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.
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)
Proposal for new limitation
Propose to add to the main advice box, as in this dif
- If you are paid to edit articles, do not edit policies, guidelines, templates, help documents, etc.
This has not come up before that I am aware of, but then this happened followed by this. There was pretty clear consensus on both noticeboards for this principle. If we agree to add here, the same change should be made to WP:PAID, I reckon. Jytdog (talk) 10:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support proposal I am strongly opposed to paid editors changing guidelines/policies/help pages. First, because there has been a previous case where a longtime (undisclosed) paid editor actually influenced certain guidelines and later used it to defend their own stance in certain articles (See this). My second reason is because paid editing is a form of Systemic bias. I find it ethically wrong that certain individuals and companies can hire editors and have a nice puffed up article on Wikipedia. At the same time, volunteer editors also spend time trying to trim the articles and reduce promotional content. The encyclopaedia gradually gets slanted towards these articles. Although I dislike it, I can live with it as long as paid editing is properly disclosed. However, when paid editors start changing guidelines/policies/help pages, it risks introducing the bias into the very functioning of Wikipedia itself. This is much more critical. If the notability barriers for companies are brought down, it becomes easier to slip in articles and use Wikipedia for promotion. If it is made harder to tag articles for problems, editors may refrain from pointing out problems altogether, which serves the purpose of COI editors. If it is made easier to remove maintenance templates, then COI editors can simply remove the tags without fixing problems. On a long term, this risks transforming a free encyclopaedia to a platform hosting information about people who can pay for it (something like a paid web-host, with free volunteer customer service). Since I don't want that to happen, it is best that paid editors are not allowed to edit policies/guidelines/help pages directly. The problem needs to be nipped in the bud right now. Support adding this diff to WP:COI and consequently to WP:PAID as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support. This plugs an obvious loophole. Additionally, paid and COI editors should not be participating in AfD discussions, where they can be disruptive and tenacious. Note too the template help discussion here regarding removal of article maintenance templates by COI editors generally. Coretheapple (talk) 17:20, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- No. This is far too broad, especially given that many people who are "paid" to edit (e.g., Wikipedians in residence) are longterm community members with significant knowledge and experience. Risker (talk) 18:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- I think this can be cured by simply referencing the TOU. That is, editors paid as defined by the TOU. A tweak would do it. Coretheapple (talk) 20:15, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Risker, If I may, you have previusly advocated tightening Notability-business rules to alternatively address paid editing, and now when a paid editor has been blocked in part for trying to edit the Notability-business rules, your response is just 'no'. What can we do? Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:27, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- User:Risker about that, please see this about a GLAM editor editing this guideline with respect to GLAM, to make it less restrictive for him/herself. In my view if someone is GLAM and is very well respected, if they make a proposal to change a policy etc it will surely be well heard. Also, would love to hear what would make to sense to you to prevent problems in the future. Jytdog (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Important, broad policies and guidelines should not be changed as a result of one-off situations. Having re-read the sections that Jytdog has referenced, what we had here was an individual who was completely inappropriately changing policies without proper disussion. The fact he was a paid editor was irrelevant: people who change policies without proper discussion are almost always making changes that reflect their editorial preferences. We already have a policy about changing policies. The substantive sentence is:
Editing a policy to support your own argument in an active discussion may be seen as gaming the system, especially if you do not disclose your involvement in the argument when making the edits.
Let's not duplicate things.Alanscottwalker, I'm not sure why you'd link my belief that more stringent notability requirements for businesses with the longstanding procedures for modification of guidelines and policies. I don't see anyone rushing to even have the discussion about tightening notability. Jytdog, Wikipedia is becoming extremely overburdened by intertwining and often contradictory or out-of-step rules. They aren't working. I believe that your assessment of the discussion on ANI is actually quite wrong, and reflects your own point of view. I want to stop seeing people propose modifications to important policies and guidelines based on their own viewpoints. I'm not persuaded that your proposal here is any less problematic than that which just got someone else indeffed. Risker (talk) 20:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- That person was indeffed for battleground behavior, not for proposing changes. Hm. In any case, thanks for making your opposition to this clear. This may take an RfC but we'll see how this goes. But what you mention there about WP:PAG is super helpful and may be all we need. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)(redact Jytdog (talk) 22:06, 5 June 2016 (UTC))
- Important, broad policies and guidelines should not be changed as a result of one-off situations. Having re-read the sections that Jytdog has referenced, what we had here was an individual who was completely inappropriately changing policies without proper disussion. The fact he was a paid editor was irrelevant: people who change policies without proper discussion are almost always making changes that reflect their editorial preferences. We already have a policy about changing policies. The substantive sentence is:
- Risker, why do I link it, because the link should be obvious: 1) you have a paid editor editing the buisness notability rule in ways the community found against wikipedia's interest due to conflict; 2) you have a business notability rule, which you argue should be tightend to address the conflict of paid editing. Ergo. It's not going to be tightened with paid editors editing it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment The editor who prompted discussion of this problem is now indef blocked.[1]. Did that resolve the problem for now, or is this a broad enough problem to require policy changes? In general, editors probably should avoid editing policy pages where they are close to violating that policy. That's a "discuss on talk first" kind of issue. John Nagle (talk) 05:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- That editor was already indeffed and unblocks had been refused when I first proposed this. It was to avoid future such situations that I did it. (It is bad form to try to change policies/guidelines to win an argument; the argument was indeed already over.) I am unaware of this happening before. Consensus was strongly against what this editor was doing at COIN and ANI so it seemed reasonable to see if there was consensus to add it to the guideline.Jytdog (talk) 11:49, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose as instruction creep. Changes to policy and guidelines already requires consensus and no one should be editing them without seeking consensus for their change first.--v/r - TP 18:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- the less paid editors do the better. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
NPP / AfC
Just a reminder that in just over a week at Wikimania there's going to be a cross-Wiki discussion about the systems of control of new pages. This is a round-table rather than a presentation or a lecture. On the agenda are reforms to the new article reviewing systems and ways to help new users better understand our content policies. If you are going to Italy and would like to take part, please check out the conference schedule, and I look forward to seeing you there. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Section on working with conflicted editors
The following was added at some point
Responding to requests
Editors should exercise caution when responding to edit requests from COI and paid editors, particularly when commercial interests are involved. When large amounts of text are added on behalf of the article subject, it means that the article has, in effect, been ghostwritten by them, without the readers' knowledge.
Editors responding to edit requests should carefully check the proposed text and sources. That an article has been expanded does not necessarily mean that it is better. Be on the lookout for unnecessary detail that may have been added to overwhelm something negative. In particular, editors should determine whether anything important is missing and whether the text complies with WP:DUE. If the proposed new text is added to the article, the edit summary should include full attribution; see WP:COIATTRIBUTE below.
This is problematic on a bunch of levels including redundancy. I have proposed the following, which is tighter and more clear:
Responding to requests
Wikipedia has been criticized for allowing articles to become ghostwritten by company representatives complying with this guideline.
Editors should carefully review content proposed by conflicted and paid editors to ensure that the proposed content complies with the content policies, particularly with regard to whether negative information has been omitted in the proposal and whether aspects of the proposal would be WP:UNDUE if implemented.
If proposed content is added to the article, the edit summary should include full attribution including any changes made by the implementing editor; see WP:COIATTRIBUTE below.
That was reverted, so I'm bringing all this to Talk for discussion. Jytdog (talk) 00:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- When someone reverts a change, it doesn't mean you can remove the whole section. The writing in your version is not so good; there are several grammatical issues. It omits that more doesn't necessarily mean better, which is a common mistake editors make when they carry over paid editors' work. It omits the PR tendency to add words to hide negative material. It omits the need to check sources. It implies that only company articles suffer from this problem. It tells edtors to add their own changes to the edit summary, which is not possible when dealing with entire drafts. If you believe the current text is problematic "on a bunch of levels," please list them. SarahSV (talk) 00:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- When you boldly make changes to this guideline, it doesn't mean that they stick either. Please point out the grammatical issues with my version that were so horrible that they all had to be deleted. My content is very clear - more clear than the original - the negative material may be omitted. More is not better is a general problem in WP and not at all specific to paid editing. You are correct that my version doesn't mention sources in particular but it does mention all content policies which brings in ... all content policies. That of course includes V/RS and also OR (which the original leaves out all together) as well as all aspects of NPOV (which includes non-neutral language as well as omissions/UNDUE). I would have been happy to collaborate but since you made it all or nothing, here we are. My changes fixed those issues in the version you added. Jytdog (talk) 00:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Your version is a significant weakening of the guideline. I couldn't help but notice that you yanked it out at the same time as this discussion in Talk:The Hollywood Reporter, in which a paid editor is seeking to sub an entire section with text of his own. That discussion indicates to me that some editors can't seem to grasp the undesirability of ghostwriting by paid editors even under the stronger (and in my view fairly unanmbiguous) language. If anything, it needs to be strengthened, not watered down. Coretheapple (talk) 00:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- How is it weaker? You pointed to what you are doing at that Talk page - I just looked in on what you are doing on there and wow are you pushing it; you are going to get TBANed from discussing COI if you keep behaving disruptively on article Talk pages like that. Jytdog (talk) 00:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Can you please explain this edit summary: moving this to talk. I didn't notice this when it was added and it is not OK? That section has been there for a very long time. You take out sections of the COI guideline that you think are "not OK" no matter how long they have been there? Coretheapple (talk) 00:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- it was added somewhere in this huge slew of edits made by SV. Jytdog (talk) 01:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- So you "didn't notice it" last fall so out it goes on the first day of summer. Gotcha. Coretheapple (talk) 01:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know exactly when it was added and neither apparently do you. It was never discussed and is flawed; I tried to improve it but was straight up reverted. So we can discuss it and decide what this should say, which was never done. Jytdog (talk) 01:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- No, how long it has been there is immaterial. What matters is that it has been there for months and months, and you just took it out. Whether the number of months is six or seven doesn't really matter but if it does to you I'll go back and take a look. Coretheapple (talk) 01:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- As for how it has been weakened, that was explained to you already by SV. Why did you weaken it? Coretheapple (talk) 01:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- The lack of discussion is the problem that is now being addressed. I did not weaken it; I made it more clear and stronger as it brings in all content policies, which the original didn't. Jytdog (talk) 01:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- You weakened it to make it stronger? Why not deal with SlimVirgin's objections waaaaaaaay up top. Specifically. You want to discuss, so discuss, point by point. Coretheapple (talk) 01:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Oh just to be clear, I am referring to the reply at 00:24, 21 June 2016. Coretheapple (talk) 01:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yes I addressed that, right below there.Jytdog (talk) 01:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- No, you didn't. You wrote that the current version is "problematic on a bunch of levels," so please list them, so we can discuss them. SarahSV (talk) 01:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I was just about to say that there was no response whatsoever to the points raised in that post. Yes, pleasd do enumerate your problems with that section of the guideline. I'm still not clear on why you weakened it. Coretheapple (talk) 01:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC) And by the way, just an aside: your weakening and removal of that section right after I cited it at the Hollywood Reporter talk page has got to be one of the most fascinating coincidences I've ever encountered here on Wikipedia! Coretheapple (talk) 01:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yes I addressed that, right below there.Jytdog (talk) 01:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- The lack of discussion is the problem that is now being addressed. I did not weaken it; I made it more clear and stronger as it brings in all content policies, which the original didn't. Jytdog (talk) 01:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know exactly when it was added and neither apparently do you. It was never discussed and is flawed; I tried to improve it but was straight up reverted. So we can discuss it and decide what this should say, which was never done. Jytdog (talk) 01:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- So you "didn't notice it" last fall so out it goes on the first day of summer. Gotcha. Coretheapple (talk) 01:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- How is it weaker? You pointed to what you are doing at that Talk page - I just looked in on what you are doing on there and wow are you pushing it; you are going to get TBANed from discussing COI if you keep behaving disruptively on article Talk pages like that. Jytdog (talk) 00:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Your version is a significant weakening of the guideline. I couldn't help but notice that you yanked it out at the same time as this discussion in Talk:The Hollywood Reporter, in which a paid editor is seeking to sub an entire section with text of his own. That discussion indicates to me that some editors can't seem to grasp the undesirability of ghostwriting by paid editors even under the stronger (and in my view fairly unanmbiguous) language. If anything, it needs to be strengthened, not watered down. Coretheapple (talk) 00:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- When you boldly make changes to this guideline, it doesn't mean that they stick either. Please point out the grammatical issues with my version that were so horrible that they all had to be deleted. My content is very clear - more clear than the original - the negative material may be omitted. More is not better is a general problem in WP and not at all specific to paid editing. You are correct that my version doesn't mention sources in particular but it does mention all content policies which brings in ... all content policies. That of course includes V/RS and also OR (which the original leaves out all together) as well as all aspects of NPOV (which includes non-neutral language as well as omissions/UNDUE). I would have been happy to collaborate but since you made it all or nothing, here we are. My changes fixed those issues in the version you added. Jytdog (talk) 00:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
See here; Here I will copy/paste it for you: "My content is very clear - more clear than the original - the negative material may be omitted. More is not better is a general problem in WP and not at all specific to paid editing. You are correct that my version doesn't mention sources in particular but it does mention all content policies which brings in ... all content policies. That of course includes V/RS and also OR (which the original leaves out all together) as well as all aspects of NPOV (which includes non-neutral language as well as omissions/UNDUE). I would have been happy to collaborate but since you made it all or nothing, here we are. My changes fixed those issues in the version you added." To be even more painfully clear:
- Omits reviewing for OR
- Omits reviewing for neutral language
- Repeats itself.
I'll add now:
- Bias comes into articles through advocacy. COI is the kind of advocacy that this article deals with. Whether someone's COI is driven by them getting paid, or because the article is about their dad, or about themselves their editing can be terribly biased and their behavior disruptive; there is no need to be more particularly cautious when dealing with a paid editor.
- I moved the criticisms about ghostwriting to the top of the section to show why being careful when reviewing and implementing proposed content matters; we manage COI to protect the integrity of WP and its reputation.
In any case both of you have made it clear that you are not open to improvements. Let's see what others have to say. Jytdog (talk) 02:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- You're just repeating your previous non-response, but at greater length. Also you misstate the nature of COI, but that is neither here nor there. I guess you just don't want to explain why you are intent on weakening the guideline. Coretheapple (talk) 02:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
IMO opinion both versions are bad. First of all, I dislike the idea that the very fist line of the section redirects to an essay. IMO the proper place of essays is in "See also". If the essay is of generic importance, suggest the expansion of the guideline.
Second, "Responding to requests" is a serious item here. I've seen cases when not very seasoned editors are all too helpful (which is probably OK) to address such requests without really having experience with all sneaky ways of COI editors. Therefore IMO this section must be of two parts: (a) a general word of caution and (b) a checklist of most common tricks to watch for.
Third, what the heck is is supposed to mean: "<been ghostwritten> without the readers' knowledge"? What kind of crime is this? And why 'ghostwritten'? A PR lady can write PR babble all by herself, but this doesn't become any more suspicious. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- ack, yes I meant to remove the ghostwriting essay from my version. It is badly written and violates policy in a few ways, and should not be cited in this guideline. The criticism about ghostwriting got really hot around the BP article, which was controversial here in WP when two groups of editors clashed over how to deal with the way content being proposed by a disclosed BP employee was handled; the controversy made press as in here. Jytdog (talk) 02:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Attribution record: Keeping article drafts created by conflicted editors
So if a conflicted editor (heck any editor) makes a draft of an article or section elsewhere that ultimately gets incorporated into the article, where should that ultimately reside so that WP retains the record of the work done on it? I think it should maybe become a subpage of the article's talk page, rather than residing in userspace, where it is really under that user's control.
here is an example - I worked with a paid editor in their sandbox here and ultimately incorporated that collaboratively created draft into an article in this dif. So should this be moved to Talk:Memorial_Sloan_Kettering_Cancer_Center/sandbox/Memorial_Sloan_Kettering_Cancer_Center, and should this guideline advise that this happen generally so we keep that record? Jytdog (talk) 00:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Well here's one idea: don't work with paid editors on drafts and you won't have to put them anywhere. Coretheapple (talk) 01:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think this kind of reply was called for. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- I think this topic is uncalled-for. The guideline should not be providing mechanisms or procedures related to ghostwriting by paid editors. Coretheapple (talk) 02:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think this kind of reply was called for. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Jytdog: please explain what problems you see with user's control. I see only one, and it is rather admin's control: an admin can delete user subpages upon users' request and this may lead to hiding the history of the actual article. Therefore your suggestion makes sense. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- You nailed it; the risk of it the user tagging it for deletion (e.g WP:U1) has been raised elsewhere and this would prevent that... Jytdog (talk) 02:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't see any problem that isn't overcome by Jtydog's edit summary "(import article from User_talk:FacultiesIntact/sandbox/Memorial_Sloan_Kettering_Cancer_Center - see Talk)"
In any case changing the guideline should be done collaboratively. Please don't just put in new text without cheching it out here first. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC)