Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Archive 10

Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15


What direction to take?

Perhaps someone can proved direction to me as to how to address a situation. An editor has indicated that he does not like the views of the subject of an article. I believe the article fairly reflects the RSs, a point he hasn't disagreed with. Nor, IMHO, could he in good faith. Still, he doesn't like the reflection of the RSs in the article.

He has now added a COI template to the article. I removed it writing there's simply no basis for it. Nor has any been suggested, despite many requests by me that he provide one. He has told me, however, that I am not allowed to remove his COI template.

He also affixed a neutrality template. But hasn't provided a basis for it, despite requests (and IMHO none exists). He has cautioned me not to remove his neutrality template.

What course to address this? I don't seem to be able to discuss it with him and reach a reasoned resolution. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe I know the article you are referring to, which is currently at AfD. So far it looks to be surviving the AfD.
In that article, and in any similar situation, the tag is inappropriate. Not so inappropriate that the editor should be warned, but it's just incorrect. There is quite often a confusion between WP:COI and WP:NPOV, as they are very much related, but they aren't the same. The argument made on the talk page is that there is such a strong POV that it implies a COI, but that's just incorrect. A conflict of interest doesn't just mean a strong POV, it means an actual connection. I've commented there. By the way, this is not the place to discuss such matters, this talk page is for discussion about the COI policy page and whether or not the policy should be changed, for questions about specific COI incidents please use the conflict of interest noticeboard. Thanks! -- Atama頭 00:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

New question

Everytime a new page comes up with the "Tag: possible autobiography or conflict of interest". Should we move it to the user page of that user? Minimac94 (talk) 06:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

That might encourage the user to edit it further (extensively), which is the opposite of the goal of the template! -- Quiddity (talk) 20:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Non sequitur about assuming good faith

"Assuming good faith, start from the idea that the contributor was genuinely trying to help increase Wikipedia's coverage." That's a non sequitur. A person could in perfectly good faith not understand that Wikipedia isn't a vehicle for self-promotion, and could in perfectly good faith post an advertisement (or anything else unsuitable for Wikipedia), without having the slightest care about increasing Wikipedia's coverage. Therefore, if I immediately deduce that someone with a COI is writing for his own benefit, that his article is a vanity piece, that doesn't mean I'm not assuming good faith on his part. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

"Assume good faith" doesn't mean "assume the editor is a good person". If you look at the beginning of WP:AGF, it states:

Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia: it is the assumption that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith. Most people try to help the project, not hurt it. If this were false, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning.

The key part is "most people try to help the project". If someone is coming to Wikipedia for promotional purposes, their goal is not to help the project, but rather to help themselves and/or their organization. You don't have to assume the person adding such promotional material is cackling madly and proclaiming aloud what fools these Wikipedians are to allow free advertising, but if that person isn't here to improve the encyclopedia then they're not acting in good faith. Wikipedia gives random people the privilege to edit articles with the trust that they are doing so to make the encyclopedia better, and if they betray that trust then it's a stretch to declare that what they do is in good faith. -- Atama頭 17:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
If what you say is valid, then I await Wikipedia's attempt to redefine day as night and night as day. "Good faith" means what it means, and any kind of action that someone makes is not made in bad faith if the person taking the action is unaware that it is contrary to the rules of the venue. If someone writes a vanity piece about himself on MySpace, it's done in good faith. If the same person doesn't know that it isn't permitted to use Wikipedia for that purpose, and does the same thing here, then he's still doing it in good faith, and by calling the article, which would be an obvious vanity piece, a vanity piece, then unless there were clear evidence that he did know the piece wasn't appropriate, I would not be accusing him of bad faith, and therefore my observation should not be considered a violation of the Assume Good Faith principle. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
To-may-to, to-mah-to. Wikipedia defines all sorts of words in its own way, such as "notability", "vandalism", even "conflict of interest" means something particular on Wikipedia. Generally, though, we do assume "good faith" in the way you mean, to an extent; if someone is new and let's say they are spamming, and are given a warning that their links aren't appropriate, that warning should be a gentle one letting them know that what they're doing is wrong. We do have different levels of templates for that very reason.
But I'll give you a real situation that often comes up; somebody comes to Wikipedia to "spread the word" about a charity, one trying to raise money for a cure for cancer (very common). They create an article about their non-notable organization, they start adding external links to articles to promote it, and they also mention it in the bodies of various articles related to finding a cure for cancer. By Wikipedia's standards, that person is being disruptive. They're given a gentle warning, and continue behavior; they are warned that they can be blocked, and yet continue. They are acting in total "good faith" by most people's standards, because their goal is to help cure cancer. What could be a better goal? Yet, we cease to assume good faith, by Wikipedia's standards, because we know this person is willfully misusing their editing privileges. Eventually that person would be blocked, indefinitely, because their goals (as wonderful as they may be) are incompatible with the project. Another common example is the person who sincerely believes that by trying to present "the truth" on Wikipedia and the rest of the internet, they are saving the world from some calamity or righting some wrong. Again, that person's intentions are not malicious, but by Wikipedia's perspective that person's intentions are still destructive. -- Atama頭 19:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  1. Nothing about your scenario is consistent with what I said. When the person starts his activities, he is acting in good faith, and we treat him as such when addressing him. The instant he continues his activities after he has been warned that they are inappropriate, he is no longer acting in good faith.
  2. None of this is relevant to the point I was originally making. I was commenting on the false proposition that calling a vanity piece a vanity piece is a breach of Assume Good Faith. There is no inherent inconsistency between posting a vanity piece and acting in good faith. Therefore, describing an article as a vanity piece isn't, by itself, an accusation of bad faith.
To be clear about it: I am not confusing "good faith" with either "good person" or "admirable motivations". —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I can see where you're coming from, but when you label something as a vanity piece, you are casting doubt on a person's intentions and that isn't assuming good faith. See WP:VSCA which covers the topic well (and calls creating such pages one of the "cardinal sins" of Wikipedia). I think that the COI guideline is only saying that if you approach a new editor and label their creations in such a way, that you're going to put them off. It's advice on how to settle something peacefully while placing the foundation for being able to guide an editor into being productive, not some rule that you can breach and get in trouble for. And it's situational, if someone is obviously aware of our guidelines and policies and is flaunting them, I have no problem with calling a spade a spade, and I do it myself. I doubt many others would have a problem with you doing so either. -- Atama頭 20:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

NPOV vs COI

I'm sure this has been brought up before, but WP:NPOV is a policy while WP:COI is a guideline. If someone is complying with NPOV, then what does it matter if they have a COI? Since Wikipedia stresses anonymity, why should we be trying find out if someone has a COI? If they aren't editing in a neutral manner, shouldn't that be reason enough for corrective action? Cla68 (talk) 06:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a valid question, and one I've brought up before (see this discussion); I've said that if there is no clear distinction between COI and NPOV, then we might as well delete the COI guideline as redundant. I do think that there's a distinction, however. And I do think that the COI guideline is very useful. I believe that there are 3 purposes to the COI guideline, as I see it used in practice.
  • The COI guideline helps us identify editors with a potential conflict of interest, which helps bring greater scrutiny toward their actions as they may be working with either a conscious or unconscious bias, which is something to keep in mind when evaluating their actions.
  • The guideline gives editors who may have a COI some advice in how to avoid inspiring bad faith from other editors, advice like staying away from controversial edits, openly declaring the COI, and trying to use article talk pages to communicate with other editors.
  • The last helpful bit of the COI involves what to do with problematic COI editors, which involves restricting their article edits and encouraging them to suggest changes on article talk pages rather than changing articles directly.
It's a guideline and therefore has less "teeth" than WP:NPOV, but it can be useful. And yes, you're right that with a person who is complying with NPOV (and all other policies and guidelines) that the COI doesn't matter. I suppose you might consider that a 4th purpose to the guideline, because the guideline points that out as well, and reminds editors not to persecute people who have conflicts of interest but still edit productively. -- Atama頭 17:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Atama. I place greater scrutiny on an article where there's evidence of a COI. When there's a COI, I'm more critical of unsourced borderline material that I might ordinarily let go, and I'm more inclined to interpret various superlatives and mentions of trivial accomplishments as gratuitous WP:PEACOCKery than I might otherwise have. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
If someone is complying with NPOV, then what does it matter if they have a COI? - That is a general argument which would equally apply against every conflict of interest regulation outside Wikipedia, be it in politics, business, journalism or law:
  • If a politician is complying with his oath of office, why bother him with campaign finance regulation?
  • Why should a bank erect chinese walls between its investment bankers and analysts - isn't it enough to require the analysts to use their best, honest judgment?
  • If a journalist is writing a good, neutral article, what does it matter if he complies with his newspaper's full disclosure policy?
In all these areas, for decades or even centuries, the answer has been that it is not enough to establish policies on what consists good work, it is also necessary to require a person to avoid situations where there is a great personal incentive for them to bend these rules.
Returning to Wikipedia, I think it boils down to this question: Do the general principles about human nature which necessitate COI policies in the above examples also apply to Wikipedians, or are our personalities for some reason morally superior to the groups of people mentioned above? If we are, it would be justified to reduce WP:COI to "just make sure you follow WP:NPOV and the other policies". If not, it seems clear that we will build a better encyclopedia if we state clearly that one should refrain from editing when there is a conflict of interest.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
The edit summary of "the argument rests on the implicit assumption that wikipedians are morally superior to politicians, journalists, bankers, lawyers...." is just begging for a snarky agreement :P (maybe not all journalists, but the rest... (can we add realtors?)) Sorry, couldn't resist. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I think Atama makes some good points. I don't agree quite as much with HaeB. There's one big difference between your examples of the politician, bank, and journalist and Wikipedia, and that's Wikipedia's principle of anonymous editing. The three occupations that you mention are publicly attributable and accountable for their actions (at least they're supposed to be). Wikipedia editors are offered anonymity in order to promote greater participation. Therefore, we need to weigh pursuing COI allegations against an account with our commitment to WP:OUT. It seems that the first sign that an account may have a COI is that they are not editing in a NPOV manner. Cla68 (talk) 21:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Editing with a POV can be a first sign, but isn't always the first sign. When an article called "Sam Jones" is created by a brand-new account named "Sjones", and is written in first-person, the COI is pretty evident. Or a real estate company's article is drastically rewritten with an edit summary saying, "Management has mandated these changes per company policy." Even if the edits themselves don't show a POV, it's still worth noting that the COI exists, for future reference if nothing else. For example, dropping a note about WP:AUTO to the first editor might be of help, or letting the second editor know about WP:OWN might be helpful. I spend a lot of time (too much time?) at the COI noticeboard, and I think I spend at least as much time trying to help editors with conflicts of interest as I do trying to simply stop disruption from them.
Your average Wikipedian may start their "career" by reading articles, and making little fixes or comments as an IP. Then they'll get an account and start tentatively editing some articles that interest them, getting more involved as confidence and experience grows. Editors with a COI will often come to Wikipedia with a specific purpose in mind, and extra attention may be needed to assure that the purpose doesn't run counter to Wikipedia's best interests, and to help an editor who may be a bit more bold than your average newbie to keep themselves out of trouble. That's yet another reason why identifying conflicts of interest is helpful. -- Atama頭 22:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree that in practice COI concerns will have to be weighed against the privacy of editors. (For example, as a checkuser I of course reject "Wikiscanner"-like requests to check an editor's IPs to find out if they are affiliated with a company whose article they are editing.) But there will always be limits to the enforceability of any policy or ethical guideline. The damage that conflicts of interest do will not go away if our policies pretend they are not happening. Besides, as Atama already said, privacy isn't even an issue in the many cases where editors self-identify, as this guideline "strongly encourages" them to do. We should assume good faith: Most subjects of biographies do want to behave ethically and respect Wikipedia's values, and - being familiar with general conflict of interest ethics as described above - would for example abhor writing a supposedly neutral newspaper article about themselves under a different name. Therefore, it makes a big difference if we tell them that the same principles apply on Wikipedia and that one shouldn't make substantial edits to one's own article, even if we can't and won't control perfectly whether they respect that.
Coming back to one of your original questions, "If they aren't editing in a neutral manner, shouldn't that be reason enough for corrective action?": The insight from all the above examples in other parts of society is that the cost of enforcing rules after the fact - after someone has already been placed in a position where their personal interest gives them a high incentive to bend the rules - is far greater than the cost of avoiding such situations in the first place. In the case of Wikipedia, "cost" means (lots of) volunteer time, drama, frustration on both sides, and articles that fail to meet Wikipedia's standards for the extended periods of time (often years) that it takes to resolve such problems.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 12:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I have been approached off-wiki by a friend that is involved with a company that sufficiently notable to have an article on it and other pages for its notable products on WP. They would like to do some edits to these various pages which are not edited frequently to bring them to correctness with current information. This person is well aware of COI issues and asked me the best way to approach this as transparently as possible (that this company is the one making said edits and trying to avoid COI issues with them).

I don't know if the best answer is for this person (or another company representative) to do the editing directly. I did suggest that dropping notes on talk pages to point out mistakes is less of an issue, but again, with low edit counts, I doubt these pages are well watched and would be updated. I'd offer to do these edits, but I worry that my ties to my friend would still be a COI at the end of the day.

Any suggestions for handling this? --MASEM (t) 02:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

One good procedure would be for you or your friend to post a list of the articles somewhere, and have a third party monitor/mentor the changes. If you like, I would be happy to take that role; if wanted, perhaps post on my talk page rather than here because it sounds pretty straight forward, and if there are any difficult edits, they can be raised here. Johnuniq (talk) 03:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if he has a list of pages yet made but I will relay that to him. I also suggested (he has not done so yet) that in creating an account to purposely use a name associated with the company to make it clear it is a company-based editor, furthering the transparency of such edits - is this reasonable advice? --MASEM (t) 18:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
No. An account is supposed to be for a single editor who at least in principle might edit articles in several different topics (possibly in the future). At WP:USERNAME, a username like "XyzEditor" (where Xyz is a company) is regarded as a "promotional" name and I have seen users indef blocked simply for having a name mentioning "Xyz" where the user puts vaguely positive statements in "Xyz" articles. What they are supposed to do (per WP:COI) is to briefly state their interest on their user page and on the talk page of any relevant articles they edit. If the person is cooperating with an independent editor (such as myself) I think they need not bother with the declaration on the talk page of articles (unless they really do spend an extended period devotedly tending the article, in which case they should put a notice on its talk). I recommend just a generic username and a brief "I have been asked by Xyz company to update its articles" on the user page. If they post on my talk I will let them know what I think about how to proceed. Johnuniq (talk) 22:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Ok, that's good I checked. I will definitely pass that on to him. --MASEM (t) 15:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Requesting opinions: conflict of interest?

I work at dramonline.org, a non-profit music-streaming service for universities and libraries with an extensive catalog of contemporary art music, complete with scholarly liner notes. I am testing the waters here, to check with the community whether becoming an editor would be a conflict of interest. As yet I have not edited at all. My main concern is that our sister company, New World Records, while also non-profit, does sell CDs of some of the content we stream. I would like to contribute in a minor way -- updating composer info and adding citations and such, and wondered if the community felt I could do so under the Subject and culture sector professionals clause. Thanks. Ribbonabaca (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The first step for anyone who may have a conflict of interest with a subject that they are contributing to is to declare their affiliations up-front. You've done this already, which is a great first step and will go a long way toward helping other editors assume good faith in your actions.
You're not directly affiliated with any of the artists whose articles you want to edit, correct? Your company only offers a catalog of their music. In that case, you have no direct COI with any of those articles. The only potential COI that I see in your case would be if you were to link to your company's web site, or add information about your company into the articles you edit. Doing so isn't necessarily forbidden, but would at the very least raise suspicions. So here are some tips that might prevent drama in the future:
  • If you want to add a link to your company's site, or mention your company in the text of an article, bring it up on the talk page of the article first to see if anyone objects. You don't have to do this but it will greatly reduce the possibility of someone reverting your edit, or even worse, accusing you of spam.
  • If you do decide to add your company's links directly into articles, try not to do so at once and try to keep the volume down. If you add links to 20 articles over the course of an hour and don't make any other edits, that's classic behavior of a spammer. Even if such links are appropriate individually, doing so in bulk looks bad.
  • Familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's external links guidelines, most especially links to avoid. Among the links to avoid are sites that exist primarily to sell a product, which shouldn't apply to your company's site, but probably applies to the sister company's site (New World Records).
  • If you do add information about your company into an article try to abide by our neutral point of view policy. We try to not paint any subject in either a positive or negative light, although we can certainly mention what other sources think about a subject. For example, saying "Dramonline.org is a premiere music streaming service" violates our policy, but saying "New York Times has called Dramonline.org the best music streaming service in the world" and accompanying that with a citation to a NYT article saying so would be perfectly fine. It's very difficult to avoid bias with subjects you are close to, which is why our COI guideline exists, so the easiest route for you to take might just be to not mention it in any articles.
  • Article talk pages are your sanctuary. You can suggest or complain about almost anything you want on an article's talk page with no fear of COI accusations (as long as you're up-front about who you are). Never forget that.
Anyway, I do encourage you to contribute and don't be afraid of being driven away because of your affiliations. You've taken a very conscientious approach already in asking for advice and I think you'll do fine, and Wikipedia can use your help. Thank you. -- Atama頭 20:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry about it. From what you say I doubt that anyone will find your edits objectionable. If in doubt, just step back and consider, would a person not affiliated with your organization think that the page is a better encyclopedia page after your edit? best, LK (talk) 10:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I will proceed slowly, and transparently. Best, Ribbonabaca (talk) 18:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

poorly written with loopholes

Blocks
 Further information: Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Disruption-only
 Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization in apparent violation of this guideline should be warned and made aware of this guideline. If the same pattern of editing continues after the warning, the account may be blocked.

The way it's written, you can write about your own company in a COI fashion as long as you edit some other things.

In science, they disclose their conflicts of interests.

In Wikipedia, I propose that people disclose their conflicts of interests when they start to come close. For example, if you edit about the BP oil spill in Louisiana (USA), you should state if you are an employee of BP or work in the oil industry. Even that might not be enough. This is proposal #1.

Proposal #2 is more straight forward. It is to disallow COI exemptions just because they edit something else. So the new language would read:

Blocks
Further information: Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Disruption-only
Accounts that a person, company, product, service, or organization in apparent violation of this guideline should be warned and made aware of this guideline. If the same pattern of editing continues after the warning, the account may be blocked. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 14:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I emphatically disagree with your edit. There are loopholes in this guideline for good reason. This is not a rule, but a recommendation for editors with a COI to be careful how they handle it. Since WP has a continuing commitment to allow anonymity, editors should not be punished for choosing to disclose who they are. If their editing is a problem, there are a myriad of other policies/guidelines that will apply: WP:V, WP:DE, WP:OR WP:CIVIL, etc. I vehemently oppose any attempt to make WP:COI anything more than a strong recommendation to editors in that situation. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 15:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The wrong Ella Mitchell

The information on "Ella Mitchell" isn't correct. Yes Ella Mitchell played Hattie in Big Momma's House but not Ella Pearson Mitchell. The women that did full name is Ella Mitchell Holt. She also played in the Wiz, sings with Alvin Alley Dance Company, and other numerous things. 208.54.14.110 (talk) 03:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

COI Policy forbids experts with genuine contribution from contributing to Wikipedia

There should be rethinking on COI fundamentalism. The COI fundamentalists forbid persons with expertise written a lot about a subject in journals/ publications from contributing to Wikipedia. If one has an expertise it is natural one may have to quote one's own reference. The COI fundamentalism lets only those who are non-contributors to a field to write/edit a wiki article. I find the policy is some what absurd. May be WIKI managers want to stop wikipedia to be used for self promotion, for that is it a solution to ban all those who significantly contributed to a field to edit and article or cite their own works? I think it is a policy of throwing baby with the bathwater!Dr.P.Madhu (talk) 10:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy explicitly allows published authors to cite their own work (in moderation, and neutrally, of course). See WP:SELFCITING. Jakew (talk) 12:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't, however, allow citations to articles that one may have published on sites such as scribd but which have not been published in any peer reviewed journal. See reliable sources for full details. - MrOllie (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
An article appeared in Scribd- does it become unreliable even after that article is cited by peer reviewed articles? An article if published at Scribd after it been published by an university- does it become 'unreliable'? A wikipedia article if it is cited by peer-reviewed articles and books- isn't that shows that article and its source is appreciated by the academic community? A source when appreciated by scholars in the respective field is it OK a wikipedia editor nothing to do with the subject dump it saying the source is unreliable? Dr.P.Madhu (talk) 15:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
As I read it, an article on Scribd- or Arxiv only moves from the area of self-published sources when it has been subjected to the kind of editorial oversight one finds in professional publication. Thus once a scholarly article is later published in a refereed journal, it can be cited using a citation to that version (with a possible convenience link to the Scribd- or Arxiv preprint).
As mentioned above, COI policy does not prevent experts from contributing, since experts are usually able to place their research in a refereed journal. The fact that an author is not able to place their research in such a journal, raises questions about their credentials as an expert. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Not convinced of this concern. Anyone with knowledge of a topic can write about it, and they can also use any reliably published sources (including their own) appropriately if they do so with due weight, neutrality, verifiability etc. What they cannot do is, having a vested interest in the topic, use Wikipedia as a promotional medium rather than an encyclopedia.
Most newcomers won't know the distinction. They are expected to learn fairly quickly and be receptive to the idea that Wikipedia isn't a promotional medium though.
It's "fundamental", but I would not agree it was "fundamentalist". FT2 (Talk | email) 15:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Notable people who edit Wikipedia: 2 essays

When notable people edit Wikipedia, to add detail or fix errors in articles on themselves or their work, they often do so in unawareness of our rules, and the end result is a lot of upset to them and others. Whenever situations like this aren't resolved amicably, it potentially leads to bad press for the project.

To help mitigate the problem, I've written a pair of essays, one addressed to Wikipedians, and one addressed to notable people coming here to edit Wikipedia articles related to them. They are

Please link to them in cases where you feel they might be helpful, and feel free to improve them or leave feedback on their talk pages. --JN466 14:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Better coi warning templates

In recent months I have had the unfortunate need to warn users about a potential coi situation on multiple occassions. Unfortunately, I have found Template:Uw-coi to be a less than ideal template. While most coi editors are new accounts, not all of them are. It would be handy to have a coi warning template available that isn't essentially a welcome template. It would also be useful to have an option of coi templates that focuses in more specifically on the type of conflict. Most of my encounters have been with family members editing articles on their father, grandfather, etc. The current template is more oriented towards organizations. I am not a template guru, otherwise I would do it myself.4meter4 (talk) 13:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I've wondered if we might want levels for this, i.e. {{Uw-coi1}}, {{Uw-coi2}} etc. Or is it simply considered vandalism if it happens again after the first notice? -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
There's no requirement that one use a template, last I checked. How about a polite, or even friendly, warning in your own words? Then you can tailor the warning to the particular situation, with no template skills required. Personally, I think templates are already way overused for communication around WP. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 16:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
That's not really a discussion for here, but suffice to say that templates say most or all of what a person originally wanted to say without having to spend a lot of time drafting something. They're also a good way to avoid canvassing or being accused of leaving an improper message. I'd say that I only use a template maybe 50% of the time if I'm informing someone about conflicts of interest, and even then I'll often tweak something in the template.
I also agree with the original complaint, that the Uw-COI template shouldn't be a welcome template; in fact, we already have a welcome template that shows up in Huggle at Template:Welcome-COI so the UW-COI template is redundant. -- Atama頭 17:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


I agree with 4meter4 and I actually just brought up the same thing as Gyrofrog's idea at Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace#warning_levels_for_Template:Uw-coi.3F. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 15:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to how to avoid conflicts of interest.

I have made a suggestion to Village Pump that everyone should disclose that conflicts of interest. So far, there is widespread opposition to it.

Therefore, if this becomes a consensus, this conflict of interest section should be modified to read:

It is permissible (but not encouraged) to have a conflict of interest and not disclose it. This is the result of a discussion where there was overwhelming support not to have a section for people to disclose conflicts of interest.

This is a very troubling addition but it may reflect consensus. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Disclaimers

Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, such an addition would be against consensus. A couple of the opposes are citing WP:NODISCLAIMERS as their rationale for opposing, and yet what you're proposing now is adding a disclaimer (of sorts) to this guideline. It's really unnecessary, because this guideline isn't intended to say what is and isn't permissible for anyone. It's a guideline both to assist editors who have conflicts of interest and editors dealing with others who have conflicts of interest, but it's not meant to set any rules that people must or mustn't follow. -- Atama頭 18:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's close a loophole

Blocks

Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promotion (e.g., of a person, company, product, service, website, or organization) in apparent violation of this guideline should be warned and made aware of this guideline. If the same pattern of editing continues after the warning, the account may be blocked.

This should be changed. Otherwise Mr. Jussi Pajunen could edit the Jussi Pajunen article and also edit a lot of botany articles. He could be disruptively editing his own article. Since his account would not be used for "sole or primary purpose of promotion", he does not qualify for block. A little modification would help, like

Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, that promote (e.g., of a person, company, product, service, website, or organization) in apparent violation of this guideline should be warned and made aware of this guideline. If the same pattern of editing continues after the warning, the account may be blocked.

Very simple and an improvement. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Your suggestion should read "Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to promote..........". Moriori (talk) 00:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Suggest the following for grammar and wording:
"Accounts that, based on their edit history, appear to tendentiously promote (e.g. a person, company, product, service, website, or organization) in violation of this guideline, should be warned and made aware of this guideline. If the same pattern of editing continues after the warning, the account may be blocked."
LK (talk) 03:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Why not keep it simple? "Accounts which violate this guideline should be warned of its existence, and be blocked if persistent violation continues."Moriori (talk) 03:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Except promotional accounts aren't violating this guideline, they're violating WP:SPAM. Nobody has ever been blocked for violating WP:COI and I don't think there's any reason they should be. Having a conflict of interest in and of itself isn't against any "rule" on Wikipedia. Just as accounts with conflicts of interest that violate BLPs can be blocked per WP:BLP. We have plenty of perfectly productive accounts who operate without any problems on Wikipedia despite having a COI. -- Atama頭 18:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the problem is abusing a conflict of interest, not merely having a conflict of interest. It would be unfortunate indeed if well-intentioned, non-disruptive editors were blocked over merely having a conflict of interest. We'd lose most of our subject matter experts (and semi-experts).
In the example given above, we want to keep Mr Pajunen as an editor if possible. He could be topic-banned from an area that he's disrupting (as could anyone else, regardless of COI), but we don't actually want to completely lose a productive editor if we can avoid it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
But how do you "abuse" a conflict of interest? There's no disruption unique to having a COI. There's nothing to abuse. Any disruption I can think of is already covered by a different policy or guideline. Could you give an example of disruption associated with a COI that isn't already part of a different guideline or a policy that we already block for? -- Atama頭 19:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
While I tend to agree there's usually other issues in play when someone is violating COI, I would suggest an editor with a conflict of interest, actively pursing that interest (even if remaining formally within the bounds of other policies) would be subject to sanctions. You can call it a violation of WP:AGF, WP:GAME, WP:NPOV, or a variety of other policies, but I would suggest making this abundantly clear here as well is fine and appropriate. While we need to avoid instruction creep, we should also make things clear. --TeaDrinker (talk) 23:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Most definitely, and there's precedent for that. I participated in a discussion days ago where an editor with a clear COI was topic-banned from the main article space where he had been causing problems. The fact is, I have never heard of a case where we've blocked a person for violating the COI guideline. If we are going to decide to start blocking people for violating COI, that's a very major change to this guideline and should probably be subject to an RFC. We can't even get the community to say that paid editing is blockable (see WP:PAID), I doubt that you're going to get people to agree that having a simple COI is something that is blockable. -- Atama頭 00:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

about linking to a WP article etc.

In the section How to Avoid COI Edits, the following item, a discouragement, confuses me:

3. Linking to the Wikipedia article, your own user subspace or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);

I think you mean one of these formulations, but I don't know which one:

3. Linking from the Wikipedia article your own user subspace or a website of your organization (see Wikipedia:Spam);

3. Linking in the Wikipedia article your own user subspace or a website of your organization (see Wikipedia:Spam);

3. Linking to the Wikipedia article, your own user subspace, or a website of your organization (see Wikipedia:Spam);

I assume linking from article A to article B couldn't be affected by COI challenges, because if both articles survived COI challenges or either or both weren't challenged for COI then linking between them couldn't be a problem. On that ground, the phrase "from other articles" can be deleted.

Linking to a Wikipedia article or to a user subspace from outside of the main namespace or outside of Wikipedia can't be wrong no matter what conflicts of interest someone has, unless you mean that a user with a COI can't link from their user subspace to an article, and I'm not clear why you'd object to that.

Based on this, I think the best is one of the first two alternatives and the best edits are these:

  • After "Linking", replace the preposition "to" with "from" or "in".
  • After "Wikipedia article", delete the comma.
  • Before "website", add the indefinite article "a".
  • Delete "in other articles".

I can do these, but would like to know if they're okay with other editors. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 02:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

"I assume linking from article A to article B couldn't be affected by COI challenges"... No, your assumption is incorrect. It is meant exactly as written. If you were the owner of a restaurant with an article on Wikipedia, and started linking to that article from a number of other articles to increase its visibility within Wikipedia as a form of self-promotion, that would be a major conflict of interest. That does happen from time to time, especially when the article being linked to is itself an advertisement posing as an article. -- Atama頭 03:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
But then the restaurant article wouldn't have survived a COI challenge. If neither article had a COI problem, how would a link create a COI problem? Nick Levinson (talk) 05:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
The problem may just be grammatical. List items 1, 2, and 4 are clear. It's 3 that's unclear, perhaps because of the comma/s present or absent and the extra clause before the parentheses. I discovered it because I was looking for a solution for an article where I have a self-perceived COI. The action box gave me my solution, but along the way I tried to understand how item 3 would be applied and it's not clear. The intent may be clear to the writer, but I didn't write it. Thus, the suggestions. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 05:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
If it's unclear to anyone then it should be fixed, you're totally right about that. I'm curious what you meant about an article "surviving a COI challenge"; conflicts of interest are only of concern with editors, conflicts of interest aren't a concern when we work on articles. We do have a tag to place on articles where an editor with a COI may have added POV and/or promotional language due to the COI, but articles themselves aren't deleted because they were created by an editor with a COI. So I'm not sure what you meant by that. To go back to the original point, though, we might want to consider rewording that sentence, if nothing else "the Wikipedia article" is somewhat ambiguous. -- Atama頭 15:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I just found that out (about COI). I'm used to the idea that if you have a conflict of interest in something (other than WP) then you don't do it, because your judgment will be impaired and someone else should do it unless that option doesn't exist (if a judge has a conflict of interest they recuse themself but if all the judges do then one judges the case anyway out of necessity, but that necessity doesn't apply to most editing of WP). The rationales I had presumed for an editor with a COI not editing an article is that, one, they would promote or omit in nonobvious ways other editors wouldn't notice and, two, it would create an appearance of impropriety for which WP could be criticized for allowing such editing. That's why I declared that I perceived a COI in myself and asked if someone else would consider editing along the lines I suggested. (They did.)
Given your point, I take it the problem is that linking to an article that is the result of a COI and subsequently deemed nonnotable or otherwise deletable means the link will become a redlink that will probably stay red and therefore someone will need to edit each redlink into a nonlink or edit its text out. Thus, the discouragement of COI-susceptible linking saves other editors work and makes sense. Based on that, I suggest this clarifying edit to item 3 (leaving boldfacing and linking as in the original):
3. Linking to the Wikipedia article, your own user subspace, or a website of your organization from other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
This adds a comma after the "user subspace" link, adds the indefinite article "a" before "website", and changes "in" in the last clause to "from".
The phrase "from other articles" could apply to any of the three, and "the Wikipedia article" is not ambiguous and can stay.
What do you think?
Nick Levinson (talk) 05:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Really, really belated response; I saw the change you made to the guideline. Well done, it really does make it much clearer. Thanks for that. -- Atama頭 15:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Glad to help. Nick Levinson (talk) 02:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Expert issue

I think the WP:External links noticeboard would appreciate the attention of a couple of COI-savvy editors at this discussion.

The editor who started the discussion is a professional sexologist (PhD, full-time university researcher, specialized in pedophilia and related paraphilias). Two editors in a dispute at Paraphilia seem to be claiming that academic experts are not permitted to add information or external links. I think that comments at the WP:ELN discussion would be sincerely appreciated (at least by all of us regular editors at ELN, who are much better versed in the nuances of WP:EL than WP:COI). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The latest comments there indicate that the voluntary nature of COI disclosure is not evident to some editors. Specifically, the link is opposed supposedly on the grounds that the disclosure on the editor's user page and article talk page wasn't "enough" (failed to mention absolutely every person or organization he'd ever worked for, I think). This is beyond silly for something that we "encourage", but have never absolutely required.
Do we have an essay somewhere on "What a conflict of interest is not?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

If we can get past the attempt to poison the well...

1) "that academic experts are not permitted to add information or external links"[1] isn't part of the debate. They should be permitted to do so in accordance with Wikipedia policy. The debate, now nearing eight thousand words long, is about whether the EL is in accordance with WP:EL.
2) The disclosure was not voluntary[2].
3) I find it difficult to assume good faith in a particular editor when she alters relevant guidelines[3] so soon after clearly stating her assumption of my ill: "If BitterGrey is thwarted in his desire to remove this link, then there will simply be a "new" problem tomorrow." And in the following post: "Because of your reputation, I have almost zero expectation of this noticeboard being able to resolve this dispute.". Sadly, such a prejudiced user will probably count this post as the new problem for tomorrow. BitterGrey (talk) 00:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The nutshell

The nutshell has gotten way too long. It's more of a coconut now. Gigs (talk) 02:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I've pruned it. Gigs (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Aren't Political Candidates & Their Offices An Obvious Conflict of Interest?

Isn't it an obvious Conflict of Interest to have someone from a political candidate's office, in this case, a congressional candidate in New York state, make changes to his article. In particular, isn't the removal of referenced material directly by the candidate's office (using the geolocate tool), a clear Conflict of Interest? Even without the Conflict of Interest, removing legitimately sourced information that reflects the content of what is said in the article(s) is in itself, anti-collaborative. However, coupled with the existing Conflict of Interest that all political candidates have (or actually their staff members which in this case are most likely paid - particularly with the exorbitant sums of money spent on this campaign), why isn't there a prohibition or strong warning against political candidates or their offices (obviously supporters or opposition supporters would still be enabled to contribute) editing Wikipedia. I cannot think of a clearer Conflict of Interest, since they only get paid if they win (this Wiki article references the earnings incentive), and more importantly, there is an deeper incentive for those that will achieve power (the classic corrupter) that far exceeds remuneration. Shouldn't political candidates and their machines be singled out in this article as having a Conflict of Interest? Stevenmitchell (talk) 02:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

First, the policy does not actually prohibit people with conflicts of interest from editing articles. It recommends against it, for a variety of real-world reasons plus our own concerns about producing balanced articles, but sometimes the person with the COI is the best-informed editor. You would not, for example, want the article to contain inaccurate information simply because the person who corrected the name, birthdate, or other simple information was (or appeared to be) the subject of the article.
We want good, verifiable, balanced articles. If a person with a COI is able to help us achieve that goal, then we're okay with that. As a general rule, people with COIs aren't reliably helpful on that point (which is why we discourage it), but when the individual is, then they are permitted to be one of the "anyones" at "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit".
Second, do you think that our editors need to be explicitly told that politicians have a conflict of interest with respect to their own elections, or do you think that the typical editor could probably figure that out for himself? If you think the community is smart enough to identify that issue, then we don't really need to name it here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, identification of a person as a politician, or business owner, defines conflict of interest without needing to say more. Fred Talk 02:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, they have a COI. So do the staff and paid consultants of their opponents. (By the way, they probably get paid for working whether they win or lose, although they may get paid more or get patronage if they win.) If they remove content that belongs or insert content that doesn't, though, the main solution is to get involved in the editing. A COI template can also be added in order to invite editors without a COI of their own to edit. COI is mainly about disclosure and how to edit, rather than preventing all editing by anyone with a COI. I don't think the policy needs clarifying, since the case you described is already covered by a couple of provisions. (It might be relevant that, when George W. Bush was President, at one point that article reportedly was being edited 300 times a day, probably by people with strong views but perhaps without COIs.) Nick Levinson (talk) 03:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

JOSÉ ROBERTO DOS SANTOS

san di con hinakina —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.50.70.232 (talk) 01:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

How do I find out if an edit I would like to make would be COI?

I have put references to my own work in 4 articles. I want to find out if that was excessive, and if I can make some more. What should I do? Thanks Michael P. Barnett (talk) 20:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:COI has a lot of text and only a few bright lines; if in doubt, be open, and use the talkpage. You're more likely to get a negative reaction if it's something that you'd gain from (ie. plugging a book that you wrote).
If you'd like this random wikipedian's input, I'd be happy to have a look - what's your work, and what are the articles? bobrayner (talk) 21:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
SO FAR:
In Nile under History -- Modern era. The 15-line paragraph "A computer simulation study ... during 1955—1957[25][26][27] ..." mentions M.P.B. and two other people once. Refs 26 and 27 are to M.P. Barnett ..., and to D.F. Manzer and M.P. Barnett, ...
In Hydrological transport model under Physically-based models. "Large scale simulation experiments ... that contains the sentence just quoted" contains same three references and 4 others that mention 3 non-institutional authors.
In Quadrilateral under More quadrilaterals, 3rd bulleted item: "A non-planar ... four atoms" refers to "M.P. Barnett and J.F. Capitani, ..." in peer reviewed chemistry journal.
Phototypesetting under History, at end of 2nd paragraph: "... built-up mathematical formulas and other material in the Cooperative Computing Laboratory of Michael Barnett at MIT. // There are extensive accounts of the early applications[2], the equipment[3][4] and the PAGE I algorithmic typesetting language for the Videocomp, that introduced elaborate formating[5]". Ref 2 is to a book I wrote in 1965, 5 is to a book one of my former staff wrote describing a system I designed. The passage I inserted mentions me once and six other people.
FOR FUTURE:
I would like to put comments related to what went into Phototypesetting into articles about some specific machines, people, companies, products and applications. This has quite low priority.
In Slater-type orbital, "Integrals" has been co-opted by a worker in the field who has cited an interesting set of authors. The topic has been one of my main areas of research at various times since 1948. I am content to leave the article until I can write up an insertion (quite substantial) to mention relevant work that I think merits inclusion, giving best references to other authors, condensing the excessive citations to one author for whom a single reference with "containing references to some 30 earlier papers". This is a very parochial matter involving considerable specialization -- I am not convinced the topic should be in WP. However, whilst leaving what has been written untouched for the time being, I would like to refer to my website http://www.princeton.edu/~michaelb/nmr/consolidated/ in following editing situation.
I have been working on Royal Radar Establishment, in particular I wrote section "Staff". I want to include, in the bulleted list, myself (along with at least three other people). First approximation to how I would write the relevant line is: "M.P. Barnett (computational chemistry and symbolic calculation<ref>website</ref>, computer contralled typesetting, and river simulation)." Quite willing to drop final item, or two final items. Just want enough to justify inclusion in list. This would involve just one reference to myself. Can make it hang off a node that does not contain my name, but only if really essential.
I am 82, so am free of promotion, tenure, grant awards. Michael P. Barnett (talk) 02:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
That looks reasonable to me, and I don't think there are likely to be any problems. Nice work! If in doubt, mention it on the article talkpage. bobrayner (talk) 03:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Exactly: make the edit, add the reference, and mention on the talk page that you have cited your own work. Expect, occasionally, a negative comment; but in general the comments (if any) will be positive. That's my experience, anyway. Andrew Dalby 10:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

COI is a really vague concept

I'm genuinely puzzled by the idea of "declaring my COI" if I have one, as if this is even remotely black-and-white. Can someone who feels that they understand the concept improve the current definition, which I'll now quote:

A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor. COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.

In particular, the first sentence contradicts the bold-faced sentence. What if my outside interests are more important to me than Wikipedia's aims, but not incompatible? And how much detail about my motivational structure am I "encouraged" to provide, exactly? --"24" 24.59.179.184 (talk) 04:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

If you are now, or have ever been significantly involved in the subject—for example, if you want to work on Ganas, and you are (or were) a member of the group, or you know someone who is (or was)—then you should probably say so. (You may choose to be silent; you should certainly not tell lies.)
You don't have to provide proof, or write a detailed description, or anything like that. "I used to work for them" or "My friend is a happy member there" (or whatever seems relevant) is usually sufficient. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Agree with that.
It is okay for you to have a "conflict of interest". It's not possible, after all, to be completely objectively "neutral" about much of anything as a person. As an editor here, though, you are expected to strive to be neutral and encyclopedic in all of your contributions to articles, whether or not you have a personal interest in the topics of those articles.
It seems fairly clear that you have some interest in the Ganas article. A lot of dispute has gone on around that article, and some understanding of who we are working with would help those of us wikipedians who would like to try to moderate that with the aim of improving the article (ie., making it more encyclopedic, ie., in no way "tabloidal" but without being a self-published white-wash of all "negativity" either).
It does not seem to be all that big a deal in your case. I'm happy with your involvement at Talk:Ganas so far. You seem to be fairly "pro-Ganas" but also seem willing to acknowledge the controversies and less-than-flattering aspects of Ganas in the article. That's fine, and that is all that is really required of you by WP:COI. If you want to say more about your own past or present involvement with the Ganas community, that would be fine, too, and might help improve communication there and inspire others with COIs to acknowledge them if they want to.
I would also recommend that you get a user account, it's better in many ways than editing as an "anon" IP.
Regards, WikiDao ☯ (talk) 16:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I actually meant it more philosophically, less in connection with Ganas. Why have a confusing contradiction in the definition? Maybe we can clarify the definition. The first sentence seems right to me; the bold-faced sentence seems wrong. --"24" 209.150.237.34 (talk) 17:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't see the problem. The bold-type sentence says that if advancing outside interests is so important to you that you start to make unencyclopedic edits, that's a problem. I read the first sentence as saying the same thing in a different way. Like anything else about editing Wikipedia: if your way is "incompatible" with Wikipedia's way, we will eventually have to ask you to stop editing Wikipedia. Because this is Wikipedia. Where do you see a "contradiction" in that? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Please disregard, i'm out of bandwidth :) --"24" 209.150.237.34 (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)