→Potential Terms of Use violation template?: They are also likely to know what they are doing. |
→Potential Terms of Use violation template?: ::I'm with Dodi 8238. A template might be handy to have available for those who actually violate the ToS. But editors who have made declarations, they are aware of the ToU. WP:DTTR comes to mind. Yo |
||
Line 132: | Line 132: | ||
Hi, we have templates for COI [[Template:Uw-coi]] (for warning editors who may have a conflict of interest) and [[Template:COI]] and automated categories that list pages tagged that way. Would it be a good thing to have similar templates and automated categories for potential ToU violations, and for editors who have made declarations per the ToU? I realize this might cause some heat, but wanted to ask. Thanks. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 13:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC) |
Hi, we have templates for COI [[Template:Uw-coi]] (for warning editors who may have a conflict of interest) and [[Template:COI]] and automated categories that list pages tagged that way. Would it be a good thing to have similar templates and automated categories for potential ToU violations, and for editors who have made declarations per the ToU? I realize this might cause some heat, but wanted to ask. Thanks. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 13:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC) |
||
:I don't think there is any good reason to make a template and automated category for editors who ''have'' made declarations per the ToU. That would be unnecessary profiling. They are also likely to know what they are doing. As for users who violate the ToU: If there is ''evidence'' of violation, other users should first ''inform'' the user about our policies (see [[Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers]]). This is done best by following the instructions in [[Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#How_to_handle_conflicts_of_interest]] and using the COI templates you have linked to. The user may be blocked if he/she continues to violate Wikipedia policies and/or the ToU (see [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy]]). --[[User:Dodi 8238|Dodi 8238]] ([[User talk:Dodi 8238|talk]]) 19:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC) edited comment 19:27 (UTC) |
:I don't think there is any good reason to make a template and automated category for editors who ''have'' made declarations per the ToU. That would be unnecessary profiling. They are also likely to know what they are doing. As for users who violate the ToU: If there is ''evidence'' of violation, other users should first ''inform'' the user about our policies (see [[Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers]]). This is done best by following the instructions in [[Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#How_to_handle_conflicts_of_interest]] and using the COI templates you have linked to. The user may be blocked if he/she continues to violate Wikipedia policies and/or the ToU (see [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy]]). --[[User:Dodi 8238|Dodi 8238]] ([[User talk:Dodi 8238|talk]]) 19:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC) edited comment 19:27 (UTC) |
||
::I'm with Dodi 8238. A template might be handy to have available for those who actually violate the ToS. But editors who have made declarations, they are aware of the ToU. [[WP:DTTR]] comes to mind. You've identified yourself as a Wikipedia user, would I warn you not to vandalize Wikipedia?--v/r - [[User:TParis|T]][[User_talk:TParis|P]] 20:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:30, 21 October 2014
Threads older than 18 days may be archived by lowercase sigmabot III. Search above, or see also the merged page's 2006 archive. |
This page has archives. Sections older than 18 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
Sources on conflict of interest
- Davis, Michael and Stark, Andrew (eds.). Conflict of Interest in the Professions, University of Oxford Press, 2001.
- Krimsky, Sheldon. "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.
- Lo, Bernard and Field, Marilyn J. (eds.). Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice, National Academies Press, 2009.
- Stark, Andrew. Conflict of Interest in American Public Life, Harvard University Press, 2003.
Approaching editors on their talk pages
I'd like to change this sentence, in the "How to handle conflicts of interest" section:
If an editor directly discloses information that clearly demonstrates that he or she has a COI as defined in this guideline or has made one or more paid contributions as per the Terms of Use, raise the issue with the editor in a civil manner on the editor's Talk page, citing this guideline.
It was added on 11 July. It used to say:
The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor, referring to this guideline.
That amounts to the same thing, but it allows an editor to discuss the COI issue on whatever page it has been raised, including article talk. Forcing an editor to go to someone's talk page personalizes the issue. We've been talking recently about how certain behavioral policies and guidelines may make women editors feel uncomfortable. This is one of those issues. Women may be even more reluctant than men to start a one-to-one confrontation, especially with an anonymous editor.
There was a discussion on AN/I recently where an editor was told she could not open a discussion about COI elsewhere until she had discussed it with the editor on his talk page, and this part of the guideline was cited to require her to do that.
I'd like to change it to something like:
If you suspect that an editor has a conflict of interest, consider raising it with her first on the article's talk page or on her user talk page. If the suspected COI editing continues, open a section on WP:COIN, following the instructions there.
Are there any objections? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- I think that's a good change. I guess a tweak I would make would be to broaden it a little. Let's say someone is engaged in a deletion discussion or policy discussion in which there is a possible COI issue. Then there should be latitude to allow the editor to approach the person on the project talk page or project page, wherever the person will see it. Coretheapple (talk) 00:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Good idea. Perhaps this:
If you suspect that an editor has a conflict of interest, consider raising it directly with her first. You can do this on the talk page of the article, policy or guideline (or wherever the issue has arisen), or on her user talk page. If the suspected COI editing continues, open a section on WP:COIN, following the instructions there.
- SlimVirgin (talk) 00:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- The word "suspect" is unduly creepy. How about:
If you think an editor may have a conflict of interest, consider raising it directly with the editor first. You can do that on the talk page of the article, policy or guideline (or wherever the issue has arisen), or on the user's talk page. If COI editing continues, open a section on WP:COIN, following the instructions there.
- I removed "her" because it was easy, but that's just a suggestion—my point is that there is no need for "suspect". Johnuniq (talk) 01:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- Hi John, that's fine with me. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:52, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- The word "suspect" is unduly creepy. How about:
- Thanks for the feedback, Core and John. I'll go ahead and make the change. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
- I changed "policy or guideline" to "project page," so the edit was:
If you think an editor may have a conflict of interest, consider raising it directly with the editor first. You can do that on the talk page of the article or project page (or wherever the issue has arisen), or on the user's talk page. If COI editing continues, open a section on WP:COIN, following the instructions there.
- Strongly disagree. The rationale that discussing whether or not an editor has a conflict of interest somewhere other than the user's talk page would avoid "personalizing" the issue is possibly the most absurd notion I've seen on Wikipedia in years. Such a discussion is always personal to the editor targeted by the discussion. It should be on the talk page of the editor who is alleged to have the conflict of interest and absolutely should not be initiated on other talk pages. Risker (talk) 00:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Wow, SlimVirgin, you changed that paragraph from one addressing known conflicts of interest (i.e., where the editor has already identified that they have a COI) to one where anyone might possibly suspect a COI. Your addition gives carte blanche to ignore the next paragraph of the guideline, which gives instructions on addressing possible or perceived conflicts of interest. In other words, your edit changes the entire thrust of that section. Further, it encourages the use of accusations of COI to deflect attention from valid content disputes and discussions to character assassination of the participants. If you perceive that there may be a conflict of interest, you already know that the right thing to do is to challenge the content or the proposed sources using the existing processes. Risker (talk) 04:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Support. Women editors say this will make women editors more comfortable here. So let's do it. Risker: I'm not seeing any constructive criticism here. Are you willing to suggest an alternative edit that would address the expressed concerns of women editors?--{{U|Elvey}} (t•c) 18:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing anywhere that women editors feel more comfortable in being trashed on much more public pages instead of their talk page. It's shocking that anyone would think that women would prefer to be accused of having a conflict of interest on the talk page of an article (a far more public page, and one that is much more likely to be viewed by members of the general/reading public) than more privately on their talk page. I can't think of a much more likely way to drive women (and others) away from an article - and frankly, I believe that is the intention of the proposed section, to give people a way to get rid of opponents, whether or not the opponents have a conflict of interest. No, take it to the COI noticeboard or the talk page of the editor involved. It shouldn't ever be on the article or project page. Allegations of COI are very serious, and need to be reviewed by independent third parties, not just the folks who are involved in a particular dispute or discussion. Risker (talk) 21:42, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Strongly disagree - an editor's potential COI has nothing to do with a given article's content or sourcing, and that is what an article's Talk page is for, per WP:TPG. User talk pages are for discussing matters having to do with editors -- like their potential COI. COI is personal to the editor - and the editor addressing it is taking the initiative to address it. The other reason I oppose bringing these issues up on article Talk pages is that far too often, editors having disagreements over sourcing or content slop over into making accusations of COI, which is not appropriate. This should be handled just like any other personal issue (like the guidance provided in the policy, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, where people who receive what they feels is PA are instructed to first ignore it, but... "If you feel that a response is necessary and desirable, you can leave a polite message on the other user's talk page. Avoid responding on a talk page of an article, as this tends to escalate matters."). Gender has nothing to do with this, that I can see. Jytdog (talk) 12:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Userboxes regarding Paid Editing?
Wikimedia's Terms of Use state that "you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation."
Are there any user boxes or other templates to A) facilitate such disclosure or B) facilitate disclosure of the lack of a need for such disclosure? I think there should be, as well as use instructions here. (I'm also thinking of adding something to my sig, so it would look something like this: --(PE){{U|Elvey}} (t•c) 18:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Ridiculous
Ridiculous as administrators can do here (and in other wiki projects) whatever they want without any consequences, Wild West. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.188.94.86 (talk) 15:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Please see
There's a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#OTRS that probably should have been noted here. The basic question is, if you (an editor) learn about a blatant policy violation from a non-editor with a COI (e.g., you receive e-mail from a BLP subject whose article does not comply with WP:BLP), then do you personally have a conflict of interest for that article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Experts their degree of COI?
Can we comment on whether "experts" have a degree of conflict of interest, and when and if, it may become an issue. eg.
- A member of a professional organisation, eg. American Physical Society, The Parapsychological Association?
- A director of a professional organisation, eg. American Physical Society, The Parapsychological Association?
- A popular book author (writing about physics, or parapsychology)
- An academic author (writing about physics, or parapsychology)
--Iantresman (talk) 17:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Impossible to answer without knowing the context. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Regarding 3 and 4, editors are not in a COI with the topics they are experts on. However, if they are adding sources that are books they have published, they have a COI with the source and it could be considered advertising. This should be evaluated on a case by case basis with regard to the degree and likelihood that the expert is promoting themselves or not. If Stephen Hawking showed up on Black Hole and added a book he wrote as a source, any editor/administrator would be an asshat to revert it.--v/r - TP 21:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
editors are not in a COI with the topics they are experts on
I don't think this is entirely correct. Employees (or other affiliations) of any organization (whether expert or not) must disclose their affiliation if they edit on topics related to the organization. Thus an expert on steelhead if in the employ of The Steelhead Society of British Columbia would have to disclose their COI when editing any article related to the advocacy mission of the society. @TParis, wouldn't you agree? --Mike Cline (talk) 11:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)- That puts them in a conflict of interest because of their organization or the topic they are editing. But an expert isn't in a COI because they are an expert. And they arn't in a COI because they edit about a topic they are an expert about. Now, if they work for steelhead and they edit related to their mission to promote their business, then the COI would come from being part of the organization and editing with the organization in mind. In my head, those are separate issues.--v/r - TP 17:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
But an expert isn't in a COI because they are an expert.
That's a true statement, but I don't think it is sufficient or even relevant to answering a COI question. It is the organizational affiliation and topics edited as you say that creates the COI, whether the editor is expert or not.--Mike Cline (talk) 22:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)- Exactamundo.--v/r - TP 22:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
COI issues in the financial area
After dealing with some paid editing issues involving G2003 (talk · contribs), I realized that there's an issue that needs to be covered by policy. Paid editing in the financial area is advertising, under the Securities and Exchange Commission's Advertising Rule. [1]. There are some very specific rules. In particular, any mention of investment performance triggers a requirement that a long list of disclosures have to be made. I just took the language "both of which (funds) have demonstrated strong performance in absolute terms and relative to market performance" out of Tristan Capital Partners for that reason. Things like mentioning the results for a good year without mentioning bad years are, reasonably enough, considered deceptive by the SEC. Wikipedia is US-based, so even for non-US businesses, this applies.
Since we can't tell who's a paid editor, Wikipedia should probably not include happy talk about investment results in investment-related articles. John Nagle (talk) 19:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- The SEC rule applies to the business, not us. We are under no obligation to follow it. We are not in the financial business. We also are not the enforcers of US law. The SEC can enforce law. So I'm not seeing what the concern is here. Are you saying that we should violate WP:NPOV and WP:V to enforce some law that no one is asking us to enforce? WP:NPOV is the appropriate policy here. Cover what the sources cover. If it's positive, it's positive, if it's negative it's negative and everything in between. What your saying amounts to assuming bad faith of anyone who edits an investment related article. It goes against core WMF policies.--v/r - TP 19:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- I've reverted, per TP's persuasive reasoning. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- True. That obligation does fall on a COI editor editing an investment-related article, but that's the COI editor's problem. We should, though, watch for edits to investment articles which make the investment look better than it is, as a WP:NPOV issue. John Nagle (talk) 06:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- Absolutely. I'm not sure what Andy reverted, though, heh.--v/r - TP 19:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- True. That obligation does fall on a COI editor editing an investment-related article, but that's the COI editor's problem. We should, though, watch for edits to investment articles which make the investment look better than it is, as a WP:NPOV issue. John Nagle (talk) 06:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- I've reverted, per TP's persuasive reasoning. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Potential Terms of Use violation template?
Hi, we have templates for COI Template:Uw-coi (for warning editors who may have a conflict of interest) and Template:COI and automated categories that list pages tagged that way. Would it be a good thing to have similar templates and automated categories for potential ToU violations, and for editors who have made declarations per the ToU? I realize this might cause some heat, but wanted to ask. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think there is any good reason to make a template and automated category for editors who have made declarations per the ToU. That would be unnecessary profiling. They are also likely to know what they are doing. As for users who violate the ToU: If there is evidence of violation, other users should first inform the user about our policies (see Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers). This is done best by following the instructions in Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#How_to_handle_conflicts_of_interest and using the COI templates you have linked to. The user may be blocked if he/she continues to violate Wikipedia policies and/or the ToU (see Wikipedia:Blocking policy). --Dodi 8238 (talk) 19:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC) edited comment 19:27 (UTC)
- I'm with Dodi 8238. A template might be handy to have available for those who actually violate the ToS. But editors who have made declarations, they are aware of the ToU. WP:DTTR comes to mind. You've identified yourself as a Wikipedia user, would I warn you not to vandalize Wikipedia?--v/r - TP 20:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)