→Application of WP:SELFCITE: difficult to be definitive as each scenario has its own specifics |
|||
Line 64: | Line 64: | ||
:In my opinion, this does indeed fall afoul of [[WP:COI]], as well as [[WP:NOTADVERT]] and [[WP:SPAM]]. I think it would be reasonable to revert those edits. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 23:14, 9 March 2018 (UTC) |
:In my opinion, this does indeed fall afoul of [[WP:COI]], as well as [[WP:NOTADVERT]] and [[WP:SPAM]]. I think it would be reasonable to revert those edits. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 23:14, 9 March 2018 (UTC) |
||
:It's difficult to be definitive in general, when each situation has its own specifics. If a site is a recognized reliable source for a given type of information, like the hockey salary cap web site that had been run by an individual before he passed away, then it is reasonable for it to be used as a source, regardless who is doing it. If someone who works for a newspaper chooses to use the paper's site as a reference for an AP story, although true enough any number of other web sites could be used, I struggle to find a good reason against using the site. Other scenarios may be more clearly a case of advertising one's own site. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 02:07, 10 March 2018 (UTC) |
:It's difficult to be definitive in general, when each situation has its own specifics. If a site is a recognized reliable source for a given type of information, like the hockey salary cap web site that had been run by an individual before he passed away, then it is reasonable for it to be used as a source, regardless who is doing it. If someone who works for a newspaper chooses to use the paper's site as a reference for an AP story, although true enough any number of other web sites could be used, I struggle to find a good reason against using the site. Other scenarios may be more clearly a case of advertising one's own site. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 02:07, 10 March 2018 (UTC) |
||
:There's a population of SPAs that do nothing in Wikipedia but cite themselves, and rarely does anyone seem to notice them. That raises the question...why would a recognized expert in their field be desperate enough to do that? Think of it like a bank: the people that "need" to cite themselves in Wikipedia are usually people that shouldn't be cited. And I agree that it's COI and citespam. But the community seems to have a much higher tolerance of it than for more overtly commercial spam. [[User:Geogene|Geogene]] ([[User talk:Geogene|talk]]) 04:17, 10 March 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:17, 10 March 2018
- Sources on conflict of interest (chronological)
- 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, "Conflict of Interest Revisited," Business & Professional Ethics Journal, 12(4), Winter 1993, pp. 21–41. JSTOR 27800924
- Michael Davis, Andrew Stark (eds.). Conflict of Interest in the Professions, University of Oxford Press, 2001.
- Andrew Stark, Conflict of Interest in American Public Life, Harvard University Press, 2003.
- Sheldon Krimsky, "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.), Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice, National Academies Press, 2009.
- Wayne Norman, Chris McDonald, "Conflicts of Interest", in George G. Brenkert, Tom L. Beauchamp (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Business Ethics, Oxford University Press, 2012, pp. 441–470.
WP:UPE redirect
Due to how prevalently "UPE" is being using as the primary abbreviation for "undisclosed paid editing", I was surprised to find that WP:UPE still redirects to Wikipedia:Use plain English..... when looking at incoming links, all the 2017 most recent ones intend to link to the topic of undisclosed paid editing! IMO the best solution would be:
- Create a new shortcut WP:PLAINENGLISH, put it in the shortcut box at Wikipedia:Use plain English, and change the old links to WP:UPE to that new shortcut (about 70 or so)
- Retarget WP:UPE to reflect its current usage, either at the same location as WP:PAYDISCLOSE or WP:COIPAYDISCLOSE and add it to the relevant shortcut box.
Just my humble proposal to resolve the problem of people linking to a shortcut thinking it leads somewhere expected when in reality it leads somewhere else entirely (some recent examples: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oliver Isaacs, [1], User talk:Serial Number 54129/Archive 11, User talk:KrakatoaKatie/Archive 52). Feel free to discuss other solutions! Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 12:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- Maybe RfD is a better venue to discuss this? Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 12:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
- Not sure about the venue, but retargeting WP:UPE sounds like a good idea to me. Rentier (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not a fan of creating more and more shortcuts for the same destination. Because commenters often use the unadorned shortcut in prose instead of using readable link text, readers have to remember more and more synonyms for the same target. isaacl (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
- undeclared paid editing is a problem that cannot be expressed otherwise. The need to use plain english can be said in many equivalent ways. I think it therefore best for UPE to redirect to the editing; if we need a redirect for the English style, there's PLAIN. DGG ( talk ) 03:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- Redirect yep, agreed above; recently I used UPE in an AfD discussion and a reply thought I was talking about the fact that the article wasn't written in plain English (which of course it was, so they must have thought I was a bit odd). jcc (tea and biscuits) 11:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- Redirect I kind-of dislike this yet another new acronym, but I was a bit confused when people started using it and since they are . . . there you go. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Please remove this bump once WP:UPE has been transitioned. Bumping thread for 1000 days. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 17:43, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Application of WP:SELFCITE
Hello, folks. I'm interested in learning your views about a situation I've been seeing for a few weeks now. A person who runs a website is using that site as a source for facts in various articles. I suppose I could take the matter to the Reliable Sources noticeboard for some decision as to whether the website is indeed reliable for those facts. But it seems to me that, even if the site is found to be reliable, there is still a problem with this practice. The editor is not using her website for any type of analysis. Instead, she is using it just to cite particular facts. And this, in turn, leads me to wonder why she is using her site as the source, when she could equally well be sourcing those facts to wherever she learned them. And so, this does strike me as a promotional practice for which conflict-of-interest issues exist.
Your comments will be greatly appreciated. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- In my opinion, this does indeed fall afoul of WP:COI, as well as WP:NOTADVERT and WP:SPAM. I think it would be reasonable to revert those edits. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- It's difficult to be definitive in general, when each situation has its own specifics. If a site is a recognized reliable source for a given type of information, like the hockey salary cap web site that had been run by an individual before he passed away, then it is reasonable for it to be used as a source, regardless who is doing it. If someone who works for a newspaper chooses to use the paper's site as a reference for an AP story, although true enough any number of other web sites could be used, I struggle to find a good reason against using the site. Other scenarios may be more clearly a case of advertising one's own site. isaacl (talk) 02:07, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- There's a population of SPAs that do nothing in Wikipedia but cite themselves, and rarely does anyone seem to notice them. That raises the question...why would a recognized expert in their field be desperate enough to do that? Think of it like a bank: the people that "need" to cite themselves in Wikipedia are usually people that shouldn't be cited. And I agree that it's COI and citespam. But the community seems to have a much higher tolerance of it than for more overtly commercial spam. Geogene (talk) 04:17, 10 March 2018 (UTC)