Content deleted Content added
SlimVirgin (talk | contribs) |
Lembit Staan (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
::::COI is about roles and relationships, not about POV or expertise. A train driver doesn't have a COI with regard to trains just because he knows about them. He does have a COI if he owns a train company and writes about it. There are grey areas in the middle where it can be hard to determine whether problematic editing is caused by COI or expertise/bias, but for the most part it's easy enough to tell the two apart. [[User:SlimVirgin|Sarah]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</sup></small> 20:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC) |
::::COI is about roles and relationships, not about POV or expertise. A train driver doesn't have a COI with regard to trains just because he knows about them. He does have a COI if he owns a train company and writes about it. There are grey areas in the middle where it can be hard to determine whether problematic editing is caused by COI or expertise/bias, but for the most part it's easy enough to tell the two apart. [[User:SlimVirgin|Sarah]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</sup></small> 20:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC) |
||
:::::An example of grey area Sarah is talking about: a train driver may lose his job if the company folds because wikipedia gave it bad fame, so it is his immediate interest to keep its article shiny positive. [[User:Staszek Lem|Staszek Lem]] ([[User talk:Staszek Lem|talk]]) 22:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:42, 17 August 2015
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.
Template:Connected contributor
Please see discussion at WT:COIN about whether it's appropriate to use Template:Connected contributor on an article talk page in a specific situation. Link to discussion. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI)
Jesse Cutler
COI vs content experts
It appears that WP:FCOI is suggesting that everyone who is remunerated in some way, has a COI in their field of activity, even though WP:EXTERNALREL welcomes most subject experts.
Expert | COI |
---|---|
WP:EXTERNALREL "subject-matter experts are welcome to contribute within their areas of expertise, subject to the guidance on financial conflict of interest" | WP:FCOI "If you have a close financial relationship with a topic you wish to write about – including as an owner, employee, contractor or other stakeholder – you are advised to refrain from editing affected articles." |
I suspect every editor has a potential COI, but we must make it clear where there is an actual COI, eg.
- Do paid scientists, train drivers, beauty therapists, and homeopaths, have a COI writing about science, trains, beauty treatments and homeopathy?
- Do paid book authors on science, trains, beauty treatments, and homeopathy, have a COI on their subjects?
- Does someone who sells books on science, trains, cosmetics, and homeopathy have a COI?
- Do members of organisations/societies on science, trains, cosmetic industry, and homeopathy, have a COI on their subject?
--Iantresman (talk) 07:38, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yes.
- Individuals and organizations whose professional goals and ethics parallel those of Wikipedia are highly welcome, but need to be careful to follow WP:COI. At the other extreme, those without professional ethics whose goals contradict those of Wikipedia will have great difficulty contributing to Wikipedia where their coi applies, beyond making suggestions on talk pages and non-controversial edits. --Ronz (talk) 17:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- I think we need to be very careful in attributing a COI to some employees. Train drivers would be one, they receive a salary for driving a train, but what financial benefit is there to write about trains? Another example would be an auto mechanic writing about cars. A salaried employee could have a COI, as in the case of a salaried salesman who also receives a bonus on things sold. But just because they work for a company, they may have no financial benefit in how a company performs.AlbinoFerret 17:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think the distinction matters. They all have very strong interests to put their pov first. --Ronz (talk) 19:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- This comes up regularly, and most editors do draw a distinction between subject matter expertise and COI, and that is reflected in the guideline itself. This RfC recently explored this topic. Herbxue (talk) 20:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think the distinction matters. They all have very strong interests to put their pov first. --Ronz (talk) 19:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- I think we need to be very careful in attributing a COI to some employees. Train drivers would be one, they receive a salary for driving a train, but what financial benefit is there to write about trains? Another example would be an auto mechanic writing about cars. A salaried employee could have a COI, as in the case of a salaried salesman who also receives a bonus on things sold. But just because they work for a company, they may have no financial benefit in how a company performs.AlbinoFerret 17:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- COI is about roles and relationships, not about POV or expertise. A train driver doesn't have a COI with regard to trains just because he knows about them. He does have a COI if he owns a train company and writes about it. There are grey areas in the middle where it can be hard to determine whether problematic editing is caused by COI or expertise/bias, but for the most part it's easy enough to tell the two apart. Sarah (talk) 20:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- An example of grey area Sarah is talking about: a train driver may lose his job if the company folds because wikipedia gave it bad fame, so it is his immediate interest to keep its article shiny positive. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- COI is about roles and relationships, not about POV or expertise. A train driver doesn't have a COI with regard to trains just because he knows about them. He does have a COI if he owns a train company and writes about it. There are grey areas in the middle where it can be hard to determine whether problematic editing is caused by COI or expertise/bias, but for the most part it's easy enough to tell the two apart. Sarah (talk) 20:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)