This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
Archive 195 | ← | Archive 200 | Archive 201 | Archive 202 | Archive 203 | Archive 204 | Archive 205 |
I have a pilot project. Everyone stay cool and no one freak out.
I am a Wikimedian in Residence at the University of Virginia. I wish that all university knowledge continually flowed into Wikipedia in a way that universities and Wikipedia editors continually discussed and improved.
Everyone at this board knows paid editing. Consider now the Wikipedia:Education program and student editing, which is an outreach format that has been ongoing for 10+ years.
Here is the new thing - I propose to pay students to develop Wikipedia articles. I do not have all the answers or documentation to how this will look. This has rarely been done, and I think never in a way that sought attention or development of the model. Is anyone interested and available to talk me thought this a bit?
pros: There are lots of student workers who are able to do great research, and many sponsors who could support students to engage in this way
cons: paid editing has a history of being uniformly problematic in Wikipedia
I think this situation can be different because in all of this conflict of interest noticeboard, I think every complaint is about marketing, sales, or promotion. In this case, we could mandate that editing be about academic topics, with scholarly focus, and if there is a problem then someone like me at a university would be accountable.
Thoughts? Thanks and again - no one freak out. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
I appreciate that so many people have opinions about this. It is hard for me to know where to begin a conversation, so I am starting by posting a video. Here are some possible next steps:
I am a wiki person at a university, and not the Wikimedia Foundation, but I am a lot more accessible and approachable than anyone at the Wikimedia Foundation and I am an actual wiki editor. Over the past 10 years staff of the Wikimedia Foundation have done a lot of university projects in many countries. They can speak for themselves about their history, present, and future, and they are designing university policy for Wikimedia platforms. I think university partnerships are essential for long-term development of Wikimedia projects. Maybe the Wikimedia Foundation's best practices for universities are suitable, but if there is any group of people who want to explore a more grassroots, bottom-up approach, then I have freedom to speak frankly to a degree that Wikimedia Foundation staff do not. If anyone wanted to request or impose really strict restrictions on me to set a precedent for anyone who comes later, then I would accept, endorse, and normalize such rules. There may come a day when Wikimedia projects are under more pressure to adapt, and having a limited experiment sooner could be better to establish understanding as compared to trying to design new partnership models under pressure. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Should paid student editing be formally banned? Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 15:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
UPE doing UPE things: editing obscure topics and doing backlinks for their clients. Can someone find their main account?
The user is the self described author of a genomic and general purpose compression tool, and uses this single-purpose COI account to add his tool to all kinds of bioinformatics related pages, along with dodgy compression values or on pages where it does not make sense. The compression claim of 99% in this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Compression_of_genomic_sequencing_data&diff=prev&oldid=1128724464 is in fact not for the data types described in the article and adding it to the list of software to build phylogenetic trees ( /info/en/?search=List_of_phylogenetics_software) does not make any sense either. The user also has basically no other contributions to Wikipedia than the promotion of his tool. So I suggest reverting his edits and banning the account from editing bioinformatics related pages. Also FYI, this is an IP of my university, where I work as a bioinformatician, I will monitor this discussion page, but if I write again, it might be from a different IP. 130.225.188.130 ( talk) 13:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Author response: Genozip is a widely bioinformatics used tool, backed by peer-reviewed publications with many citations. COI was duly disclosed. Information provided is accurate and appears only in lists of other similar tools. The 99% compression rate, while an edge case, is indeed observed in practice, for example when compressing virus-sequences FASTA files. Finally, I am not a heavy wikipedia editor, but I have indeed made several contributions in unrelated areas. Rather than reverting / banning, please allow me to correct any incorrect information of style, of which I am currently unaware — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A06:C701:9673:1B00:C12A:BC79:3C04:28CC ( talk) 13:48, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
This student working on a school project about Howard Tangye apparently popped up 2 days ago. They have then gone on to edit almost exclusively the page Amar Singh (art dealer). It's not the first new account to have popped up on that article recently either. Uhooep ( talk) 15:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Further to the above incident relating to GlasgowGoatHerder, I am flagging another 3 editors who sprung up on 27 October, 28 October and 30 October to edit the same page. Two of these accounts have now been blocked for various reasons and durations. Two separate users are now requesting a checkuser on these accounts but I have no idea how long that process will take. In the mean time the remaining active accounts among the above continue to edit and it may be that they have undisclosed conflicts of interest. It's also possible that further new accounts might spring up. It seems plausible to me that these accounts are acting in concert. Uhooep ( talk) 13:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
DarmaniLink ( talk) 14:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Obvious promotional editing despite multiple warnings. When ICARIA (event) was nominated for speedy deletion, they recreated it at Icaria (event). LilianaUwU ( talk / contributions) 11:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
This user is editing this article although they appear to be associated with the company mentioned (AVA Cooling Technology). As can be seen in this diff link https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Palm_cooling&diff=1177285224&oldid=1171390082 they have specifically added a link to the company website, as well as a link to "internal investigations" of this company which do not appear to be a reliable source. These links go against Wikipedia's suggestions of links that should be avoided, and the author of these edits appears to be acting in an advertising self-interest not in an unbiased capacity. I have raised these concerns on the user's talk page and waited a reasonable time for a rectification or response to no avail. They have also added a picture (seen in the diff link) to which it appears they do not have permission to add. This picture appears to be a screenshot from a broadcast and potentially violates the NIL rights of the athlete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strict1y ( talk • contribs) 20:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
The use of Wikipedia as a source is highly discouraged in academic space; however it is often suggested as a good source for finding sources. As such, although not suggested as a source, Wikipedia has regularly been a population point of spamming for academics wishing to increase visibility of their publications and position. The edit pattern indicates there's likely COI in pushing certain academics or certain position related to "Guidelines for the first-line treatment of restless legs syndrome/Willis-Ekbom disease" given same PMID were inserted into similar related articles. They promptly removed the talk page warning message without any response. Graywalls ( talk) 23:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
User:Gnom constantly removes the well sourced information on the Wolf Theiss connections to Russian oligarchs and so on. I'm afraid the user may be not neutral and someone could have asked him to whitewash the company. As I read Ukrainian, Polish and Russian I can see that the sources are good, but the user Gnom 2 or 3 times reverted - starting a war of edits. Please assist. Найджалет ( talk) 17:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
While creating a draft article about Apache Pulsar https://pulsar.apache.org/, I was advised to declare a conflict of interest by the Wikipedia admin. I did it by stating it in my Wikipedia user profile.
Apache Pulsar is an open-source project, that's development is controlled by Apache Foundation (non-profit organization).
I'm not an Apache Pulsar developer, I don't and didn't work for any company that spends money on developing Pulsar.
I helped with its site (not with the project itself) for free. Here is the list of my contributions: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-site/pulls?q=is%3Apr+author%3Avisortelle+is%3Aclosed
The main reason why I did it, is because it was hard to read project documentation. It looked not accurate, black font on blue background was quite not-readable. Software engineers usually spend a lot of time reading the documentation of projects they use. Another reason is to not spoil the first impression for new users. I declared that I'm ready to help with the new, more clean site version. You can find the old site version in the WaybackMachine if you want to.
Also, I reported several bugs (mistakes in Pulsar code). Something like when you contact some product's support to tell them that they have an error on their site, but in public. Here is the list: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues?q=is%3Aissue+author%3Avisortelle+
I'm just a Pulsar user at this moment.
For open-source projects, it's a common practice when users report program errors or even fix some errors. Similar to if you found a typo or mistake in a Wikipedia article while you read it.
I didn't sign any contracts with the Apache Foundation on the volunteering initiative.
At this time, I didn't receive a single penny for anything related to Pulsar. The projects I use Pulsar in, at this moment also don't make any money. They are mostly a hobby projects to better understand the broader event-driven architecture topic. I picked Pulsar by making own research and evaluating other similar projects about 2 years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Visortelle (talk • contribs) 13:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Therefore I'm not sure that I have a conflict of interest here. I'm an Apache Pulsar user who noticed that Apache Pulsar has no article on Wikipedia. Same as some iPhone user add's an article about it's new model.
If I am, then by this logic, anyone who is volunteering for Wikimedia projects in any way (makes edits), also must declare the COI and therefore can't continue to make edits. Visortelle (talk) 13:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Having such an article would help the project's popularization.your interests (popularizing Apache Pulsar) are in conflict with those of the Wikipedia project. Thus, you do have a conflict of interest. Conflicts are not exclusively financial, you absolutely can have a conflict as a volunteer. MrOllie ( talk) 16:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Username combines the surnames of these two actors and is also the name of their production company. I have raised this on the user's Talk page and had responses but user is continuing to edit. Tacyarg ( talk) 15:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Dbrown1793 ( talk) 16:25, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
As the writer of this topic, I have had several comments from “Mikalson” accusing me of posting here and writing elsewhere for personal monetary gain which is a libel. I notice that Peaceray had admonished her several times for other unsubstantiated accusations. There is, I believe a personal vendetta at play, as we were once intimately involved. Any ideas how I can stop- not her posts about the topic - but her personal attacks on me. She has named me on this site. I have never named her although I know her identity.
This article already has COI templates because of a prior determination. The user states this article is about him on his talkpage. The subject of the article, @ Ldm1954, has made prior edits to the article but has honored the COI since its posting. However, on November 10, this editor made four edits, either reversing changes they did not like or removing notices that certain content needed better sources or was unsourced (possibly added by an editor with a COI). On the article's talk page, I have twice suggested that this editor reverse their edits and allow the other editors involved to resolve these issues. Rublamb ( talk) 16:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Now call me a nasty, suspicious person, but in the course of reviewing a number of pages yesterday for New Page Patrol, I came across some very natty creations where the author has declared they receive a stipend from the Open Knowledge Association. The first couple of these I let fly by, automatically thinking of them as some sort of Wikipedian in residence some sort of where, but then I took a closer look at OKA and, indeed, at the pages in question.
In a number, not all, of these pages I found lavish, loving detail that, while tangential to the main page topic, nevertheless seemed to give unnecessary focus to what may in fact be a sponsoring organisation. So this here article had daft amounts of detail about the newly installed church organ, attributing it to the manufacturer. This article didn't fail to make several mentions of books by a redlinked author that are set around the historical subject, while this one took great care to give attribution for recent archaeology to a specific institute.
It might be nothing, I might be tilting at windmills. In each case I removed the content and bookmarked the page and sat back to see what happens. Right now I don't have the time to do a huge amount of sleuthing beyond this - but it would seem to me that there are a number of these new creations being made with a promotional purpose that is quite smart - build links to the subject by writing/translating articles about another subject. And that would be, by my reading of consensus on paid editing, naughty.
Any views out there? Is my reading right? If so, is this to be tolerated? Is my 'root out the promo target and remove it then mark as reviewed as normal' methodology worth adopting for these OKA paid articles? (Originally posted over at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and copied here at the suggestion of Mr Joe) Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 10:23, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
There's (possibly) quite a problematic history here; we need to hear from Colin, who knows all the ins and outs of the past issues. The history involves a company collaborating with established Wikipedia editors. I could be wrong; it needs to be determined if Open Knowledge is related to Knowledge Diffusion, of the video kerfuffle from several years back, where they were taking advantage of Wikipedia editors to get their content featured prominently on Wikipedia. Whether there is a connection needs to be sorted. And that venture also had links to translation ventures, so red flags are going off. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:44, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've not encountered anything like this before, and hope others will look in and offer suggestions at the Education noticeboard. The professor of a course, 9Starbucks ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has her students writing her biography. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 11:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
this wasn't something she assigned them; they found her name on the list from the Meetup. She has told her students not to move that draft to mainspace. Curbon7 ( talk) 23:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
does it really matter?- Until the AI overlords take over and we don't need humans to write and improve articles, yes it matters. Just like it matters if we say "hey I reverted your edit because xyz, let me know if you have questions" rather than "nice try, idiot". WP:AGF is a policy for a reason. I was at WikiConference North America this past weekend, and it's funny just how many people with tens of thousands of edits got their start causing problems, but getting help with those problems instead of being chased away. It's important to be able to competently distinguish between some troll/vandal/NOTHERE self-promoter and someone making a mistake or overlooking something. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
This user has been posting links to a site called "almasinfo" which may be COI, or at least Spam. 164.44.0.57 ( talk) 22:22, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Created a draft titled Draft:E/acc London Summit that was speedy deleted per G11. Contested WP:UAA ( permalink). – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 23:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello - I was a composer on the Barney and Friends TV show from about 1995 to 2000. In the Wikipedia article about the show, my name has been left off the list of composers. This is quite insulting, as the list as it stands is all men - I was the only female composer, and was the only one omitted from the list. I have tried two times to have this corrected, and the responses were that my sources were not adequate. I have received royalties for my work on the show for decades, and still do, but there is no place to upload a paystub for proof. I would love to get this corrected! I would really appreciate your help and guidance. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:500:3E30:CD22:8EAC:B1A4:D868 ( talk) 02:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
[Doublet] had moved to Dallas to write songs for Barney and Friends after working in the music industry in Los Angeles and Las Vegas for nearly two decades. Also discussed on an interview with Dobulet on Voyage Dallas [5]
I moved back to Dallas, my hometown, in 1994, and was soon the songwriter for the Barney and Friends TV show. Talk about a great opportunity – I loved every minute of it!. Are either of these enough? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 02:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
The Edit COI template asks requesters to supply "references supporting [a proposed] change." What is protocol for COI edit requests where the change is uncontroversial, the source is the subject of the article, and there is no published material to cite/reference? For example, I would like to request corrections to some factual inaccuracies of a technical nature in an article about an organization where my source is the organization itself. Thanks!
jdbauxt ( talk) 21:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
{{
edit COI}}
template), or by posting a note at there, so that they can be peer reviewed;" Therefore please post here your proposed edits. --
PeaceNT (
talk)
03:23, 17 November 2023 (UTC)An editor ( KorFlyer88) has been repeatedly reverting on Proposed merger of Korean Air and Asiana Airlines without explanation. The initial reversions were in response to my edits to their additions (and removal of some extremely detailed/uncited background on the merger) which I admittedly should have explained but it has proceeded to be a series of nonstop reversions to their preferred version without explanation (beyond claiming vandalism).
After viewing their talk page, it appears the user has been previously given a "final warning" for edit warring when they claim the other editor is "vandalizing" on Asiana Airlines. In that case, they also logged out and made some of the edits as an IP. I would notify Ad Orientem who issued the prior warning but they are currently traveling.
Interestingly, IPs from Korea have once again appeared to continue making reversions to the article continuing KorFlyer88's pattern of behavior (see these edits) and even replied logged out to the talk page discussion I started on the edits. Interestingly, in this reply, the IP revealed that they are an "executive" with Korean Air. I believe this means that beyond edit warring, any edits would be a conflict of interest.
Strangely enough, however, in reply to Ad Orientem, KorFlyer referred to Korean government employees as "colleagues" after Ad Orientem blocked them after they continued making edits from an IP when they were blocked. If that's the case, it's worth noting that the merger was proposed and is advocated by the Korean government.
I don't want KorFlyer blocked in general (they have made many good contributions to airline articles) but it seems like there's some sort of conflict of interest when it comes to Korean Air/Asiana Airlines which makes their editing on those articles less helpful. Avgeekamfot ( talk) 15:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Promotional editing and unsourced material added to this BLP. 41.155.34.104 is, I think, the same editor as Chitheenabler, as the latter account replied to me on the former's Talk page. I had warned the Chitheenabler about CoI and promotional, and also about account sharing as the editor uses "we" and "our". The editor confirmed they have a CoI and asked for further guidance on complying with the policy. I linked them to how to make a paid contributor disclosure and the simple CoI request guidance. The editor has however ignored this and made another series of promotional edits ("Recognized for her leadership and global citizenship, Anne Kabagambe has demonstrated a notable ability to balance professional responsibilities with motherhood she has a Son"). Tacyarg ( talk) 20:25, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Previously discussed at this COIN thread where user has disclosed an investment in the company. User is back at Aptera (solar electric vehicle) and added promotional material form a press release and created WP:OR in the "Design" section. Despite providing reasoning for my revert, user added the information back. Reverted again citing WP:ONUS and user is on the talk page asking for someone to review my actions so I am coming here hoping someone else can take a look and opine on the content. Maybe its suitable, maybe not so eliciting more opinions. CNMall41 ( talk) 19:42, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
An editor has a financial conflict of interest when they write about a topic with which they have a close financial relationship. This includes being an owner, employee, contractor, investor or other stakeholder.MrOllie ( talk) 20:32, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
All of users edits appear to be adding references which have user's name as one of the authors. User has been given standard COI notice as well as promotional/advert warnings. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 21:05, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Would like a second opinion in case I am overthinking. And, pinging @ WaftCinematic: for full transparency and hoping to elicit a response. User has created many drafts which have been declined, after which the user creates a new page for that topic in mainspace. Some are now at AfD but the editing behavior gives the appearance of a COI. Notified user of COI guidelines on November 13. Did not receive a response. Behavior continued so I asked user directly and have not received a response. Note that user has replied to other talk page messages and continues to create new pages so not sure why no response. CNMall41 ( talk) 18:53, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
User WolfgangPaycheck has been editing exclusively on Travis Shallow page for over six years. Editing behaviors are consistent with public relations editing, including uploading high resolution publicity attributed to photographer Brian Lantz, as well as those attributable to Erika Arlee as "their own". Left a UPE notice on their page. They say they're "just a fan". I find it unconvincing given the circumstantial evidence. Graywalls ( talk) 21:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Somewhere on my to do list is to try to get the article on Paradisus Judaeorum to GA (again, I failed a while back). I'd like to cite my own highly relevant article (peer reviewed): [7] (in fact I wrote that article based on reasearch I initially did for the Wikipedia article), and it probably would be a decent cite for a few other articles on related topics. I would like to get an "ok" for citing this from COIN, however, to avoid any suggestions of COI (that I am trying to unduly promote my own work etc.). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
when in doubt). You're perfectly entitled to hold a stronger opinion, but I see no evidence that this is a generally-held expectation. – Joe ( talk) 12:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
I asked Asybaris01 on his talk page to declare his apparent COI concerning the article Valeriu Pantazi. I have good reasons to believe that he is interested in promoting this subject both on Wikipedia in Romanian and in other languages (such as English or French). Instead of the requested statement, Asybaris01 replied that he considers himself harassed by me, because of the discussions that we had in Romanian. I repeat here the information presented there which demonstrates this contributor’s connection with the subject of the article and his interest in promoting it.
Given the nature of his relationship with the subject, I wonder if the COI doesn't fall into the "paid" category as well. -- Pafsanias ( talk) 22:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Bookerh30 exclusively edits about this film and might have a conflict with this film... 2600:1700:5390:5CCF:1453:80E8:AF7C:EBF6 ( talk) 22:48, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
User:Gabriel2954 is constantly trying to remove the {{COI}} template on Lanka Bandaranayake and Tradition (film). For context, Gabriel2954 asked for help at the teahouse [9] as their draft Lanka Bandaranayake was declined 5-7 times(not sure). I pitched in to fix it for the AfC review. [10] The COI tag was placed before my intervention. Gabriel2954 tried to remove the COI template a couple of times, here, here and here but with a sock account. Similarly, here on Tradition (film). User was warned and there were discussions of the same on their talk page. Previously claimed that they were the copyright owner of Tradition (film) [11] but denied any COI when asked about it. Here Gabriel2954 has acknowledged that they have contacted the BLP previously through email and still denied COI. Account has only been used to edit the above 2 pages till now which makes it even more suspicious for COI. Jeraxmoira ( talk) 19:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
The editor is a self declared paid editor, though they have not made the declarations completely. They have edited the article in a manner which sanitises the subject's reputation, and made those edits directly. I understand direct editing is not explicitly prohibited when an editor is paid, but should be confined to correction of simple facts.
Because there are several intervening edits which prevent simple reversion I have come here to ask if there are admin tools available and whether it is approportae for an admin to make use of them in this instance. If so, and if judged correct to use, I ask that an admin makes of this tools to reset the article as appropriate to its state without the edits, and for any such edits to be discussed and consensus reached on them before putative application to the article.
I am, at the moment, not particularly concerned with the editor. 🇺🇦
FiddleTimtrent
FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦
10:28, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
I issued Danielle Middleton a WP:PAID level one warning, since she's easy to find on (say) linkedin as the communications manager of the firm in question. Shortly after that, another Danielle reinserted the same text verbatim. I have thought about submitting this to SPI, but the quacking is deafening. I think a admin intervention is due. Kleuske ( talk) 15:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
The article Daniel DeWeldon has been edited today by an IP address in a form which appeared by be an advertisment. I added the "Advert" banner which was removed by a new editor User:Barry Krost Management (who toned down the promotional language a little). The actor Daniel DeWeldon is represented by Barry Krost Management (see https://www.barrykrostmanagement.com/daniel-de-weldon.html ). Further editing may be needed to remove promtional content and provide citations for any material left. — Rod talk 22:13, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
I am Steven Hassan and my page has been significantly altered by cult propagandists. There are many, many entries that are biased and not objective. My BITE Model of Authoritarian Control is a scientifically validated construct. My work is about undue influence and not just cults, and in the area of cults, I am against deceptive recruitment, phobia programming and many cults are not religious. For example human traffickers use control of Behavior, information, Thoughts and Emotions. I have authored numerous peer reviewed academic textbooks which are omitted. I need an objective editor to work with me to go line by line. But I suggest go back in time to when Wikipedia began and see how much it has been attacked by cult agents or those hired by people who wish to keepp people ignorant about mind control. Sh fom ( talk) 19:26, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Slightly odd case. This user Seems be adding a load of (not good) references to articles in the journal Appl Food Biotechnol. Bon courage ( talk) 09:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
Archive 195 | ← | Archive 200 | Archive 201 | Archive 202 | Archive 203 | Archive 204 | Archive 205 |
I have a pilot project. Everyone stay cool and no one freak out.
I am a Wikimedian in Residence at the University of Virginia. I wish that all university knowledge continually flowed into Wikipedia in a way that universities and Wikipedia editors continually discussed and improved.
Everyone at this board knows paid editing. Consider now the Wikipedia:Education program and student editing, which is an outreach format that has been ongoing for 10+ years.
Here is the new thing - I propose to pay students to develop Wikipedia articles. I do not have all the answers or documentation to how this will look. This has rarely been done, and I think never in a way that sought attention or development of the model. Is anyone interested and available to talk me thought this a bit?
pros: There are lots of student workers who are able to do great research, and many sponsors who could support students to engage in this way
cons: paid editing has a history of being uniformly problematic in Wikipedia
I think this situation can be different because in all of this conflict of interest noticeboard, I think every complaint is about marketing, sales, or promotion. In this case, we could mandate that editing be about academic topics, with scholarly focus, and if there is a problem then someone like me at a university would be accountable.
Thoughts? Thanks and again - no one freak out. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
I appreciate that so many people have opinions about this. It is hard for me to know where to begin a conversation, so I am starting by posting a video. Here are some possible next steps:
I am a wiki person at a university, and not the Wikimedia Foundation, but I am a lot more accessible and approachable than anyone at the Wikimedia Foundation and I am an actual wiki editor. Over the past 10 years staff of the Wikimedia Foundation have done a lot of university projects in many countries. They can speak for themselves about their history, present, and future, and they are designing university policy for Wikimedia platforms. I think university partnerships are essential for long-term development of Wikimedia projects. Maybe the Wikimedia Foundation's best practices for universities are suitable, but if there is any group of people who want to explore a more grassroots, bottom-up approach, then I have freedom to speak frankly to a degree that Wikimedia Foundation staff do not. If anyone wanted to request or impose really strict restrictions on me to set a precedent for anyone who comes later, then I would accept, endorse, and normalize such rules. There may come a day when Wikimedia projects are under more pressure to adapt, and having a limited experiment sooner could be better to establish understanding as compared to trying to design new partnership models under pressure. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Should paid student editing be formally banned? Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 15:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
UPE doing UPE things: editing obscure topics and doing backlinks for their clients. Can someone find their main account?
The user is the self described author of a genomic and general purpose compression tool, and uses this single-purpose COI account to add his tool to all kinds of bioinformatics related pages, along with dodgy compression values or on pages where it does not make sense. The compression claim of 99% in this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Compression_of_genomic_sequencing_data&diff=prev&oldid=1128724464 is in fact not for the data types described in the article and adding it to the list of software to build phylogenetic trees ( /info/en/?search=List_of_phylogenetics_software) does not make any sense either. The user also has basically no other contributions to Wikipedia than the promotion of his tool. So I suggest reverting his edits and banning the account from editing bioinformatics related pages. Also FYI, this is an IP of my university, where I work as a bioinformatician, I will monitor this discussion page, but if I write again, it might be from a different IP. 130.225.188.130 ( talk) 13:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Author response: Genozip is a widely bioinformatics used tool, backed by peer-reviewed publications with many citations. COI was duly disclosed. Information provided is accurate and appears only in lists of other similar tools. The 99% compression rate, while an edge case, is indeed observed in practice, for example when compressing virus-sequences FASTA files. Finally, I am not a heavy wikipedia editor, but I have indeed made several contributions in unrelated areas. Rather than reverting / banning, please allow me to correct any incorrect information of style, of which I am currently unaware — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A06:C701:9673:1B00:C12A:BC79:3C04:28CC ( talk) 13:48, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
This student working on a school project about Howard Tangye apparently popped up 2 days ago. They have then gone on to edit almost exclusively the page Amar Singh (art dealer). It's not the first new account to have popped up on that article recently either. Uhooep ( talk) 15:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Further to the above incident relating to GlasgowGoatHerder, I am flagging another 3 editors who sprung up on 27 October, 28 October and 30 October to edit the same page. Two of these accounts have now been blocked for various reasons and durations. Two separate users are now requesting a checkuser on these accounts but I have no idea how long that process will take. In the mean time the remaining active accounts among the above continue to edit and it may be that they have undisclosed conflicts of interest. It's also possible that further new accounts might spring up. It seems plausible to me that these accounts are acting in concert. Uhooep ( talk) 13:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
DarmaniLink ( talk) 14:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Obvious promotional editing despite multiple warnings. When ICARIA (event) was nominated for speedy deletion, they recreated it at Icaria (event). LilianaUwU ( talk / contributions) 11:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
This user is editing this article although they appear to be associated with the company mentioned (AVA Cooling Technology). As can be seen in this diff link https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Palm_cooling&diff=1177285224&oldid=1171390082 they have specifically added a link to the company website, as well as a link to "internal investigations" of this company which do not appear to be a reliable source. These links go against Wikipedia's suggestions of links that should be avoided, and the author of these edits appears to be acting in an advertising self-interest not in an unbiased capacity. I have raised these concerns on the user's talk page and waited a reasonable time for a rectification or response to no avail. They have also added a picture (seen in the diff link) to which it appears they do not have permission to add. This picture appears to be a screenshot from a broadcast and potentially violates the NIL rights of the athlete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strict1y ( talk • contribs) 20:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
The use of Wikipedia as a source is highly discouraged in academic space; however it is often suggested as a good source for finding sources. As such, although not suggested as a source, Wikipedia has regularly been a population point of spamming for academics wishing to increase visibility of their publications and position. The edit pattern indicates there's likely COI in pushing certain academics or certain position related to "Guidelines for the first-line treatment of restless legs syndrome/Willis-Ekbom disease" given same PMID were inserted into similar related articles. They promptly removed the talk page warning message without any response. Graywalls ( talk) 23:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
User:Gnom constantly removes the well sourced information on the Wolf Theiss connections to Russian oligarchs and so on. I'm afraid the user may be not neutral and someone could have asked him to whitewash the company. As I read Ukrainian, Polish and Russian I can see that the sources are good, but the user Gnom 2 or 3 times reverted - starting a war of edits. Please assist. Найджалет ( talk) 17:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
While creating a draft article about Apache Pulsar https://pulsar.apache.org/, I was advised to declare a conflict of interest by the Wikipedia admin. I did it by stating it in my Wikipedia user profile.
Apache Pulsar is an open-source project, that's development is controlled by Apache Foundation (non-profit organization).
I'm not an Apache Pulsar developer, I don't and didn't work for any company that spends money on developing Pulsar.
I helped with its site (not with the project itself) for free. Here is the list of my contributions: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-site/pulls?q=is%3Apr+author%3Avisortelle+is%3Aclosed
The main reason why I did it, is because it was hard to read project documentation. It looked not accurate, black font on blue background was quite not-readable. Software engineers usually spend a lot of time reading the documentation of projects they use. Another reason is to not spoil the first impression for new users. I declared that I'm ready to help with the new, more clean site version. You can find the old site version in the WaybackMachine if you want to.
Also, I reported several bugs (mistakes in Pulsar code). Something like when you contact some product's support to tell them that they have an error on their site, but in public. Here is the list: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues?q=is%3Aissue+author%3Avisortelle+
I'm just a Pulsar user at this moment.
For open-source projects, it's a common practice when users report program errors or even fix some errors. Similar to if you found a typo or mistake in a Wikipedia article while you read it.
I didn't sign any contracts with the Apache Foundation on the volunteering initiative.
At this time, I didn't receive a single penny for anything related to Pulsar. The projects I use Pulsar in, at this moment also don't make any money. They are mostly a hobby projects to better understand the broader event-driven architecture topic. I picked Pulsar by making own research and evaluating other similar projects about 2 years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Visortelle (talk • contribs) 13:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Therefore I'm not sure that I have a conflict of interest here. I'm an Apache Pulsar user who noticed that Apache Pulsar has no article on Wikipedia. Same as some iPhone user add's an article about it's new model.
If I am, then by this logic, anyone who is volunteering for Wikimedia projects in any way (makes edits), also must declare the COI and therefore can't continue to make edits. Visortelle (talk) 13:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Having such an article would help the project's popularization.your interests (popularizing Apache Pulsar) are in conflict with those of the Wikipedia project. Thus, you do have a conflict of interest. Conflicts are not exclusively financial, you absolutely can have a conflict as a volunteer. MrOllie ( talk) 16:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Username combines the surnames of these two actors and is also the name of their production company. I have raised this on the user's Talk page and had responses but user is continuing to edit. Tacyarg ( talk) 15:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Dbrown1793 ( talk) 16:25, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
As the writer of this topic, I have had several comments from “Mikalson” accusing me of posting here and writing elsewhere for personal monetary gain which is a libel. I notice that Peaceray had admonished her several times for other unsubstantiated accusations. There is, I believe a personal vendetta at play, as we were once intimately involved. Any ideas how I can stop- not her posts about the topic - but her personal attacks on me. She has named me on this site. I have never named her although I know her identity.
This article already has COI templates because of a prior determination. The user states this article is about him on his talkpage. The subject of the article, @ Ldm1954, has made prior edits to the article but has honored the COI since its posting. However, on November 10, this editor made four edits, either reversing changes they did not like or removing notices that certain content needed better sources or was unsourced (possibly added by an editor with a COI). On the article's talk page, I have twice suggested that this editor reverse their edits and allow the other editors involved to resolve these issues. Rublamb ( talk) 16:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Now call me a nasty, suspicious person, but in the course of reviewing a number of pages yesterday for New Page Patrol, I came across some very natty creations where the author has declared they receive a stipend from the Open Knowledge Association. The first couple of these I let fly by, automatically thinking of them as some sort of Wikipedian in residence some sort of where, but then I took a closer look at OKA and, indeed, at the pages in question.
In a number, not all, of these pages I found lavish, loving detail that, while tangential to the main page topic, nevertheless seemed to give unnecessary focus to what may in fact be a sponsoring organisation. So this here article had daft amounts of detail about the newly installed church organ, attributing it to the manufacturer. This article didn't fail to make several mentions of books by a redlinked author that are set around the historical subject, while this one took great care to give attribution for recent archaeology to a specific institute.
It might be nothing, I might be tilting at windmills. In each case I removed the content and bookmarked the page and sat back to see what happens. Right now I don't have the time to do a huge amount of sleuthing beyond this - but it would seem to me that there are a number of these new creations being made with a promotional purpose that is quite smart - build links to the subject by writing/translating articles about another subject. And that would be, by my reading of consensus on paid editing, naughty.
Any views out there? Is my reading right? If so, is this to be tolerated? Is my 'root out the promo target and remove it then mark as reviewed as normal' methodology worth adopting for these OKA paid articles? (Originally posted over at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and copied here at the suggestion of Mr Joe) Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 10:23, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
There's (possibly) quite a problematic history here; we need to hear from Colin, who knows all the ins and outs of the past issues. The history involves a company collaborating with established Wikipedia editors. I could be wrong; it needs to be determined if Open Knowledge is related to Knowledge Diffusion, of the video kerfuffle from several years back, where they were taking advantage of Wikipedia editors to get their content featured prominently on Wikipedia. Whether there is a connection needs to be sorted. And that venture also had links to translation ventures, so red flags are going off. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:44, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've not encountered anything like this before, and hope others will look in and offer suggestions at the Education noticeboard. The professor of a course, 9Starbucks ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has her students writing her biography. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 11:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
this wasn't something she assigned them; they found her name on the list from the Meetup. She has told her students not to move that draft to mainspace. Curbon7 ( talk) 23:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
does it really matter?- Until the AI overlords take over and we don't need humans to write and improve articles, yes it matters. Just like it matters if we say "hey I reverted your edit because xyz, let me know if you have questions" rather than "nice try, idiot". WP:AGF is a policy for a reason. I was at WikiConference North America this past weekend, and it's funny just how many people with tens of thousands of edits got their start causing problems, but getting help with those problems instead of being chased away. It's important to be able to competently distinguish between some troll/vandal/NOTHERE self-promoter and someone making a mistake or overlooking something. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
This user has been posting links to a site called "almasinfo" which may be COI, or at least Spam. 164.44.0.57 ( talk) 22:22, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Created a draft titled Draft:E/acc London Summit that was speedy deleted per G11. Contested WP:UAA ( permalink). – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 23:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello - I was a composer on the Barney and Friends TV show from about 1995 to 2000. In the Wikipedia article about the show, my name has been left off the list of composers. This is quite insulting, as the list as it stands is all men - I was the only female composer, and was the only one omitted from the list. I have tried two times to have this corrected, and the responses were that my sources were not adequate. I have received royalties for my work on the show for decades, and still do, but there is no place to upload a paystub for proof. I would love to get this corrected! I would really appreciate your help and guidance. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:500:3E30:CD22:8EAC:B1A4:D868 ( talk) 02:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
[Doublet] had moved to Dallas to write songs for Barney and Friends after working in the music industry in Los Angeles and Las Vegas for nearly two decades. Also discussed on an interview with Dobulet on Voyage Dallas [5]
I moved back to Dallas, my hometown, in 1994, and was soon the songwriter for the Barney and Friends TV show. Talk about a great opportunity – I loved every minute of it!. Are either of these enough? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 02:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
The Edit COI template asks requesters to supply "references supporting [a proposed] change." What is protocol for COI edit requests where the change is uncontroversial, the source is the subject of the article, and there is no published material to cite/reference? For example, I would like to request corrections to some factual inaccuracies of a technical nature in an article about an organization where my source is the organization itself. Thanks!
jdbauxt ( talk) 21:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
{{
edit COI}}
template), or by posting a note at there, so that they can be peer reviewed;" Therefore please post here your proposed edits. --
PeaceNT (
talk)
03:23, 17 November 2023 (UTC)An editor ( KorFlyer88) has been repeatedly reverting on Proposed merger of Korean Air and Asiana Airlines without explanation. The initial reversions were in response to my edits to their additions (and removal of some extremely detailed/uncited background on the merger) which I admittedly should have explained but it has proceeded to be a series of nonstop reversions to their preferred version without explanation (beyond claiming vandalism).
After viewing their talk page, it appears the user has been previously given a "final warning" for edit warring when they claim the other editor is "vandalizing" on Asiana Airlines. In that case, they also logged out and made some of the edits as an IP. I would notify Ad Orientem who issued the prior warning but they are currently traveling.
Interestingly, IPs from Korea have once again appeared to continue making reversions to the article continuing KorFlyer88's pattern of behavior (see these edits) and even replied logged out to the talk page discussion I started on the edits. Interestingly, in this reply, the IP revealed that they are an "executive" with Korean Air. I believe this means that beyond edit warring, any edits would be a conflict of interest.
Strangely enough, however, in reply to Ad Orientem, KorFlyer referred to Korean government employees as "colleagues" after Ad Orientem blocked them after they continued making edits from an IP when they were blocked. If that's the case, it's worth noting that the merger was proposed and is advocated by the Korean government.
I don't want KorFlyer blocked in general (they have made many good contributions to airline articles) but it seems like there's some sort of conflict of interest when it comes to Korean Air/Asiana Airlines which makes their editing on those articles less helpful. Avgeekamfot ( talk) 15:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Promotional editing and unsourced material added to this BLP. 41.155.34.104 is, I think, the same editor as Chitheenabler, as the latter account replied to me on the former's Talk page. I had warned the Chitheenabler about CoI and promotional, and also about account sharing as the editor uses "we" and "our". The editor confirmed they have a CoI and asked for further guidance on complying with the policy. I linked them to how to make a paid contributor disclosure and the simple CoI request guidance. The editor has however ignored this and made another series of promotional edits ("Recognized for her leadership and global citizenship, Anne Kabagambe has demonstrated a notable ability to balance professional responsibilities with motherhood she has a Son"). Tacyarg ( talk) 20:25, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Previously discussed at this COIN thread where user has disclosed an investment in the company. User is back at Aptera (solar electric vehicle) and added promotional material form a press release and created WP:OR in the "Design" section. Despite providing reasoning for my revert, user added the information back. Reverted again citing WP:ONUS and user is on the talk page asking for someone to review my actions so I am coming here hoping someone else can take a look and opine on the content. Maybe its suitable, maybe not so eliciting more opinions. CNMall41 ( talk) 19:42, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
An editor has a financial conflict of interest when they write about a topic with which they have a close financial relationship. This includes being an owner, employee, contractor, investor or other stakeholder.MrOllie ( talk) 20:32, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
All of users edits appear to be adding references which have user's name as one of the authors. User has been given standard COI notice as well as promotional/advert warnings. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 21:05, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Would like a second opinion in case I am overthinking. And, pinging @ WaftCinematic: for full transparency and hoping to elicit a response. User has created many drafts which have been declined, after which the user creates a new page for that topic in mainspace. Some are now at AfD but the editing behavior gives the appearance of a COI. Notified user of COI guidelines on November 13. Did not receive a response. Behavior continued so I asked user directly and have not received a response. Note that user has replied to other talk page messages and continues to create new pages so not sure why no response. CNMall41 ( talk) 18:53, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
User WolfgangPaycheck has been editing exclusively on Travis Shallow page for over six years. Editing behaviors are consistent with public relations editing, including uploading high resolution publicity attributed to photographer Brian Lantz, as well as those attributable to Erika Arlee as "their own". Left a UPE notice on their page. They say they're "just a fan". I find it unconvincing given the circumstantial evidence. Graywalls ( talk) 21:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Somewhere on my to do list is to try to get the article on Paradisus Judaeorum to GA (again, I failed a while back). I'd like to cite my own highly relevant article (peer reviewed): [7] (in fact I wrote that article based on reasearch I initially did for the Wikipedia article), and it probably would be a decent cite for a few other articles on related topics. I would like to get an "ok" for citing this from COIN, however, to avoid any suggestions of COI (that I am trying to unduly promote my own work etc.). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
when in doubt). You're perfectly entitled to hold a stronger opinion, but I see no evidence that this is a generally-held expectation. – Joe ( talk) 12:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
I asked Asybaris01 on his talk page to declare his apparent COI concerning the article Valeriu Pantazi. I have good reasons to believe that he is interested in promoting this subject both on Wikipedia in Romanian and in other languages (such as English or French). Instead of the requested statement, Asybaris01 replied that he considers himself harassed by me, because of the discussions that we had in Romanian. I repeat here the information presented there which demonstrates this contributor’s connection with the subject of the article and his interest in promoting it.
Given the nature of his relationship with the subject, I wonder if the COI doesn't fall into the "paid" category as well. -- Pafsanias ( talk) 22:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Bookerh30 exclusively edits about this film and might have a conflict with this film... 2600:1700:5390:5CCF:1453:80E8:AF7C:EBF6 ( talk) 22:48, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
User:Gabriel2954 is constantly trying to remove the {{COI}} template on Lanka Bandaranayake and Tradition (film). For context, Gabriel2954 asked for help at the teahouse [9] as their draft Lanka Bandaranayake was declined 5-7 times(not sure). I pitched in to fix it for the AfC review. [10] The COI tag was placed before my intervention. Gabriel2954 tried to remove the COI template a couple of times, here, here and here but with a sock account. Similarly, here on Tradition (film). User was warned and there were discussions of the same on their talk page. Previously claimed that they were the copyright owner of Tradition (film) [11] but denied any COI when asked about it. Here Gabriel2954 has acknowledged that they have contacted the BLP previously through email and still denied COI. Account has only been used to edit the above 2 pages till now which makes it even more suspicious for COI. Jeraxmoira ( talk) 19:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
The editor is a self declared paid editor, though they have not made the declarations completely. They have edited the article in a manner which sanitises the subject's reputation, and made those edits directly. I understand direct editing is not explicitly prohibited when an editor is paid, but should be confined to correction of simple facts.
Because there are several intervening edits which prevent simple reversion I have come here to ask if there are admin tools available and whether it is approportae for an admin to make use of them in this instance. If so, and if judged correct to use, I ask that an admin makes of this tools to reset the article as appropriate to its state without the edits, and for any such edits to be discussed and consensus reached on them before putative application to the article.
I am, at the moment, not particularly concerned with the editor. 🇺🇦
FiddleTimtrent
FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦
10:28, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
I issued Danielle Middleton a WP:PAID level one warning, since she's easy to find on (say) linkedin as the communications manager of the firm in question. Shortly after that, another Danielle reinserted the same text verbatim. I have thought about submitting this to SPI, but the quacking is deafening. I think a admin intervention is due. Kleuske ( talk) 15:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
The article Daniel DeWeldon has been edited today by an IP address in a form which appeared by be an advertisment. I added the "Advert" banner which was removed by a new editor User:Barry Krost Management (who toned down the promotional language a little). The actor Daniel DeWeldon is represented by Barry Krost Management (see https://www.barrykrostmanagement.com/daniel-de-weldon.html ). Further editing may be needed to remove promtional content and provide citations for any material left. — Rod talk 22:13, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
I am Steven Hassan and my page has been significantly altered by cult propagandists. There are many, many entries that are biased and not objective. My BITE Model of Authoritarian Control is a scientifically validated construct. My work is about undue influence and not just cults, and in the area of cults, I am against deceptive recruitment, phobia programming and many cults are not religious. For example human traffickers use control of Behavior, information, Thoughts and Emotions. I have authored numerous peer reviewed academic textbooks which are omitted. I need an objective editor to work with me to go line by line. But I suggest go back in time to when Wikipedia began and see how much it has been attacked by cult agents or those hired by people who wish to keepp people ignorant about mind control. Sh fom ( talk) 19:26, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Slightly odd case. This user Seems be adding a load of (not good) references to articles in the journal Appl Food Biotechnol. Bon courage ( talk) 09:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)