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.
a question
"Any external relationship – personal, religious, political, academic, financial or legal – can trigger a COI." Does this mean one should not edit about the topic of their expertise? Or theories they lecture on universities? 212.200.65.127 (talk) 14:45, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
- @212.200.65.127: No it does not. Expert editors are welcome, but self-promotion is not. Citing your own work for instance is permitted as long as it is relevant, balanced, and in line with other policies. See advice for Expert editors and Wikipedia editing for research scientists. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Discrepancy?
It seems there is a discrepancy between how this page is presented and what is talked about on the template:coi page. I feel it is unclear because of this discrepancy when an editor should and should not use the coi tag.
L1R5M1 (talk) 12:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
What to do, if you suspect a COI?
I added content in this dif to answer that - the guideline provided no guidance as to what users should do in that situation. Jytdog (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Jdog added this to the COI rules "If concerns about COI remain after considering these other options, raise the issue in a civil manner on the editor's talk page, citing this guideline, or open a thread on WP:COIN." I asked him to discuss on talk. at aminimum he should open the thread. furthermore, he ignored the flag which states "Editors discussing proposed changes to WP:COI or related pages should disclose during those discussions whether they have been paid to edit Wikipedia."
of course buddy Roxythedog re-reverts me (minutes later, nothing else to do) in the well known tag team -edit warring manner, that brought jdog to ARbcom in the first place. I CLEARLY wrote to discuss. Rdog you are wrong. your tactic to push and WP:BAIT with your aggressive behavior is a shame and known to everyone. --Wuerzele (talk) 19:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- Still waiting for you to explain Jytdogs alleged COI per your, and my, edsum. -Roxy the dog™ woof 20:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I was busy replying the WP:hounding Jdog on my talk page (where he posts though not allowed) so he beat me with his above post facto entry! And he is not discussing here!
Jdog knows the rules and how to manipulate them, and here is an immediate example: discussing a controversial issue POST facto, after someone tells him to.--Wuerzele (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- Still waiting for you to explain Jytdogs alleged COI per your, and my, edsum. -Roxy the dog™ woof 11:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)