but better to handle one change at a time. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 02:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::I'd like to echo some of {{u|Smallbones}}' concerns, as well as those of {{u|Kerry Raymond}} at {{diff|Template_talk:Disclosed_paid|814125676|814092843|Template_talk:Disclosed_paid}}. My interests are both general as a veteran editor, and local as a paid consultant: some articles that my company has contributed to have been tagged, even though we have made no direct edits to these articles, and we always post the [[Template:Connected contributor (paid)|Connected contributor (paid)]] template on talk pages. Wittingly or otherwise, the DPE tag puts companies (and editors) who have followed the rules carefully in the same category as those who do not. |
|||
*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. |
|||
:::In general, the idea of calling out paid contributions seems helpful, but that's not what this tag does: by only applying to pages where someone who has disclosed a paid conflict, it has a blind spot for undisclosed paid editing. If the goal is to ensure that readers are aware of when there's been paid involvement in a page, this might end up being a step back rather than a step forward as it's unlikely to encourage companies to disclose their involvement. The opposite is far more likely. |
|||
*'''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. |
|||
:::Moreover, no other Wikipedia template messages are intended to remain indefinitely, as this one seems to be. If there is problematic content, many other warning templates exist already, all pointing to specific issues that can be addressed. This one offers no way to correct content issues, nor does it say if there are any. (See also [[Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#Advertising|my concerns about trying to follow FTC rules not intended for Wikipedia]] above.) An RfC or Village pump discussion could be a good idea. [[User:WWB|WWB]] ([[User talk:WWB|talk]]) 19:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
}} |
|||
* 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) |
|||
::::Placing a [[Template:Connected contributor (paid)|Connected contributor (paid)]] template on article talk pages is i) to identify the contributor account is a paid editor to enable them to place "edit request" templates on talk pages and do discuss on talk, ii) obviously a paid conflicted editor cannot edit the article page themself to place DPE tages, which will be placed by unpaid / neutral editors. No, the purpose of DPE is because it is required by applicable law and these local COI guidelines mentioned in WMF Term of Usage FAQ on paid edit to warn readers and potential consumers ... {{tq|Advertisements or promotional messages are deceptive if they convey to consumers expressly or by implication that they’re independent, impartial, or from a source other than the sponsoring advertiser ...}} {{tq|readers cannot be expected to seek out user and talk pages to find editors' disclosures about their corporate affiliation}}. In short CP tag is to identify the paid editor to other editors of Wikipedia on discussion pages whereas DPE tag is to identify the paid content in article. Two different tages with different purpose and usage. Sorry for my poor english. [[User:Israelpetersen|Israelpetersen]] ([[User talk:Israelpetersen|talk]]) 04:58, 14 December 2017 (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. |
|||
:::::You're right that the connected contributor template warns other editors. The green quote from the FTC is also correct and we must follow it if we allow paid editing in the article. But the new template doesn't meet the FTC requirements. It doesn't identify the "sponsored text", it doesn't identify the "sponsoring advertiser". The tag also seems to imply that if you slap it on an article, it solves all the problems - it just doesn't. If the advertisers can't edit the article page without the tag, and they can't edit the page with the tag, the obvious conclusion is that they can't edit the article page. [[User:Smallbones|Smallbones]]<sub>([[User talk:Smallbones|<span style="color: #cc6600;">smalltalk</span>]])</sub> 13:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*: 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) |
|||
== COI issues? == |
|||
I don't know how to solve this "issue," I'm not well versed in WikiPolicy. An article about an organization was edited earlier by a member (anon IP) of it's marketing team ([[User_talk:Buffaboy#Kaleida_Health's_pages|self disclosed on my talk page]]). I welcomed the person and let them know of the guidelines. |
|||
I don't want to put it on the noticeboard because the conversation has been respectful and [[WP:civil|civil]]. At the same time, it's obviously an issue, what am I supposed to do? I would rather not drag myself into a discussion on something I just happened to come across. [[User:Buffaboy|<span style="font-weight: bold; color: #002C73;">Buffaboy</span>]] [[User talk:Buffaboy|<sup><span style="font-weight: bold; color: #EDA900; ">talk</span></sup>]] 20:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ping|Buffaboy}} Thanks for letting us know. After a 2 minute review of the article, it does look like there's several problems. He must declare on his user page ==> he should get an account. He can't remove the critical info that he did on the last edit. I'd advise him to go to [[WP:COIN]] and ask advise there - they probably won't bite his head off. Of course when his boss finds out what he con't do, the boss might bite his head off. [[User:Smallbones|Smallbones]]<sub>([[User talk:Smallbones|<span style="color: #cc6600;">smalltalk</span>]])</sub> 06:11, 12 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::Thanks. When I saw a section was removed about criticism, it was eyebrow raising to me. In addition, someone on the talk page mentioned this kind of behavior a few years ago but it went unanswered. [[User:Buffaboy|<span style="font-weight: bold; color: #002C73;">Buffaboy</span>]] [[User talk:Buffaboy|<sup><span style="font-weight: bold; color: #EDA900; ">talk</span></sup>]] 06:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== "Unmanaged" COI == |
|||
I've copy-edited [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AConflict_of_interest&type=revision&diff=816018528&oldid=816017676 the new text] added by Jytdog, but I'm not sure I agree with adding it. First, what is an "unmanaged" COI in this context? Second, people with a disclosed COI are likely to exhibit at least some of the same problems. Most of the issues caused by COI don't disappear when the COI is disclosed. Promotional editing, for example, doesn't stop. [[User:SlimVirgin|SarahSV]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</sup></small> 21:02, 18 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:I, too, think that "unmanaged" is an odd choice of word, but I think that a paragraph that describes the harm done by COI editing can be useful. I made this edit: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest&curid=7748754&diff=816037101&oldid=816035843]. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 21:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::Thank you, that's better. [[User:SlimVirgin|SarahSV]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</sup></small> 21:12, 18 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
* If somebody is allowing their COI to be managed, these problems don't happen. It is unmanaged COI that causes problems. But I am fine with the changed content. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 23:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::Thanks, both of you! I'm glad we, um, managed to work that out. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 01:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::And I think Isaacl's edit is a further improvement. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 01:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== "cannot know" == |
|||
This was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest&oldid=815169467 formerly] sourced to Davis 2001 as well as Norman & McDonald 2012. I have those sources and they do not support "cannot know". |
|||
The Norman & McDonald 2012 ref says things like: |
|||
* "But as we shall explore below, there is reason to believe that individuals '''often''' cannot make good use of information about their own cognitive capacities and biases, even when such information can be made available" |
|||
* "... the literature on cognitive and motivational biases suggests that such biases '''typically''' affect judgment without the individuals involved being aware of it." |
|||
* "Michaely and Womack, for example, point to the existence of cognitive biases as plausibly implying that analysts are '''often''' not just unwilling, but psychologically unable, “to accept the statistical reality that many of their IPOs will turn out to be average or below average.”" |
|||
* "Moore, Loewenstein, Tanlu, and Bazerman present experimental data suggesting that auditors '''may be''' unable to overcome biases in favor of their clients even when motivated financially to make their audits accurate, rather than favorable." |
|||
Emphases added. These words "often", "typically", etc, are important. |
|||
[https://books.google.com/books?id=UlnkFoWsPCkC&pg=PA11 Davis] could not be more clear that he is discussing a ''tendency'' - everything is nuanced by "insofaras"; even the quoted bit - which used to say "esteem too highly their own reliability" actually says "'''often''' esteem too highly..." (I have fixed, by moving the quotation mark) |
|||
No where in either of these well-written and well-though-out academic works, is anything as flat and simplistic as ..."Editors with a COI cannot know whether or how much it has influenced their editing." or "Conflicted individuals cannot know the extent to which they have been influenced". |
|||
I changed these to fit the refs. Whether it is "often cannot know" or "are typically unaware" or whatever, it needs to be nuanced to fit the refs (not to mention reality - people sometimes do know how much they are influenced, and do things like recuse themselves to avoid causing problems.) The "cannot" is ... unsupported, as well as so silly that it discredits this important guideline. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 23:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:Gain consensus to make a change once you're reverted. And please stop making sloppy edits. [[User:SlimVirgin|SarahSV]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</sup></small> 00:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::What is sloppy is the simplisticness of this. I will walk away and let others try to reason with you. You are the one [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest&diff=next&oldid=816031870 breaking] your own baroque formatting, in any case. I cleaned up that mess for you. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 00:08, 19 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::Far be it from me to get in between you two, but I would come down on the side of ''not'' saying "cannot". The absolute certainty that it implies about what someone else is thinking seems excessive to me. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 01:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::After going through the newest edits, I'm OK with "often cannot know". --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 01:46, 19 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::A comment about "cannot know" from the arbcom case yesterday [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase%2FConduct_of_Mister_Wiki_editors%2FWorkshop&type=revision&diff=816236707&oldid=816141740 here] by [[User:Risker]]. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 19:09, 20 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::Does the addition of "often" sufficiently modify it, or should it be revised further? I'm not sure, myself. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 23:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::"often cannot" is less bad sure. i had offered "typically unaware" the first time and "generally unaware" the second. i like "typically unaware" or maybe "usually unaware" best so far; we don't have to get metaphysical here but should rather describe (cognitive) behavior. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 01:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I have to agree that cannot know is a misrepresentation of the sources, and no one should have reasonably restored that. That removal should be uncontroversial at this point, and the above options you list are all in a similar ballpark. Beyond that, we're splitting hairs, so typically or generally unaware is more than concise and in line with the sources. [[User:Kingofaces43|Kingofaces43]] ([[User talk:Kingofaces43|talk]]) 04:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*I think what I'm seeing here is, frankly, a conflict of interest on the topic of conflict of interest. If you want to put that in an article about conflict of interest, it might possibly belong *there*. But this pseudo-scientific psychobabble does not belong in a Wikipedia editing guideline. This guideline is unreadable, and the section in which this is used is completely pointless. Here's my suggestion: knock this entire guideline down to 20K from its current 50K length. Include ONLY the essentials. Then you might actually have something workable here. Or better yet, everyone who has edited the guideline in the past year should....stop. (Yes, all of you.) It is reflective of the beliefs and philosophies of a handful of editors. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 03:48, 21 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*I broadly agree with {{u|Risker}} that this page could cut a lot down (and I would hardly be called weak on COI or paid). Wikipedia's behavioral policies and guidelines strive to present what is currently accepted practice and how we expect other editors to behave. This gets too much into the theory behind it. I think we would have a more effective policy if we focused on explaining what is expected and less on explaining the theory behind it. I don't know what specifically should be changed, but I think less talk of theory and more talk on guidelines is best. I'm not sure I'd cut it down to 20K, but there is room for some trimming. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 04:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*Interesting, because I was reading the whole thing again last night and had the same thoughts. Nobody is ever going to read all that. {{U|Risker}} is absolutely right. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 14:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Meanwhile, back at the discussion about "cannot know", I just changed it to "typically unaware" per Jytdog, and I agree with him and with KofA that the cannot-know language was just wrong. But, OMG!, I guess that means I'm now banned from the guideline page for a year (hey Risker, tell us what you ''really'' think!). I hope I'm still allowed at this talk page. But I gotta say that making that edit was a significant hassle, in light of the overly fussy markup. So I do agree with the call to prune this tangle into something much shorter. And here's what I suggest: get rid of ''all'' of the gobbledygook about the underlying sociology of COI, and frankly, a guideline like this does not need references, much less multiple layers of references. Just say what to do and what not to do. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 00:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Yes, my suggestion would be to moving discussion of different conflict-of-interest scenarios to a separate page, and keep this page to just the guidance for what editors should do. I can work on a draft, though I probably cannot start on it until the new year, and for any supporting pages, I won't have access to any of the sources that aren't available on the web. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 05:09, 22 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== Statutory advisory warnings for Wikipedia readers in Germany and European Union per [[WP:COI]] == |
|||
I remind everyone that the Wikimedia Foundation's servers racks are "co-located" in Europe in Netherlands. esams EvoSwitch in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, knams : Kennisnet in Amsterdam, the Netherlands [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_servers source]. So EU law is directly applicable to all edits made to Wikipedia from anywhere by anyone in addition to US law. |
|||
If there is a local ENWP policy which prevents clear, bold and prominent disclosure to EU readers that any article is almost entirely written by the subject themselves, then I propose such article should be immediately and speedily deleted under the WMF terms of usage. |
|||
Please see {{tq| if local laws require disclosure of sponsorship of an edit in the article text itself, and putting such a message in the article text violated community rules (as it likely does in most projects), then such edits would be prohibited}} [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/FAQ_on_paid_contributions_without_disclosure#What_is_the_%22applicable_law%22_for_paid_contributions_on_Wikipedia_and_its_sister_sites?_Are_undisclosed_paid_contributions_potentially_illegal? source]. Under EU law it is not material if the covert advertising of the employer is placed directly into the article by employee of article subjects or indirectly through a volunteer of Wikipedia. In either case all covert advertising must be prominently and boldly disclosed in close proximity to the advertising promotion and not on some user or talk page. |
|||
=== [[WP:PAID]] versus Paid disclosure template. clarifications === |
|||
== Guideline revision version 3 == |
|||
Some paid editors / GLAM editors suggest that WP:PAID permits paid editing without bold in-article disclosure if the content is indirectly inserted by a volunteer. This is incorrect. |
|||
{{tqb| |
|||
The Wikipedia policy [[WP:PAID]] itself states that {{tq|Paid editing is '''further regulated''' by a community guideline, [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest]].}} |
|||
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 integral part of these regulating conflict guidelines which have community consensus is {{tq|In 2012 the Munich Oberlandesgericht court ruled that if a company or its agents edit Wikipedia with the aim of influencing customers, the edits constitute covert advertising, and as such are a violation of European fair-trading law. The ruling stated that readers cannot be expected to seek out user and talk pages to find editors' disclosures about their corporate affiliation}} |
|||
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=== |
|||
So Wikipedia administrators must respect their own policy and community consensus by disallowing such sponsored covert advertising without disclosure which are deceiving European Union residents. Factually, the moment the Wikipedia advertorials enter EU territory and WMF EU servers it automatically comes under our local law and EU user are automaticaly entitled to remove it / warn against it under WMF's Terms of Usage. |
|||
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=== |
|||
The present community consensus contained in the [[WP:COI]] guidelines (in terms of the court judgments) is that by even placing these draft edits anywhere on Wikipedia it instantly constitutes [[WP:COVERT|covert advertising]] in Europe and is a violation of European law. |
|||
*'''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=== |
|||
So also, as a German resident of EU, I propose all deceptive covert advertising if detected and reported should be removed immediately by a Wikipedia administrator to comply with my applicable law which is explicit that if there is "sponsored" content it should be prominently disclosed to me before I read the article. |
|||
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==== |
|||
NB: The WMF legal team is going to examine only the FTC guidelines and has never disputed or challenged the EU judgments which are binding on them and their authorised local chapters and should be implemented immediately. [[Special:Contributions/91.49.40.172|91.49.40.172]] ([[User talk:91.49.40.172|talk]]) 08:16, 22 December 2017 (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==== |
|||
:Thanks for this information. This is a decision that en-Wiki editors probably need to make after consultation with WMF legal, and I will notify them of it. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 01:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
A Wikimedian in Residence (WIR) is a professional role in communications for an organization to share its knowledge within the Wikimedia platform, measure the impact of the same, and promote Wikipedia through training, education, and edit-a-thons. While WIRs can greatly benefit Wikipedia, there is a risk of edits that could unduly benefit their employers. To manage this risk, the following guidelines apply: |
|||
*'''Scope of Editing''': WIRs may edit articles related to but not directly involving their institution. They must not edit articles where their institution is the primary subject or could reasonably be seen as directly benefiting from the article's content; if they wish to make changes to such articles they must follow the instructions at [[#Managing Conflicts]] for ''Editors with a Financial Conflict''. |
|||
*'''Disclosure Requirements''': WIRs must clearly disclose their role and association with their institution on their user page, as well as in any discussions or edits related to their role as a WIR |
|||
===Reporting suspected violations=== |
|||
::{{ping|91.49.40.172}} This is quite important. I'd like to know how other EU countries have reacted to the court ruling (and how the effected Wiki language versions, especially the German and Dutch, have reacted). What safeguards have been established to make sure the ruling is followed? Are there site policies or noticeboards? If not could you put together a petition to WMF legal? |
|||
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. |
|||
::There are complicating factors such as how English-speaking Wikipedians would react to us being forced to implement a German court ruling, or the other way around, how German-speaking Wikipedians would react to being forced to implement the rules of a US regulatory agency? Would laws and regulations in say Canada, Norway, Australia, or Japan have any influence? Or is it only determined by the location of the servers? |
|||
::Most of the people who follow this page would probably support something along the line of what you suggest - the only real question is how we go about doing it. [[User:Smallbones|Smallbones]]<sub>([[User talk:Smallbones|<span style="color: #cc6600;">smalltalk</span>]])</sub> 23:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::IANAL, but typically it matters where the servers and users are located. In cases where there are cloud services in several farms in several countries, and any connection could go to any server, then you're typically forced to adhere to the laws in all regions where servers are located. If the servers are in the US, all users would have to adhere to US law while users in other countries would have to also adhere to their nation's laws. Of course, whether they should or do actually follow those laws may depend on whether their nation and the US have a extradition treaty. If the servers were in the US and the UK, all users would have to follow both sets of laws while users also adhere to their home nation's laws.--v/r - [[User:TParis|T]][[User_talk:TParis|P]] 23:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::IANAL. As far as I‘m aware there is no official dewiki policy on this matter other than [[:de:Wikipedia:Interessenskonflikt]] (WP:IK). WP:IK mainly explains WMF’s ToU. Paid editors are obliged to state their COI in the edit summary, on the article talkpage, or their own user page. Our policy mentions the court rulings in Germany and France and warns companies, that clandestine paid editing might violate european and german trade laws. But AFAIK thats‘s only enforceable by their market competitors, not by anyone. —[[User:MBq|MBq]] ([[User talk:MBq|talk]]) 20:18, 24 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::Whether the laws are enforceable or not, I hope we can all agree that Wikipedia should not facilitate unfair trading practices. [[User:Rentier|Rentier]] ([[User talk:Rentier|talk]]) 20:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::I definitely agree with that, and I'll add that we always have the opportunity to set standards that are stricter than what is required by law. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 22:34, 24 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
*'''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. |
|||
== "Conspiracies" amongst admins, New Page Patrollers, and OTRS agents == |
|||
*'''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.}} |
|||
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) |
|||
Discussion moved here from [[WP:COIN]] case about an Upwork job. The discussion branched out from that into whether it was fair of {{U|Kudpung}} to say that "conspiracies" amongst "admins, New Page Patrollers, and OTRS agents" exist. |
|||
: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) |
|||
From [[User:Bri/Desysopped|my resarch]], I found that many desysoppings have occurred for socking. It is a breach-of-trust behavior closely related to undisclosed paid editing IMO. Both are highly relevant to this noticeboard. It is not beyond imagining that some who have done one will be found to have done the other. Wihout [[WP:BEANS|stuffing beans where they don't belong]], it is not beyond imagining that people who understand checkuser on a technical level and care about not getting caught will find ways to do so. |
|||
::Arbcom's [[Special:Diff/1225426349|announcement]] is live. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 14:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::{{ping|Barkeep49}} Can you clarify which aspect you think is out of compliance with the global policy? |
|||
::An RfC would definitely be held; this isn't the short of change that can be done boldly. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 10:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::The disclosure here does not meet the format of the global policy in terms of the level of disclosure required. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 19:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I'm still not very convinced by the presumed pipeline between being cited in a Wikipedia article and {{Tq|increased professional opportunities, such as book sales, speaking engagements, or consultancy work}}. This still seems like an inflated sense of Wikipedia readers' engagement with sources and attribution, or a misguided sense of people in charge of events at universities schedule book tours and talks. The discouragement of citing oneself in the non-financial conflict of interest section on the grounds that it may tilt content toward one's personal professional interests seems sufficient and more suitable. |
|||
:Does exception #4, {{tq|Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption}} contradict [[WP:BLP]]'s guidance?: {{tq|Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion}}. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] ([[She (pronoun)|she/her]] | [[User talk:Hydrangeans#top|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Hydrangeans|edits]]) 14:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I also remain of the sense that the "Reporting suspected violations" section continues to unduly frame respect for editors in tension with protection of the encyclopedia. Your earlier explanation was that {{tq|the two aren't in opposition}}, but you then go on to describe them as if oppositional: {{tq|We respect editors by... while protecting the encyclopedia by...}} etc., as if the former isn't also the latter. All policies and guidelines exist for the benefit of the encyclopedia, so both identifying COI and respecting editors serve to protect the project. I would encourage a rephrase to {{tq|When violations of this policy are suspected or identified it is crucial to address them with compliance to relevant guidelines and policies, balancing concern for undisclosed COI editing with respect for the editors involved}}. This avoids implying the latter policy somehow doesn't benefit the encyclopedia. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] ([[She (pronoun)|she/her]] | [[User talk:Hydrangeans#top|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Hydrangeans|edits]]) 15:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::I don't think so; the text is same as the long standing text at [[WP:3RRNO]]. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 10:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Visibility of external advertising accounts == |
|||
I did that research for my work on ''The Signpost''; usually I trust admins implicitly. I had no idea until recently that scandals of the magnitude of a [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-10-05/Sockpuppet scandal|banned user becoming an admin]] under a sock account had ever occurred. But now I can't help but think about what it all means in terms of this place becoming a low trust society. That is a potential catastrophe. |
|||
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) |
|||
{{U|Winged Blades of Godric}} noted the fact that subsequent to the Law case, GC got the admin toolset returned by Arbcom, which is to me ... unsettling. But what bothers me the most about the case is that '''two sitting Arbs, one functionary, and the admin who nominated him for adminship''' knew about Law's identity as a banned editor, and yet their adminship persisted for some time. It's a complete system breakdown, noted by some of the ''Signpost'' commenter "it makes me realize just how disorganized and out of control en.Wikipedia's current governance processes are". Back to relevancy to this thread and Kudpung's comment, if arbs and functionaries effectively sanctioning socking for their own reasons is not a conspiracy, I don't know what is. Which unfortunately is actually worse than his posited conspiracy of NPP and OTRS agents. Plus, some of the admin malfeasance in other cases was offering to cough up deleted article revisions – yet another instance where there's direct relevance to COI wrt potential offers of payment. ☆ [[User:Bri|Bri]] ([[User talk:Bri|talk]]) 19:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:I'm not sure what the relevance of an 8 year old issue is to COI and paid editing today. - [[User:Bilby|Bilby]] ([[User talk:Bilby|talk]]) 20:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::It's not a good idea to address the problem of admins and others with advanced permissions engaging in a conspiracy to evade the rules without solid evidence. In the case of admins (and arbs) it would be better to say "without a double dose of solid evidence." But I do think we need to be able to discuss the general problem without getting lost in the details of specific cases. There have been enough cases of winking at obvious cases of advertising that I think we have to say that many admins (and others) do not believe that we need to enforce our rules against advertising. Whether they are themselves paid editors can only be addressed in a few old cases. Perhaps they just don't believe in enforcing ''all of our rules'' or just take [[WP:IAR]] too seriously. (It's a great rule that itself should be ignored 99% of the time). Rather than a "conspiracy", I'd guess most of it is "a system of winks and nods" - i.e. they are not being fully truthful with us. Or perhaps it results from a system of petty corruption, or just from a usually non-monetary "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine.". And I should stress that I'm writing about *some* admins here, not all. But let's not fall into the trap of suggesting that we just can't talk aloud about this. It is perfectly acceptable for anybody to say "admins - get your act together and enforce our rules against advertising, and that includes enforcing the rules when other admins break them." [[User:Smallbones|Smallbones]]<sub>([[User talk:Smallbones|<span style="color: #cc6600;">smalltalk</span>]])</sub> 21:28, 27 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::Of course it is ok to question whether admins (and others) are acting appropriately to stop advertising. But I'm not interested in an unfounded claim of a conspiracy between arbs, admins and OTRS, which - without solid evidence - isn't worth addressing. I see no value in giving space to unfounded conspiracy theories based on some "8 years ago an admin couldn't be trusted" argument - [[User:Bilby|Bilby]] ([[User talk:Bilby|talk]]) 22:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::I'm suddenly feeling very old as I remember that I was around to see the Law/Undertow scandal, and it was a case of trying too hard to give someone a second chance, rather than anything that would really be sinister. And it was at a time when the community had lower standards about these things. I don't think that it's of any use in characterizing where things stand today. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 23:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::But I hasten to add that this doesn't mean that there isn't a problem today. Editors ''should'' be watching for such things, but there just isn't any (public) evidence to definitely support such a claim. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 23:41, 27 December 2017 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 10:12, 25 June 2024
Proposed text for a shorter and clearer COI policy
To throw out a possible summarized and clarified wording, either for this guideline or for a hypothetical policy. This is only a first draft, and feedback would be appreciated. BilledMammal (talk) 07:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
To preserve the integrity, neutrality, and public trust in Wikipedia, it is crucial to effectively manage conflicts of interest among editors. A conflict of interest arises when an editor's personal or financial connections might compromise the objectivity of their contributions. This policy outlines the types of conflicts and specifies the conduct required for editors who may be affected by them.
Financial Conflict of Interest
An editor has a financial conflict of interest when they stand to gain, or can reasonably be expected to gain, financial benefits from the coverage of a topic on Wikipedia. This conflict arises in various forms:
- Direct Financial Benefits: These include receiving direct payment for editing Wikipedia articles
- Indirect Financial Benefits: Such benefits are not as overt as direct payments but are significant. Examples include:
- Business Exposure: Gaining from increased visibility when a product, service, or company is featured in an article.
- Reputation Enhancement: Benefiting indirectly from an enhanced reputation due to having a personal article on Wikipedia or being cited as a source in one. This can lead to increased professional opportunities, such as book sales, speaking engagements, or consultancy work.
Non-financial Conflict of Interest
An editor has a non-financial conflict of interest when their personal or professional connections may compromise their ability to present a subject objectively. This type of conflict arises in various forms:
- Personal Relationships: Editing articles about friends, colleagues, family members, romantic partners, or personal adversaries can lead to biased content, whether overly favorable or unduly negative.
- Professional Connections: Editing articles related to one's employer or competitors in the industry can introduce biases that may either unfairly promote one’s own organization or undermine others.
- Political and Ideological Beliefs: Editing articles that cover political or religious movements in which an individual holds an active role. It is important to note that simply being a supporter or member of such movements does not constitute a conflict of interest. For example, a member of the Democratic Party does not inherently have a conflict of interest when editing articles related to the party unless they hold an official role within it.
Managing Conflicts
- Editors with a Financial Conflict: Must not directly edit affected articles. Instead, they should propose changes using the Edit COI template, disclosing the nature of their conflict on their user page and in any location they discuss the topic.
- Editors with Non-financial Conflicts: While not strictly forbidden from directly editing affected articles, they must disclose their conflict in the edit summary and in any location they discuss the topic.
No exceptions exist to this policy; edits made in violation of it are indefensible, regardless of their perceived harmlessness or quality. Editors who wish to avoid disclosing their conflict of interest may do so only be avoiding topics affected by it.
- The first section talks about "financial conflict of interests" but the third talks about "paid" and "non-paid conflicts". That the existing text uses these terms interchangeably was a major source of confusion in the recent arb case; I think we ought to stick to one or the other. – Joe (talk) 09:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Good point; switched to "Financial". BilledMammal (talk) 09:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- I appreciate this attempt although I'm very skeptical that any attempt to approach this inherently nuanced topic without nuance is fatally flawed. For example, a proposed policy must account for (a) employment that isn't directly related to editing Wikipedia or promoting the employer (e.g., marketing, public relations) and (b) editing by experts who are connected to a topic but perhaps not directly connected to a specific article subject (e.g., scholars). The draft language for "Non-Financial Conflict of Interest" (why the weird capitalization?) would seem to disallow edits by scholars and experts which is certainly not what we intend. And in the areas in which I focus - US colleges and universities - we also deal with edits made by students and alumni who arguably have a COI. And what about GLAM editors and Wikipedian-in-residence programs who have project-approved exemptions to our typical COI policies and practices? ElKevbo (talk) 12:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the reply; I agree that the text can be improved, but I hope that we will be able to do so.
employment that isn't directly related to editing Wikipedia or promoting the employer (e.g., marketing, public relations)
- I think that is accounted for by the section on "Professional Connections"
The draft language for "Non-Financial Conflict of Interest" (why the weird capitalization?) would seem to disallow edits by scholars and experts which is certainly not what we intend.
- My intent was to allow such edits; for example, if you are an expert in Austro-Hungarian history, then there should be no issue contributing to the article October Diploma, so long as you avoid citing yourself or your colleagues. However, the fact that you think the wording would prevent this means that the wording can be improved; why do you think the wording would prevent this? (Also, edited the capitalization; feel free to edit it further)
And what about GLAM editors and Wikipedian-in-residence programs who have project-approved exemptions to our typical COI policies and practices
- Regarding GLAM and WIR editors, that's a good point; I've drafted an expanded "Exceptions" section below, which would exempt them from the financial COI restrictions with limited exceptions; the intent is to allow them to share the knowledge of their institution without promoting it, in line with meta:Wikimedian in residence. Do you feel it meets this intent? BilledMammal (talk) 12:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- If you are an expert in Austro-Hungarian history, we actually do want you to cite yourself and your colleagues, within reasonable limits. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Why? In this circumstance, I don’t think you are well placed to decide whether your work, or the work of your colleagues, is WP:DUE; better to make an edit request and let editors without a conflict of interest figure that out. BilledMammal (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Honestly, if an article is getting to the point where only a tiny community is knowledgeable enough to edit it accurately, the content is no longer suitable for a general encyclopedia anyway. We shouldn't "need" experts to edit in their sub-sub-specialty. JoelleJay (talk) 14:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- As well-meaning as this sentiment is, this sense the project doesn't "need" experts who are well-versed in their specialities seems too near to the anti-intellectualism that permeates Wikipedia and contributes to the the project's imbalanced content coverage (this linked article focuses on exclusion of certain kinds of sources based on reliability, but I would take this observation to instead point out that experts can be aware of academic sources in other languages, or that are available primarily through academic libraries rather than convenient Google searches). Furthermore, there are plenty of plainly notable topic areas that suffer from the lack of expert intervention, such as the soft-pedaling of Anglo/British settler colonialism (permanent). The project does need, desperately, for experts to contribute in their specialities and sub-sub-specialities. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)talk
- Honestly, if an article is getting to the point where only a tiny community is knowledgeable enough to edit it accurately, the content is no longer suitable for a general encyclopedia anyway. We shouldn't "need" experts to edit in their sub-sub-specialty. JoelleJay (talk) 14:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Why? In this circumstance, I don’t think you are well placed to decide whether your work, or the work of your colleagues, is WP:DUE; better to make an edit request and let editors without a conflict of interest figure that out. BilledMammal (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- If you are an expert in Austro-Hungarian history, we actually do want you to cite yourself and your colleagues, within reasonable limits. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- This completely misses the point of my comment. JoelleJay (talk) 21:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- It may or may not have been the point you intended to make, but it does not miss the point that you actually made. Thryduulf (talk) 21:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see where I said Wikipedia does not need editors with expertise. I said a page should not require editors with such super-specialized expertise that only a tiny handful of people would be qualified to evaluate it. This isn't a controversial statement. JoelleJay (talk) 22:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Except that the editors of Wikipedia does not represent the universe of people who would be interested in a topic. A topic may have plenty of interest to be worthy of a Wikipedia article, but only tiny handful of Wikipedia editors are qualified to evaluate it. Rlendog (talk) 13:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- A subtopic that is so complex and niche that only the people who have a conflict of interest with it are capable of summarizing it accurately is clearly too technical to be described on WP. JoelleJay (talk) 01:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- I don't disagree if everyone was an active Wikipedia editor. But since most people are not active Wikipedia editors, there are topics that only a few Wikipedia editors are capable enough of summarizing it accurately, and those might have some conflict of interest, especially if interpreted broadly. Rlendog (talk) 00:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- A subtopic that is so complex and niche that only the people who have a conflict of interest with it are capable of summarizing it accurately is clearly too technical to be described on WP. JoelleJay (talk) 01:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- Except that the editors of Wikipedia does not represent the universe of people who would be interested in a topic. A topic may have plenty of interest to be worthy of a Wikipedia article, but only tiny handful of Wikipedia editors are qualified to evaluate it. Rlendog (talk) 13:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see where I said Wikipedia does not need editors with expertise. I said a page should not require editors with such super-specialized expertise that only a tiny handful of people would be qualified to evaluate it. This isn't a controversial statement. JoelleJay (talk) 22:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- It may or may not have been the point you intended to make, but it does not miss the point that you actually made. Thryduulf (talk) 21:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- This won’t prevent those experts using those non-English sources, unless those non-English sources are written by the expert or their colleagues - and in such a circumstance, it’s worth the additional oversight of the edit request process to make sure they’re adding them in accordance with our core policies and not to promote themselves or their work. BilledMammal (talk) 03:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- This completely misses the point of my comment. JoelleJay (talk) 21:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- In my experience, academics are aware of their place in their field's hierarchy, sometimes acutely so. In particular, when their views are rejected or ignored, they know it. They might still think they're right, but they are aware. Consider Katalin Karikó, who won last year's Nobel Prize in Medicine: she'd been demoted, had her pay cut, and was told she wasn't good enough for tenure. There is no way that she would have thought her views were the most dominant in her field. But if were were lucky enough to have her as a Wikipedia editor, having her cite a paper or two of her own would not have been a significant problem.
- WP:CITESELF has been our rule for many years. We get some WP:REFSPAM from people who don't read the directions (but Wikipedia:Nobody reads the directions, so that's hardly surprising) and occasionally from a self-promoter, but overall it seems to work out for us. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- How would we know if it isn't working out for us? I know at least two people in my department who have added their own findings to numerous articles and even created articles based on their research papers. Wikipedia currently strongly emphasizes primary results that we now know were incorrectly interpreted and misleading, but the paper that recently came out showing some of the deficiencies in their previous findings is also primary and not suitable to use for context. I can't edit the affected articles myself or even suggest edits under this username, so a splashy unreproducible narrative will persist for a topic that itself never would have even been mentioned on here if we had more stringent COI rules/patrolling and stricter discouragement of primary sources. How many other pages reflect a highly distorted perspective on what is relevant, accepted science in a subfield due to undetected self-promotion? JoelleJay (talk) 06:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- More stringent rules wouldn't have changed anything. People who aren't following the existing rules can't be counted on to follow other rules.
- More stringent patrolling is difficult. If someone edits as "User:AliceExpert" and cites a paper by Alice Expert, that usually gets reverted. If someone edits as "User:InnocentVolunteer", then patrollers don't wonder whether that's Alice, unless our InnocentVolunteer cites multiple papers, or the same paper in multiple articles, all of which were written or co-written by Alice.
- I have seen several academics over the years who cite not only their own work, but others as well. I have seen them write articles that say there are two camps, A and not-A, and cite strong sources on both sides. I would not want to give that up. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- How would we know if it isn't working out for us? I know at least two people in my department who have added their own findings to numerous articles and even created articles based on their research papers. Wikipedia currently strongly emphasizes primary results that we now know were incorrectly interpreted and misleading, but the paper that recently came out showing some of the deficiencies in their previous findings is also primary and not suitable to use for context. I can't edit the affected articles myself or even suggest edits under this username, so a splashy unreproducible narrative will persist for a topic that itself never would have even been mentioned on here if we had more stringent COI rules/patrolling and stricter discouragement of primary sources. How many other pages reflect a highly distorted perspective on what is relevant, accepted science in a subfield due to undetected self-promotion? JoelleJay (talk) 06:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Can you explain more about why you are proposing defining
Editing articles related to one's employer or competitors in the industry
to be a Non-financial Conflict of Interest, which differs from the current policy? To be fully transparent, I'm someone who falls into this category and I've declared a Financial Conflict of Interest accordingly. I strongly believe I am not biased toward my employer in this case as, for example, I hold no fear whatsoever that I could be fired or punished by my employer for "disparaging" the business in an article. That being said, I agree with the widely shared sentiment that this is not the case the vast majority of the time. I fully support the current practice of submitting the article to AfC and not touching it afterward, so I don't support language that saysnot strictly forbidden from directly editing affected articles
in this scenario. Mokadoshi (talk) 03:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)- Fear of retaliation is not the only concern about bias. The above type of editing is also problematic due to what it emphasizes; what might seem important to an employee may not reflect what is important in independent sources. JoelleJay (talk) 14:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- What do you propose? Mokadoshi (talk) 18:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- ...Not editing pages related to one's employer. JoelleJay (talk) 22:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- That would be highly restrictive for some large companies. Apple, for example, is involved in computing, AI, photography, videography, filmed content production and distribution, telecommunications, cloud computing, music, electronic payment, ... The list goes on and on. isaacl (talk) 02:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Apple isn't involved in every aspect of those topics. An employee could easily edit in those areas without touching material related to Apple. JoelleJay (talk) 06:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Editing aspects of topics unrelated to your employer is not the same standard as not editing pages related to one's employer. Which are you actually proposing? Thryduulf (talk) 07:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- It is when those aspects are standalone pages. JoelleJay (talk) 12:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Apple Inc. makes Safari (web browser). Google makes Google Chrome. Microsoft makes Microsoft Edge. Mozilla makes Firefox. Opera (company) makes Opera (web browser).
- Web browser is a standalone page. Do you think that article should be forbidden for all the employees of those companies? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- If your standard is "do not edit pages related to one's employer" then an employee of Apple Inc would not be able to edit pages like Computer, Portable music player, Smartwatch, Wearable technology, and many other pages.
- If your standard is "do not edit aspects of topics related to your employer" then at least some parts of all those articles would be able to be edited.
- The two standards are very clearly not the same, which standard are you proposing we should use?
- Do you intend to prohibit an Apple retail assistant from adding third-party sources to the LocalTalk article, because both of your above standards would do that. Thryduulf (talk) 22:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Its "related", not "related, broadly defined". However, I think we can improve the proposed wording and make things clearer by saying "editing content about/related to" rather than "editing pages about/related to"? BilledMammal (talk) 01:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- How is an Apple product not "related" to Apple Inc? Thryduulf (talk) 02:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- An Apple product is; however, Computer isn’t an apple product, it’s a generic term. BilledMammal (talk) 02:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- How is an Apple product not "related" to Apple Inc? Thryduulf (talk) 02:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Its "related", not "related, broadly defined". However, I think we can improve the proposed wording and make things clearer by saying "editing content about/related to" rather than "editing pages about/related to"? BilledMammal (talk) 01:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- It is when those aspects are standalone pages. JoelleJay (talk) 12:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Editing aspects of topics unrelated to your employer is not the same standard as not editing pages related to one's employer. Which are you actually proposing? Thryduulf (talk) 07:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Apple isn't involved in every aspect of those topics. An employee could easily edit in those areas without touching material related to Apple. JoelleJay (talk) 06:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- That would be highly restrictive for some large companies. Apple, for example, is involved in computing, AI, photography, videography, filmed content production and distribution, telecommunications, cloud computing, music, electronic payment, ... The list goes on and on. isaacl (talk) 02:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- ...Not editing pages related to one's employer. JoelleJay (talk) 22:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- What do you propose? Mokadoshi (talk) 18:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Fear of retaliation is not the only concern about bias. The above type of editing is also problematic due to what it emphasizes; what might seem important to an employee may not reflect what is important in independent sources. JoelleJay (talk) 14:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Exceptions
No exceptions, except those explicitly listed here, exist to this policy; edits made in violation of it are indefensible, regardless of their perceived harmlessness or quality. Editors who wish to avoid disclosing their conflict of interest may do so only be avoiding topics affected by it.
Wikipedians in residence
A Wikimedian in Residence (WIR) is a professional role in communications for an organization to share its knowledge within the Wikimedia platform, measure the impact of the same, and promote Wikipedia through training, education, and edit-a-thons. While WIRs can greatly benefit Wikipedia, there is a risk of edits that could unduly benefit their employers. To manage this risk, the following guidelines apply:
- Scope of Editing: WIRs may edit articles related to but not directly involving their institution. They must not edit articles where their institution is the primary subject or could reasonably be seen as directly benefiting from the article's content; if they wish to make changes to such articles they must follow the instructions at #Managing Conflicts for Editors with a Financial Conflict.
- Disclosure Requirements: WIRs must clearly disclose their role and association with their institution on their user page, as well as in any discussions or edits related to their role as a WIR
LGTM Levivich (talk) 16:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- I also share ElKevbo's skepticism of trying to handle nuance in a bright line, black-and-white way. Both proposals also seem hasty in light of the lack of consensus in the thread further up for policy elevation in the first place. This seems well intended but misbegotten. More specifically, I'm also troubled by the draft's elision of the policy on harassment. The current guideline reminds editors that COI investigation does not justify harassment. Any policy version of COI should include similar reminders of similar strength. Finally,
edits made in violation of it are indefensible
seems contrary to our guideline for being patient with newcomers: a new user's ignorance doesn't make COI editing not a violation, but it does make the behavior defensible in the sense that it's a mitigating factor for how we respond to said hypothetical newcomer's COI editing. We educate before expelling. All this reminds me of the reasons Thryduulf and Tryptofish laid out for not supporting elevation to policy at this time, and right now I share their view. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)- IMO the community has, for some years now, been leaning towards the idea that everything is black and white, everything can be pigeonholed, everything that is not allowed is forbidden, etc. We have accomplish this dubious goal through the simple means of telling lies to children, rather than trying to teach newcomers the complexity and shades of gray. Since we teach the rules via a telephone game (because Wikipedia:Nobody reads the directions), and distorting them further through teach step, we begin with "I don't think that ____ is a good idea for this particular article because WP:UPPERCASE", and a couple of years later, we end up with "You horrible newcomer! WP:YOU WP:VIOLATED the WP:MOST WP:IMPORTANT WP:POLICY and WP:I will WP:SEE you WP:BLOCKED WP:IF WP:YOU WP:MAKE WP:ANOTHER WP:MISTAKE!" What we don't manage to communicate is that Wikipedia:The rules are principles, and Wikipedia:If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.. In this context, it's hardly surprising if editors think that problems are solved by writing increasingly powerful rules, rather than individually (and expensively) investing time in teaching the principles to each promising newcomer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I was about to write something substantially like Hydrangeans and WhatamIdoing (edit: before their most recent comment) did, but probably less well articulated. Stating "no exceptions exist", even with an accompanying list of exceptions, is naive at best. The real world is complicated and messy, and ill-suited to such inflexible language. For example everybody should be allowed to revert very obvious vandalism, fix obvious typos, and make similar edits that are identical to ones an editor without a COI would always make. Not every organisation has a clear delineation between those with and without official roles within them, and even when they do it's not always the case that someone with an official role is more conflicted than someone without (e.g. a volunteer, unofficial spokesperson for a charity vs the directly employed HR person). This is a good faith attempt, but it is fundamentally flawed. Thryduulf (talk) 00:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- No comment on the "Exceptions" section, but regarding the WIR section, I support the overall effort to clarify when a WIR has a conflict of interest. I understand the background to this proposal is due to WIRs not declaring a COI, but from my experience recently I've seen the exact opposite problem: I've seen WIRs submit a ton of COI edit requests in order to make sure everything is above board when they aren't always necessary. I'm not naming names because I am happy they are being so transparent, but my concern is that a WIR creating 20+ COI edit requests take a lot of time to review. Mokadoshi (talk) 03:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- I would oppose this. This is a radical change, but more importantly, it is unenforceable and clearly doesn't have consensus. The best example I can give is the one I gave at the COI Arb case. I own AT&T stock. I have edited History of AT&T. Should I now stop? What exactly is "significant" benefit mean when it comes to the dividends I earn on that stock? Significant compared to the average worker where I live, in the Philippines? That wouldn't take much. Significant compared to the average stock broker on Wall Street? That would require a great deal more than I have. Where do you draw the line in defining "significant"? More importantly, how do you enforce it? You don't know if I own 1 share or 1 million shares, and I'm not going to declare it, so should I be blocked for refusing to declare my holdings? "Financial benefit" is so vague, so nebulous, that it doesn't work. Paid editing is simple. Editing for your employer is simple. After that, it gets muddy.
- You can't make a black and white policy to "outlaw" COI editing and have it be effective. You CAN look at my edits and say "they look normal" or say "your edits look promotional, full of puffery" and remove those edits based on existing policy, and then block me if it is a pattern. Existing policy covers this. What matters is the CONTENT of my edits and whether they are obviously designed to improve the encyclopedia, or if they appear to serve another purpose. Regardless, forbidding COI editing is just going to guarantee that people with a COI will simply stop declaring the COI, so you will have less transparency, so this would backfire spectacularly. What the COI guideline needs is MORE disclosure, not less. If you treat all COI editors as the enemy, they will respond in kind and simply ignore policy and sock. You are better off engaging and getting them to declare and become invested in their editorship (and reputation) here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 03:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- It seems neither the extensive rebuttals on Wikipedia nor on Wikipediocracy have convinced you to give up the "I own stock" line of argument. Levivich (talk) 03:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- No, because there hasn't been a single successful rebuttal that address the actual circumstance. The real question is "where do we draw the line?", and it serves as an excellent example because it isn't hypothetical and is extremely common. Writing bad policy without considering real world implications is what I'm trying to get the community to avoid, just as I tried to get Arb to avoid. Now, do you have an actual argument against the example, or are you just wasting everyone's time and saying "I don't like this example". Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- All policy and guidelines here are line drawing, and regularly the lines are fuzzy (or nuanced). As presumably (you say you support the guideline) your not saying there is no such thing as conflict of interest, it means even you are aware that lines can be drawn for conflict of interest, indeed probably some are easy to draw. And as for Wikipedians being able to hash out lines, that's most of what Wikipedians do all the time. So, let's say your position is you don't have a conflict, submit your situation to the community, and no doubt they will guide you as best they can. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- No, because there hasn't been a single successful rebuttal that address the actual circumstance. The real question is "where do we draw the line?", and it serves as an excellent example because it isn't hypothetical and is extremely common. Writing bad policy without considering real world implications is what I'm trying to get the community to avoid, just as I tried to get Arb to avoid. Now, do you have an actual argument against the example, or are you just wasting everyone's time and saying "I don't like this example". Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- It seems neither the extensive rebuttals on Wikipedia nor on Wikipediocracy have convinced you to give up the "I own stock" line of argument. Levivich (talk) 03:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- There's room for refinement but overall I think this is a significant improvement over the current guidelines, especially in terms of readability. The thing is, strategically, you're never going to get consensus to adopt it, because any attempt is going to be blocked by people who oppose the current guideline (see the !vote directly above...). This is a project-wide phenomenon and the reason why we have so many PAGs that everyone agrees are shit but that haven't changed substantially in a decade. But I digress. The upshot is I think it's more realistic to make these changes incrementally. – Joe (talk) 08:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don't oppose the currently policy, Joe. You've been told again and again by others, YOUR interpretation is not correct and you are very much in the minority, in particular at the last Arb case. I think refinement is a good idea, but refinement that makes people want to lie about any conflict is not in the best interest of the encyclopedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- There is, clearly, room for differing interpretations of the current guideline. I am not interested in battling it out to see whose is "correct". However, I've been active in enforcing COI for nearly a decade, so what I can tell you is that what actually happens (e.g. at WP:COIN) is that when someone has an obvious financial stake in a topic, editors don't fuss around trying to establish whether they've been "paid by an entity for publicity" (because how would they even do that?) before acting to protect the project's integrity. That this practice differs from how some interpret the guideline is a problem that needs to be solved, one way or the other, for sure. But I think all you achieve by going around talking about your AT&T stock is to make people wonder why on earth you think "this can't be paid editing, because Dennis Brown is doing it!" is an argument that would convince anyone except Dennis Brown. – Joe (talk) 10:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
There is, clearly, room for differing interpretations of the current guideline.
whether that is true or not, there is a very clear consensus that your interpretation is not one that is correct. Thryduulf (talk) 10:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)- "this can't be paid editing, because Dennis Brown is doing it!" is s strawman argument, and someone would have to be rather simple to believe that is an actual position. If you sincerely believe that my example is paid editing, surely you wouldn't show favoritism, and you would instead block me. Your stance on COI smacks of politicking. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- I mean, I've considered it, more than once... – Joe (talk) 12:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Given that you haven't blocked Dennis, it seems safe to assume that you concluded either that he wasn't violating policy or that a consensus of uninvolved administrators would conclude that he was not violating policy. That sounds rather similar to your interpretation of the policy either being different to what you say it is in discussions or, more likely, different from the community consensus interpretation of the policy. Thryduulf (talk) 14:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Or maybe I'm just too much of a coward to apply the same rules that are applied to regular editors to an admin with a tonne of social capital in the midst of a contentious arbitration case about the selfsame issue. – Joe (talk) 14:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- And maybe it's because Dennis hasn't actually edited AT&T or History of AT&T, so what Dennis describes as
The best example I can give
is actually a poor example of COI editing. Levivich (talk) 14:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)- Dennis also has three edits to AT&T Corporation, but those are also a nothingburger. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- And maybe it's because Dennis hasn't actually edited AT&T or History of AT&T, so what Dennis describes as
- Or maybe I'm just too much of a coward to apply the same rules that are applied to regular editors to an admin with a tonne of social capital in the midst of a contentious arbitration case about the selfsame issue. – Joe (talk) 14:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Given that you haven't blocked Dennis, it seems safe to assume that you concluded either that he wasn't violating policy or that a consensus of uninvolved administrators would conclude that he was not violating policy. That sounds rather similar to your interpretation of the policy either being different to what you say it is in discussions or, more likely, different from the community consensus interpretation of the policy. Thryduulf (talk) 14:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- I mean, I've considered it, more than once... – Joe (talk) 12:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- There is, clearly, room for differing interpretations of the current guideline. I am not interested in battling it out to see whose is "correct". However, I've been active in enforcing COI for nearly a decade, so what I can tell you is that what actually happens (e.g. at WP:COIN) is that when someone has an obvious financial stake in a topic, editors don't fuss around trying to establish whether they've been "paid by an entity for publicity" (because how would they even do that?) before acting to protect the project's integrity. That this practice differs from how some interpret the guideline is a problem that needs to be solved, one way or the other, for sure. But I think all you achieve by going around talking about your AT&T stock is to make people wonder why on earth you think "this can't be paid editing, because Dennis Brown is doing it!" is an argument that would convince anyone except Dennis Brown. – Joe (talk) 10:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don't oppose the currently policy, Joe. You've been told again and again by others, YOUR interpretation is not correct and you are very much in the minority, in particular at the last Arb case. I think refinement is a good idea, but refinement that makes people want to lie about any conflict is not in the best interest of the encyclopedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Some of us live on the other side of the globe, and slept during most of the buffoonery. The claims of "non-trivial" amounts of stock were absurd, since I never said I owned non-trivial amounts. I was intentionally vague because it isn't anyone's business. The concept of an absurd de minimis example are lost on some. Again, I can only conclude that Joe's reference to blocking me here, and then dragging out an ANI case, are to try to silence me, which won't work on me, but it might work on others, which is what made me question his competency to be an admin. He knew I only had a few minor edits to AT&T, but the value of dragging someone through the mud wasn't to get action on me, it was to silence critics of his unique interpretation. Even above, he seems worried that others will cite my example "this can't be paid editing, because Dennis Brown is doing it!", so it seems the ends justify the means in his eyes. As for being a "coward", that is an amazing display of gaslighting Joe. I'm not trying to silence debate, Joe, but you clearly are and have made it personal. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- It's gaslighting that my own explanation for why I didn't do something differs from yours? Okay. I didn't know that you only made minor edits to AT&T, because you strongly implied otherwise, and I foolishly took you at your word. Now I am wondering why on earth you brought this up at all, then, given there is already a well-established exception for minor COI edits.
- In the mean time, for the crime of daring to take you seriously when you repeatedly asked "is this paid editing?", and so asking for the community's answer to that question, you have:
- I eagerly await the evidence you will be providing for these aspersions and personal attacks. – Joe (talk) 08:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- You say "we have a well-established exception for minor COI edits." But the proposed wording says "No exceptions, except those explicitly listed here, exist to this policy; edits made in violation of it are indefensible, regardless of their perceived harmlessness or quality." And the WP:COIADVICE exceptions are not listed in the proposed wording. Rlendog (talk) 14:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
We have some good exceptions listed at WP:COIU. I'd love to know what the reason is for removing them. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'd flip it: why do we need them? Why do we need someone with undisclosed COI to be able to "fix spelling, grammatical, or markup errors" or "add independent reliable sources when another editor has requested them, although it is better to supply them on the talk page for others to add"? I mean I'm fine with having WP:3RRNO-like "obvious" exceptions sitewide--same exceptions not just for 3RR and WP:INVOLVED but also for TBANs, COI and PAID, but we actually don't have that right now. Here's an interesting wiki policy question: why should certain edits be exempt from COI if they're not exempt from TBANs? Levivich (talk) 04:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Because we are the encyclopedia that anyone can edit? Assuming the edits aren't undermining the goals of the encyclopedia, of course. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 05:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think they're most helpful for editors with declared COI. Our COI requested edit backlog is usually significant, so keeping uncontroversial changes out of it is helpful. Interesting thought experiment about TBANned editors, but they're ones who have already been disruptive in that topic area. The burden of evaluating the acceptability of their edits falls back on those who were affected by the disruption. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- A long backlog of COI edit requests is arguably a feature, not a bug. – Joe (talk) 12:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- In what possible world is that is good thing!? We want COI editors to engage with the edit request process, and the best way to do that is to make it responsive - anything else incentivises them to ignore it. When requested edits are good delaying making the changes harms the encyclopaedia, when requested edits are bad leaving them hanging around benefits nobody and indeed makes it harder for the editors making the requests to learn which edit requests get accepted and which don't. If your primary goal is eliminating COI rather than improving the encyclopaedia then you are here for the wrong reasons. Thryduulf (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- It is a good thing in the world where we don't want COI editors to edit at all. I understand that you don't agree with that aim, but you must surely acknowledge that many others do, and let's not forget that the nutshell of this guideline—its message stripped of all the ifs and buts—is
do not edit Wikipedia in your own interests, nor in the interests of your external relationships
. Eliminating COI editing is an important goal for many people, even if it's not our primary one. – Joe (talk) 12:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)- If we didn't want COI editors to edit at all, we would ban COI editing rather than regulate it. The reason that we don't do that is twofold - first we recognise that in the real world we can't actually ban it, people will just edit without disclosing and the encyclopaedia will be worse off. Secondly we recognise that COI editors can make valuable input that improves the encyclopaedia. I'm increasingly of the opinion that you've become so blinded by your view towards COI editing that you've lost sight of the bigger picture. Thryduulf (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Your use of a collective "we" is a bit misleading here because there is a lot of disagreement about COI and there has been for as long as I can remember. I'm aware that my view is on one of the end of the spectrum—I think yours is too, to be fair—but I'm not alone and I don't think I'm blind. I think this is just another one of those judgement calls that make consensus difficult to achieve: is the risk presented by COI editors worth the value they can add? Is a total prohibition of paid editing something that we could enforce within an acceptable margin for error? I'm more and more realising that one of the major shortcomings of our decision-making model is that we lack mechanisms for resolving disputes like this when different editors bring different and incompatible premises to the discussion. – Joe (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
is the risk presented by COI editors worth the value they can add?
Yes.Is a total prohibition of paid editing something that we could enforce within an acceptable margin for error?
No, but yet again it's worth noting that you are conflating paid editing and COI editing - the former is just a small subset of the latter. I'm also uncertain why we would want to attempt to completely prohibit either, given the harm it would do to the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 13:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Your use of a collective "we" is a bit misleading here because there is a lot of disagreement about COI and there has been for as long as I can remember. I'm aware that my view is on one of the end of the spectrum—I think yours is too, to be fair—but I'm not alone and I don't think I'm blind. I think this is just another one of those judgement calls that make consensus difficult to achieve: is the risk presented by COI editors worth the value they can add? Is a total prohibition of paid editing something that we could enforce within an acceptable margin for error? I'm more and more realising that one of the major shortcomings of our decision-making model is that we lack mechanisms for resolving disputes like this when different editors bring different and incompatible premises to the discussion. – Joe (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- If we didn't want COI editors to edit at all, we would ban COI editing rather than regulate it. The reason that we don't do that is twofold - first we recognise that in the real world we can't actually ban it, people will just edit without disclosing and the encyclopaedia will be worse off. Secondly we recognise that COI editors can make valuable input that improves the encyclopaedia. I'm increasingly of the opinion that you've become so blinded by your view towards COI editing that you've lost sight of the bigger picture. Thryduulf (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- It is a good thing in the world where we don't want COI editors to edit at all. I understand that you don't agree with that aim, but you must surely acknowledge that many others do, and let's not forget that the nutshell of this guideline—its message stripped of all the ifs and buts—is
- In what possible world is that is good thing!? We want COI editors to engage with the edit request process, and the best way to do that is to make it responsive - anything else incentivises them to ignore it. When requested edits are good delaying making the changes harms the encyclopaedia, when requested edits are bad leaving them hanging around benefits nobody and indeed makes it harder for the editors making the requests to learn which edit requests get accepted and which don't. If your primary goal is eliminating COI rather than improving the encyclopaedia then you are here for the wrong reasons. Thryduulf (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- WP:COIU isn't clear as to whether those are examples of edits that editors with a COI can make if they disclose the COI, or if they're examples of edits that editors with a COI can make without disclosing the COI. I think it's the latter? I don't really have a problem with the former, but I do have a problem with the latter. Because why not make the same exceptions for UPE, or even socking? The reason why not is that it'd be next to impossible to police, and rife with abuse if it was on the honor system. "I'll make an undisclosed alt account but only use it to revert obvious vandalism and BLP vios," or "I'll UPE but only take payment for edits that are reverting obvious vandalism and BLP vios" wouldn't fly with anyone, and I don't think it should fly for undisclosed COI. I wouldn't mind those exceptions for disclosed COI, but even then, COIU goes too far IMO, insofar as it goes beyond self-reverting, vandalism, and BLP. Levivich (talk) 15:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- A long backlog of COI edit requests is arguably a feature, not a bug. – Joe (talk) 12:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- I understand where this is coming from, but I tend to think that simpler rules are easier to follow. If we have fewer exceptions people know what is expected of them - don't edit articles where you are getting paid; disclose before making edits where you are not paid but do have a COI. The only real emergency situations which I see as exceptions are blatant vandalism and BLP violations. Everything else can wait.
- It is why I like 3RR. I know that if I make that third revert I better be convinced that it is a BLP violation or absolutely blantant vandalism. I need to mentally check myself to make sure it is definitly ok, because if I am not sure then it probably isn't an emergency. - Bilby (talk) 06:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- You cite 3RRNO as a positive example, and it includes a longer list of exceptions than COIU does! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- True enough. But I think of it as "don't revert unless you are absolutely convinced it is ok". I like that approach. :) And when you look at the list, it is actually pretty sensible - you can revert yourself (ok, that makes sense), you can revert on your own talk page (again makes sense), but otherwise it is serious policy concerns. I think we could use a similar list here. If it isn't a serious policy issue (BLP violation, obvious vandalism, child pornography), do not edit the article with a COI. Makes it easy to follow. - Bilby (talk) 12:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- You cite 3RRNO as a positive example, and it includes a longer list of exceptions than COIU does! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I was a Wikimedian in Residence with Consumer Reports from 2012-2018 and now I am at the School of Data Science at the University of Virginia since 2018. I am a data scientist but my actual title that I registered with the university is "Wikimedian in Residence". I also organize meta:Wikimedians in Residence Exchange Network.
- My views are not aligned with most other Wikimedians in Residence so what I am about to say is my individual and personal opinion. I think for most cases the primary problem is not COI versus non-COI, but rather marketing versus non-marketing. If we defined the taboo as being paid to edit biographies, organizations, and products then I think that hits the target of problematic editing 99% of cases. I would like to support, for example, paid public health communication professionals in developing medical articles about medical conditions with advice on the level of government and professional society recommendations. I sponsored development of the general topic of Software maintenance (before, after), currently at Good Article review because we as a research department care about certain aspects of software development. I have biased ideologies here - advocacy for open-source software mostly - but if we wanted a simple rule for preventing most problems, I think it should separate specific commercial interest editing versus broad interest Wikipedia articles and cited sources that are unlikely to give benefit to any specific interest. I especially want to accept paid editing when it improves Wikipedia:Vital articles in such a way that skeptical review would not identify particular bias. A lot of organizations invest a lot of money in trying to communicate general reference information and I think Wikipedia is losing out by not having pathways to accept some of that. I am not sure how to draw the lines but universities are knowledge centers and right now, there are not good paid editing pathways for universities to invest in Wikipedia for public education campaigns. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
How I see it
This is how I see the spirit of existing policy, worded differently and perhaps defined a little more clearly:
If you are paid to directly edit on behalf of a company, or you are paid to promote a company's interests (social media, marketing, advertising) and you edit the article of that company or create edits that mention that company or their products (broadly construed), then you are a paid editor and must fully disclose your relationship, even if your edits are trivial, or are limited to talk pages. How much you are paid is not relevant. Adminship is not consistent with paid editing.
If you own at least 10% of a company, or derive at least 10% of your income from a company (including stocks), but you have have no official role in promoting that company, you have a clear conflict of interest when it comes to that company. It is strongly preferred that you don't directly make significant edits to the content of any article that is directly related to that company, and instead make suggestions on the talk page of those articles. If you are making direct edits to those articles, then disclosure on your user page is required. If you are only making edits to the talk pages of those articles, disclosure is strongly recommended. The 10% threshold isn't a brightline rule, it is a common sense rule of thumb, to say that any company that provides an important source of your income, even if indirectly, should be considered as a conflict when it comes to editing. While direct editing is not forbidden, it is discouraged and you should expect those edits to be closely scrutinized. You are required to be forthcoming in explaining your direct edits if questioned in good faith.
If you work for a company/organization in a non-promotional role, or own a small percentage of a company (either stocks, employee owned businesses or similar), or volunteer in a significant way for any organization, even if you aren't being paid, you might have a simple conflict of interest when it comes to editing articles related to that company. Great care should be taken when editing those articles, or it should be avoided altogether. While disclosure isn't required, your relationship may be questioned if the content of your edits appear to be advocacy. In some cases, you are better off using the article talk pages to request edits instead of direct editing.
Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- This all makes sense. I would add that, for the benefit of the encyclopedia, we want people to edit what they're interested in. We need subject matter experts. We want doctors to edit about medicine, lawyers to edit about law, biologists to edit about biology, mathematicians to edit about mathematics. Our COI policies need to allow this kind of editing. Clearly our policy should discourage lawyers from trying to create articles about their own law firms and doctors from trying to promote the niche surgery they happen to specialize in. But we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot if we only allowed people to edit articles they have absolutely zero affiliation with. ~Awilley (talk) 00:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Good idea. It seeks to address a very problematic area regarding this behavioral guideline. I could quibble that it seeks to define it is a "yes/no" situation in an area which is really matters of degree, but such is the reality of trying to move forward. North8000 (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Our COI policies do allow this kind of editing, quite explicitly. Literally the only time it comes up is when anyone suggests maybe making this 4000 word guideline a bit clearer – then it's suddenly crucial that we discuss WiRs and academics and Dennis 'AT&T' Brown and all sorts of other pointless whataboutisms that bear absolutely no relation to the day-to-day efforts of volunteers trying to stop the project being overrun by commissioned articles, PR departments, and self-serving autobiographies. – Joe (talk) 08:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- you just can't resist can you? You have to insult when others don't feel like it's as pointless as you do. It's not enough to say you disagree, you have to try to discredit those that disagree with you. Farmer Brown - 2¢ (alt: Dennis Brown) 01:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
pointless whataboutisms that bear absolutely no relation to the day-to-day efforts of volunteers trying to stop the project being overrun by commissioned articles [etc]
. Except they are not "pointless" nor "whataboutisms", indeed they are directly related to the policies and guidelines that are the basis of the activities you describe - we are attempting to make sure it is fit for purpose and excludes from the encyclopaedia those things that should, by consensus, be excluded but doesn't exclude those things that should, by consensus, not be excluded. It's equally harmful to the encyclopaedia for it to be overrun by non-notable articles and for it exclude notable articles for fear of being overrun by non-notable articles. Thryduulf (talk) 02:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- I have been following this thread, and I fully agree with what is being said here. In my experience, the COI tag has been thrown around to "discredit" an authors edits to an article, even if those edits are in no way promotional or against policies. I do not see the benefit in putting a COI tag on an article (unless it is a clear paid editing) unless the editor is adding unnecessary promotional material or editing against policies.
- How would we go about getting a consensus on this? XZealous (talk) 18:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
I just noticed that the proposal used the term "this policy". Unless that's typo or I missed something, proposing making this whole bundle into a policy would make me a strong "oppose" This has such a wide range of what could be considered a COI, and is so open to abuse and often abused to get the upper hand in a dispute (including McCarthy-esque drilling of people) that upgrading it to a policy would be harmful. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
The average US wage is $53,383, median is $46,625, not $20,000 (source: Wikipedia), so where you live (your example) is much lower than the US average, yet 3 to 5x higher than many places. It's all relative, which is why percentages work and dollar figures don't. The going rate for someone to edit a Wikipedia page is not $500-1000, it is significantly less because most of it is coming from Nigeria, the Philippines, Pakistan, and India, places that some of the highest numbers of English speakers. It is driven by both poverty and greed, and it makes the bulk of paid editing because it is the cheapest, $50 or less. But my opinions above weren't really about paid editing, they concerned the different types of lesser issues, conflict of interest without being a paid editor.
One example would be someone who tries to edit the Bitcoin article to make Bitcoin look more attractive, because they want to dump some coin. This has happened. This poses a serious threat to article neutrality. Another example is the Starbucks manager, who edits to reflect that the newest, most popular drink new drink is some new flavor of latte. This is still a conflict, but doesn't really affect neutrality and is more benign. Both should be reverted, but they have different effects on the encyclopedia and are inherently different. Claiming this view is "2012" is a bit silly, Joe. Relatively little paid editing was taking place then. I know because I spent most of 2013 and 2013 working paid cases as an SPI clerk, so I saw it every day. The amount of COI and paid editing dwarfs what took place then, as does the breadth of it. It is clearly more of a problem now, which is why most people recognize there are different types of conflict that need to be dealt with differently. This includes recognizing COI at the lowest level and addressing it, and encouraging people with COI to do what is best for the encyclopedia, instead of slapping them down and pushing them to the shadows, or simply running off editors who do mostly good work but also have a COI. As for 5% or 10% or 15%, you have to draw a line somewhere. If I was earning 20% of my income in dividends, I would instictively not edit the article, or declare I have a conflict of interest. If I am earning a few percent, there is no need because it is not enough to financially benefit me, relatively speaking. 10% is strict enough, even if arbitrary. You are welcome to suggest a different line in the sand. And saying "failure to recognise your own privileged viewpoint" is bordering on ad hominem. I live in a developing country (Davao, Philippines), working remotely part time, with water and electricty that doesn't always work. I don't own a home or a car and either walk or take jeepneys or tricycles everywhere I go. I'm not complaining, but you know nothing of my situation or lifestyle, and likely nothing about my education or background. You are not in a position to judge how "privileged" I am, nor should you be judging anyone here as "privileged". I've laid my cards on the table, opened my ideas for debate, spelled out in plain English. It seems obvious that you and I are fundamentally different types of people. and I am not afraid of having my ideas, my history, or my conduct examined. If you have a better idea, then by all means, present it and lets discuss it. But lets stop the baseless AN reports, baseless quotes, the "2012 thinking", the "privileged" claims and other failed attempts at intimidation, because it doesn't work with me. How about we actually talk about concrete ideas. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
|
Updated proposed text for a shorter and clearer COI guideline
To preserve the integrity, neutrality, and public trust in Wikipedia, it is crucial to effectively manage conflicts of interest among editors. A conflict of interest arises when an editor's personal or financial connections might compromise the objectivity of their contributions. This guideline outlines the types of conflicts and specifies the conduct required for editors who may be affected by them.
Financial Conflict of Interest
An editor has a financial conflict of interest when they stand to gain, or can reasonably be expected to gain, financial benefits from the coverage of a topic on Wikipedia. This conflict arises in various forms:
- Direct Financial Benefits: These include receiving direct payment for editing Wikipedia articles.
- Indirect Financial Benefits: Such benefits are not as overt as direct payments but are significant. Examples include:
- Business Exposure: Gaining from increased visibility when a product, service, or company is featured in an article.
- Reputation Enhancement: Benefiting indirectly from an enhanced reputation due to having a personal article on Wikipedia
or being cited as a source in oneor being prominently featured as an expert. This can lead to increased professional opportunities, such as book sales, speaking engagements, or consultancy work.Non-financial Conflict of Interest
An editor has a non-financial conflict of interest when their personal or professional connections may compromise their ability to present a subject objectively. This type of conflict arises in various forms:
- Personal Relationships: Editing articles about friends, colleagues, family members, romantic partners, or personal adversaries can lead to biased content, whether overly favorable or unduly negative.
- Professional Connections: Editing articles related to one's employer or competitors in the industry can introduce biases that may either unfairly promote one’s own organization or undermine others. Similarly, citing oneself or ones close acquaintances as sources can introduce bias, influencing the content to unduly favor personal or professional interests.
- Political and Ideological Beliefs: Editing articles that cover political or religious movements in which an individual holds an active role. It is important to note that simply being a supporter or member of such movements does not constitute a conflict of interest. For example, a member of the Democratic Party does not inherently have a conflict of interest when editing articles related to the party unless they hold an official role within it.
Managing Conflicts
- Editors with a Financial Conflict: Must not directly edit affected articles. Instead, they should propose changes using the Edit COI template, disclosing the nature of their conflict on their user page and in any location they discuss the topic.
- Editors with Non-financial Conflicts: While not strictly forbidden from directly editing affected articles, they must disclose their conflict in the edit summary and in any location they discuss the topic.
Exceptions
No exceptions, except those explicitly listed here, exist to this guideline; edits made in violation of it are indefensible, regardless of their perceived harmlessness or quality. Editors who wish to avoid disclosing their conflict of interest may do so only be avoiding topics affected by it.Aside from those explicitly listed here, no exceptions exist to this guideline; edits must abide by it regardless of their perceived harmlessness or quality. Editors who wish to avoid disclosing their conflict of interest may do so only be avoiding topics affected by it.
General exceptions
- Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language.
- Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC). What counts as exempt under NFCC can be controversial, and should be established as a violation first. Consider opening a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion instead of relying on this exemption.
- Removal of content that is clearly illegal under U.S. law, such as child pornography and links to pirated software.
- Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.
- Reverting unambiguous spam, where the content would be eligible for page deletion under criterion G11 if it were a standalone page.
Wikipedians in residence
A Wikimedian in Residence (WIR) is a professional role in communications for an organization to share its knowledge within the Wikimedia platform, measure the impact of the same, and promote Wikipedia through training, education, and edit-a-thons. While WIRs can greatly benefit Wikipedia, there is a risk of edits that could unduly benefit their employers. To manage this risk, the following guidelines apply:
- Scope of Editing: WIRs may edit articles related to but not directly involving their institution. They must not edit articles where their institution is the primary subject or could reasonably be seen as directly benefiting from the article's content; if they wish to make changes to such articles they must follow the instructions at #Managing Conflicts for Editors with a Financial Conflict.
- Disclosure Requirements: WIRs must clearly disclose their role and association with their institution on their user page, as well as in any discussions or edits related to their role as a WIR
I have updated the proposed changes per the discussion above. In particular, this has included the expansion of exceptions based on the exceptions listed at WP:3RRNO, and changed this from a proposed policy to a guideline - this would replace the current content, with most of the current content becoming part of a supplementary essay. Personally, I do believe this would be better as a policy, but better to handle one change at a time. BilledMammal (talk) 02:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- This is clearer, but it doesn't reflect the actual enforcement. It is trying to propose something that is much stronger than actual practice, which is something we generally do not do here. In particular, the "Editors with a Financial Conflict: Must not directly edit affected articles.", which either means "outlawing" all paid editing which the TOU currently allows. Plus it bans all non-problematic edits in articles someone just has a weak connection to (my AT&T example), and isn't really enforceable. "Significant" isn't a very good delineator, because it doesn't mean the same thing to everyone. For example, when I did a rewrite about "tanning beds", I was wise enough to do it with someone who had no COI (I had a strong COI at the time, but that was the source of my expertise) who had final say. I had announced my COI on my user page, but I wasn't going to just make requests on a talk page, that is too cumbersome, particularly when I had already gone to great lengths to make sure any bias that I might inject had oversight. In other words, it would have made someone either not improve the article, or more likely, lie about their COI and not get any oversight from a disinterested party. Neutrality would have been reduced. And I use my own editing because it isn't theoretical, it can be examined by anyone here, and I would argue that I used best practices. I think the community needs to accept they will never stop Paid or COI editing, and instead focus on managing it, because it is impossible to prove or verify and it is pretty easy to game strict rules. The harder you squeeze, the less neutrality (and disclosure) you will have. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 03:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Regarding your AT&T example, my understanding is that we have already established that it wouldn't constitute a conflict of interest.
- Regarding your COI with tanning beds, was it a financial conflict of interest or a non-financial one? BilledMammal (talk) 03:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- We didn't establish the "signficance" with AT&T, as I never said how much I had, people just assumed one way or another. As for the tanning beds, I had previously worked for a very small tanning bed manufacturer. Even the guys on WPO have talked about and found humor in it. I've never hidden the fact, had it on my user page at one point. At the time, I owned Solacure, which designs and sells UV lights for several industries (animal husbandry, cannabis, luthier, etc), but not human tanning, so unrelated to the article. I had that on my user page for a time as well. People will see it however they want, but there was no financial motivation or gain that I could have possibly realized by editing it. The COI meant I have some expertise in the field, however, so it made sense for me to be a part of the editing, along with SlimVirgin, who took the lead.
- Real world practice is more complicated than you can put in a paragraph of "should"s and "must"s. I support firmer disclosure rules, and I actually understand how it affects the editor. I'm against making rules that no one will follow and will lead to less disclosure, but make us "feel good". I'm pretty sure a consensus won't approve of a ban of Paid and COI editing anyway, so it wastes time that could be spent on practical changes. Hard rules that ban COI editing simply won't work even if passed. It would just drive COI into the shadows, with less oversight. That is harder to manage than having a set of reasonable rules that don't ostracize editors and allow for oversight of COI edits in plain view. If the edits are promotional or spam, this is already covered by other policies and easily dealt with the same as we do any other spam. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 05:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- I like these changes. Some feedback:
- I would rephrase "No exceptions, except...," to something that doesn't repeat the word.
- I would change "indefensible" to something else. The important part of that sentence is "regardless of their perceived harmlessness or quality," that message should be kept, but "indefensible" sounds too combative or judgmental to me; like the policy/guideline shouldn't suggest that it's immoral, just explain the rules matter-of-factly.
- I know we want to keep it short, but perhaps it could benefit from some examples of direct/indirect financial COIs, like perhaps some (not necessarily all, not sure which are best to include if any) of the following situations:
- owning a business, or being a director, officer, executive, or other high level position v. low level positions
- being paid to edit v. working in marketing v. just working in a business
- working in a small biz v. a large one (ie being one of few v. one of many)
- "de minimis" connections, like owning one share of stock in a company (which probably shouldn't be considered a COI)
- "attenuated" connections, like having a retirement plan that invests in a mutual fund (that the editor does not direct) that owns some shares in a company (prob not a COI)
- "stale" connections, like having worked in a company many decades ago (as opposed to left employment last year) (prob not a COI)
- Maybe it should explain COI is a continuum: the closer the connection and the more significant the relationship, the stronger the COI. So indirectly owning a few shares ten years ago isn't as serious as currently owning a majority stake that provides most of your income or constitutes most of your assets.
- What's the logic behind having different rules for financial and non-financial COI? I feel like people might have a stronger COI/bias editing about family members than employers.
- Does anybody like the "if you put it on your resume/CV, you have a COI with it" formulation?
- Thanks, I'll shut up now. Levivich (talk) 05:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Does anybody like the "if you put it on your resume/CV, you have a COI with it" formulation?
I'm not very fond because it seems prone to the unconstructive interpretation 'because you are a member of/participate in this academic society (since you want to attend its conferences and/or receive its periodical so as to be aware of and have access to scholarly knowledge in this field), adding citations to its periodical is conflict-of-interest editing'. To reiterate my comment in the earlier discussion,I think we go too far if the impression is given that a user who is a member of a professional association like the Society for Historians of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era or the American Association of Physics Teachers shouldn't add citations with DOI links or wikilinks to the organization's peer-reviewed journal, in these cases The Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era or the American Journal of Physics.
Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 11:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)- Thank you; I've implemented #1 and #2 - what do you think?
- I also like the idea of #3, but I can't yet see how to do it. I will give it some more thought.
- With #4, I'm concerned that editors will result in disputes about whether it was appropriate for an editor to not report; I think it is better to simply set up clear lines and say that regardless of whether you are an inch or a mile over the line you have to comply with the restrictions. However, I'm not set on this position, and if other editors feel strongly I am willing to change it.
- The logic is mainly that I don't think we will get a consensus to merge the rules; editors won't agree that editors who are paid to edit should be allowed to edit directly, and editors won't agree that editors who are writing about a colleague shouldn't be allowed to edit directly. BilledMammal (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- The #1/#2 changes LGTM, thanks. I see #3 and #4 as being related... overall, #3 lays out that continuum, and to your point, also provides various places to draw lines. Insofar as we want the COI guideline/policy to draw clear lines rather than leaving things fuzzy, perhaps it can draw lines that would clearly include/exclude certain things listed in #3. One thing I'm thinking of in particular is the "de minimis/attenuated/stale" trifecta: the guideline could specify that none of those are COI. That would take care of the "AT&T issue" raised by Trystan below. Trystan's "significant roles in organizations" language would be an example of drawing lines around some of the categories in #3 (first and third bullet points). I understand the logic of #5, thanks for explaining that. "The art of what is possible." Levivich (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- The current guideline notes that COI investigation doesn't justify violating the policy against harassment. This proposed draft does not. As this same absence was pointed out in the earlier discussion about your earlier drafts, is this an intentional elision? The importance of the policy against harassment has been affirmed in an Arbitration Committee finding of principle, and the boldness with which editors have violated it makes this a bad time for obscuring the intersection of WP:COI and WP:HARASS. Any version of the COI guideline or elevation of it to policy should maintain our strong reminders that editors must abide the policy against harassment.
- I'll add that I find the claims about indirect benefits, particularly
This can lead to increased professional opportunities, such as book sales, speaking engagements, or consultancy work
, unconvincing when applied to both articles and citations. I also notice that an equivalent doesn't seem to appear in the current version of the guideline (in fact, it contradicts the guidance that citations to one's own work areallowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive
), making this not a shorter rephrasing but a novel alteration). I could believe there is potentially some benefit a person gain from there the existence of a biographical article about them—a Wikipedia article about a person is relatively visible on the Internet, and an editor making or sans-exception contributing to a biographical article about themselves is definitely a bright line—but it's my understanding that few non-editor readers look at the citations in articles. The notion that appearing in the citations of a Wikipedia article could so measurably benefit a writer's career strikes me as an inflated sense of readers' engagement with Wikipedia citations. Wikipedia citation sections aren't being combed by event coordinators at universities and libraries but by high schoolers and undergrads trying to follow rote instructions about media literacy who probably forget the authors' names within days of turning in their homework. - I continue to share, as I described in the earlier thread, ElKevbo's skepticism of trying to handle Conflict of Interest in such a bright line, black-and-white way as this proposal would—especially one that makes no effort of caution about adhering to the the policy against harassment. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- I've made a few changes to address your concerns; below I've created a draft section on how to handle suspected violations, and I've adjusted the draft above to consider citing oneself, one one's close acquaintances, as a non-financial COI rather than a financial one. BilledMammal (talk) 19:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- To a degree, no editor should be adding any source to any article unless they think, 'this is a source to be read on this subject (and indeed, the source to read on this bit)' -- add in a financial and probably more so, a reputational or personal motive, to make the source the editor had published, one of the few sources to read on this subject out millions and billions of sources, self-cite is in need of a check. Few publishing writers would not want be relevant, just to be relevant. In American Fiction (film), one of the funny and truthful bits for writers was the lengths the author would go to get his writing out there (and it's certainly not just financial motive, it is personal). Mostly we don't ban self-cite for the sake of writers with expertise, who may actually be the author of the source you should read on this subject, so I agree we should bring back some the wording (perhaps modified) of the current guideline (even though the exception also applies to, for example, journalists where there may be dozens sources just as good -- and for journalists there is an added conflict, as much as we try to say we are NOT, Wikipedia is probably in direct market competition with their publication - eyes on)). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- As revised, I think there is still the "AT&T" issue, where someone with a relatively trivial financial conflict of interest would be barred from editing, which isn't how I read the current guideline. I think keeping the bright line between paid editing and all other COI editing is more feasible.
- The "Political and Ideological Beliefs" subsection is a bit confusing to me, and I think potentially risks creating confusion between COI and bias. As I understand it, COI is about a personal connection to the subject. A significant role in any organization, whether or not it is religious or political in nature, creates a COI. Religious and political beliefs may create bias, but are not relevant to whether a COI exists. I would suggest considering replacing it with something like:
Signficiant roles in organizations: Editing articles that cover organizations in which an individual holds a significant role. It is important to note that simply being an ordinary member of such organizations does not constitute a conflict of interest. For example, a member of the Democratic Party does not inherently have a conflict of interest when editing articles related to the party unless they hold an official role within it.
--Trystan (talk) 19:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)- How about:
Signficiant roles in organizations: Editing articles related to organizations in which an individual holds a significant role, or recently held a significant role, may introduce biases and a lack of objectivity in content related to the organization's interests. This is a spectrum, with whether an editor has a conflict of interest depending both on the level of authority or influence their role granted them, and the recency of the role. For example:
- A general volunteer for the Democratic Party would have no conflict of interest.
- A precinct captain would have a conflict of interest for a few years after they hold the role.
- A presidential elector would permanently have a conflict of interest.
- I think this addresses your concerns, while also being a step towards laying out a continuum and providing examples per Levivich's comment. BilledMammal (talk) 07:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Reporting suspected violations
When violations of this policy are suspected or identified it is crucial to address them with transparency and caution, balancing protecting the encyclopedia with respect for the editors involved. Always adhere strictly to our no-outing policy; only post personal information if the editor has disclosed it on Wikipedia.
- User talk page: Non-urgent issues can be raised on the editor's talk page, using the COI warning template as appropriate.
- COI noticeboard: If issues remain unresolved after user talk page discussions, or if the user talk page is an unsuitable venue, escalate the matter to the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. This noticeboard also provides guidance for editors dealing with their own conflicts.
- Private communication: For issues requiring confidentiality, including where posting the information on Wikipedia would violate our policies on the posting of personal information, email evidence to the appropriate channels: for general COI issues, contact functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org, and for paid editing concerns, reach out to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org. Always consult these channels for advice before sending private information.
- This addition would improve the proposal, though I still don't support it overall. Additionally, I object to the phrasing of the first sentence,
address them with transparency and caution, balancing protecting the encyclopedia with respect for the editors involved
, as it suggests that respecting editors is somehow in tension with "protecting the encyclopedia", entrenching an attitude of aggrieved defensiveness and hostility. Respecting editors is protecting the encyclopedia, and we're ignoring WP:5P4, WP:CIV, and WP:HARASS if we neglect civility and respect as core pillars and policies of the project. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)- I don't see the issue you see here; the two aren't in opposition or alignment; they are complementary and we can often achieve both, but sometimes we need to carefully balance them.
- We respect editors by avoiding baseless COI accusations while protecting the encyclopedia by allowing editors to express COI concerns supported by evidence, even when the editor has denied a COI. We respect editors by forbidding the public disclosure of personal information they haven't shared on Wikipedia, while protecting the encyclopedia by allowing private presentation of such evidence when necessary, and allowing the public sharing of previously disclosed personal information.
- However, if other editors see an issue I have no objection to adjusting it. BilledMammal (talk) 06:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Guideline revision version 3
To preserve the integrity, neutrality, and public trust in Wikipedia, it is crucial to effectively manage conflicts of interest among editors. A conflict of interest arises when an editor's personal, professional, or financial connections might compromise the objectivity of their contributions. This guideline outlines the types of conflicts and specifies the conduct required for editors who may be affected by them.
Financial Conflict of Interest
An editor has a financial conflict of interest when they stand to gain, or can reasonably be expected to gain, financial benefits from the coverage of a topic on Wikipedia. This conflict arises in various forms:
- Direct Financial Benefits: These include receiving direct payment for editing Wikipedia articles.
- Indirect Financial Benefits: Such benefits are not as overt as direct payments but are significant. Examples include:
- Business Exposure: Gaining from increased visibility when a product, service, or company is featured in an article. For example, an editor who is a major shareholder or partner in a business could materially benefit from increased sales due to enhanced visibility of their product on Wikipedia. Conversely, an individual who holds a inconsequential stake, such as a small fraction of a percent of shares in a publicly traded company, would not be positioned to experience noticeable financial gains from such coverage.
- Reputation Enhancement: Benefiting indirectly from an enhanced reputation due to having a personal article on Wikipedia or being prominently featured as an expert. This can lead to increased professional opportunities, such as book sales, speaking engagements, or consultancy work.
Non-financial Conflict of Interest
An editor has a non-financial conflict of interest when their personal or professional connections may compromise their ability to present a subject objectively. This type of conflict arises in various forms:
- Personal Relationships: Editing articles about friends, colleagues, family members, romantic partners, or personal adversaries can lead to biased content, whether overly favorable or unduly negative.
- Professional Connections: Editing articles related to one's employer or competitors in the industry can introduce biases that may either unfairly promote one’s own organization or undermine others. Similarly, citing oneself or ones close acquaintances as sources can introduce bias, influencing the content to unduly favor personal or professional interests.
- Significant Roles: Editing articles related to organizations in which an individual holds a significant role, or recently held a significant role, may introduce biases and a lack of objectivity in content related to the organization's interests. This is a spectrum, with whether an editor has a conflict of interest depending both on the level of authority or influence their role granted them, and the recency of the role. For example:
- A general volunteer for the Democratic Party would have no conflict of interest.
- A precinct captain for the Democratic Party would have a conflict of interest for a few years after they hold the role.
- A presidential elector for the Democratic Party would permanently have a conflict of interest.
Managing Conflicts
- Editors with a Financial Conflict: Must not directly edit affected articles. Instead, they should propose changes using the Edit COI template, disclosing the nature of their conflict on their user page and in any location they discuss the topic.
- Editors with Non-financial Conflicts: While not strictly forbidden from directly editing affected articles, transparency is required; they must disclose their conflict in the edit summary and in any location they discuss the topic.
Exceptions
Aside from those explicitly listed here, no exceptions exist to this guideline; edits must abide by it regardless of their perceived harmlessness or quality. Editors who wish to avoid disclosing their conflict of interest may do so only be avoiding topics affected by it.
General exceptions
- Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language.
- Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC). What counts as exempt under NFCC can be controversial, and should be established as a violation first. Consider opening a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion instead of relying on this exemption.
- Removal of content that is clearly illegal under U.S. law, such as child pornography and links to pirated software.
- Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.
- Reverting unambiguous spam, where the content would be eligible for page deletion under criterion G11 if it were a standalone page.
Wikipedians in residence
A Wikimedian in Residence (WIR) is a professional role in communications for an organization to share its knowledge within the Wikimedia platform, measure the impact of the same, and promote Wikipedia through training, education, and edit-a-thons. While WIRs can greatly benefit Wikipedia, there is a risk of edits that could unduly benefit their employers. To manage this risk, the following guidelines apply:
- Scope of Editing: WIRs may edit articles related to but not directly involving their institution. They must not edit articles where their institution is the primary subject or could reasonably be seen as directly benefiting from the article's content; if they wish to make changes to such articles they must follow the instructions at #Managing Conflicts for Editors with a Financial Conflict.
- Disclosure Requirements: WIRs must clearly disclose their role and association with their institution on their user page, as well as in any discussions or edits related to their role as a WIR
Reporting suspected violations
When violations of this policy are suspected or identified it is crucial to address them with transparency and caution, balancing protecting the encyclopedia with respect for the editors involved. Always adhere strictly to our no-outing policy; only post personal information if the editor has disclosed it on Wikipedia.
- User talk page: Non-urgent issues can be raised on the editor's talk page, using the COI warning template as appropriate.
- COI noticeboard: If issues remain unresolved after user talk page discussions, or if the user talk page is an unsuitable venue, escalate the matter to the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. This noticeboard also provides guidance for editors dealing with their own conflicts.
- Private communication: For issues requiring confidentiality, including where posting the information on Wikipedia would violate our policies on the posting of personal information, email evidence to the appropriate channels: for general COI issues, contact functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org, and for paid editing concerns, reach out to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org. Always consult these channels for advice before sending private information.
Updated to incorporate suggestions from the previous discussion; I'm also notifying WP:VPI for additional input. The intention is that this will replace the current guideline; the current text will be moved to an explanatory essay where it can be adjusted as needed. BilledMammal (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Big picture: I think this puts our guideline out of compliance with the global policy on paid editing and thus needs revision, to at minimum provide a useful link to what the policy requires. I also would hope that the intention is that an RfC would be held to replace the current text rather than attempting to do it as a BOLD edit. Small picture: Functionaries-en does not accept emails from non-members (with the exception of WMF emails) for the last 18-24 months. ArbCom should be announcing something on the UPE/COI private evidence side in the next day or so, so that can be updated. I also personally don't think the significant roles represents my thinking or understanding of that concept and think that we should not have an example that is so American centered. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Arbcom's announcement is live. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49: Can you clarify which aspect you think is out of compliance with the global policy?
- An RfC would definitely be held; this isn't the short of change that can be done boldly. BilledMammal (talk) 10:33, 22 June 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 don't think so; the text is same as the long standing text at WP:3RRNO. BilledMammal (talk) 10:34, 22 June 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)