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.
Applicability of this policy to articles about technical products
The applicability of this policy is not completely clear. Is it intended to apply to articles describing technical products (e.g. a static analysis tool)? It seems almost inevitable that someone who has enough knowledge about a given technical product also has at least some implicit bias, given the investment in money and/or time in acquiring and becoming proficient in use of the product. I would think the "neutral point of view" and the requirement to connect all descriptions of details to some more official documentation provided elsewhere are more relevant for such articles. Sttaft (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- We love experts very much! We have many experts who contribute to articles in the space of their expertise, who do great work and are really focused on building the encyclopedia. People who know internet protocols, software, or medicine, or whatever, and write broadly and neutrally about them, citing the relevant papers (who ever they may be), using neutral language, and writing about the good things and the bad things as is appropriate. But we also have experts who come to Wikipedia mostly to promote their own work, giving it WP:UNDUE weight and writing non-neutrally about it.
- In your case, you created the article on ParaSail (programming language) which, based on your username, you appear to have created and you were the founder of a company bringing that software to market. There are two kinds of COI there - a standard financial one, as well as the kind of academic "ownership" of an idea that leads some people to come to Wikipedia and promote their own work. You would appear to be running afoul of both types of COI.
- Does that make sense? Jytdog (talk) 02:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- I want to add, that if you like, we can move this discussion to your Talk page and I can walk you through the conflict of interest management process in Wikipedia - let me know. Jytdog (talk) 02:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying. This policy seems to have evolved over the past decade, and it would seem that a lot of Wikipedia content (and authors) predate the current state of the policy. I'll try to keep it more in mind in the future, although I am still not convinced that the policy is practical given the scale of Wikipedia relative to the number of authors capable of contributing without any conflict of interest. Sttaft (talk) 15:21, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Jobs and Farrow
On the guidelinepage are two yellow boxes with links to examples of COI-declarations, but the links just take you to the talkpages, not that helpful. Some sort of permalink would be good, if anyone knows what examples were intended. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:45, 4 June 2016 (UTC)