→Must COI authors out their new page through AfC?: Replying to Tryptofish (reply-link) |
→Must COI authors out their new page through AfC?: my further thinking |
||
Line 92: | Line 92: | ||
**Re: {{tq|then send it to AfD}} and {{tq|Draftifying without consent}}. Editors who oppose should at least oppose what is actually being proposed, rather than opposing something that has not been proposed. This is not a proposal to take pages in mainspace and draftify them. It is a guideline (not a policy) that tells editors with a COI that they are expected to submit their pages through AfC instead of going directly to mainspace. When such an editor ignores the guideline and bypasses AfC, there is nothing that requires someone else to draftify it: one is entirely at liberty to go to AfD. Of course guidelines are often ignored by the {{tq|bad guys}}, but that doesn't mean we should do away with guidelines entirely. And using AfC does not {{tq|stigmatize}} anyone, unless it stigmatizes everyone who uses it, in which case we should have done away with AfC. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 16:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC) |
**Re: {{tq|then send it to AfD}} and {{tq|Draftifying without consent}}. Editors who oppose should at least oppose what is actually being proposed, rather than opposing something that has not been proposed. This is not a proposal to take pages in mainspace and draftify them. It is a guideline (not a policy) that tells editors with a COI that they are expected to submit their pages through AfC instead of going directly to mainspace. When such an editor ignores the guideline and bypasses AfC, there is nothing that requires someone else to draftify it: one is entirely at liberty to go to AfD. Of course guidelines are often ignored by the {{tq|bad guys}}, but that doesn't mean we should do away with guidelines entirely. And using AfC does not {{tq|stigmatize}} anyone, unless it stigmatizes everyone who uses it, in which case we should have done away with AfC. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 16:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC) |
||
**:Point taken. My comment probably should have been written the other way around. I oppose mandatory AFC for COI editors because COI editors can create neutral articles just as non-COI editors can create non neutral articles. I'm okay with the guideline ''encouraging'' the use of AFC, potentially even making it easier to use the Article Wizard. The other part was because some people in support of changing to "must" also advocated draftifying anything that was created outside AFC for these editors. Regards [[User:SoWhy|<span style="color:#7A2F2F;font-variant:small-caps">So</span>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<span style="color:#474F84;font-variant:small-caps">Why</span>]] 16:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC) |
**:Point taken. My comment probably should have been written the other way around. I oppose mandatory AFC for COI editors because COI editors can create neutral articles just as non-COI editors can create non neutral articles. I'm okay with the guideline ''encouraging'' the use of AFC, potentially even making it easier to use the Article Wizard. The other part was because some people in support of changing to "must" also advocated draftifying anything that was created outside AFC for these editors. Regards [[User:SoWhy|<span style="color:#7A2F2F;font-variant:small-caps">So</span>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<span style="color:#474F84;font-variant:small-caps">Why</span>]] 16:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC) |
||
***:Not entirely sure why this comment was appended to my comment but since it was I'll reply: I think current policy says they are expected to submit their pages through AfC. This change would make that expectation a stronger expectation. I think the practical effect of that stronger expectation would be some overzealous editors drafitifying stuff per the guideline in a way that harms the overall encyclopedia. I think this negative outweighs any positives by those who would follow the stronger expectation but not our current expectation. Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 16:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC) |
|||
===Move-Warring=== |
===Move-Warring=== |
Revision as of 16:53, 15 January 2019
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.
Who needs this?
This is a POV guideline that is only good as a thought-terminating cliché. It seems to proscribe impartiality, which is superfluous, as it is already covered by NPOV. The idea seems to be that you can recuse an editor who meets certain formal criteria, just like you would recuse a partial judge. The "paid editing" subrule codifies an anti-consumerist POV that considers money the source of all evils. It criminalizes a state of things (being related or paid) and not behaviour (tendentious editing).
If tendentious editing is the problem, a paid POV warrior is no worse than a voluntary one, of which there are many in political, ideological and religious topics. In fact, everybody has convictions that he cannot simply put off like socks. Even with the best of so-called reputable sources, POV lies in the choice and arrangement of facts. So in fact, everybody has a COI. Not all paid editors are necessarily corrupt or bad, and if they are annoying, the fact that they are being paid (or that they are related) is of least relevance.
I have seen this guideline invoked mainly in two contexts: "alternative vs. scientistic medicine" and "public health vs. freedom of choice", and its purpose seems to be to forbid either point of view, without considering the individual merits of an edit. --212.186.133.83 (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
- All reputable publications have COI rules, there's no reason for Wikipedia to be different. Regarding your point that we should only look at the edit, not the editor: we do all first look at the edit and when we see problems sometimes it looks pretty obvious that there is a COI. If there were no problems with their edits, we would never catch COI editors. But most (all?) COI editors cannot write very well while trying to promote their products. It (almost) always reads like an advert.
WP:PAID does not prohibit paid editing, it only says that it must be disclosed so that we can monitor it more closely. But the folks who want to advertise in Wikipedia, despite our clear rules against advertising, rarely disclose their paid status. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:42, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
- As a guideline, its purpose is to help well-meaning PoV/COI editors work constructively, which is common enough among WP:EXPERT editors. Part of that is explaining what constitutes disruptive editing and how to avoid it. As a secondary purpose, it helps the rest of us deal with such disruptions. An editor should never be sanctioned for breaching the guideline as such, only for the disruption such breaches cause. But I agree that too many of us forget that. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Must COI authors out their new page through AfC?
Refer diff, compare with Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:EverlyWell and others currently at MfD, and WP:DRAFTIFY.
This page says “you should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly”. A good idea. Note that COI editors are not even supposed to edit their COI topics directly. So it that a “should” or a “must”? Is it toothless wishful thinking, or a must meaning that the new page reviewers may summarily draftify the article?
—SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- I've interpreted it as "If you're a COI edit you should, and if some other editor says you should then you must." It is possible for an AUTOBIO of someone notable to be made in mainspace and be close enough that it's not worth making them jump through hoops. It's much less likely, in my experience, for a notable company written by a COI, to be in a state where they don't need AfC. Of course the issue is that a COI editor is less likely, I feel, to have a notable topic to begin with than an editor of equivalent experience writing about a topic for which they do not have a COI. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- User:SmokeyJoe, User:Barkeep49 - The draftifications that I have seen of articles by paid editors needed draftifying or deleting not only because they were the work of paid editors but also because they were poorly sourced and contained blatantly promotional language. If we agree that sometimes new page reviewers should draftify articles, then we agree that sometimes new page reviewers should draftify articles, and sometimes those articles are written by paid editors. If anyone thinks that draftification should never be allowed, then we can discuss that, and, then, the articles in question should be tagged for deletion. However, since Draftify is an Alternative to Deletion, that establishes that sometimes articles should be draftified. It doesn't matter whether it is "must" or "should" as long as we agree that reviewers can use the judgment to draftify articles. Now: Was or is there a remaining question? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- To begin by answering your question, yes there is a remaining issue. That issue is whether we want pages created by COI (and not just paid editors) to go through the Articles for Creation process before going into mainspace, or whether we want them to go directly to mainspace and then be evaluated by New Page Patrol. Those two pathways are not equivalent. NPP reviewers are initially looking for WP:CSD issues, and it can take a significant amount of scrutiny before determining that there is a COI problem (although of course the NPOV and PROMO aspects are sometimes blatantly obvious). And I think the community does not want new pages with serious COI issues to sit in mainspace until someone figures out the COI. So I support the change to must. I will also point out that this page is a guideline rather than a policy, so by saying "must", we aren't really saying that an editor who fails to do it correctly goes straight to WP:ANI. It's more like we have something unambiguous to point to when the editor asks why we draftified their page when they do it the wrong way. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- COI comes in many shades. It's important to remember a COI can exist in the absence of bias, and bias regularly exists in the absence of a COI. If someone doesn't follow the current suggestion and they make an acceptable article, well the world's knowledge has been enhanced. If someone doesn't follow that suggestion now and they make a bad article, well this change doesn't affect them - they are probably going to also disregard the rule then (or not know about it). If someone doesn't follow the proposed rule and they make an acceptable article, then we penalize them, to uphold rules, at the expense of our readers. This propose change seems to penalize the wrong people. I feel very differently about paid editing, as opposed to "just" a COI. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- The way that I see it, the issues that you raise are matters of degree. Yes, AfC adds some time before the article is in mainspace, but a good article will still get into mainspace, so the detriment to the world's knowledge will be only temporary, and that doesn't really strike me as a penalty. Conversely, promotional pages are all too common, and do considerable harm to Wikipedia's reliability. I agree that users who ignore the rules don't read the rules, but that is true of every policy and guideline. And as I said above, this is a guideline rather than a policy, so it's "a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." --Tryptofish (talk) 01:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- Tryptofish, not necessarily. Draftification does not automatically submit the article for review at AfC. Meaning that if the author leaves and never clicks the submit button, the 'COI but acceptable article' may be later deleted by a bot in 6 months without ever seeing another human's eyes. IMO Draftification should not be used on COI articles that are otherwise acceptably written articles. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 08:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- I guess I didn't make myself sufficiently clear, because I agree with what you said. What I am advocating is that COI articles should go through AfC from the start. That way, they never start out by being draftified out of mainspace. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- Tryptofish, not necessarily. Draftification does not automatically submit the article for review at AfC. Meaning that if the author leaves and never clicks the submit button, the 'COI but acceptable article' may be later deleted by a bot in 6 months without ever seeing another human's eyes. IMO Draftification should not be used on COI articles that are otherwise acceptably written articles. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 08:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- The way that I see it, the issues that you raise are matters of degree. Yes, AfC adds some time before the article is in mainspace, but a good article will still get into mainspace, so the detriment to the world's knowledge will be only temporary, and that doesn't really strike me as a penalty. Conversely, promotional pages are all too common, and do considerable harm to Wikipedia's reliability. I agree that users who ignore the rules don't read the rules, but that is true of every policy and guideline. And as I said above, this is a guideline rather than a policy, so it's "a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." --Tryptofish (talk) 01:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- COI comes in many shades. It's important to remember a COI can exist in the absence of bias, and bias regularly exists in the absence of a COI. If someone doesn't follow the current suggestion and they make an acceptable article, well the world's knowledge has been enhanced. If someone doesn't follow that suggestion now and they make a bad article, well this change doesn't affect them - they are probably going to also disregard the rule then (or not know about it). If someone doesn't follow the proposed rule and they make an acceptable article, then we penalize them, to uphold rules, at the expense of our readers. This propose change seems to penalize the wrong people. I feel very differently about paid editing, as opposed to "just" a COI. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- To begin by answering your question, yes there is a remaining issue. That issue is whether we want pages created by COI (and not just paid editors) to go through the Articles for Creation process before going into mainspace, or whether we want them to go directly to mainspace and then be evaluated by New Page Patrol. Those two pathways are not equivalent. NPP reviewers are initially looking for WP:CSD issues, and it can take a significant amount of scrutiny before determining that there is a COI problem (although of course the NPOV and PROMO aspects are sometimes blatantly obvious). And I think the community does not want new pages with serious COI issues to sit in mainspace until someone figures out the COI. So I support the change to must. I will also point out that this page is a guideline rather than a policy, so by saying "must", we aren't really saying that an editor who fails to do it correctly goes straight to WP:ANI. It's more like we have something unambiguous to point to when the editor asks why we draftified their page when they do it the wrong way. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- User:SmokeyJoe, User:Barkeep49 - The draftifications that I have seen of articles by paid editors needed draftifying or deleting not only because they were the work of paid editors but also because they were poorly sourced and contained blatantly promotional language. If we agree that sometimes new page reviewers should draftify articles, then we agree that sometimes new page reviewers should draftify articles, and sometimes those articles are written by paid editors. If anyone thinks that draftification should never be allowed, then we can discuss that, and, then, the articles in question should be tagged for deletion. However, since Draftify is an Alternative to Deletion, that establishes that sometimes articles should be draftified. It doesn't matter whether it is "must" or "should" as long as we agree that reviewers can use the judgment to draftify articles. Now: Was or is there a remaining question? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
- Barkeep49, another way to put the question: May a New Page Reviewer unilaterally draftify a new article due to their allegation that the author has a COI. Assume the article is not speediable, and would face a fair chance of not being deleted at AfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- User:Robert_McClenon, are the draftifications that you’ve seen and you support in line with the documentation at WP:DRAFTIFY? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- User:SmokeyJoe - Yes. The draftifications that I have seen and that I support are in line with the rules at WP:DRAFTIFY. I have seen a very few draftifications that I disagreed with, but mostly I have agreed. I have also seen a few draftifications where rule 2 in WP:DRAFTIFY was not satisfied, in that the page being draftified was irredeemable junk, and it says that we do not draftify junk. However, I won't make a fuss about that distinction.
- Two ways of wording this documentation are: (1) The COI editor must use AfC. (And if they don’t any editor may draftify and repeated mainspacing by the COI editor will be considered a behavioural fault); or (2) The NPP Reviewer May draftify any new article that they believe was created by a COI editor. (No fault ascribed to the COI editior, they got caught this time but can freely try it again in future)
- I much prefer (1) because it creates a greater burden on the COI editor than on the NPP reviewer.
- —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- I much prefer (1), although the first part of (2) is also valid. The COI editor should be required to use AFC. The NPP reviewer may draftify a new article that they believe was created by a COI editor. (No fault ascribed to the reviewer if the editor was not COI.) Robert McClenon (talk) 01:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- I strongly support the change to must. If a new page reviewer chooses to draftify an article on COI or PAID grounds, the move should be respected as an attempt to find an alternative to directly deleting the article. The change to must is (from my personal experience) de facto policy as is, as my moves are almost always repeated by other editors if they are countered. Assuming we make this change in policy official, I will note that move warring must be avoided at all costs, as has long been the case with DRAFTIFY.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- I agree that move-warring must be avoided at all costs, but some reviewers have engaged in move-warring by draftifying pages two or three times. Does User:SamHolt6 mean that it has always been avoided (which it has not), or that it should have always been avoided? I think that a reviewer who draftifies a page two or three times is almost as disruptive as the author who moves it into article space two or three times. If it has already been draftified once, and moved back into article space, and isn't ready for article space, that is what AFD is for. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon: I will clarify a bit. DRAFTIFY is clear that moving an article to the draftspace is an alternative to deletion but not a replacement for a proper AfD. The current loose state of the COI/UDP policy suggestion to send articles through AfC leads to issues as, in the oft-occurring instance in which a NPR or Page Mover moves an article to the draftspace citing DRAFTIFY, a COI editor is within their rights to move the article back to the mainspace, also per DRAFTIFY. This then results in either an AFD, PROD, or speedy to delete the article or (more commonly in my experience) the NPR or another experienced editor moving the article to the draftspace (sometimes multiple times if the COI editor is persistent), thus creating a disruptive move war. I think these wars are best avoided, and we can decrease their frequency giving more teeth to COI policy and requiring COI editors to submit articles to AFC; the current policy is too vague, this vagueness (as it only offers suggestions) gives COI editors the confidence to push articles directly on the mainspace, in turn generating a backlash from more experienced New Page Reviewers. If we were to change to COI policy to must, experienced editors could—with confidence—report violators of COI policy and thus would have less cause (in fact, no cause) to move war with COI editors.--SamHolt6 (talk) 02:40, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- To surmise my points above, we should mandate COI/UDP editors submit articles through AfC to give New Page Reviewers a policy-based reason to move relevant articles to the draftspace. This will render the de-facto strategy of moving COI/UDP articles to the draftspace via WP:DRAFTIFY obsolete, which will in turn strengthen DRAFTIFY as experienced editors will no longer have to infringe upon it in order to curtail paid editing, as these editors will have a mandate to send articles to the draft per the new COI rules.--SamHolt6 (talk) 02:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- User:SamHolt6 - Well, I mostly agree, but I think that a New Page Reviewer who draftifies a page twice, either under the current rules or the improved rules, is being disruptive in a misguided effort to assume good faith by a bad-faith editor. Regardless of whether the author has a COI, move-warring is disruptive, and should be resolved either by AFD or some other means, such as a block. On a second move to article space, some alternate action is needed. (This is also true on edit-warring. A Third Opinion, DRN, a Request for Comments, or a report to the edit-warring noticeboard are better than continuing the edit-war.) The alternate action may be AFD, or the COI noticeboard, or WP:ANI. I think that PROD is silly after a move-war; the author will almost certainly de-PROD it. Requesting speedy deletion is also silly after a move-war, because if the page calls for speedy deletion, that should have been requested on the first shot. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- I agree that move-warring must be avoided at all costs, but some reviewers have engaged in move-warring by draftifying pages two or three times. Does User:SamHolt6 mean that it has always been avoided (which it has not), or that it should have always been avoided? I think that a reviewer who draftifies a page two or three times is almost as disruptive as the author who moves it into article space two or three times. If it has already been draftified once, and moved back into article space, and isn't ready for article space, that is what AFD is for. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support: if a new page reviewer reasonably judges there to be a conflict of interest that affects the quality of an article it should not be in the mainspace. Simply put, we should amend the policy so any COI creators, paid or unpaid, must use AFC. SITH (talk) 15:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
- I support the change to must with all respect to move-warring and WP:DRAFTIFYING but any disruptive behaviour should not be tolerated at any cost e.g. sockpuppetry or block evasion also, IMO a move performed by a paid/undisclosed paid editor or a sockpuppet should be reverted back for a natural uninvolved editor to review. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- I'd also support a change to must. The weak wording of this guideline significantly undermines it. COI editors consistently ignore any direction that includes words like "should", "may" or "discourage". I've never heard any good explanation for why we make following this guideline—uniquely—optional (except in the usual sense implied by IAR). – Joe (talk) 08:04, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- I'd support 'must' so long as it specifies that action by reviewers is only required on inappropriate pages. This shouldn't be used as justification for soft-deleteing good pages just on the suspicion of COI. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 08:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:AGF; WP:BURO; WP:CREEP. The focus should be on the content not the contributor. If the page needs work then actually do the work or stick a cleanup tag on it. If the topic is hopeless then send it to AfD. Moving the article into the AfC process is just sweeping the issue under the carpet rather than actually addressing it. The AfC reviewers are much the same as the NPP reviewers and so no value is added by pushing the page around. Andrew D. (talk) 10:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per Andrew Davidson. Also, I think it might help if "should" were enriched with overt explanation this it is dangerously foolish (i.e. likely to end in tears) to disregard such advice. But that probably applies to a great many guidelines. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- Also, I don't see "forbidding" as meaning a damn thing to the bad guys, they will just carry right on the way they are and we will be no better off than before. In fact worse, because borderline cases will then get stigmatized and turned sour. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- Support - considering there are still thousands or ten-thousands of articles with substantial COI-related issues lingering in mainspace, and hundreds more being written every month, AfC-reviewing is an essential tool to limit this flood of low-quality promotional content. The proposed change has nothing to do with bad faith, but strengthens a reasonable quality check based on years of (mostly) negative experience with COI-editing. Contrary to popular belief, low-quality articles do not improve themselves once they are in mainspace. And hosting promotional content - possibly for years - is a direct violation of Wikipedia's basic principles as encyclopedic project. GermanJoe (talk) 12:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- Strong oppose. Draftifying without consent results in removal of content from the mainspace akin to deletion. As long as the deletion policy does not allow deletion of such content just because the creator had a COI, other ways of removal should equally be forbidden. In fact, none of the actual policies and guidelines (especially WP:IMPERFECT, WP:DEL and WP:COI) support forced removal of content from mainspace without discussion. Also, as noted above, the COI guideline does not require editors to use AFC because the focus should be on the content, not the contributor. Why should a COI editor be forced to submit a perfectly neutrally written draft to AFC while a fanboy not related to a subject can place his POV article in mainspace? Last but not least, I cannot think of any articles where editing, including WP:STUBIFYing(!), cannot fix the problem with non neutral text better than a move to draftspace. Regards SoWhy 15:39, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- Since we're doing the whole support/oppose thing I'll make clear that per my comments above I oppose a change requiring AfC for unpaid COI. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- Re:
then send it to AfD
andDraftifying without consent
. Editors who oppose should at least oppose what is actually being proposed, rather than opposing something that has not been proposed. This is not a proposal to take pages in mainspace and draftify them. It is a guideline (not a policy) that tells editors with a COI that they are expected to submit their pages through AfC instead of going directly to mainspace. When such an editor ignores the guideline and bypasses AfC, there is nothing that requires someone else to draftify it: one is entirely at liberty to go to AfD. Of course guidelines are often ignored by thebad guys
, but that doesn't mean we should do away with guidelines entirely. And using AfC does notstigmatize
anyone, unless it stigmatizes everyone who uses it, in which case we should have done away with AfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)- Point taken. My comment probably should have been written the other way around. I oppose mandatory AFC for COI editors because COI editors can create neutral articles just as non-COI editors can create non neutral articles. I'm okay with the guideline encouraging the use of AFC, potentially even making it easier to use the Article Wizard. The other part was because some people in support of changing to "must" also advocated draftifying anything that was created outside AFC for these editors. Regards SoWhy 16:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- Not entirely sure why this comment was appended to my comment but since it was I'll reply: I think current policy says they are expected to submit their pages through AfC. This change would make that expectation a stronger expectation. I think the practical effect of that stronger expectation would be some overzealous editors drafitifying stuff per the guideline in a way that harms the overall encyclopedia. I think this negative outweighs any positives by those who would follow the stronger expectation but not our current expectation. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- Re:
Move-Warring
By the way, I will state a two-part opinion about move-warring. Move-warring is in my view even worse than regular edit-warring. First, anyone who moves the same page twice is move-warring, and the move-warring is a conduct issue. Don't move anything twice. If a COI editor, for instance, moves a page into article space a second time, do not move it back to draft space. Tag it for deletion, and let the AFD discussion decide. Second, a stronger statement, I do not think that a page should be draftified twice, whether by the same editor or someone else. If it is moved to article space a second time and is not ready for article space, the COI (or other) editor has chosen to accept the risk of AFD, and the reviewer should let the AFD run its course. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
- Robert McClenon, This goes back to my point above. If you are draftifying acceptable articles that were written by a COI editor (the 'must' opinion given by several editors above), they can get around this by just re-creating it in main space. As a NPR, you can't take it to deletion if there isn't anything wrong with it. So I deffinitely think we should not be unilaterally draftifying all COI articles, only the unacceptable ones. UPE articles are of course a different story. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 08:59, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Competitors
The section on What is conflict of interest? makes it clear that if someone has a constructive relationship with a given subject then they have an editorial COI. I have just come across a direct competitor to a certain subject in question. In any other walk of life, this is clearly a COI issue. But, because the competitor's position is set against the subject of the article, our guideline does not recognize it as such. The guideline appeals to common sense, but only in the context of closeness, not of positive vs negative relationships. I would suggest that the guideline be edited to explicitly define a competitive position as a potential COI. Is that a good idea? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- That's a very good point, and I strongly support such a change. I think that it is definitely the case that it can be a COI to want to edit Wikipedia in order to make a competitor look bad. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)