Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Archive 4

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

"Self promotion"?

I want to put up a page about a family owned company. I don't want to promote it--the business is operated for family and by family--not for anyone else. Can I do it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DarVad (talk • contribs) 20:17, March 23, 2007 (UTC)

--thanks, will do —Preceding unsigned comment added by DarVad (talk • contribs) 02:53, March 25, 2007 (UTC)

Lead Edit, Rest Needs Clean Up

I revised the major bullet points to remove internal inconsistency and reflect what we've been discussing since everyone seems close to agreement. If I am wrong, feel free to change or revert. I don't mind. Can we clean up the rest of the guideline. It's too wordy, resulting in redundancy and inconsistency. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 04:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Completely in agreement here. Also like the direction Mike4ty4 is going in content and tone, though I agree re abridging. Thank you! --Jim Butler(talk) 05:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the article needs work, but the recent edits were generally a step in the wrong direction (not to mention they made it longer). Editors shouldn't ever link to their own sites, period, nor write articles about themselves. Overall, the changes are a weakening of the guideline, which I think is a really bad idea. Editors spamming and writing about themselves is a big problem, and the last thing we need to do is making it seem more acceptable. What's the reasoning behind these changes, is WP really suffering because editors aren't writing about themselves and linking to their own sites enough? --Milo H Minderbinder 12:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Milo, did you catch the discussion above, under Guideline is based on ad hominem? Editors who edit within policy should not be penalized for who they are off-WP. This guideline should be cautionary only. thx, Jim Butler(talk) 01:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
While it is cautionary, it also needs to be useful to those dealing with COI problems. When someone spams or makes POV edits about themselves or their organization, this guideline is an important tool to be able to point to. With the new version, there's much more room for wikilawyering - an editor can just argue they were "using great caution" in their COI edits and doing nothing that wasn't allowed by the guideline. The problem with editing articles about yourself is that you don't have the perspective to know when you're being biased. For the same reason, it's a bad idea to let editors judge for themselves whether they're "using great caution" - if other editors are telling you that your edits are POV and you're showing a COI, you generally are. I'm not sure why there's such concern about "penalizing" editors. Spam and COI editing is a big problem on wikipedia. Is the inability of editors to write articles about themselves and link to their own sites a problem? A big enough one to risk making the spam problem worse over? --Minderbinder 01:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
If the edits are POV, then we revert them and deal with the editor, whether the editor has apparent COI or not. Why are bad edits by COI editors any worse than bad edits by non-COI ones, or anon ones who may or may not have COI? As Jehochman says, policies are in place to deal with noncompliant editors. Don't we want people who pass WP:BIO to edit topics that they are familiar with? Under the "don't ever do it" COI guideline, Richard Dawkins could not come here and edit his own article (other than to remove libel), or articles about alternative medicine. That is absurd. We're throwing out the baby with the bathwater here, and per Jehochman, moreover moving into mediocre, wikiality-land by still allowing anon edits. thx, Jim Butler(talk) 01:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't want to see anyone editing articles about themself, Richard Dawkins or otherwise - if he wants to contribute to his article, he can participate on the talk page, and the editors of the article can always consent to IAR and letting him edit if they believe him to be handling it neutrally. As for alternative medicine, it probably just depends what part of the article he were to edit. Can you provide an example of an article suffering because the subject couldn't write it? And have you had to deal with COI editors and spammers? --Minderbinder 01:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
To answer your questions in turn: (1) not offhand; (2) sure, I've had to deal with contentious editors (with or without arguable COI) and linkspam. They're equally a pain in the ass whether they have COI or not, aren't they? Either way, WP:DR has mechanisms to deal with them. But Jehochman is right that motivated editors will edit anyway (IP proxies, meatpuppetry etc.). Do you disagree?
I'm especially concerned about a blanket ban on editors writing about subjects they're "closely connected to", in addition to articles about themselves. The harms of taking COI too far are plenty evident in the ArbCom case I mentioned above.
Why shouldn't a non-anonymous editor be able to edit whatever s/he wants, as long as the edits are otherwise compliant? A guy like Dawkins shouldn't even have a chance to edit alt-med stuff, because he might not be compliant, whereas some anonymous high school kid can? "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone (except experts) can edit." How utterly mediocre. If the guideline as you contemplate it flies, a fork of WP can't happen too soon. sincerely, Jim Butler(talk) 03:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Milo, the edit intended to eliminate internal inconsistency. We had sentences that allowed wiggle room, and some others that didn't. I tried to make everything line up. Moreover, we have a real problem if we give anonymous editors a leg up over those who choose to identify themselves. If an anonymous editor makes good edits, you have no, ABSOLUTELY NO, way to tell if he has COI or not. Meanwhile, if somebody else decides to identify themselves, and makes the same good edit, somebody could potentially use a tighter version of this guideline to pounce on them. Identified editors shouldn't be treated worse than anonymous editors. In any case, the problems that COI seeks to prevent are covered by other policies. This guideline is here precisely to caution people so we have less Wikilawyering, not more. If somebody makes a bad edit, this guideline isn't going to give them any comfort. Instead, we can point to WP:COI and say "You were warned, but you decided to take the risk, and now you see the consequences." Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 03:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
However, the discussion Jim cited, "Guideline is based on ad hominem", is not talking about POV edits, which are obviously bad, but about neutral edits. Those are not bad. And what about cases where the editor is informed of their bias, but then attempts to correct that bias? Ie. where they do not have intent on being biased? mike4ty4 07:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

(undent)Jim - I don't agree that they're equally a pain in the ass, generally COI edits have been much easier to deal with because the guideline was clear cut. DR has mechanisms to deal either way, but the process is (was?) much simpler with COI situations. "Closely connected to" is a strawman, nobody has argued that people shouldn't edit topics they're experts in, only ones about themselves or their organization. Dawkins could certainly edit alt-med stuff, you just happened to list an article that discusses him by name. In regard to information about him, a high school kid might be a better judge of what is a neutral way to describe him and his work. People generally aren't as good at evaluating themselves as neutrally as third parties are, regardless of education or expertise. Jehochman, I have never advocated "pouncing" on those who make good edits - anyone who makes POV edits should be dealt with, and the point of this policy isn't to punish those with who are neutral and follow the rules but to make it easier to deal with COI editors who do make POV edits. --Minderbinder 03:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

If somebody writes an article about me, I certainly should be allowed to make neutral edits. For instance, if they get my year of birth wrong, or spell my name wrong, why shouldn't I correct it? If there is no POV problem, then there is no COI problem either. I agree with you that run-of-the-mill POV problems are less severe than a POV + COI problem. The latter is much more likely to result in an edit war, or other persistent disruption. This guideline puts every editor on notice that there are serious consequences for COI motivated edits that violate other policies. Essentially, COI is an "intensifying" factor when we consider what to do about somebody who makes bad edits. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 04:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Things like birthday or name spelling can be corrected, and WP guidelines already say that's fine. --Minderbinder 04:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I think we are in agreement. Can we look at the wording and see what further changes, if any, are need to convey the position that we all seem to have agreed? Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 04:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Dissagree. "exercise great caution" defeats the purpose of having the guideline. Edits other than vandalism removal are a conflict of interest. common sense would allow editing if the year of birth is wrong, or spelling is off, no one will revert that. This opens the flood gates for the PR drones, spammers and self promoters. The spam problem is massive on wikipedia, it has always been acceptable for someone with a COI to participate in the articles development on the talk page, this does not need to change. Take a look over at WT:WPSPAM most of the spam comes from those with a conflict of interest. heres one from the archives [1].--Hu12 07:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Surely we can forbid linkspam while allowing substantive, neutral edits from interested (and potentially expert) parties, per above... thx, Jim Butler(talk) 07:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree. It needs to be a sharper implement. However lots of spammers argue the toss about the wording. As worded "if you have a conflict of interest, you should XYZ when editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors" it would apply to a wide range of good faith edits which is why "XYZ" cannot be a blanket prohibition. For me XYZ would pretty much rule out the whole of the international charitable and UK government sectors which is a bit ridiculous. I think we should have an "always back down in disputes if you are conflicted" and something specific about link spam perhaps prohibit addition of more than one link ever? --BozMo talk 08:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I like the current wording because it allows the necessary wiggle room for people to make the common sense edits that are obviously NPOV, while allowing us to stop COI edits that show any sign of POV. Can anyone suggest better wording that achieves these two goals? Our problem is that COI is a big gray area, so we need to be careful not to over-regulate or else we could discourage participation by people who may be involved in a field. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 15:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the previous version already had sufficient wiggle room, if you really think "common sense edits" need to be mentioned you could just say something like "You should feel free to correct mistaken or out-of-date facts about yourself, such as marital status, current employer, place of birth, and so on." from AUTO. I still don't see why we need "wiggle room" for adding links to your own website. How does saying not to do that discourage "experts" or prevent good faith edits? And I still don't see any reason why anyone would ever need to link to their own website, even once. If a link needs to be added, they can just suggest it on the talk page, and if it's appropriate other editors will add it. --Minderbinder 15:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
What if I want to add an article about myself to a proper category, such as Category:Living people? Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 17:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
If it's uncontroversial, nobody would object to you doing it. If it was something potentially controversial or with POV connotations, it would be better to request on the talk page. --Minderbinder 17:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
All POV edits are actually prohibited by official policy, anyways. NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable. mike4ty4 07:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
But the group of editors, say, my edits have addressed, are those that are not self-promoters, PR drones, or spammers. Can you provide, then, a better route that: a. forbids spam, self-promotion, PR drones, etc. b. allows neutral editing and condones honest attempts to be neutral. The "ideal" guideline should be expected to do both. In my opinion, a true conflict of interest is when someone comes in with an intent to push a POV for themselves, their organization, etc. and starts POV pushing, not unconscious biases that he is willing to shed and work on through practice and cooperation with the community, or simple association with the subject of an article without any malicious intent. Unbiased edits, if they manage to get pulled off, should never be discouraged simply because the person is closely associated with something. The very term "conflict of interest" itself denotes that the person has an interest that conflicts with that of Wikipedia, namely an interest that is counter to Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Interests are conscious and intentional, not unconscious -- ie. they would have deliberate intent to be biased. The people that my argument, and Jehochman's, and others, addresses are not these with such deliberate vanity intentions, but rather those who have no such intentions and want to, and do, edit neutrally. The "pro-ban" advocates seem to keep dancing around this point and focusing only on the obvious, open-and-shut, never-disputed issue of spammers and other ill-intentioned people. Those people are not who my (and others') argument addresses. If you want to make a good case for total banning, then I would suggest you start by providing a substantial and direct answer to this question: Why should we ban people who want to be neutral and try to be neutral? mike4ty4 07:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Mike4ty4, if you haven't already, go spend some time investigating WP:COI/N issues. I think it's a good idea to look at this guideline from the perspective of practice. I agree with you that we need to provide better outlets and clearer instructions so that conflicted editors can still contribute, with proper review, so that unintentional POV doesn't creep into articles. Certainly, some simple edits like erasing spam and reverting vandalism, or correcting obvious errors ("You've got my year of birth wrong!") must always be allowed, but we really need to discourage conflicted editors because, in practice, they tend to create huge messes.
I also made a top to bottom edit, just to improve clarity and reduce redundancy. That chopped 335 characters, though more editing is still possible. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 19:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal photos of anonymous people

Is there any policy about pictures of anonymous people being used as examples in articles such as blond? In particular these two pictures:

In the second image the persons name is identifiable on a name tag.

It seems like these images violate Wikipedia:Conflict of interest .." self-promotion, including advertising links, personal website links in articles, personal or semi-personal photos, or any other material that appears to promote the private or commercial interests of the editor adding the material, or of his associates."

In addition the images may be problematic because of personality rights.[2]

Are there any rules or policies on this? The problem is not unique to blond but also brunette and I imagine many other articles where people can go about placing their mug-shots under the guise of an "example".

I'm running it a real problem with one editor who is strongly pushing the above two pictures and seems to have some sort of sexual attraction and is trying to track down who these people are. How to deal with something like this? Do we need more specific guidelines on using photos of living people, similar to WP:BLP? IMO, non-notable people need to give explicit permission for their photo to be used in a Wikipedia article because the context of its usage can be problematic. You know, suddenly finding your Creative Commons licensed Flicker image up on the Wikipedia article "ugly" might not be so cool. -- Stbalbach 05:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

  • That doesn't feel like self-promotion to me. They're not really drawing attention to anything (business, website, whatever). So I don't think it's a problem. >Radiant< 13:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with Radiant! I wouldn't go looking for trouble. If an article needs a picture, and somebody adds one, and it happens to be their friend, no big deal. On the other hand, if somebody removes a perfectly good picture to replace it with one of their friend, or if they added some sort of promotional caption, that would be dickish. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 14:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

AUTO is NOT policy

Hi.

I just saw that a reference to WP:AUTO that I removed, namely the one in the beginning section where it was being called a "policy", was added back in. WP:AUTO is more of a clarification of a specific instance of WP:COI, and it also not a policy. I do not see why it needs to be emphasized so much over any other COI or N guideline so much, and why it keeps getting called a "policy" so consistently. Has there been some promotion of WP:AUTO to official policy? If so, should WP:COI become one too? And should we change the guideline tag on WP:AUTO to an official-policy tag to reflect this apparent policy-ness? I would have changed it back again, but I'm not going to start an edit war over it, I'd rather discuss things instead. mike4ty4 00:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoops! Just examined the revert. "And guidelines" was added, so I guess it's better. But I'm still curious as to why WP:AUTO is emphasized so much. mike4ty4 00:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Because people have a tendency to write articles about themselves, and in general they shouldn't. >Radiant< 09:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
It is also not advisable to write about any conflict of interest without consensus, period. mike4ty4 07:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello I want to ask something, can we make articles in some other languague like spanish? thanks!

I'm currently involved in a polite disagreement over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#DermAtlas, and I'd welcome feedback from this community.--Hu12 02:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

That discussion is currently located at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Apr#DermAtlas. — Athænara ✉ 03:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Conflict with WP:BLP

I've complained about this before in Wikipedia_talk:Autobiography, but after someone mentioned it on wikien, and I checked, it turns out this page is even worse.

We expect that people *should* be able to edit articles about themselves for BLP considerations. This guideline states in such strong terms that users are discouraged from doing so, that any newcomer who reads it will conclude that such things are prohibited. A newcomer isn't going to know the difference between "strongly discouraged", "is considered a standard that all users should follow", "avoid or exercise great caution", etc. and an actual prohibition; the fact that the article literally speaking doesn't prohibit such editing and instead just really really steers users away from it, won't make any practical difference.

This *needs* to be fixed. This guideline as it is goes completely against BLP. Ken Arromdee 23:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Typical problem

User Startcom has consideral amount of Edits to StartCom related articles (see users contributions for detail). At what point is is this acceptable? --Hu12 00:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StartCom (I know you know this, Hu12, but other editors who follow this page may not). — Athænara ✉ 23:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


A new essay as a Further reading link?

Per Jehochman's comments here[3] about the new essay User:Durova/The dark side I'll suggest adding to the list of Further reading links over here.

I specialize in complex investigations and have been concerned not only by the quantity of attempts to manipulate this site but also by mainstream publications outside Wikipedia that advocate site policy violations in pursuit of ideological or profit motive editing. The current links from this page explain and encourage the right way to participate but don't focus much on the reasons to avoid the other path. Since I authored the essay I'll propose the link here and leave it for others to evaluate. DurovaCharge! 18:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Nutshell

Problem: upset people see the guideline and see it as a blanket prohibition on fixing the only thing on the whole project which is right now actively spoiling their lives.

My proposed solution: add a "nutshell" which allows for the correction of unambiguous errors of fact, because that's what they want to do.

Result: Nutshell rewritten to remove that exception and reinforce still further the apparent blanket prohibition on fixing the only thing on the whole project which is right now actively spoiling their lives.

Discuss.

Guy (Help!) 21:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This nutshell is a damn tough assignment! What you placed there was probably a bit too liberal, so I boldly tried something else. Feel free to try again. We need to be careful not to oversimplify this guideline. Every COI editor will say, "But I can be neutral," or "It was just a factual inaccuracy," when in fact they are crossing the line. As for helping people to participate, I have written an essay for Internet marketing types to explain productive ways to work with Wikipedia. Idle hands are the devil's tools, so lets provide an outlet for their energies. See Wikipedia:Search engine optimization. I'd appreciate your comments and edits there. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 21:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite

I just rewrote this guideline. The main thing I did was to trim the fat, including sections which were redundant to other policies and guidelines (discussion about deletion, for example) and some sections which were inappropriate to include (one section which bordered on giving legal advice).

I've given a tighter structure to the lists of situations in which conflicts of interest arise, and I've also included a generic definition of conflict of interest (interest v duty) in the lede and again throughout to reinforce that that is the test for when there is a conflict, and not whether the situation appears in the list.

I've also clarified some of the ambiguity in operation. The position before was contradictory and hovered between a complete prohibition on editing wherever there might be a conflict on the one hand, and "edit if you think you can do it neutrally" on the other. I've made it more strict: you are always discouraged from editing when you have a conflict unless an exception applies. Those are BLP edits, and edits with consensus.

Related to this last point, I've also emphasised what people are encouraged to do instead of editing when they have a conflict, namely, that they should seek community input.

Your comments are invited. --bainer (talk) 16:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe also post links to the proposed changes where appropriate, e.g., WP:COIN or the policy section of the village pump. I think your material is better written than the original, but the changes are extensive enough that there should be a community consensus for their adoption. Raymond Arritt 16:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
There is certainly a clear improvement, and the greater conciseness welcome. I think the policy is , or should be, more careful and discriminating than as stated. Objective reporting is possible regardless of COI. There is a risk of inaccuracy, and therefore material that might represent COI must be supported particularly well by independent reliable sources. I therefore think that some version of the previous statement that COI must be declared would be appropriate. It is undisclosed COI that represents the danger to WP. articles written by the subject can be judged accordingly--stringently, but with the realization tat some self-assertions of notability will be true. DGG 05:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I think the general feeling is that people really shouldn't edit at all when they have a conflict of interest, despite what is said about exercising caution and being careful to follow policy and so forth. But this needs to be substituted for something; it's not good enough just to tell people they can't edit. This is why I've tried to put emphasis on the things people are encouraged to do instead.
I decided to cut the section about disclosing conflicts partly because it's essentially implicit in the idea of seeking community input on material, and partly because of some old discussion about the section which resulted in the "neutral" stance it took, presenting pros and cons without advocating anything. Someone also mentioned that principles of disclosure have been much better discussed outside of Wikipedia and I'd like to research those before developing a section on disclosure. --bainer (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
This is an attitude I often take issue with. If the person wants to make an honest effort to be neutral, why should they be punished or forced not to edit? <sighs> more of the problems with the WP community... The source of an edit does not automatically mean the edit benefits/harms the encyclopedia. 74.38.33.68 23:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I've spent a bit of time on WP:COI/N lately. Very few self-written articles are done well. I think we need to provide people with better outlets when they have the energy to write an article about themselves, their company or their client. For existing articles, COI affected editors can post to the talk page. For new articles, they can start in their own user space, and then find an experienced editor to check the article, edit as necessary, and copy to the main space.Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 08:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
It's to this end that I've tried to emphasise in the rewrite that people's contributions are welcome even when they have a conflict of interest as long as they gain approval/input about them from the community first. This seems to be the best approach distilled from pieces of the old version, from discussions on this talk page and its archives and from general Wikipedia principles.
It may be better to emphasise this more, particularly ways for creating new articles. --bainer (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
The rewrite certainly trims some of the fat, but some of the crucial bits read like legalese now:
A conflict of interest occurs when your interests, or the interests of those that you represent, conflict or potentially conflict with your duties or obligations. A Wikipedia conflict of interest occurs when your interests in editing Wikipedia, or the interests of those that you represent, conflict or potentially conflict with your obligations as an editor to abide by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, particularly the neutral point of view policy.
I though the original definiton para was clearer and far more concrete.
A Wikipedia conflict of interest is an incompatibility between the purpose of Wikipedia, to produce a neutral encyclopedia, and the aims of individual editors. These include editing for the sake of promoting oneself, other individuals, causes, organizations, companies, or products, as well as suppressing negative information, and criticizing competitors.
I'm not so sure about including "causes". It's difficult to apply a COI sticker unless it's a specific and provable close business or personal interest. On the WP:COI there have been plenty of cases where COI looks highly likely - say, proponents (or antagonists) of culty religions - but all you can do is watch out for breaches of WP:NPOV. Tearlach 11:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you about the orginal paragraph being better. On the "causes" front I'm very much in favor of keeping it in. The charity/nonprofit articles are rife with promotional editing by people who are just editing to mention their favorite mission-driven organization, and it results in crufty articles that fail to provide balanced and critical appraisal of their subjects. Cause-based editing is just as susceptible to COI as business or vanity, and our readers deserve articles in those areas that are as good as articles in other areas. -- Siobhan Hansa 18:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
However, the why nix someone for simply having a "close relationship" to the subject? This first paragraph seems to suggest they must have an "interest" that conflicts with WP, ie. that they must actively want to edit non-neutrally and therefore someone who wants to edit neutrally instead but still has a close relationship should not be banned from editing (because their "interests" or wants would be in agreement with WP -- they'd want neutrality.). 74.38.33.68 23:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Thebrainer, it may make sense to create an essay somewhere that explains to people how to gather up the info about an article they'd like, even one about themselves, post this info to their user space, and then go get it reviewed by somebody independent who can provide advice and potentially post the material to main space if suitable. We can diffuse a lot of sneaky editing if we provide a proper channel. This doens't really exist today for new articles. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 19:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Seems reasonable to offer a non-prescriptive option. I don't think the current system haws much teeth, unless editors have blatantly broken guidelines such as civility and NPOV. Personally, I'd like to see WP:COI as a policy rather than a guideline: since Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard started up, infringing editors have rapidly got wise to the idea that nothing much is going to happen if they break it. You get a lot of responses to the tune of "I hear what you say but it doesn't apply to me because ... fill in the excuse") Tearlach 23:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
And if they do not break the NPOV Policy (not a "guideline", it's a policy, and a very fundamental one at that.). 74.38.33.68 23:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

(reset massive indent) I've been using Template:uw-coi which is an official warning, combined with a prodwarning or AfD, and that seems to work pretty well. The policy seems to have enough teeth, because the perp is almost always breaking other policies in addition to COI. We do need more investigators for WP:COI/N. That's the bottleneck. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 01:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem though is that there does not appear to be harm caused to Wikipedia if they do not break the important content policies, including NPOV. 74.38.33.68 23:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree. However, the warning assumes good faith and helps inform the user about the risk of COI. This is better than allowing an oblivious editor to embarrass themselves and start content disputes. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 23:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

See above under Nutshell.

Both the old and new versions of the guideline basically tell anyone who sees false information in an article about himself that he cannot remove it. A person in such a situation is likely to be a new user, and won't figure out that it's carefully worded so that he actually can edit if he keeps it neutral. The guideline discourages people from editing their article so strongly that it appears to a new user to be a complete ban. Ken Arromdee 14:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

be honest or spill the WP:BEANS?

Anonymity and pseudonymity are common and encouraged on Wikipedia; someone with a conflict of interest and poor integrity can easily exploit this. Suppose the congressional staffers of unhappy memory had created accounts? (Actually, who can say some of them didn't?) They'd have been indistinguishable from average election-year partisan editors. Or what if Adam Curry had done his meddling under a pseudonym? And suppose one of these people had squawked about outing when someone tried to reveal their conflicts of interest.

This sort of thing has happened before and will certainly happen again, but I've stuck to hypothetical situations here since this is about general principles rather than specific cases. Right now it seems that there's no effective way to deal with such a problem, and having a guideline discouraging editing with a COI rewards those who disregard it and hide the fact that they're doing so. Should the page be forthright about this ("Editors with a conflict of interest can choose not to reveal it or to actively conceal it. While this behavior is unethical. . ." and so forth), or would that be spilling the WP:BEANS? —Charles P._(Mirv) 14:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think if someone has a conflict of interest, they should spill their own beans that, at least, they are acquainted with the person whose bio they are creatiubng or editing. I'll do that, too. Point taken. Bearian 14:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest Inquiry

I run a philosophy club at my school, and I'd like to create a WikiPedia page for it. We have recently been getting a good deal of media attention (including, for instance, Fox News), and I'd like for those interested in the club to be able to look us up up WikiPedia.

Although our stand on various philosophical issues can be expounded upon, I'd stick to the basics and describe more so what the club is about, what it does, etc.

If anything, I'm concerned that because our views on a number of popular topics are rather controversial, the page would get vandalized, but so long as editors remained objective, I'm happy to leave it to the consensus.

Please let me know what you think!

ArthurLZ 23:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Short answer. Don't. WAS 4.250 15:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Academic Citation Farming

I wonder if the policy could be written so that clear citation farming attempts by academics are prohibited. While many of these individuals have a lot to contribute to the project, I've also run into a great many who seem primarily interested in adding links to their own work to a wide variety of articles. Academics have a clear private interest in doing this because promotions are often distributed on the basis of the number of times one's work has been cited by others. For recent examples see Special:Contributions/162.84.241.54 and Special:Contributions/Davidellerman. --Beaker342 20:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Another example: Kellym133 (talk · contribs). — Athænara ✉ 22:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I doubt that anyone's application for tenure is going to be affected by how often their writings are cited on Wikipedia, since it's not a peer-reviewed journal or academic press. If the work is worth reading and relevant to the article, then I don't see any problem with the author adding it—anyone else doing the same would meet with no objection. (If it's crackpottery, or if they spam it where it's not relevant, or actively remove citations to other authors, then we have a problem.) Maybe there are egotistical motives at work, but if the encyclopedia gains thereby. . . —Charles P._(Mirv) 01:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
You misunderstand what I was saying. Spamming articles with citations of your own work makes it more likely that others will happen upon the citation and use it in their own peer-reviewed work. COI as it stands seems to prohibit this: "Be careful about excessive citation of your own work, to avoid the appearance of self-promotion." I just wish it were stated more clearly in the guideline. --Beaker342 01:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I think our approach to spam amounts to whack-a-mole. Rather than relying on our large number of users to deter a large number of people who spam, wouldn't it make more sense to automate this? It shouldn't be very hard to write a bot that would look for user accounts that add lots of external links to the same web site, without adding much content. These histories could be flagged for review, similar to the way AlexBot identifies probably COI articles and lists them on WP:COI/N. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 11:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
re Beaker342: If people are using Wikipedia in their academic research, then yes, this could be a problem. Why they would be using Wikipedia when they have the far superior resources of the average university library at their disposal, I do not know. —Charles P._(Mirv) 03:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I assure you that academics use Wikipedia, just like everyone else. JSTOR is crap for quick and dirty summaries.--Beaker342 04:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Not to mention coverage of very recent topics or subjects outside mainstream academia. --ElKevbo 04:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
re quick and dirty summaries—fine, but if one is preparing a work that's going to be peer-reviewed, Wikipedia's articles are almost always going to be inferior to library catalogs, various academic databases, etc. re very recent topics or subjects outside mainstream academia—if a subject fits either of these categories, there won't be much academic literature about it anyway. I still think the current wording is fine: do it if your work is relevant and reliable; don't do it excessively; when in doubt, ask disinterested parties. I might add "don't list your work as a reference unless it was actually used as such", but that could be excessive instruction creep. —Charles P._(Mirv) 15:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Just saw this. I agree with Mirv that nobody in mainstream science is likely to get additional citations from having their work visible in WP--this is simply not where people who are actually going to write peer-reviewed academic papers look to fine other people's work. The people who come here are the curious, and amateurs. I think any excessive citing--and there is some-- will be motivated by the ordinary desire to display oneself as widely as possible. But there are areas where there seems to be a group of people citing each other and doing this to an irresponsible degree, and those should be watched for --but it's a "group COI", better known here as a Walled garden. The most striking example I know is Knowledge Engineering and related pages--but it is a respectable academic field, so it's a matter of cutting down articles, not deleting them--and this is much harder to accomplish against opposition. DGG 18:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Warning about indefinite blocks

I have added a warning about indefinite block being a possible outcome when single-purpose COI accounts continue to self-promote after being warned. Here's the argument as to why this isn't a change in policy, just a clarification.

Arguably, this already fits within WP:BLOCK#Indefinite_blocks: Inappropriate usernames, policy-breaching sockpuppets, and single-purpose abusive accounts that have not made significant constructive edits can be indefinitely blocked on sight, and should be noted in the block summary. Is not single purpose violation of COI, WP:SPAM, WP:ADVERT, and WP:AUTO abusive of Wikipedia, its volunteers, and its readership? DurovaCharge! 16:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If you do not understand the need for this clarification, I suggest you help us clear the backlog at WP:COIN so you can see what's going on first hand. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 11:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

We should really talk about this longer before adding it. Like I said, it could have a serious impact in content disputes. To continue our discussion on WP:AN, many times partisan or religious editors will be involved in content disputes on articles about their organisation. Should Catholic Church only be editable by non-Catholics? Wouldn't this result in systemic bias against Catholics in that article? Does it make a difference if it is a mainstream organisation like the Catholic Church, or a minority one like the Alliance for Green Socialism? Do we really want people in content disputes trying to get each other blocked for COI violations rather than working together to try to write a neutral article? — Armed Blowfish (mail) 12:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
The discussion at Blocking Policy is specifically restricted to the promotion of "a person, company, product, or service" by single purpose accounts, as in spamming, so it would not apply to the generic NPOV issues you raise above. Crum375 13:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
When it comes to "a person", there could be WP:BLP issues involved. As for companies, products, and services, conflicts of interest might be of the monetary variety, rather than real points of view. This conversation seems to be rather spread out. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 13:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Sometimes vested-interest accounts are simply subjects upset by a biased or even defamatory article. They don't know how wikipedia works, so they simply blank the page or replace it with corporate blurb. Such accounts are often highly annoying, but should on no account be blocked. Stop and ask 'why is the subject so upset'? Is it just that they want to turn the article into an advert - or do they have a justifiable complaint that the article is far from NPOV? --Docg 13:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed text
Users who appear to have no purpose other than to promote themselves or their own interests should be warned and listed at the conflict of interest notice board. Those who continue to use Wikipedia for blatant self-promotion after being warned may be blocked indefinitely.

Doc, I don't think the type of user you describe should be covered by this statement. Clueless newcomers usually respond to comments or warnings. Certainly we should try to engage and convert them into productive Wikipedians. We are trying to clarify the right way to deal with users who don't respond, delete their warnings and continue adding self-promotional spam for as long as they can get away with it. These users already qualify under Durova's citation supra as abusive single-purpose accounts that should receive an indefinite blocking under existing policy. We just want to make this clear so admins aren't hesitating to nuke these accounts. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 15:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Just be very careful. You say "we should try to engage and convert them into productive Wikipedians" - not so. Some of the people we are speaking about have no desire to be wikipedians, no desire to learn our rules or work through our processes - why should they? All they want is for a biased, or scurrilous article to be removed or fixed. We shouldn't be warning them or blocking them at all. Perhaps the best thing to say is "before assuming a conflict of interest - look at both the article and the user's activities very carefully - make sure that the article is utterly and transparently NPOV, verifiable, balanced and fair - if there's any doubt about that, and I mean any, then the priority is to fix the article and patrol it against any negative pov pushers - not to deal with the angry subject." It is more important that we remove problematic content, than we remove problematic users. I'm afraid I'm quite jumpy about this whole direction; it might just encourage folk to block people for continually replacing an article with a spam ad, without stopping to ask why the 'spammer' so objects to the old article.--Docg 15:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
We should be extremely generous to COI accounts about pointing out WP policies and procedures. If they then show that they aren't interested we should show them the door. This may mean we deal with "bad" behavior for a little while longer than your average vandal. SchmuckyTheCat 15:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely not. Some COIs have no interest in WP policies - they are simply objecting to biased articles. Sort the article first - double check it - and ask the COI account what they object to. AGF at all times. (see above for my reasons).--Docg 15:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I think if you look at some recent cases at the COI noticeboard you'll see AGF in action. The problem this policy clarification would address is those editors who don't respond at all when the COI is pointed out, or engage in Wikilawyer chit-chat while continuing to make flagrant COI postings. The problem of unresponsive COI editors, and the difficulty of getting attention for COI issues at WP:AN/I, is mentioned in a thread at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Refusal to cooperate. EdJohnston 16:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Fine - but can we place in big bold letters somewhere: "Please check the article is scrupulously NPOV, balanced, and properly verified before throwing the book at someone who is reverting to their spammy version. As much as they may be appearing obnoxious, breaking the house-rules, or replacing the article with blatant advertising, it is possible the subject may have no real interest in wikipedia other than to remove biased or defamatory material. If that is the case, they should not have to turn into good little wikipedians before we apologise to them, and clean up the article to our highest standards."--Docg 16:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
"Scrupulously" might be a bit much, but mostly I think you are right. That said, I am more concerned about articles about individual people than ones about companies. But when it comes to things where living people could be affected, it's better to err on the side of being biased in the positive direction than being biased in the negative direction. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 16:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:Grief essay (denial, anger, bargaining, etc.) applies as well to the rapidly increasing varieties of COI editors and single purpose accounts. — Athænara ✉ 23:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

How about this?

Proposed text
Accounts used solely for abusing Wikipedia may be blocked indefinitely, as explained in Wikipedia:Blocking policy. Blatant self-promotion qualifies as abuse.

It is shorter, and cleaner, and avoids instruction creep. Wikipedia:Blocking policy already contains the necessary language. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 02:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

That works for me. Admins already block spam-only accounts all the time, that's not even anything new. --Minderbinder 12:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Conflict with policies against revealing personal information

This has no teeth if users are not allowed to reveal what they know or suspect someone's real-life identity to be. I suggest deletion of the COI policy. --Random832 02:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Clarification. I don't think that, while following these other policies, that we can fairly distinguish between self-promotion and promotion by others, nor should we. If material would be acceptable if added by someone known not to be the subject of the article, we MUST accept it even if added by the subject. If it would not be acceptable if added by the subject, it should be unacceptable added by anyone. This is especially true since we are forbidden to speculate that the user adding it is the subject. --Random832 02:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Sometimes you have to reveal your own COI. Bearian 14:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Often we see usernames that match the name of the product being promoted. That's a dead give away. Sometimes users volunteer their identity. Sometimes users edit only one single article and behave like they own it. There are lots of ways people reveal COI. We don't ever "out" people. We simply listen to what they tell us and judge them by their edits. Please consider helping clear the backlog at WP:COIN by investigating some of the cases. That exercise will help you understand what's going on in the trenches. Please come back and let us know what you think.Jehochman (talk/contrib) 14:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why it should matter who's editing. The fact that it's possible for someone to exercise "their right to edit anonymously" thus immunizing themselves against any attempt to point out a conflict of interest, means we shouldn't be persecuting those who _do_ choose to be honest about it. If they can contribute constructively, let them, if they can't, block them. Same as anyone who doesn't have a conflict of interest --Random832 00:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
That's right. Actions, not prejudice, are the final arbiter of how good a contributor someone is. mike4ty4 03:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that Random832 is making a very good point. If the content one adds is inappropriate, it doesn't matter who the user is. And if it's appropriate, then who he/she is doesn't matter either. --Shyranoe 08:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it matters (to pick a hypothetical example) whether Tommy Popstar is edited by Tommy himself, by his publicist, or his "number one fan". The sort of edits done are likely to be the same. Arguably this guideline is nothing but a repackaging of other stuff (NPOV, verifiability, even BLP) in a way which is readily understood by someone who, one suspects, is too close to the subject. As such it shouldn't be making policy, just presenting it. Notinasnaid 13:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
(Further) the great majority of cases where this is applicable are for people who arrive with good faith, but without a detailed knowledge of the aims of the project. (Who does arrive with them?) This means that in many cases they "out" themselves. If they don't, it would be quite inappropriate to expose them or accuse people directly or indirectly, though it is OK to ask, I feel, or to state messages in a neutral "If you should be ... then ...". But in the end, the edits speak for themselves. However, is someone denies COI, then there is no point arguing, or referring these guidelines to them, but there are planty of others. Enthusiasm is often indistinguishable from COI. 13:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

What way has this page been going?

See my comment here, please. It's not long and the second part is about this page. --Shyranoe 14:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest requires intention?

Hi.

I saw this:

"Anyone who prioritizes outside interests over the interests of the project may be subject to a conflict of interest."

Doe this mean that if one does not prioritize such interest, then they can be very close to the subject and yet still not worry about editing it? If not, then should this be changed? mike4ty4 04:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

We want avoid instruction creep. People are expected to apply common sense. Some ambiguity in this guideline may be intentional. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 12:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Ambiguity only serves to create lawyering, confusion, and other detrimental things. Terms need to be defined precisely. This does not mean long, exhaustive lists of bureaucratic criteria, however. mike4ty4 20:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

About the usage of the word "we"

Wikipedia guidelines are something which everyone can (at least in theory) improve. They also apply to everyone (mostly). If the word "we" was used, it should refer to everyone. Like this: "When we edit Wikipedia, we should put the interests of the encyclopedia first." But if you put it like "We think that you should" you are creating two parties. There would be "we" and then there would be "you". Who is we and who is you? I find it very unclear. --Shyranoe 19:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Jehochman, I didn't notice your message up there. You said: "we" refers to us, the Wikipedia community, and "you" refers to the editor reading the guideline. One of the problems is, that they are often the same person... --Shyranoe 19:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Or do you think there exists some perfect Wikipedia community, whose members never have to read any guidelines and never make any mistakes :) ? --Shyranoe 19:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

(Time order is unusual because I moved two comments to the more appropriate thread. EdJohnston 19:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC) )

A choice--passive or active voice
Hi, if am not sure what you are up to, but you've now twice changed this article from active to passive voice. There's no reason to do that, in my opinion. I'm not the world's greatest writer, but I have a copy of Strunk and White sitting here on my desk. It says that active voice is preferred, and that passive voice should not be overused. In this guideline, the word "we" refers to us, the Wikipedia community, and "you" refers to the editor reading the guideline. We can hardly be more clear. Wikipedia:Weasel words applies to guidelines just as much as articles. Before trying your changes again, why don't we get some other opinions? Jehochman (talk/contrib) 19:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I too own a copy of Strunk and White and I agree with Jehochman that we should prefer active voice. I see no problem with the use of 'we' because it's obvious who that is, the Wikipedia community. If we write a set of guidelines in the active voice it should sound less bureaucratic and more direct. EdJohnston 19:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I disagree with you. I think it sounds a bit unfriendly to new users and to those who can't feel that they are part of this "we". It sound's like there was "we" who are giving orders to "you". --Shyranoe 19:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This is one sentence which I find unclear: "As Wikipedians and encyclopedists, we put the interests of the encyclopedia first." Who belongs to this group of perfect Wikipedians? How big is it? I have known Wikipedians who have been active for years and who seem to have a conflict of interest, or are otherwise not always behaving very well (not refering to anyone around this page!) Should the impression given to new users be, that everyone already here are "perfect encyclopedists", and only new users need to learn? --Shyranoe 20:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. Check my edit. Does that sound more friendly and inclusive? Jehochman (talk/contrib) 20:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think the sentence is better. Maybe the "we" there can refer to anyone acting that way. I still find other "we"s in the article not very good, though. --Shyranoe 20:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, let's look at those other sentences. We want everyone to feel like part of the team. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 23:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
(The next conversation was before this.) Would it be possible to take "you" out of the same sentences where there is "we"? Then it would sound more like everyone are expected to follow the same instruction. It's already that way in some sentences, for example "because of this, we strongly discourage editing when...". --Shyranoe 10:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi again! I find it nice that you are at least ready to think about it with me. I went through the page more carefully and also some older versions. It is very difficult for me to suggest how to change only those particular sentences (if the passive voice won't do), because I think there is so much more that would need to be fixed.

This page is going into highly personal issues. Even the old version "Vanity guidelines" is a bit personal, but not as much as this one. There clearly has been trouble with these matters, as it stands in some old versions: "Wikipedia has had serious problems from people who feel they have been accused of being "vanity authors" in a deletion debate." Could one reason for these problems be, that it is already personal to call someone a "vanity author"? Shouldn't all the accusations be about content or actions, never to call the author with any names? Doesn't this apply also to administrators? I feel that this can't be solved by accusing that someone has a COI. It's still personal... it's about who the person is.

Why not to write this page to be more about content? If I wrote this, I would start with only content issues. After that I would move into an assume good faith theme. And then there could be a part with advices to those who have edited or plan to edit articles related to something close to them. Much of the material which is now in the beginning of the page could be there, formulated in some suitable way. I don't think the weight of this page would have to suffer. --Shyranoe 18:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you write an essay about this topic in your user space, and then we can either reference it from the guideline, or we can incorporate whole sections, if there is a consensus to do so. You may find it easier to write a complete piece than to try to patch up this one. (Here's an essay I wrote: [[4]]. It's in Wikipedia space because I want others to edit it.) Jehochman (talk/contrib) 18:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
What do you exactly mean with an essay? To write my opinions about this matter or to write a suggestion how this page could be like? --Shyranoe 18:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Essay. I think you could write your opinions on COI. A carefully written essay can be a good way explain proposed changes. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 19:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll think about it. It might be more useful to write a suggestion for the page. There is one reason why I wouldn't like to write an essay. I don't especially enjoy stating opinions which might make some people feel that I wouldn't appreciate their work here. I do, but I had to bring out some opinions because I thought they were important. I would rather do something constructive than to keep criticizing. But this is a very difficult page to write, I have no idea if I can come up with a good suggestion. --Shyranoe 19:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

A question

Isn't there anyone watching this page who would like to try to work out a new suggestion with me? It doesn't have to be exactly as I proposed. We could try to include all or almost all material currently on the page (or not, depending how it will seem best), but also make some changes. --Shyranoe 20:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You don't understand the point of the COI guideline, so your attempts to change it are misguided. While this guideline has its roots in NPOV, "content" is not its focus. Its focus is "conflict of interest" which is about state of mind. WAS 4.250 01:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Whoa, WAS 4.250. Let's take it easy on the newcomer. Shyranoe, I encourage you to write a paragraph or two about your feelings and let us look at it. I think your ideas are valid. Whether they belong here or somewhere else in Wikipedia is an open question, but we can't know for sure until you reduce them to written form. I agree with WAS 4.250 that this guideline is about trust and motivation, not just the written substance. Wikipedia needs to keep COI motivated point of view from wrecking articles. If you go to WP:COIN, you can see some COI cases in action. You can even help with the investigations. That's an excellent way to develop a more complete understanding of the problem and possible solutions. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 03:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I will go there and try to learn more about this. WAS 4.250: I believe that you are right, I don't understand the meaning of this guideline well enough. I didn't mind you saying that, quite the opposite, it might help the conversation on. I have to try to converse, how else am I going to start to understand this? I find this guideline confusing and I think it should be improved somehow, but it is difficult to make suggestions without knowing as much as possible. You said that you understand it as being about a state of mind. This is what I find confusing: It states on the page, that you can report incidents related to this guideline. So Wikipedians are to report each other's wrong states of mind? I think that these two things should be separated:
  • What kind of edit contents are not appropriate (I see that this should be the one reported)
  • Advices related to personal matters like a state of mind, relationships, commitments or religion
I think that both are important, but the problem is that they get mixed up. Jehochman: You said that this is about trust and motivation. They are highly important issues. I tried to read the page imagining that it was an advice, and it sounded much better. But at the moment it doesn't sound like an advice, but more like a rule set by someone who is charging people's personal matters. --Shyranoe 12:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we need to clarify. We aren't opposed to dog lovers working on dog articles. Nor are we opposed to climatologists working on global warming articles. We are opposed to a dog breeder writing an article about his own business. We are opposed to an anti-global-warming-theory politico linking to his own website. COI requires both POV and some sort of unwholesome motivation that undermines trust. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 14:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
If an article is bad it could be deleted, if a user keeps putting in disruptive material he/she could be banned. Are personal accusations going to create trust in Wikipedia? With almost the same material which is now on the page it might be possible to write an encouraging and trust creating page. Many of the new users who appear to have COI might have good intentions, but they are making mistakes. They might use some friendly advices. If they are directed here as this page is now, they are going to feel unwelcome and an outsider... --Shyranoe 17:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Please write an essay so that we may suggest "Please read WP:COI and User:Shyranoe/COI Essay". WAS 4.250 18:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, already two people are telling me to write an essay, so I will have to consider it. But my aim is not that you will say: "Please read WP:COI and User:Shyranoe/COI Essay". My aim is that my essay, if there is going to be one, will make itself useless and can then be destroyed. I am aiming at having some change on WP:COI page. I would rather do it without an essay, but I am uncertain how to proceed. --Shyranoe 18:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

What does conflict of interest actually come from?

Hi.

I've noticed a few quirks with this guideline, specifically about what causes conflict of interest. For one, does conflict of interest require intent on the part of the editor to be biased/create vanity/etc., or is it simply something that exists from a "sufficiently close" relationship to the subject of an article? Ther are things in the guideline that suggest one way and then the other. In the opener the term is defined as an incompatibility between WP's policies of NPOV and the "aims" of an editor. This suggests intent right there. But in other parts it simply says about a close relationship is all that is needed to activate the guideline and nothing about intent. What gives? mike4ty4 20:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

In straightforward cases I don't see a problem. 'I want to post my CV here to get employment'. Wikipedia is not interested in finding people jobs: this triggers COI, if an editor is thinking that way. Theoretically you can have the discussion 'but I thought encyclopedias printed CVs', but that's not of any consequence. In other words, if people use ignorance about Wikipedia as a defence, and say they didn't intend to infringe the guideline, that's not really an issue with the guideline. The COI guideline can be pointed out, in combination with WP:NOT or something, and that will explain in some cases not only why an article is going to AfD, but should not have been created in the first place. So for example if an editor was aiming to promote a product here, and wasn't intending to break policy, it changes little. Charles Matthews 19:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Bias in the other direction

Hi.

Could not a "conflict of interest" scenario also arise where the afflicted editor is instead trying to disparage their organization 'cause they hate it, etc. instead of promoting it? For example, adding incredibly undue amounts of weight to even the slightest criticism, bloating criticism sections to massive proportions, and overall casting the thing in a negative light. This would still be a neutrality violation, and if the person comes in with this intention, then I would still say that a conflict of interest would exist. For example, say a disgruntled Microsoft employee were to come in and try editing the Microsoft article to add more criticism than is due, or otherwise put a negative spin on the article. This is not impossible. Why isn't the "other" direction of bias considered in this guideline? mike4ty4 20:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

POV editing is never acceptable, and 'undue weight' falls under that. To some extent all activism can be considered to fall under the 'Campaigning' section. Charles Matthews 19:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Alright. That makes a lot of sense. mike4ty4 18:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for the page

I started writing an essay, but then I got an idea and worked out a suggestion for this page. See it here, please. I know it's not perfect, and you are very welcome to edit it. See how I'm defining the wrong type of content without a mention of some particular user's intentions. This way the guideline could be applied without making any personal accusation. --Shyranoe 12:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I made two corrections to User:Shyranoe/Conflict of interest material. Perhaps you and Mike# above might care to view them. WAS 4.250 13:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I think I understand what you mean, and I don't think it's wrong to have talk about a state of mind. But this is a guideline with a noticeboard, and people need to report the incidents. How can you report someone's "wrong state of mind" without making a personal attack? Sounds quite personal to me... it's very confusing. I had to revert your edits because they were not what I am suggesting. --Shyranoe 13:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
It is not a personal attack to say to someone "I think that you are too close to the subject to fairly evaluate content on this article due to [this] and [this] so please restrict yourself to commenting on the talk page. Thanks." WAS 4.250 14:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
WAS 4.250: When you talk about this: "unconcious biases with regard to a subject (some not even for or against, just too close to the subject to see the issues in a balanced way." I think that this is not a conflict of interest, but POV. Everyone has some POV, if you think you don't have it, that's really POV :). And according to COI guideline POV questions should be handled separately from it. --Shyranoe 13:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
COI is one type of POV. The COI type of POV is a specific problem handled by this guideline. WAS 4.250 14:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This isn't getting any clearer. Once someone says "you are too biased", there is sometimes no end of personal fighting. It creates hostility. If I saw someone putting in too biased content, I don't want to say: "You have COI". I want to say: "You are putting in wrong type of content, I'm going to report that." --Shyranoe 15:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. WAS 4.250 21:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
"I am concerned that you may be too close to the subject to write about it from a neutral point of view. Please check WP:COI and see if this may be the case. Thank you." There are endless ways to raise this concern politely. I do it all the time, and am successfull 99% of the time. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 15:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't have "authority" in the eyes of the users I'm dealing with. If I told someone to read COI, it would be taken personally. I wouldn't do that or report anyone. Even if I believe someone has COI it's too difficult to prove and he/she can always claim otherwise. --Shyranoe 19:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Jehochman: Not related to this, but can you look at my new suggestion under the title "about the usage of the word 'we' " please? You can find it in my latest edit. --Shyranoe 19:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I made a mistake. I tried to edit this one and the edit summary was left out. I was trying to say: You are probably going to revert this, but I will try to modify these sentences a little. --Shyranoe 17:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

What is wrong with this guideline

We know Wikipedia is edited by fans, whose POV can be very strong, yet nobody ever It is rather bizzare that we allow users to offer monetary awards on Wikipedia:Reward board (or Wikimedia Fundation itself profit from similiar arrangement at Wikipedia:Bounty board, but the idea of editor-for-hire generated so much controversy.

With Wikipedia popularity skyrocketing, COI situations will arise more and more often. By discouraging and/or forbidding them, we are simly forcing some editors to edit 'in secrecy', denying ther COIs, or preventing Wikipedia from gaining valuable articles (note that many COI articles are fine from the start, and many others are quickly brought up to standards by the community - this is why Template:Advertisement is not the same as Template:Db-spam. Consider the mentioned 'editor-for-hire': he has created many articles which were kept and are apparently noncontroversial: Zale Corporation, KidsHealth, KOHS-FM, seriously suggested that being interested in something should keep one away from editing relevant articles. Yet we assume that all people who have a professional or family relationship to the subject are beyond hope and should avoid editing the articles. There are no reasons for those double standards. Instead of discouraging such editors from contributing, we should simply ask them to ask for a neutrality review at WP:RC or COI noticeboard.

Resorts Atlantic City... sure, some will be controversial and deleted (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norman Technologies), but others won't (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Converium Holding AG).

Bottom line is that while users with possible CoI should be asked to sumbit their articles for review, and while we should pay special attention to finding and reviewing such articles, there is no need to discourage editors from contributing to Wikipedia on basis of who they are / where they work / who are they related to / what do they like, as long as they try to respect our policies.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Check his entry in List of banned users if you think the example of User:MyWikiBiz is worthy of emulation. EdJohnston 00:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Piotrus and have softened my own approach to citing this guideline. I image the phrase you should avoid or exercise great caution when... will see further discussion and move more toward simply excercise great caution.. . Ideally editors will even list their biases on their user pages ;).. I would recommend against applying this guideline with excessive force, as with anything. ∴ here…♠ 03:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It is wrong that we assume that all people who have a professional or family relationship to the subject are beyond hope. We do assume, rightly, that most such people may have no idea what they are getting into, in editing WP in areas close to them. So the correct advice is not to start editing. Because most people, in real life, will not have met anything like an edit war, and are not prepared for what it will do to them. Charles Matthews 10:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is a good idea to give advices. I also know that there are "advertisers", which I don't like. But I disagree with something else. This page gives the impression that being involved would make you a "bad guy" (and your edits less valuable?). That is just one possible perspective, a too simple one and not always right (am I misunderstanding when I feel it's the perspective of this guideline?).
I have helped to write a page of a rare subject which I'm not involved myself. At the time I entered editing, there were insults going back and forth on the talk page. Among the editors there was one who was personally involved with the subject, and he/she was behaving well. He/she rarely edit fought, never insulted anyone, made good suggestions, and most of the good material on the page was written by him/her. Then there were two editors not personally involved, one being in favor of the subject, the other one against it. They kept putting in original research with poor or no sources and edit fighting constantly...
I don't want to say it's always like that. I know it's not. But I believe that one of the big challenges of Wikipedia is how can people with different perspectives and thinking write together. It's not always the case that the "outsider" is somehow the "good guy", because many people have prejudices for things they know little about. --Shyranoe 14:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, but I should also point out that some of our worst disputes - ones that cannot ever be resolved by reasonable discussion - continue only because of COI. Serious conflict of interest makes dispute resolution impossible. Charles Matthews 14:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I can believe there are disputes that cannot be solved by reasonable discussion. I guess those users are banned then? I wonder why they can't be banned because of their wrong kind of edits (they are doing such, right?). Or if it is necessary to charge their "wrong state of mind" and ban them for that, maybe this guideline could still be written to have a little wider perspective? It has a lot of good material, but somehow it sounds like directed against involved people, and some of them can be good editors, and some really try. For example this is one part that doesn't sound very good to me: "If editors on talk page suggest in good faith that you may have a conflict of interest, consider withdrawing from editing the article, ... " So anyone can suggest on talk page that someone else has a conflict of interest, and then this someone should consider withdrawing? If the "anyone" here is a very wise person, then there might be no problem. But what if he/she is not? --Shyranoe 14:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Typically the remedy for COI is a topical ban: you are banned from all edits on some area of articles. In the end, the ArbCom can and does do this. But the problem is too big. Say there are 2000 universities in the USA; say they all employ at least one person to do public relations; say thay have all heard of Wikipedia by now. We do not want articles on educational establishments to read like publicity material. So we have a guideline to show to the PR people: just don't start. Tell your employer that it's against the rules of the site.
It is not OK to cite COI to win an argument over content, unless the interest is already declared. Why do people declare interests? Remember, WP was founded with a rather positive view of people. We still assume most people are honest. Charles Matthews 19:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
The last one is a good thing :). You seem to have a clear idea what this guideline is for. But when I try to read it I'm reading it like the other guidelines, that it is maintained by Wikipedians for Wikipedians. If it is against big organisations and commercialism I wonder how could it be made clearer... I am worried about the effects this guideline could have in small scale situations, when editors try to interpret it and apply it to each other. If this is one of the first guidelines a new editor is directed to read, he/she might be really confused. The part where it is told that you must not use this to win an argument is almost in the end of the page. And I'm not sure if it's always easy to tell the difference.
How about telling in the beginning a little bit more about what this guideline is for? How about telling after that how it relates to other guidelines? How about putting after that everything about infering something about the tone of the edit (that is the most difficult part I think, because how to decide who can infer it? How to avoid personal hatred? If someone tries to infer that I'm not trying to edit neutrally, I take it very personally!) Well, these are just ideas. But I do think that this guideline is not clear enough. I had to talk here forever to try to start to understand it :).
Maybe there could even be two different guidelines... one for ordinary small scale advertising, where you could direct someone to go if their edits are too promotive. And another one for extreme cases, like those "worst disputes" you talked about. It doesn't seem nice that if someone tries a little bit advertise himself/herself/something else (maybe by accident at first), they are immediately accused somehow personally. It could be useful to have some page to direct that kind of an editor, but it's very difficult for me to imagine that I would direct him/her here. --Shyranoe 20:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
The usual way with policies is to make them general statements, with which almost everyone can agree. The general statement here is this: editors shouldn't put outside interests ahead of Wikipedia's interests. That is what 'conflict' means to us. To that there is added enough types of examples, and advice. Accusations of COI are not acceptable. Charles Matthews 09:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, there is a lot of agreement here. Giving advices is good, accusing is not so good. The page still talks about infering, suggesting and reporting COI, and I believe that if I did any of these it would be taken as an accusation. That's why it might be good to have two steps of the process. First a guideline where to direct someone to read all the good advices. Second one if someone continues acting disruptively and shows continuous lack of right motivation. These two matters could even be on the same page if they were somehow separated. Now it starts with the heavy part. Earlier I saw one advertiser, and I'm quite sure that if I had directed him/her here, it would have started a personal fight and made the person defensive. --Shyranoe 16:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
As a person who rarely contributes here, but often comments on the issues at WP:COI/N, I'm having trouble figuring how this discussion makes any difference. Actual cases are seldom decided by the rulebook. In recent months only one case that I've studied seemed to come down to rule interpretation, and that's the 'Arbuthnot' case that is still open, if anyone want to go over to COI/N and contribute to the discussion. Mostly we look at the actual stuff that the editor has done and see if it appears fishy. Oftentimes, negotiation is possible. It would be helpful if people who comment on this Talk page would occasionally mention specific noticeboard cases where their proposed rule change at WP:COI would have made a difference. EdJohnston 16:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I'm talking about a little bit different issue. I'm talking about the situation before it goes to that point that you are making decisions at WP:COI/N (in my latest comment). --Shyranoe 17:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Indeed.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I am glad my initatial post generated such an interesting discussion. Having reread the policy, I think one crucial points needs to be stressed even more: our goal of neutrality. Conflicts of interests increase the likelyhood of non-neutral contributions, but its perfectly normal: remember that nobody can be truly neutral - WP:NPOV acknowledges this with "All editors and all sources have biases" and other such statements. Editors should be aware of their possible COIs, delcare them and seek input and reviews using COI noticeboard; however they should not be discourgaged from editing subjects as long as they are aware of their bias and try to be neutral. We should assume good faith and assume that any contributors - even those who are getting paid for their edits - are trying to be neutral and are activly trying to balance their POV. Thus we should not seek to discourage editors who are making money for writing articles, as this will only drive them underground and encourage disruptive behaviour; we should embrace them and streamline our ways of dealing with them - for example by instituting an obligatory review for any article created 'for profit' (and for others COIs). But again, we should be assuming good faith and not discourage involved editors from editing as long as they are trying to be neutral.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Virtually every paid editor who's caught trying to spin an article will stand up and swear that they were being neutral, so that idea won't fly. Whoever pays the piper calls the tune. Improper paid editing is a serious threat to Wikipedia and should be discouraged. There are situations where a paid editor can participate, as the guideline explains: reverting true vandalism or spam, removing slander under WP:BLP, and of course raising concerns on the article talk page. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 07:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
If it is really possible to have some kind of checking service, how about to make a guideline instruction:
In order to assure the neutrality of paid edits, all editors who get paid need to
  • send new material to be checked first OR
  • report themselves on a noticeboard so that their edits can be followed.
And this could be a friendly noticeboard, not the same place where all kind of negative things are handled. Even though people can edit anonymously, many companies and organisations would respect the rule. (Of course not all would know about it, but if someone were directed to read a related guideline he/she would find out.) The non-neutral parts could be sent back to the person and asked to be still improved. This would sound more cooperative than to talk about bad intentions, and it would be a clear message. --Shyranoe 11:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, this is a good solution: incorporate such editors into community and double-check their work - a much better solution that forbidding them from contributing/forcing them underground.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree that we should single out paid contributors in any way: they are no more biased than people with social relationship to the subject, or hobbysts (many hobbysts who edit wikipedia are much more dedicated and POVed than any salaried employee). And if we forbid hobbysts to contribute to Wikipedia, we will ban 99% of our editors :) This shows the fallacy of this guideline.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Latest edit

Hi! You added "or organized groups of editors" in the first line. I have no experience of organized groups like that, but doesn't that make things even more complicated? After all, everyone is here as an individual. --Shyranoe 15:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

And Wikipedia is itself an organized group of editors, as are most of its departments and WikiProjects. The Transhumanist   

Reading the article conflict of interest it sounds like usually being a situation where a single person is in (there might be other meanings as well, though). Unless someone else has an opinion, I'm thinking it could be like this: "A Wikipedia conflict of interest is an incompatibility between the purpose of Wikipedia, to produce a neutral encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor." --Shyranoe 16:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is this a guideline, and not a policy?

The Transhumanist   

Can a policy exist as a mere recommendation? There are no strict rules in this guideline, only recommendations reinforcing existing policy. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is the policy, this is just a special case deserving its own article. ∴ here…♠ 03:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Plus, it is not unambiguously defined what constitutes a COI, and it is not a given that someone with a COI automatically may never edit his article. >Radiant< 09:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

One part

There is this one part where I'm trying a small change ("Be guided by the advice of other editors. If editors on a talk page suggest in good faith that you may have a conflict of interest, consider withdrawing from editing the article, and try to identify and minimize your biases"). The reason is this: another editor is not always right. When I first started using Wikipedia I got "advices" from a very unfriendly person. Some of them were good, but many of them were groundless accusations. Would someone be against this: "Be careful and guided by the advice of other editors. If editors on a talk page suggest in good faith that you may have a conflict of interest, try to identify and minimize your biases, or consider withdrawing from editing the article." --Shyranoe 09:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not an improvement. "Be guided by the advice of other editors" does not mean to blindly believe what any random person says. WAS 4.250 13:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Maybe, but if the reader is a new user he/she might understand it that way. Am I the only one around here who remembers how difficult it is to be a new user? What about this: "Be guided by the advice of other editors. If editors on a talk page suggest in good faith that you may have a conflict of interest, try to identify and minimize your biases, or consider withdrawing from editing the article." --Shyranoe 13:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
There is no practical difference as the English word "or" does not distinguish between "exclusive or" and "inclusive or". So I would not revert such a change as I see no real difference. WAS 4.250 20:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. --Shyranoe 09:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

(reset) Shyranoe, I request that you discuss edits in advance here. Lately you've made a lot of changes that have been reverted for lack of consensus. Being bold once or twice is fine, but repeatedly making changes that others disagree with isn't the best way forward. Thank you for your kind understanding. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 02:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to make very subtle changes on this page. I know it is not possible for me to edit any big change here. I have tried to use the talk page, but maybe not enough. Sorry! --Shyranoe 13:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The nutshell

The nutshell seems to tell you to not to edit even if you don't have a conflict of interest. One possible way to correct it would be to add these four words after "Avoid": "... or exercise great caution..." --Shyranoe 16:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the sentence is clear that it's targeting people with a conflict of interest since it goes on to "where your close connection to the subject may cause a conflict between your agenda and Wikipedia's goal..". Even if this is unclear your suggestion would have no impact on whether the sentence targeted people with a conflict of interest or not, only on the strength with which we indicate a desire for them not to edit. -- Siobhan Hansa 16:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
"where your close connection... may cause a conflict" is not the same thing than to have a conflict. And even if you have some kind of conflict, it's ok to edit sometimes, depending on what you do. I think my solution could be enough, because now it sounds like a strict rule, and then it would leave some space. --Shyranoe 16:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
The point of a nutshell (or even a guideline) isn't to leave some space, it's to give a brief description so that a quick look that best encompasses the essence of the guideline. And the essence is - "Conflicted? Whoa!"
There are two separate issues in the statement - who is compromised; and what people in a compromised position should do. Your edit targets what people in a compromised position should do, but the issue you highlighted is who is compromised. To address who is compromised the nutshell could change the bit that addresses the who bit - from "may cause a conflict" to "causes a conflict" for instance. If you actually want to give people with a conflict of interest more leeway to edit in the nutshell then "Exercise great caution" wording does give them that, though it may as well replace rather than be added to the "Avoid" wording, since it's a nutshell and there's no room to indicate which of the two approaches is appropriate for the reader. Personally I think the nutshell is better off erring on the more restrictive interpretation of both these issues, since the times when the less restrictive interpretation is appropriate is more nuanced than when it isn't. And you can't get over nuance well in a nutshell. -- Siobhan Hansa 17:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I will tell you what I discovered today after seeing the disturbing level of COI among the very people who are shaping COI. I will always be as lost as I have been this last month, and I am not going to spend my free time around shills and spammers who will use the rules to beat me up, then smack me with an AGF if I talk back. I'm not really wanting to blame, or complain or bend wikipedia to fit my own MPOV, but I really am discouraged in ways that really get to me. Flowanda 07:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Single Purpose Account editing important guideline

Shyranoe, sorry to put these questions to you, but I think it's time. Why have you created a single purpose account to edit this guideline? Why do you persist in making edits that clearly do not reflect consensus? I was assuming good faith, but I am not required to do so indefinitely in the face of contrary evidence. Are you concerned about your closeness to an article that you have been editing? Is this guideline inconvenient for you, so you are trying to make these changes? Jehochman (talk/contrib) 17:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Shyranoe: While the single purpose account question above is a valid one, I would also like to ask you to also stop making changes to this guideline without first seeking consensus to make that change. Your changes are being continually opposed by other editors on this page but you persist in making them. As they have stated, consensus supports the current version of this guidelines. As such, you should first seek consensus before making any other changes. Best, --Alabamaboy 17:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
First I would like to say this: I made small changes. Mostly I talked here, and when I didn't, I was definitely ready to do so. I was all the time looking for conversation. Then I would like to say this: It is not wrong to create a single purpose account, if I don't use any other account to edit the same pages (and I'm not doing so). I have been very honest that this is a single purpose account writing it on my user page. And then I would like to say this: The moment Jehochman stopped me and said I was going too fast and not looking for consensus enough, I didn't try more of my changes on the page. And for Jehochman: you said you were assuming good faith, what stopped you of doing so? That I edited too much? Maybe I'm not used to editing guidelines. I really didn't know what's too much here. And then this: The biggest way this guideline is inconvenient to me is, that I feel that directing someone here or reporting someone could create a personal fight or make the person unnecessarily defensive, as I have described above. I don't have a conflict of interest, at least I don't think so. I'm not working for any company to do this. I don't want to tell who I am, because I'm putting in so critical opinions. I have known all the time that the chance of making a change here is almost nothing. But I have a right to be here. --Shyranoe 18:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You absolutely have a right to be here, and you have a right to make critical opinions. However, it will be best if we discuss all changes fully on the talk page before making edits to the guideline. Single purpose accounts get less weight than other editors because we can't see your contribution history to judge your reputation. You can post whatever suggestions you like on the talk page, but don't edit the guideline further unless we achieve a consensus.

Have you ever tried patrolling WP:COIN? There's a big backlog and you are welcome to help out. If you look at the COI problems that come up day to day, you may find that this guideline isn't so bad. In fact, you'll probably see that this guideline is quite necessary to prevent Wikipedia from being overrun by commercial interests. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 18:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The guideline might be useful there, but it doesn't mean it's wording couldn't be improved. --Shyranoe 18:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The next day after that

Before putting more of my opinions or ideas here I think I should say something about my intentions. I got a feeling that Jehochman practicly said that he thought I have COI. I took it personally, and I had to use a lot of strength to not to reply unpolitely. I can't think of any situation I would personally benefit this guideline to change. There is no article about me or anyone close to me, and I have never advertised anything on Wikipedia. I have always tried to follow the policies and respected the idea of Wikipedia. I have a very clear reason why I came to this page. I have seen some both good and not-so-good sides about Wikipedia. I know how difficult it is for editors to cooperate sometimes. That is what I'm after, more understanding on Wikipedia between editors. The biggest difficulty writing on this talk page is, that I believe that the people working with COI matters also want to create peace, and I have to criticize. Every day I wonder if it's the last day I will be able to overcome that feeling. --Shyranoe 19:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It's odd, very odd, for somebody to come to Wikipedia and immediately try to change the COI guideline. If you have nothing to hide, let us see what else you are working on here. Why have you created a single purpose account? I see no legitimate reason to do that. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 19:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
It's odd in your eyes: as I said, I'm not used to editing guidelines and I can't know how everything works. It's not yours to judge what kind of choices I make. I'm making a choice of using a single purpose account, because I know how easily things get personal. I already feel that you hate me because I have said opinions you don't like. Maybe I have not said them the best possible way, but this has been the best I have been able to. --Shyranoe 20:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Irrespective of what name you may use to contribute elsewhere, it's not clear why you're unhappy with the current state of the guideline. If I could perceive what problem you are trying to fix, I might be more sympathetic to your edits. In general, it doesn't make sense to have a COI guideline unless we take account of *who* it is that is applying the edits. Many of the changes you have made recently to the guidelines appear to be trying to weaken them. Very often these changes have been reverted. It would help if you could explain why you don't like the guidelines in their current state. Even your comment above is very vague; lots of discussion about good faith and creating peace but not much discussion of what is actually wrong with the guidelines. EdJohnston
It's probably best that I'll try to describe what I have done and why.
  • I wrote one suggestion on User:Shyranoe/Conflict of interest material. I wanted to show that it might be possible to write this to be more about content.
  • I made some suggestions that the guideline could be written in another order or have two different guidelines. This is because then the person directed to the guideline could first read the advices and think about them, before getting a feeling of being a wrong person or something like that.
  • I just made one new suggestion up there (section title What is wrong with this guideline), which could be combined with any other way of writing the page.
  • I have also made small suggestions:
  • To get "we" and "you" out of the same sentences (section title About the usage of the word we). There are many confusing things about this, I already wrote some up there. I could say more about this.
  • I suggested that it's not good to use the word "avoid" or similar to that without another option (both section titles The nutshell and One part). You thought I wanted to weaken the guideline, but I want to weaken it only unless it can be written clearer. Now the page sounds like a rule against just about any kind of connections to wide area of things.
  • There has not been much discussion about this, but "and organized groups of" was added in the first line. I tried to ask about it after the edit was made, because it brings a new and complicated aspect on this page. This far it has been enough for everyone to worry about themselves. The "organized" seems to refer something outside of Wikipedia. Even though there might be such organizing, everyone is in charge of their own edits on Wikipedia, not someone elses. I think it would be good to carefully consider this edit, I would have something more to say about this matter as well.
I tried to be brief now. I am trying to think of as concrete suggestions I can, I know it's the best way to get something done. I would like to create a more complete suggestion for the whole page, but that might be beyond me on my own. --Shyranoe 13:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't for Paid Editing

If I understand correctly, User:Shyranoe proposes to modify this guideline so paid editors, or conflicted editors, can have a place to leave their proposed contributions. Such a place already exists for each and every article. That's the article talk page. If a paid editor wants to create a new article, they can go to the talk page for the relevant category or a topic. There's no need to create additional bureaucracy or noticeboards. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 14:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

That one suggestion is not my main issue at all. I made it because you and some others seem to be thinking that the paid editors are a big problem and they need to be send a clear message. I thought maybe it would be clear to give them exact instructions. --Shyranoe 16:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
We try to avoid instruction creep. For what it's worth, I've written an essay on how marketers can interact with Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Search engine optimization. I believe this is referenced from the bottom of this guideline. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 16:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Is there any rule that such conflicts must be stated or acknowledged by paid editors? How would anyone even know if an editor is paid for his or her edits? csloat 16:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
There's no rule about disclosure, and there is no way to know for sure who's being paid. By disclosing, people may be more inclined to help if asked nicely. Those who don't disclose risk being embarrassed if somebody learns about the commercial relationship, or if the edits show an obvious pattern of abuse. You'd be surprised how easy it is to spot a shill. When confronted, they just hang on and argue against all reason or logic. That's the problem with being paid -- the client expects a result, and doesn't care about the good of the project. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 16:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello Jehochman! I read your essay, and I can see that it's your area. I will write here something about the difference in the way we see this subject. I know close to nothing about marketing, I have a degree of some scientific field. When I'm reading the guideline my concern is not the marketers but people with different kind of connections to their hobbies, areas of interest, and uncommercial associations. Of course they can have a conflict of interest, too, but I'll come to this shortly. The reason I made the suggestion about paid editors was that to be more clear with them would allow to make difference between these groups. (My suggestion might have been bad, I'm not arguing for it now.) Even though non-paid editors can also have a conflict of interest, going against commercialism needs so much energy, that I think the same amount of energy directed towards ordinary people is really a lot. When first reading this guideline I tried to relate it to my experiences, and I didn't find connection because the world where you live in is not familiar to me. The guideline is read by many users, also good ones. Reading it can make ordinary people wary of writing anything about themselves on their user pages. There is so much energy in this guideline that I feel it could affect athmosphere also in those situations where there isn't any intention to go against Wikipedia's purposes. That is, unless any change is made. I don't want to have your perspective out of the page, but I think it would be good to have it balanced somehow. --Shyranoe 19:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that. People who love astronomy should write about astronomy; Buddhists should write about Buddha. Maybe we need to add a section to this guideline that says, "You should feel free to write about subjects that matter to you, or where you have professional expertise. As long as you aren't trying to promote yourself, or your business organization, that isn't a conflict of interest." Maybe we need a section and an additional sentence in the lead paragraph. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 20:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, it's great we have some communication between us. Could we still look at that sentence which has both we and you in it? Changing that would have nothing to do with marketing or the message of the page. --Shyranoe 11:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Check my last two edits to see if that is to your liking. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 13:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
It is very good the way you took we and you away. However, could this be discussed: Before your change, it said ”add content” (and later "the content"), and now it says "to edit" (and later "proposed edits"). It conflicts with what it says later under the title Defending interests. I think the earlier version was better in this respect. I don't mean I want to weaken your message, but it was already a strong statement. There is not always someone to talk to on an article talk page, and it can make you feel helpless if you don't know how to communicate with older Wikipedians, but you need to correct something. --Shyranoe 14:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Maybe even change the same thing in the nutshell? To put "editing" into "writing". It doesn't practicly change it much and might not weaken it too much, but it could be an important difference in some situations. It's not only me on this talk page and the page history of the article who have tried to change the nutshell. Maybe this could be a good compromise? I made this suggestion about the nutshell quite fast, if you don't like it, please tell how you see this thing. --Shyranoe 14:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
arbitrary break 1

How about changing "edit" to "make controversial edits"? We agree there are some non-controversial edits that are always allowable, such as reverting vandalism. The problem with "adding content" is it fails to address negative forms of bias, such as deleting unfavorable content that may be properly sourced and necessary to present the topic in a neutral way. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 17:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought you would probably think that way. However, "controversial edits" do have some problems too. It's not easy for a new user to know what they are, and overall it's not a simple concept to define. It might end up with a fight about what is controversial ;). Could you think about this: If it was written in the form "adding content", could some of the edits be treated with other policies/guidelines? It would have these advantages: To tell a new user to read important parts of core policies again (and again) helps them to familiarize with Wikipedia and it's culture. And it would help them to avoid feeling that they are "hit" hard by just one guideline. --Shyranoe 18:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
We want to avoid instruction creep. If you make an edit, and I object, it's controversial. That common sense definition is sufficient. We can add this into the article. If there is obvious vandalism. For instance, if somebody replaces the entire content of a page with the word "PENIS!", nobody will object to the subject of the article reverting that. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 18:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
The page seems much better. If there are any problems with it, it is always possible to think about them then. Thank you for communicating! --Shyranoe 09:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Per my comments above, I want to ask what is the basis for assuming that paid editors would be more biased than hobbists? I think that we have many hobbists much more POVed/biased/dedicated to a given area than most salaried (paid) editors would ever be. I think that as long as we stress that POVed edits are unethical/unwelcomed/etc., we don't need to signle out paid editors in any way, although I agree that having a place they could list their contributions and ask for review would go a long way to improving NPOV of the entire project. Bottom line is, if a person with vested interest wants to contribute to Wiki, as long as they try to be neutral, they should be welcomed to (and assuming they would not try to be neutral is a clear-cut violation of WP:AGF, one of the fundations of this project).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you please cite one or more examples where paid editors have behaved well? This whole discussion is a little abstract. EdJohnston 20:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
See my first post, #What is wrong with this guideline.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

First paragraph

Jehochman, you just made a change in a sentence of the first paragraph. If you meant to change its meaning, could it be discussed? --Shyranoe 05:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I checked the page history more carefully and I can see that someone changed it before you. Now that it's changed it doesn't carry the meaning I was after anymore. When it said "merely... is not" it meant, that there has to be some other aspect which brings the COI in. I think that was an important part of the sentence. --Shyranoe 08:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

We agreed with the first paragraph after a very long debate here on the talk page. Would it be possible that if someone wants to change it there would first be a consensus? --Shyranoe 09:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah a third party came in. I tried to restore the original meaning as much as possible while taking their concerns onboard. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 13:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
This user has not yet come to the talk page with it. I do hope that it wouldn't be treated as a simple matter that this guideline might be misused to make personal attacks. If "merely..." can count as a conflict of interest, there is a problem who decides that. If "merely..." doesn't count as such, then some other aspect - that is for example being a close person to someone, getting paid for your edits, being involved in a court case, writing an article about yourself etc. - is needed. That was an important difference. --Shyranoe 13:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Jehochman: Thank you for trying to restore it, but you probably did it out of memory, because it's not the same than in a page history. Could you still check it up please? --Shyranoe 14:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I am fine with the words you wrote there. --Shyranoe 09:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not about the first paragraph, but someone passing by put "you" in a sentence where it was taken out. I would suggest you to avoid into avoiding, it could continue avoiding to edit. --Shyranoe 15:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a look. By the way, you a free to edit the article, as long as you think there is consensus. Just making one attempt shouldn't offend anybody. If somebody disagrees, come here to discuss. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 13:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
This 'you' has to stay for grammar. One problem is that we have lots of people from different cultures. The same words can mean different things to different people. Please excuse us if the guideline isn't perfect. We try our best to accommodate everybody. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 13:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

User subspace to publish short autobiographies

There seems to be a consensus on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion that when a user page is pure vanity, and its user has no good edits (or nearly none), it should be deleted, as per WP:NOT and WP:USER. Can the User subspace to publish short autobiographies paragraph have the word "Contributing" put at its start, for clarity? I asked this question before, but unexpectedly became very busy before I could follow it up. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 10:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. No objections, so I'm going ahead. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 17:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

COI being used as a sole justification for deletion

There seems to be a growing misconception amongst editors that COI should be resolved by deletion rather than correction. There's been very strong opinion expressed in AfD debates that something should be deleted 'per WP:COI'. Maybe something should be done to correct the impression that Conflict of Interest is reason for an AFD nomination? --Barberio 13:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

There used to be a statement to the effect of what you are saying. It must have been lost during recent clean ups. I've restored that. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 14:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd be interested to see some diffs from AfD debates where User:Barberio believes that wrong conclusions have been drawn from a COI. EdJohnston 14:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
From the past few days, the following have been nominated, or had significant "votes" based on COI - Mike Summers (media/wrestling personality), Alexander Arbuthnot (bishop), Walter A. Perez, Stacy Meyer, Panorama Stitchers, Viewers and Utilities... --Barberio 18:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The issue with these articles is lack of notability. COI plays a role because the writer is usually making inflated claims of notability in order to enhance their own reputation or promote their own interests. COI is the motivation. Lack of notability is the result. The two often occur together. Can you show us an article where the only allegation is COI, where notability isn't in dispute? Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 19:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
COI shouldn't be raised at all, it's a non-issue as far as AfD is concerned. COI is often employed to promote an 'its not notable' argument which wouldn't stand alone. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Norilana_Books's AfD was almost entirly based on COI, with a veil of 'notability' issues. --Barberio 23:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you can justify such a broad statement. When people think COI is relevant to an AfD, they are free to say so. If you have concerns about deletion criteria, you are free to discuss them at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 01:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
The publisher of Norilana Books, who created the article herself, canvassed for support on an external blog during the AfD debate! That does give the impression that undue influence is being exerted, which is a very pure form of COI. I've seen some previous debates about articles on book publishers, and many of those articles were highly promotional and un-encyclopedic. This article (after the improvements added during the debate) seems better than the average, though the current version is still very thinly sourced. Some AfD participants alluded to many print sources to attest to the publisher's notability, but those sources don't seem to have been added to the article yet. EdJohnston 02:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
You demonstrate my point. Rather than being about the article's notability, the AfD argument on Norilana Books seems to have rotated around COI and Perceived COI. There are even accusations that people entering into the discussion have irredeemable COI because they are Science Fiction writers! In the end the AfD ended with no consensus, but it also managed to insult Cory Doctorow and Elizabeth Moon, and generate some bad press amongst the Science Fiction community. --Barberio 09:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe you continue to misunderstand the reason editors raise the issue of COI. COI is not by itself reason to delete an article. But when the creator of an article has a COI, that is a strong indication that the subject is not notable. The insertion of such articles into Wikipedia must be regarded as attempts at self-promotion, and they should receive more scrutiny than articles about non-notable subjects where COI is not a concern. Pan Dan 13:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
If User:Barberio is arguing that the COI whereby the publisher of Norilana Books created an article on her own company should *not* have been discussed during the debate, I disagree. If she had created a good, neutral, well-sourced article it should have been allowed to survive anyway. The COI implied by canvassing outside Wikipedia during an AfD is *highly* relevant, and it's hard to dismiss that as a non-issue. (Policy violations by the creator of a disputed article are always worthy of discussion in an AfD). The article DID get better during the debate. If it had not, it would IMHO correctly have been deleted, based on article quality. EdJohnston 13:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

;Concern about the possibility of disruptive editing by User:Barberio User:Barberio seems to be on a mission to gut this guideline. He's already nominated {{COI}} and {{COI2}} for deletion.[5] In an apparent effort to create an advantage for his position, he improperly added and re-added {{Not a ballot}} because "a lot of people have come into this discussion from the COI notice board." [6] [7] He also inserted his own comments at the top of the discussion, out of order. [8] Furthermore, User:Barberio watered down one template and redirected the other while the discussion was ongoing, in an apparent effort to circumvent consensus. [9] [10] I strongly urge User:Barberio to respect the consensus, and not to engage in disruptive editing. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 17:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You shouldn't bring up this concern here Jehochman because it comes across as a clear argumentum ad hominem on Barberio and not any of the points he raised. Some people obviously agreed with him because the AFD changed the status of the templates. Not a ballot being added to contentious AFD's is standard practice as well. I suggest you use Requests for Comment or a subsidiary such as Wikiquette alerts in future, if you have a broad opposition to Barberio's behaviour.
In regards to this:
This paragraph manages to contradict itself, and obviously. If COI being raised is not a reason on its own to delete an article, how does COI showing it might not be as notable be a reason to delete it? This is clearly insinuated, while it essentially is saying the same thing. Notability and COI are NOT interlinked in anyway. If someone creates an article with COI, then it suggests the article may not follow a neutral point of view, but it doesn't necessarily extenuate that the article is not notable.
With this in mind, the template should really be similar to the NPOV templates. Something like this would be far more technically accurate, and would stop the pointless and increasingly worrying debates where COI is relied upon solely to delete articles that could be improved to a neutral standpoint in line with notability guidelines and policy:
 Due to a conflict of interest of one or more editors, the neutrality of this article is disputed.
Please see the discussion on the talk page.

If the conflict of interest doesn't do the article any harm neutrality wise, then it isn't really a problem. If it isn't notable, then that's a separate matter. Blightsoot 13:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

There is broad, longstanding consensus that conflict of interest is very harmful. Have you investigated any of the problems on WP:COIN? If you get down in the trenches, I think you will find that your theoretical view is entirely mistaken. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 14:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Promotion of own research

IMO the case of person's theories and research must be covered somewhere. There already are quite a few disgruntled experts who fall into rage or depression after their favorite neologismd get deleted. Right out of my memory I can name Cultural inhibitor, Dancecraft, Dechronification, Omnitopia, Odin Brotherhood, Siberian language, Subsistent worker, Syntax pretentious. I am sure you may add more. Notice, these are not just urban dictionary type neologisms or kookery; these are result of hard work of decent researchers which just didn't happen to gain a sufficiently broad attention yet.

Please someone versed in "policywriting" add a paragraph or two, since it is one of typical cases IMO.

Since this section is supposed to be addressed to good-faith researchers, only a bit too much preoccupied with self-promotion, a word of hope must be incorporated. `'mikka 20:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:COI

Template:COI has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.

TfD nomination of Template:COI2

Template:COI2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.

Nominated for deletion since they're functionally redundant to issue specific clean-up tags, and offer no special utility. Tags should be used to identify the problems with the page, not a vague 'there may be problems here we think, but we don't know what'. If there's an issue with an article that was caused by COI, use a relevant template from one of Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes or Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup that identifies the problem with the article. --Barberio 12:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Captions on Logos

Is this guideline applicable to captions for logos? Namely the removal of simple descriptive captions like "company logo" under logo graphics in infoboxes?--In1984 22:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

In general, non-controversial edits, like fixing format, spelling and grammar are always allowed, as are reversions of vandalism and spam. Does the edit you ask about intend to bias the article, or is it simple housekeeping? (added) One more thing: subjects are allowed to enforce WP:BLP on their own articles. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 02:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
No, not biographical. Company and product related. Here are a few eamples: McDonlad's, Dupont, Fox News, Altria
Are you working for these companies? If so, I don't think there's much problem with housekeeping edits like these to help bring the article into compliance with the style guidelines. However, if you are connected to the articles, you have to ask yourself if it is worth the risk of what can happen should you make a mistake and go to far with your edits. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 03:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The infobox templates have been fixed to provide a consistent "Company logo" on all. I am trying to get them all to be more NPOV. My question is less personal and more conceptual. Namely, beyond the question of who is editing an article, does COI apply to types of edits and organization similar to WP:NPOV#Fairness_of_tone and WP:NPOV#Bias - commercial.--In1984 04:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how COI is involved in that situation. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 04:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Promotional article production

Added a brief section on promotional article production. This isn't intended to represent new policy, but to make existing policy clearer. --Shirahadasha 03:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Template talk:COI and Template talk: COI2

User:Barberio asserts that a rewrite of these templates is now "required" and has set himself up as the boss of this process. I've objected strongly. The person who sought to delete the templates should hardly be the one to coordinate a rewrite. Please see the above pages. Jehochman Talk 03:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you really accusing me of malicious editing? Do you dispute that my edits were in line with the discussion on how the template should be rewritten in it's TfD? Are you prepared to argue against the edits, and all the arguments made in favour of these edits on the TfD, rather than making personal attacks against me? The opinion in favour of a rewrite seems pretty well settled consensus in the TfD, can you please identify the exact problems you found with the edits to the template, and argue why your preferred version should remain. Otherwise, you're just asserting a claim to authority over who should do what with your template, and we don't allow that here. --Barberio 11:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
You can read all the comments from people saying why the template should be rewritten, and how the template should be rewritten, here. There's a strong amount of opinion behind rewriting these templates, and only using them on talk pages. The templates are currently inappropriately targeting users instead of article content, inappropriately placed in main article space, misquoting the guideline, and just plain ugly. I'd have preferred them to be deleted, but I'm okay with abiding with consensus and just rewriting them instead. --Barberio 11:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
At least you should provide some kind of analysis or reflection on the deletion debate. Otherwise your claim of 'consensus' seems like playing with words. (It seems like you're just repeating the arguments you used in the unsuccessful deletion debate, making no concession to gain the support of those who thought the templates useful).
Reducing the total volume of articles with the COI-tagged status should be considered. I note that Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:COI has about 300 entries. Rather that let those templates sit indefinitely, perhaps we should start processing all these articles through the COI noticeboard in batches and, if we can't get any cooperation from the creator, start doing stubbifies or AfDs.
Simply replacing these templates with conventional tags may not be a win. Take a look at Category:Wikipedia articles with topics of unclear importance, and look at the cute graph showing the increase in number of articles tagged for notability. It's pushing 2000 right now. I think there's more hope of clearing COI issues quickly than notability issues. EdJohnston 16:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
To quote the closing admin in the TfD, "The arguments for deletion aren't trivial, and it doesn't seem like they were really addressed well" and "There seems to be consensus for at least rewording the templates".
You're also still making the fundamental mistake of saying there are 'COI Issues'. COI in its self is not an issue, but a potential cause of issues. The presence of an editor with potential COI does not automatically mean there are issues with an article, so there are almost certainly articles in this 'backlog' which have no issues at all. --Barberio 16:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
If an article is neutrally written and backed by reliable sources that ensure its notability, I see no reason for keeping a COI template on it. The interesting case is the one where the person who added most of the article content has a COI, and the article lacks neutrality or sources. There is a pretty good argument for deletion if the article creator can't get around to improving it up to our standards. IMHO, the onus is on the creator to fix it. The average member of Category:Wikipedia articles with topics of unclear importance can't be dealt with so easily, unless you want to apply an equivalent burden to the article creator in those cases as well. EdJohnston 19:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Promotion to policy

I'd like to see this become policy. We'd need to tighten the writing, check for inconsistencies and so on, but otherwise I see no reason not to promote it as it's pretty well accepted. Any thoughts? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Strong no to this. People are already pushing COI as a reason to delete articles, and using templates to mark 'tainted articles', this will just add more to that. The COI guidelines are worthwhile, but they need to be kept guidelines not absolute policy. --Barberio 19:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, I'm not clear on what the benefit would be of promoting this to policy. Nothing here is actionable except the part about blocking, and that's already in Wikipedia:Blocking policy. Pan Dan 20:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Support - COI editors have tried the excuse, "but this is just a guideline, it's not policy." More than a few editors wishing to promote their own (drop in something) have sought to water down this guideline. If it becomes policy, it would be easier to fend off those sorts of changes. Jehochman Talk 21:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I would support if inconsistencies are removed, and a section on "past employees", "ex-partners", "detractors", "advocates for and against a subject, person, organization, or belief" and similar, whose interactions with articles about their former employers, partner, organization, belief, etc. puts them in a conflicted situation (e.g. those with an ax to grind). Similar to the current sub-section on "Legal antagonists." The main consistency issue would be the wording on restrictions putting a stronger emphasis on avoiding breaching content policies and guidelines. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Pan Dan, that's my point. The actionable part is already policy. The rest of it is respected and acted upon for the most part; therefore, there's no reason to keep this as a guideline. Conflicted editors do use its status as an excuse. I agree with Jossi that a good copy edit is needed before it can be policy to make sure there are no loose threads or contradictions. Jossi, I think we'd have to be careful about extending it to "advocates for or against a subject," because that starts to cover everyone if we're not careful. The wording has to be very precise if it's to become policy. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, "advocates for or against a subject" is too wide. Still, we need wording for those with an obvious ax to grind such as the examples given. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
For example, as currently written, an employee of Microsoft may have a potential COI on Microsoft. I would argue that an ex-employee of Microsoft that was fired, feel wronged, and runs a website Microsoftsucks.com, would have as much potential for COI as that employee, but that is not covered in the current formulation. (Notwithstanding the fact that both employee and ex employee could be excellent contributors to that article if they both are mindful of COI and abide by content policies) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
but this also applies to anyone else competent to edit on the subject. Any computer user either uses MS products and likes them, uses MS products and doesn't like them, or knows about MS products and uses something else because of not wanting to use MS. The same is true about any controversy: is there anyone likely to be discussing Near-East politics who does not have an opinion about it, and usually a very strong one? Most such editors are frank about their national/ethnic/religious affiliations, if only because they are very difficult to hide. Does anyone edit Intelligent Design articles who is not committed firmly to one or another position? we cannot avoid COI. Perhaps the best thing to do is to admit it, and edit taking it into account. I haven't the least difficult editing an article about a company edited by its PR agent--it's clear what needs to be cut. DGG 05:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
It is true that the guideline has become widely accepted, and has stood up really quite well to scrutiny, over half a year and more. The main issue with promoting it to a policy is with enforcement, I suppose.
Cast in the form of advice, it sits naturally as a guideline: with good intentions, Wikipedia advises people not to edit about themselves (for example), because (not wholly explicit in the page) without much experience of the site it is hardly possible to know what you are getting into, and how you will react to edits you see as hostile. So, I think that is all fine: edit wars are a morass, and this as guideline sets up a signpost 'boggy areas ahead'.
The snag comes with having a form of COI in which admins (and others) might feel should be enforceable, not through general considerations of POV editing (which is nothing new), but simply on the basis of some deduction of COI in an editor. The ArbCom has been citing COI frequently in cases, because it turns out that many of the cases that simply will not be resolved by discussion are powered by some sort of COI (e.g. blinkered nationalism). I certainly feel that for the worst cases, the AC is the right place to discuss (typically in private) matters relating to the real-world identities and interests of pseudonymous editors. This is playing with bare wires, and admins acting alone are in some hazard in doing that.
Summary: To take this forward as a policy, it probably needs strengthening with better implementation notes. To give one example, there has been an AC case where everyone has known that an editor is a certain figure in real life, and yet the equation has scrupulously not been put in evidence. Given the tendency in messy editing situations of people to use anything to hand, it should be made utterly clear that Wikipedia does not properly do its business by outing contributors, except under some strict conditions. Charles Matthews 10:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Something like this: Dealing with suspected conflicted editors: The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor, referring to what is set out on WP:COI. If this brings no improvement, an early recourse to dispute resolution with an RfC is strongly advised. Admins may act as in any case of POV pushing. It is most strenuously pointed out that potentially conflicted editors do not lose their rights to edit Wikipedia pseudonymously, and that outing editors in terms of their real names is in all cases against basic policy. Persistent cases may have to be brought to Arbitration. Charles Matthews 10:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Added. Very often we see editors who's username matches the topic of the article. In these cases, I don't think there's much problem because the editor has self-identified a connection to the article. Jehochman Talk 12:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
You'll even see ones who say who they are. Some of these are naive family members, some PR people who just don't realize.

DGG 04:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Promotion to policy -- continued (Arbitrary section break)

I'd like to ask if anyone can provide pointers to notable Arbcom cases that mention COI, or even recent AN/I debates where COI is a key concern. I'm aware of the Arbuthnot case. It is not surprising that we do not see many cases from WP:COIN that lead to blocks, because the average administrator who does not frequent that noticeboard may be baffled by the subtleties, and concerned about doing something stupid. So it may fall to Arbcom to finally do something about a difficult COI issue. If anyone has some favorite cases to mention, it would be helpful to see the pointers. Making WP:COI into a policy may influence the situation, and we need to look at some data to see if that change would be beneficial. EdJohnston 00:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

A few cases that included COI issues:
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I believe the OTRS may have issues with this? As I recall there have been a number of cases where a person (or representative of a company) made quite reasonable edits to an article on himself - it's just that the people who are unreasonable about it attract more attention, as a "screaming minority". Thus I think calling it policy may be overly broad. As a side point I believe this page is way too long and could benefit from some concisifying. >Radiant< 16:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Self Involvement

I made Wikipedia:Self Involvement to redirect to this page. The page had only been edited twice. Anyone who objects can erm, do something about it. Mglovesfun 17:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits...

... have resulted in missing the wording related to exercising great caution, and the reference to content policies of NPOV, NOR and V. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest template suggestion

I was looking at some of the pages that have been tagged with COI templates and think that template wording does not match the spirit of Wikipedia. As a person who has been the subject of a COI complaint I would like to make some suggestions. The current template says:

The creator of or main contributor to this page may have a conflict of interest with the subject of this article. Due to issues of maintaining neutrality and avoiding promotional articles, Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines strongly advise that editors do not directly edit articles on topics where they have a close personal or business connection. If this applies to your edits, you are advised to collaborate with independent editors via the article's talk page only.

It should be always be reasonable for any editor to add properly sourced material directly to any article. For example, as the CEO of my company, I have access to secondary sources that other editors will have trouble finding. If I have a source about my company in a magazine such as 'Newsweek' then there really should be no need to discuss the addition of the source with other editors first. In another case, where I am a published expert on a disputed conviction, I have had other editors try to use COI to stop me adding extra sources to the article.

If an editor doesn't like any text that is added they should object using the standard dispute resolution process. The text should meet WP:NOTE, WP:ATT, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:UNDUE etc first. As it stands this template and policy is being used by some editors to say 'You've got a COI so stop editing completely', which I believe is not helpful to Wikipedia's growth and accuracy. Editors should always have a chance to improve articles.

I should also be noted that the COI guideline has several examples where it is acceptable to edit with a COI, but that these are not mentioned on the template. My suggested text is something like:

Contributors to this page may have a business, financial, or personal relationship to the subject of this article. To maintain neutrality and avoiding promotional articles, Wikipedia policies say that articles added to Wikipedia should meet a minimum standard for notability and attribition. All editors should improve this article by providing reliable secondary sources for claims and facts about the subject. Non-notable articles and unsourced promotional, libelous, defamatory items may be deleted at any time."

Update: Sorry, I didn't realise that there already had been substantial discussion about this topic. However, having had a COI brought against me and having found the implications in the template to be misleading, I hope that other editors will consider my proposed text, or at least the issues involved. Thank you for your time. -- Sparkzilla talk! 06:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem that this gets into, if we open this up just a bit, is people just dumping stuff into WP without anyone having any recourse and then editors having to fight like crazy to get it taken out again. The approach of WP:COI, as I understand it, is to raise the bar such that any impression of potential COI can be dealt with using a peer-review process (i.e. posting it on the Talk page for the article). I see too many discussions from people who believe that they are the exception to WP:COI - if they are, then they should be able to point to a discussion somewhere that shows that there is a consensus among editors about this. Without this in place and enforced, I see chaos ensuing. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 21:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Editors who feel there is a COI on the article are free to remove any item that violates WP policy at any time. Those with a COI can then discuss it on the talk page to gain consensus to put it back in. But to give such a harsh warning goes against the assumption of good faith. -- Sparkzilla talk! 01:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Consistency with blocking policy

The guideline formerly said that indef blocks were permitted for single purpose COI accounts. Another editor wants to change this to "for up to one week, and indefinitely if the problem continues after that." In my view this creates an unnecessary burden. Ultimately, we need to change WP:BLOCK so that COI-only accounts can be indef blocked more rapidly. Until that happens, I agree that this guideline should match the policy wording. Jehochman Talk 03:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It's inappropriate instruction creep for this guideline to attempt to dictate an incremental block schedule. If that discussion takes place it ought to be at WP:BLOCK. DurovaCharge! 06:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

initial block length

As it is not typical to instruct admins how long to block for on a first offense (per other examples at WP:BLOCK), I have removed the phrase from Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Blocks. --After Midnight 0001 03:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

There was another statement near the top that said the same thing. I completely removed that because it was unnecessary and potentially confusing. I will also make the same change in {{uw-coi}}. Jehochman Talk 03:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Business' FAQ

Currently a FAQ is being written at Wikipedia:Business' FAQ to hopefully answer common COI questions before people go to OTRS and so on. The more input we can get on this, the better. --W.marsh 13:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Unconscious bias

Hi.

I think that the phenomnenon of "unconscious bias" should be mentioned. The COI Guideline seems to be designed to discourage _all_ edits from parties with "too close" relationships, even if there isn't any _intent_ to be biased or vanity. The thing is that people tend to unconsciously bias things (otherwise why would we have big long COI debates that say "no I'm keeping it neutral!" "NO you're NOT!" "Yes, I AM!" between some guy with the COI and an independent on the WP community??? Obviously they have no vanity _intent_ but there is still an _unconscious_ bias. These are more likely closed-minded and honestly believe their edit is neutral.). Unconscious biases require awareness and have to be pointed out by the community and the person has to listen and really see it as a bias. That of course requires willpower on the part of the person. This can lead to a conflict-of-interest type scenario even without intent to be biased.

This possibility for unconscious bias should definitely deserve a mention somewhere on the guideline page. mike4ty4 22:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-controversial edits

I've added item 4. to the list to encourage reforming COI editors to help clean up their own messes. This should be obvious, but during an RFA, one editor used WP:COI as an excuse for not cleaning up past bad edits, so I felt it was necessary to be explicit that self-reverting COI-SPAM is allowed and encouraged. Jehochman Talk 13:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)