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 talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
I'm thinking of something like this, which balances a potential COI with healthy interest.
Type | Healthy Interest Welcomed! |
Potential Conflict of Interest Disclosure and prudence recommended |
Potential Wikipedia Policy violations Unacceptable behavior |
---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
-- Iantresman ( talk) 12:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
The reason I chose to include the forth column on "Potential Wikipedia Policy violations", is that it is these types of behavior that are directly problematic, not the potential COI. The reason is that many editors use anonymous usernames, so a potential COI can not be identified, whereas improper behavior can. Also, because I believe that publicising a potential COI may violate Wikipedia's privacy and outing policies, the focus falls on the misbehavior, not a potential COI. --
Iantresman (
talk) 01:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Like True, some stuff doesn't matter who you are, just don't do it. Motive or COI is irrelevant.
Montanabw
(talk) 20:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
@ Gigs. I would argue that members of organisations do not benefit directly (ie financially), so there is no major COI. The member has to pay to join, they don't get recompense, unlike an official may. I can't think of an organisation where this could be a problem over other organisations. If I'm a member of the Democratic Party, Automobile Association, Local Scrabble Club, Flat Earth Society, it shows I'm interested, and probably just as fanatical as everyone else. -- Iantresman ( talk) 01:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Personally, I favor fairly transparent disclosure if it allows for some secondary or even primary COI editing, because I really don't have an issue with a truly NPOV edit by anyone, regardless of COI - it's the result that counts. A person with a COI should be allowed to remove true vandalism, BLP conflicts and upload images. Though I think Jimbo and WMF favor a blanket ban on all paid advocacy, I personally would primarily focus on restricting third-party paid advocacy, as that opens up a whole cottage industry dedicated to ends that oppose the purpose of wikipedia and WP:NOADS. However, the line for people with secondary (or even primary) connections to the subject is fuzzier, restrictions and disclosure is appropriate, scrutiny definitely so, but not an outright ban - an employee of foo company could write in an NPOV style, subject to the "anyone can edit" scrutiny of the community. Though I think they should be mandated to disclose their connection, I don't think they should be banned wholesale. Some very good-intentioned people, particularly in small companies, may want to work on a wikipedia article. If they can do it without violating NPOV, COPYVIO, NOTABILITY and so on, this should be cautiously monitored, but allowed. And frankly, it's already happening, as noted, via anon IPs anyway... Montanabw (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Layout Suggestion: In my opinion, "Potential Wikipedia Policy violations Unacceptable behavior" should be on the bottom, not on the right, with the "Type" box saying "All editors" or even "All editors without exception". -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
My layout suggestion would be this: 4 columns
This might be an extensive table, but compiling it with as much precision as possible might lead us to more universal, understandable guidance on COI.-- Mike Cline ( talk) 18:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Type | Healthy Interest Welcomed! |
Conflict of Interest Disclosure and prudence recommended |
---|---|---|
Primary: Yourself |
|
|
Secondary: Affiliations |
|
|
Tertiary: Paid advocacy |
|
|
Non-COI |
|
|
All editors |
Editing policies
Behavioral policies
|
-- Iantresman ( talk) 18:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
So is it worth considering adding this table to the main page on COI? -- Iantresman ( talk) 09:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
A discussion with OTRS volunteers on a possible policy change Gigs ( talk) 19:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Trying to regulate COI directly is a huge waste of time and effort.
Given the anonymous nature of Wikipedia editing, it's surely trivial to get away with COI editing no matter what the rules are. Just like it's trivial to get away with any kind of biased editing on WP.
Thankfully, as I've said before, it's not the motivation of an edit that matters, but the content of the edit that matters. If someone edits something about the XYZ Corp, whether that person has a COI (perhaps he's the CEO of XYZ) shouldn't matter. What matters is the content. Either it's compliant with our content specific policies, or it's not. If it is, then it's fine to remain. If it's not, then it needs to be taken out. Who put it in or why (including whether they have a COI or not) does not matter.
I love and appreciate the healthy/potential-COI tables being worked on above. But if a friend, relative or business partner was sufficiently notable to have an article on WP, and I made an edit to it, so what? If it's properly cited to RS and does not conflict with any other policies or guidelines, why does it matter whether I or someone without a potential COI put in that material?
Imagine if all the time and energy spent on the supposed COI issue was instead directed to making more sure edits complied without content-specific policies and guidelines.
It seems to me we should be encouraging editing, even COI editing. For example, if Bill Gates wants to contribute to improve Microsoft, I don't see why that would necessarily be any more of a problem than a staunch Obama supporter editing Barack Obama. If any of the edits are a problem, someone else will revert or fix it, just as we do for any other problematic edits.
We all have biases that affect our edits. COI is but one of those biases, and is no more problematic than most any other biased edit, often less problematic. I say, live and let live. Have faith in our content-based policies and guidelines.
I honestly believe WP would be improved if this entire page was deleted. -- B2 C 00:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Behavioral guidelines, which are inherently subjective and the source of untold wasted time and resources, cause more problems than they resolve. To clarify, I consider WP:NPA (for example) to be a content guideline (talk page content, but still content). But policy/guidelines trying to limit or prohibit COI or no-paid-editing address WHY people edit rather than WHAT they edit. That's just nuts.
I have no problem with paid editing. If someone wants to pay someone else to expand the article on Napoleon, or IBM, I have no problem with that, as long as they don't violate our content guidelines in those edits. -- B2 C 23:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Why is paid editing, that does not violate our content guidelines, a problem at all? -- B2 C 17:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Most of the contributors in this section seem to be entirely clueless how the real world works. If Wikipedia in effect offers free advertising to everybody - guess what? - the "encyclopedia" will be filled up with ads. Even though we have content rules and guidelines that say "no advertising" that doesn't mean that the ads will disappear- rather the advertisers will just fight over their free ads until volunteers drop from exhaustion.
"Any editor who discusses proposed changes to WP:COI or to any conflict of interest policy or guideline, should disclose in that discussion if he or she has been paid to edit on Wikipedia." Smallbones( smalltalk) 22:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
For the record, nobody has every paid me anything for even a single byte I've added, deleted or changed on Wikipedia. -- B2 C 00:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Your logic, B2C, is pretty sound. And the witchhunt mentality you describe is a problem. My idea is that COI editing has to only be disclosed, but no ban whatsoever, content and policy is all that matters, but if an editor is trolled or in violation of policy, the COI is one piece of evidence pointing to a POV-pushing edit. But then again, the attribution of motive IS the core problem you are addressing, so I can see problems even with my proposal. But here's the thing: WP in general is vehemently opposed -and rightly so, IMHO - to accepting advertising of any kind, that's a pillar and at the core of wikipedia. From that core, Jimbo and WMF are of the view that paid editing (and by extension, COI editing) is a corollary of that pillar. How would you respond to that concern? (If I were in their shoes, I'd ask you: a) do you think advretising is OK or b) do you think COI is different from advertising, and if so, how?) Montanabw (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
For example, imagine if the head of GM advertising edits a WP article, or pays you to to edit WP article, about a Chevrolet car to have it say that it won Motor Trend Car of the Year. Is that "advertising"? Should that be allowed? I say if it's cited to the relevant Motor Trend article, or, even better, to a NY Times or similar secondary source referring to the Motor Trend award, it's perfectly fine. The COI of the person who made the edit, or whether they were paid to do it, or whether they disclosed who they were or that they were paid, should not matter. All that should matter is that the material meets our content standards. Period. That's what's so great our content standards. That's what's so great about Wikipedia. It's about time we let the world know! -- B2 C 07:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
All this focus on COI and paid editing distracts us from delivering that message. It sends the opposite message. It suggests we don't have such standards, and that's why we need to address COI and paid editing directly. It's wrong. It's detrimental to our mission.
We can manage and control COI and paid editing just fine, because of our standards. Wikipedia rocks. -- B2 C 19:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
There is no reliance on "as long as the editing is good". When I use WP for research, and I find anything that's dubious at all, I check the reference myself. If it's not there, or doesn't support the content, I know not to rely on it. Verifiable does not mean it's necessarily supported by reliable sources; it means you can verify whether it is supported by reliable sources. And you can do that just as well for content entered by an editor who is paid, or one with a COI, as you can by a pure and virtuous editor.
It's true that we have latitude, and it's possible that we can use that latitude to leave out crucial material, and that makes us imperfect. But that cost, I believe, is minor, compared to the cost of having and especially trying to enforce rules against COI or paid editing. -- B2 C 23:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
IMHO, that's why anyone can edit; companies are here all the time, the most obnoxious stuff is almost always tossed and if they get "butt hurt" about it, they are subject to the same behavioral sanctions as anyone else. That's the beauty of it, and why I see no need for COI witchhunts, bad edits are bad edits. Montanabw (talk) 21:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Just reverted a pretty blatent COI today here: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Cheyenne_Frontier_Days&diff=595010960&oldid=586523546 I'm posting it as an example of a pretty typical newbie COI-type edit and would like folks to apply the idea we are discussing here to how one might handle this situation. Montanabw (talk) 04:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
BTW- In this situation you really should give the newbie a talk page welcome, because the edit history isn't necessarily a place they will look (or even be aware of existing). I have left them one of the "policy welcome" templates. Gigs ( talk) 19:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
@ Gigs, Where is the template you used to get that first section? That's a cool one. (And thanks for doing that, I was too cranky to follow up as I should have) also thanks for ADMASQ, didn't know about that one. Montanabw (talk) 21:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC) @B2C, you are right that we should AGF on these folks. Some do really well. A year or two ago, I helped someone with a COI to vastly improve the Gypsy horse; they clearly had expertise and access to solid source material that I did not, set me straight on where the usual sources are incorrect. In turn, I reviewed their additions, and still do - I am satisfied that NPOV and WP:RS are met. Likewise, a lovely but now inactive editor, ThatPeskyCommoner, took New Forest Pony clear to TFA, in the process making vast improvments to several other pony breed articles and wrote the wonderful History of the horse in Britain; I believe she is an owner and breeder of NF Ponies, hence, has a COI, but it didn't keep her from becoming an outstanding editor. OTOH, Gigs is right that 90% of these initially COI editors can't get past it. So it all depends. Montanabw (talk) 21:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Anyway, my point here is that there is no need to drop AGF for the 90% of COI editors that are acting in bad faith, much less for the 10%. -- B2 C 22:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Dear Friends, Wiki doesnot allow us to write about myself, why?
Will it not be accepted if I write it in 'third person'?
Along, can I write about my team, set up for social works by us?
Please kindly answer as I am a new user of wiki.
Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yogirajbiplab ( talk • contribs) 08:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
For quite some time, this sentence was part of WP:COI, and referenced in discussions:
“ | Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. | ” |
It was removed in this edit, part of a series of edits by an editor doing a general clean-up and copy edit (see series of edits by SlimVirgin in late October '12). I'd assumed there was a specific reason and consensus for its removal, but that doesn't appear to be the case (which isn't meant to reflect in any way whatsoever on SlimVirgin's conduct). Quite possibly it was deleted because it was under "citing yourself" and kind of peripheral to that section. It's a pretty important issue. Should it be restored?
Personally I think it should be. WP should be making clear to people with such expertise that they're welcome here.
Note, I recently opened a thread at COI/N on myself and whether I have a COI because of my own profession: WP:COIN#Acupuncture. I'm not trying to game that discussion, and have mentioned in that thread that I'm posting here. Feel free to comment there too. Thanks. -- Middle 8 ( leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 06:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
It appears that the m:Terms of use/Paid contributions amendment will be passed, at least in some form, and that this page may confuse editors in some respects if the amendment does pass. Yes, there are 3 weeks left in the comment period, and then the Board of Trustees does then have to pass the amendment specifically by a resolution. But, it's also clear that only 21% of !voters oppose the amendment and that we'll have some clean up to do here once the amendment is implemented.
I simply propose that we get to work on the needed changes now. My specific proposals include:
On that day we post at the beginning of the text: "Wikipedia's Terms of Use have recently been changed, see (link). As a result we may be making adjustments to this guideline. Until these adjustments are made all paid editors must strictly follow the terms of both this guideline and the Terms of Use."
There are many other passages that will need this cleanup. I think it's time to get started. Smallbones( smalltalk) 20:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
The proposed change to the terms of use regarding disclosing paid edits has now gone through the required 30 day comment period, and the results of the feedback seem very clear. Just counting !votes is of course oversimplified, but gives a strong indication that the change will be implemented (up to the board of course).
With only 20.0% opposing the proposed change, I'll predict that the change will be made, essentially as proposed, soon - within a month at the latest.
I do think that the current text of WP:COI would be a bit confusing in spots given the ToU change, so I've done the copyediting needed at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Post Tou update, with my proposed changes (minor copyedits really) highlighted.
I propose that we go ahead with these changes if and when the board acts as I have predicted. Smallbones( smalltalk) 15:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
An RfC regarding allowing role accounts Gigs ( talk) 15:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
When signing up to wikipedia I was on the belief that wikipedia was a truthful source of information. When I googled Louise Glover, the information that I got from Louiseglover.com did not match what I found on wikipedia... so I attempted to change it, to match what this person says themselves. Wikipedia changed it back, saying that my changes resembles someone elses. I dont know what they mean by this ??
As a journalist when searching for info regarding Louise Glover I could not find anything about her career from the last 4 years. Whats going on ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew1416 ( talk • contribs) 17:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
it is not unduly self-serving" (that is actually the first criterion in the list). If other editors feel that the information you changed was promotional then it violates that criterion
I've been noticing this for the last couple of years but realized only recently that "billable hours" are probably the cause.
A paid editor arrives at the talk page, requests something impossible or impenetrable, or points out something trivial that you're surprised they even noticed (a spelling mistake in the third sentence of the fifth section). There's a bit of discussion and the edit takes place or is turned down. Three months later, they arrive asking for almost the same thing, or they offer a new list of sources, or they make the edit that was turned down, though they know they'll be reverted. This can go on for months or years.
If editors keep responding to the requests, it takes up a lot of volunteer time with fruitless discussion. The paid editor often absents himself after his first few posts while the volunteers are left to argue. I used to wonder in some cases (when it was an employee of a contentious company) whether it was deliberate disruption.
But since reading about this issue on the mailing list, I can see that paid editors simply need to justify their existence to their employers: "searched for sources: 12 hours; posted three comments on the talk page and replied to concerns: two hours; made two edits that were reverted: one hour," etc. If they don't make these posts, they have nothing to write in their reports for the employer. So the employer ends up paying for pointless posts, which volunteers feel obliged to respond to at the cost of precious time and good relationships with other editors.
Should we try to write something about this in the guideline – how to spot "billable-hours editing" and the best way to deal with it? Pinging Smallbones and Coretheapple. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I support this in general, the only problem is how to get the proper wording into the guideline. As a simple attempt to start off that discussion, I'll suggest putting the following as the 2nd paragraph under "paid editing":
I'm sure somebody can come up with something better, but this might cover the basics. Smallbones( smalltalk) 01:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the original question on the best way to deal with overly-verbose contributions: unfortunately, as some of the recent threads at the administrators' incidents noticeboard illustrate, there are various editors who object to any action being taken to try to curb an editor from swamping conversation. This makes it hard to do anything if the editor in question stays sufficiently within the bounds of civil discourse and is not receptive to suggestions and advice from others. The "assume good faith" guideline, as useful as it is for encouraging collaboration, is unfortunately a hinderance when trying to deal with those who are unable to engage productive with the community. Other than continuing to try to engage the editors on their discussion pages, sadly I don't know what else can be done. isaacl ( talk) 03:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Incorporating suggestions from @ Slim Virgin: and @ Isaacl:, I think we might be able to make some progress:
Pinging @ Coretheapple:, @ Makyen: and @ Atama: as well. Smallbones( smalltalk) 16:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
this is fine with me:
Smallbones( smalltalk) 16:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
How about explicitly kicking the confirmed abuser in the shin, e..g with a special template in the article talk page and user talk page, so that their employer may see their money wasted? Also, it will help us accumulate statistics about dishonest "page mills". Staszek Lem ( talk) 19:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm always concerned when changes are made to guidelines or policies during contentious discussions that would effectively allow an editor in that discussion to be sanctioned."
Second, seems we are penalizing COI declared editors for something we see all the time in other-editor behaviour."
The practice of overwhelming unpaid editors with length is the prime tactic of paid POV-pushers. See Deepak Chopra, mentioned above, and User:Hamilton83 on Jack Welch. I could find thousands more, but I decided just to mention the ones where I was the one overwhelmed by the disparity in fairness between volunteer and paid hours. Why do we let people do this to our volunteers, exactly? Hipocrite ( talk) 12:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Hey, guys. So, let's say I'm a big fan of using my employer's software and I want to work on those articles as a Wikipedian, without payment or outside influence. Is that still a COI due to my close proximity to the software publisher? I'd edit with the intent of upholding policies and procedures, much like I would with any other article. I'm just seeking some clarification here and making sure I don't do something foolish. — Deckiller ( t- c- l) 11:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
"If either of the following applies to you: you are receiving monetary or other benefits or considerations to edit Wikipedia as a representative of an organization (whether directly as an employee or contractor of that organization, or indirectly as an employee or contractor of a firm hired by that organization for public relations purposes), or you expect to derive monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Wikipedia (for example, by being an owner, officer, or other stakeholder of an organization; or by having some other form of close financial relationship with a topic you wish to write about), then you are very strongly discouraged from directly editing Wikipedia in areas where those external relationships could reasonably be said to undermine your ability to remain neutral. If you have a financial connection to a topic – including, but not limited to, as an owner, employee, contractor or other stakeholder – you are advised to refrain from editing affected articles directly."
One of the best things to do if you have a COI and want to be careful is to use {{ Request edit}}. I had occasion to try and find something like that recently but couldn't locate it. If it's mentioned on this page, it's not displayed prominently enough. I don't see it in the "Advice" section nor is it listed under "See also", when it should probably be in both places. Just a heads-up. I'm not active enough on Wikipedia these days to feel comfy editing a policy page but I thought I'd point this out. equazcion → 03:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Greetings. I am a potential-COI editor who has high hopes of setting up some quiet, policy-compliant, drama-free editing, with transparent and clear-cut ethics. It occurs to me that the ethical potential-COI editor who has pledged to uphold 5P would be bound by those ethics to have a greater interest in this page being a crystal-clear guideline than the average editor. (Naturally, experience shows that many conflicted editors come to this talk with hidden agendas and not with a noble interest in being on the right side of the law, and so I am prepared for initial skepticism as to whether I might be such. As a Project Cooperation member, I'm of course interested in any review and informal mentoring and guidance in case I might edit with imbalance as well.) So I took courage to act on that apparent duty.
So is this the right page for potentially extended questions from those who honestly think (as I) that the guideline would be well-served by greater clarity?
For instance, it seems the definitions of COI slip around quite a bit conceptually in the article. I like consistent terms. The meaning of "your own interests" seems not to mean all your interests but only those that differ from WP's interests as implied through policy (chiefly encyclopedic improvement and maintenance). If everyone were to agree my own interests are truly identical with WP's on any topic (AGF routinely assigned to "nonconflicted" editors), then it would be misleading to strongly discourage me to promote "my own interests" on that topic, because I'm interested in encyclopedic coverage of it and am submitting any other interest (e.g. unconscious bias) to WP's interests as judged by consensus. So it seems that when a phrase like "your own interests" appears, it really means something like "your own independent interests", i.e. those contrary to WP's implied interests. Just to get the ball rolling, is that anywhere near a correct inference? Frieda Beamy ( talk) 12:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Just noting here that I swapped our "warts and all" example for GLAM, to emphasize the "mission-aligned" aspect:
Hope that's okay. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not ready to propose specific wording here and think that other editors should outline what they'd like to see. But the main points I'd like to see are:
Smallbones( smalltalk) 16:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Suggested text:
Wikipedians-in-Residence (WIRs) are editors who work with non-profit organizations that are aligned with our mission of collecting and developing educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate that content effectively and globally. WIRs serve as a liaison between the Wikipedia community and members of the mission-aligned organization. They must not engage in public relations or marketing for that organization and they must operate within the bounds defined by "the core characteristics of a Wikipedian in Residence" at outreach and work closely with a Wikipedia project. Whether or not they are paid by the organization, they must identify their WIR status on their user page and in their edit summaries - for example by prefacing the summary with WIR. We encourage WIRs and the members of their organizations to participate in building Wikipedia.
I'm not sure that "non-profit" has been explicitly stated before, but think that every WIR so far has been in a non-profit. I'd also suggest that if WP:Medicine want to post their own "core characteristics of a Wikipedian in Residence" we include that in the text and if other projects want to have WIRs then they develop their own, and we add "or similar project statements" in if needed. Smallbones( smalltalk) 20:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
My main interest on this is to describe the current WIR program and make sure that folks realize that it does not conflict with WP:COI. I'm afraid that some editors like to wikilawyer this guideline and some of the proposed wording might encourage them to greatly expand the definition of a WIR. In particular the "use Wikipedia for pr or marketing" phrase might signal to them that naming a museum pr person as a WIR would be ok. I don't think that has been done previously, and I wouldn't support that interpretation at all. Also a WIR who can't find an active Wikipedia community to work with wouldn't be much of a liaison IMHO. Finally - I love the quote from WittyLama - it says exactly what we want to do. But I checked with him on his talk page and he suggests that it might be too "idealistic" to directly put in the guideline.
So reworking it, I suggest:
Wikipedians in residence
Wikipedians in residence (WIRs) are editors who work with organizations that are aligned with Wikipedia's mission of
WIRs serve as a liaison between the Wikipedia community and members of the mission-aligned organization. They must not engage in public relations or marketing for that organization. They must operate within the bounds defined by "the core characteristics of a Wikipedian in Residence" at outreach and work closely with a Wikipedia project or the Wikipedia community. Whether or not they are paid by the organization, they must identify their WIR status on their user page and should identify relevant edits (e.g. by prefacing the edit summary with WIR). We encourage WIRs and the members of their organizations to participate in building Wikipedia.
with appropriate link and checked quote Smallbones( smalltalk) 05:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm puzzled by the first sentence in this section:
The puzzlement is with the last item, "personal or semi-personal photos". My strong impression is that we want people to submit photos of themselves, if they are the subject of an article (submitting to Commons, with appropriate copyrights, of course). But the above sentence seems to discourage such submissions. Perhaps someone could either clarify the sentence, or correct my misimpression of the desirability of such photos on Wikipedia.
And while I'm being nit-picky, I'll note that the first and second sentences of the section are quite redundant, which I believe is a undesirable. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
WP:Statement on Wikipedia from participating communications firms everybody here should be aware of this. I'll note that I had nothing to do with this (though I was informed of their meeting beforehand). I think it's a great day for Wikipedia, but of course this is not the end of the Corporate PR COI problem on Wikipedia. Rather it is a great step to build on.
I've suggested on the talk page there, that WP:COI include some sort of statement that we encourage PR firms to sign on to this. Minor problem - the UK based CIPR made a similar statement off-Wiki a couple of years ago and it might be seen as disrespect to our UK fellow editors to favor this US based initiative. So I'll give no concrete suggestions now. Smallbones( smalltalk) 14:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
<post-fix of mist-threading due to my overlooked edit conflict>
WP:COI has a phrase: "The writing of "puff pieces" and advertisements is prohibited." I am pretty sure this is a rather generic guideline. Is it covered somewhere? WP:NOT-ish?
Staszek Lem (
talk) 18:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
On the other hand, what's wrong with "advertisements"? Earlier I was advised to look up a dictionary, so I did now], and I see nothing evil with adverts. The real problem is biased language. An advert may be pretty neutral and factual. "The Company Co. makes goodies for 150 years. Its goodies are ranked Extra Cute by Bite Me magazine survey and earned 2013 "Golden Armpit Award" . Concluding, I think this phrase must be fixed. Some ideas may be borrowed from WP:PEACOCK. Staszek Lem ( talk) 18:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
The definition of advertising is very simple (from dictionary.com)
ad·ver·tis·ing noun
if you would like this restated in my own words "Any communication from a business meant to increase sales, attract customers, or otherwise increase the value of the business" but that's slightly narrower than the above definition. No matter - "promotion" is a broader term than advertising, and it is prohibited, "marketing" is broader still, and it is also prohibited. "Public relations" is a sub-set of promotion, and it is also prohibited.
So a very basic example of an ad would be - a farmer places the following notice in a newspaper. "Hay for sale, contact Ole McDonald at 555-1212." An example on Wikipedia would be when a company employee edits an article on the company and writes "The company sells widgets, doodads, zappers and other products."
So if we could find admins to enforce these rules, we'd be doing just fine. Smallbones( smalltalk) 03:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Smallbones cited a provision of this policy with which I was not acquainted, WP:PAY. It is a very good policy but it warrants strengthening, to avoid multiple user accounts advocating for particular articles. I suggest wording saying in sum and substance as follows:
"To avoid undue burden on volunteer time and resources, every article subject should employ only one account."
-- Figureofnine ( talk • contribs) 03:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
There is language in WP:COI that I believe works against the purpose of the guideline, though I'm sure that it was meant to increase the strength of it:
"Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question."
I'll suggest instead:
"Paid advocates should not directly edit articles, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question."
The very strongly discouraged language underwent a slow transformation from "discouraged" to "strongly discouraged" to "very strongly discouraged" and then was put in bold. While I'm sure this was meant to increase the discouragement, instead it seems to read "something here is missing, you're allowed to do something but we're not going to say what it is."
My proposed "should not" language is the usual, direct way to get the meaning across. It means "It may not be an absolute prohibition for all cases, but you should not do it."
Very strongly discouraged occurs 3 times in the guideline and this suggested change should be made for all 3 cases. Smallbones( smalltalk) 14:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Paid advocates must not edit articles related to their area of advocacy, and should instead propose changes on article talk pages, unless the Wikipedia community reaches a consensus agreement to the contrary.isaacl ( talk) 08:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Back to initial observation: "very strongly discouraged" was criticized because it borders with ridiculous. Do we need to throw a tantrum and bang with the fist on the table? I vote to get rid of "very": if "strongly discouraged" is not discouraging enough, then extra "very" will not help, because the most probable violators are either those who did not read the policy or those who chose to ignore it. And I am sure that the latter ones will not even be "super extra strongly discouraged or else". Staszek Lem ( talk) 17:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Everybody seems to at least agree that very strongly discouraged is bad form - I'll make the changes I indicated above. Smallbones( smalltalk) 17:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Are there any sanctions for ignoring this discouragement? If yes, then what are they? If not, then what is the purpose of all this shouting? Neither boldface nor even large font will help against evil ones. Staszek Lem ( talk) 18:03, 12 June 2014 (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.
The Wikimedia Foundation has made updates to the m:Terms of Use which conflict with the existing COI guideline requiring either updates or a explicit English Wikipedia consensus that the COI guideline fulfills the policy requirement of the Terms of Use to override it's conditions on COI editing. Several issues have been discussed on this page relating to the Terms of Use. The terms of use are in effect for all projects unless a project develops a local consensus otherwise and that consensus may be more restrictive or less restrictive. Commons is currently discussing this very thing.
A Wikimedia Project community may adopt an alternative paid contribution disclosure policy. If a Project adopts an alternative disclosure policy, you may comply with that policy instead of the requirements in this section when contributing to that Project. An alternative paid contribution policy will only supersede these requirements if it is approved by the relevant Project community and listed in the alternative disclosure policy page.
According to WMF Legal, there is nothing wrong with a guideline being considered a 'policy' according to WMF's terms of use, but that a local project consensus needs to explicitly state its purpose as overriding the m:Terms of Use.--v/r - T P 18:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
The terms of use mandate disclosure on any one of three pages: on editors user page, on an article talk page, or in an edit summary. Current English Wikipedia policy is to strongly encourage disclosure. We have these options that range from explicit compliance with the WMF to explicit refusal and a range in the middle:
Are other editors, not the paid editors themselves, who are aware that paid editing is taking place under any obligations to disclose that information to the wider community?
What is the community's goal regarding paid editing. Does WP:COI actively describe the conditions on which paid editing, or paid editing to talk pages, would be acceptable, agreeable, or is our goal to stop all paid editing?
Not neutrally worded. That is not what the WMF has said, and its characterization in this RfC is clearly meant to prejudice this discussion. There is also no agreement that there is a substantive conflict between WP:TOU disclosure policy and WP:COI, and that statement in the RfC is also clearly meant to prejudice this discussion. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 18:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Except that the TOU does explicitly distinguish between guidelines and policies. You have to read the whole portion of the TOU in context. [6] "Applicable law, or community and Foundation policies and guidelines, such as those addressing conflicts of interest, may further limit paid contributions or require more detailed disclosure." Then in the next paragraph, "A Wikimedia Project community may adopt an alternative paid contribution disclosure policy. If a Project adopts an alternative disclosure policy, you may comply with that policy instead of the requirements in this section when contributing to that Project." This TOU doesn't come out of nowhere. It was written with this project in mind, and I think the Foundation knows perfectly well that we have guidelines and policies, and that they are different. A behavioral guideline can't overrule a policy, and never has. It seems to me that yes, we can overturn the TOU here, but in so doing we would turn this from a guideline into a policy.
However, if the apologists for/"faciltators" of paid editing want to make a mess out of this, or replace this weak TOU with something weaker, as far as I am concerned they are welcome to do so, as the Foundation is responsible for this ambiguity and richly deserves any reputational hit that will flow from it. Coretheapple ( talk) 14:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I reject the premise that there is a clear contradiction between the ToU and our guideline (one could argue that there may be, but that is different from what the RfC says) and I reject the implication that the ToU requires us to take any action. It is malformed and should be withdrawn. I don't object to an RfC but it needs to be better formed. Jytdog ( talk) 18:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Obviously, this is going to be a difficult RfC. I get what TP is saying about needing to get some kind of structure, but OTOH, you don't want people voting on whether the questions were the right questions, as often happens in these contentious RfCs. I have to stay neutral and I'm not taking a position, but maybe a little more discussion about how best to word the questions would be helpful. - Dank ( push to talk) 20:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
What a complete and utter mess. Burn it with fire and start over. Gigs ( talk) 17:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
The current state is that:
Making changes to the current state
I hope everybody agrees to these basics, but feel that it would be best to affirm that through !votes.
Support as proposer Smallbones( smalltalk) 21:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
"Does this provision mean that paid contributions are always allowed as long as they are disclosed?"
"No. Users must also comply with each Wikimedia project’s additional policies and guidelines, as well as any applicable laws. For example, English Wikipedia’s policy on neutral point of view requires that editing be done fairly, proportionally and (as far as possible) without bias; these requirements must be followed even if the contributor discloses making paid edits." Smallbones( smalltalk) 04:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
It's at the top of this page, but I think that editors need to be reminded of this. The COI guideline says "Any editor who discusses proposed changes to WP:COI or to any conflict of interest policy or guideline, should disclose in that discussion if he or she has been paid to edit on Wikipedia." Coretheapple ( talk) 22:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
The ToU say: "Applicable law, or community and Foundation policies and guidelines, such as those addressing conflicts of interest, may further limit paid contributions or require more detailed disclosure." This is interesting. The ToU give force to our guideline - a "guideline" is something that indeed "may further limit paid contributions" under the ToU, which is higher than anything else we have here. That is quite an authorization. I imagine that is an interpretation that may be upsetting. But I didn't catch that before at all. Jytdog ( talk) 06:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Does this provision mean that paid contributions are always allowed as long as they are disclosed?
"No. Users must also comply with each Wikimedia project’s additional policies and guidelines, as well as any applicable laws. For example, English Wikipedia’s policy on neutral point of view requires that editing be done fairly, proportionally and (as far as possible) without bias; these requirements must be followed even if the contributor discloses making paid edits."
@ Slaporte (WMF): The Terms of Use amendment and FAQs refer to "applicable law", but the amendment doesn't say what applicable law is, rather referring generally to the FTC, EU law, and California and New York state law and suggesting that other laws may apply as well.
In Section 13 "Disputes and Jurisdiction" of the ToU (which was not amended) it states: "You agree to submit to the personal jurisdiction of, and agree that venue is proper in, the courts located in San Francisco County, California, in any legal action or proceeding relating to us or these Terms of Use."
Does this mean that California state laws and US federal laws have a special status in a legal dispute over paid editing involving the WMF, but that other laws may apply as well? That's probably too big of a question to be put all in one sentence, but perhaps you can address this in parts.
Also at the very bottom of the ToU is a date when they were last revised. It says 2012 right now. Shouldn't it be June 16, 2014?
Smallbones( smalltalk) 15:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
If I were to edit an article related or unrelated to my field of employment while at work (i.e. “on the clock,”) then a literal reading of the revised terms of service would suggest that I must disclose my identity. After all, while at work people may be paid by the hour regardless of what they are doing. Furthermore, the new guideline mentions paid editing in the context of “deceptive activities” and “fraud.” Actual paid editing may not necessarily constitute fraud; even if somebody were to pay me to express a point of view, the ultimate end-result may be to make an article better in quality, or even to make it more neutral or remove bias. If that is the case, then such editing might neither be deceptive nor be fraudulent. By contrast, receiving compensation for time spent at work when I actually edit Wikipedia instead of doing my job may arguably constitute fraud against my employer and therefore violate the revised terms of service. (In reality my employer cares only that the editing does not interfere with the job being done, but other employers have a blanket policy against personal Internet usage.) 173.79.225.57 ( talk) 17:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Those who take part in COI editing are supposed to be "strongly discouraged." This discouragement will not come from anyone except editors of good conscience. It is our responsibility to use not just milquetoast words when talking about this practice—words just as easily ignored as said—but to discourage it strongly in the face of resistance. And resistance exists.
Resistance to this discouragement is caused by narcissism. Some COI editors perhaps do not care at all about bettering this encyclopedia, but they offer no real resistance, even if they repeat some talking points. Real, honest resistance instead stems from the narcissistic view that one's abilities as an editor are just that much better. Editors with this view believe that the strong discouragement should only apply to others, not them; that they are not affected by their conflict of interest; that they edit neutrally despite any financial incentive not to do so. By their own self-love, they are the exceptional editors: "COI editing should be strongly discouraged, yes, sure, whatever, but I shall still do it, because I am allowed and I am the exception better than the rule of others."
How do we strongly discourage these editors? We tell them, whenever the issue of their COI editing comes up, why it is that the practice is strongly discouraged: because it hurts this encyclopedia. Their behaviour hurts this encyclopedia. No COI editor has ever displayed a relevant body of work that has been free of shortcomings in terms of neutrality. The existence of such shortcomings can always be reasonably suspected as being caused by a relevant conflict of interest where one exists. Such suspicions destroy trust. And we should tell them too of the consensus of our reliable sources concerning conflict of interest authorship: No one is immune, even when one is not consciously aware of being affected by their conflict of interest (Moore & Loewenstein 2004 [7]). If these messages and others are pressed consistently, perhaps we can move from inadequate, merest discouragement to the strong discouragement required by this guideline.
And every time someone tries to apologize for or enable COI editing, ask that person: "How is what you're saying consistent with our goal of strongly discouraging for COI editing?" If they cannot adequately answer this, then rightly tell them that they are failing to live up to the consensus on how a Wikipedian should behave as represented by this guideline. -- Atethnekos ( Discussion, Contributions) 08:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
TParis, my perspective is that COI editing remains an incredible contentious issue on enWP and the community is far from settled on the issue. I don't think its accurate to say "we'll find it agreeable"! There are editors who will be very antagonistic toward COI editors and some who will encourage them. The community cannot agree on any policy on this issue; the best it could do is to issue this guideline, with which the community remains uneasy. The guideline allows the presence of editors with a COI in the community and offers behavioral guidelines for what COI editors should and should not do, with most of the emphasis on restrictions. Because of this unsettledness, COI editors can expect trouble on Talk pages, but if they stay within the guidelines they are very unlikely to meet with any further restrictions or admininistrative actions. Jytdog ( talk) 18:08, 19 June 2014 (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 talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
I'm thinking of something like this, which balances a potential COI with healthy interest.
Type | Healthy Interest Welcomed! |
Potential Conflict of Interest Disclosure and prudence recommended |
Potential Wikipedia Policy violations Unacceptable behavior |
---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
-- Iantresman ( talk) 12:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
The reason I chose to include the forth column on "Potential Wikipedia Policy violations", is that it is these types of behavior that are directly problematic, not the potential COI. The reason is that many editors use anonymous usernames, so a potential COI can not be identified, whereas improper behavior can. Also, because I believe that publicising a potential COI may violate Wikipedia's privacy and outing policies, the focus falls on the misbehavior, not a potential COI. --
Iantresman (
talk) 01:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Like True, some stuff doesn't matter who you are, just don't do it. Motive or COI is irrelevant.
Montanabw
(talk) 20:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
@ Gigs. I would argue that members of organisations do not benefit directly (ie financially), so there is no major COI. The member has to pay to join, they don't get recompense, unlike an official may. I can't think of an organisation where this could be a problem over other organisations. If I'm a member of the Democratic Party, Automobile Association, Local Scrabble Club, Flat Earth Society, it shows I'm interested, and probably just as fanatical as everyone else. -- Iantresman ( talk) 01:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Personally, I favor fairly transparent disclosure if it allows for some secondary or even primary COI editing, because I really don't have an issue with a truly NPOV edit by anyone, regardless of COI - it's the result that counts. A person with a COI should be allowed to remove true vandalism, BLP conflicts and upload images. Though I think Jimbo and WMF favor a blanket ban on all paid advocacy, I personally would primarily focus on restricting third-party paid advocacy, as that opens up a whole cottage industry dedicated to ends that oppose the purpose of wikipedia and WP:NOADS. However, the line for people with secondary (or even primary) connections to the subject is fuzzier, restrictions and disclosure is appropriate, scrutiny definitely so, but not an outright ban - an employee of foo company could write in an NPOV style, subject to the "anyone can edit" scrutiny of the community. Though I think they should be mandated to disclose their connection, I don't think they should be banned wholesale. Some very good-intentioned people, particularly in small companies, may want to work on a wikipedia article. If they can do it without violating NPOV, COPYVIO, NOTABILITY and so on, this should be cautiously monitored, but allowed. And frankly, it's already happening, as noted, via anon IPs anyway... Montanabw (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Layout Suggestion: In my opinion, "Potential Wikipedia Policy violations Unacceptable behavior" should be on the bottom, not on the right, with the "Type" box saying "All editors" or even "All editors without exception". -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
My layout suggestion would be this: 4 columns
This might be an extensive table, but compiling it with as much precision as possible might lead us to more universal, understandable guidance on COI.-- Mike Cline ( talk) 18:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Type | Healthy Interest Welcomed! |
Conflict of Interest Disclosure and prudence recommended |
---|---|---|
Primary: Yourself |
|
|
Secondary: Affiliations |
|
|
Tertiary: Paid advocacy |
|
|
Non-COI |
|
|
All editors |
Editing policies
Behavioral policies
|
-- Iantresman ( talk) 18:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
So is it worth considering adding this table to the main page on COI? -- Iantresman ( talk) 09:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
A discussion with OTRS volunteers on a possible policy change Gigs ( talk) 19:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Trying to regulate COI directly is a huge waste of time and effort.
Given the anonymous nature of Wikipedia editing, it's surely trivial to get away with COI editing no matter what the rules are. Just like it's trivial to get away with any kind of biased editing on WP.
Thankfully, as I've said before, it's not the motivation of an edit that matters, but the content of the edit that matters. If someone edits something about the XYZ Corp, whether that person has a COI (perhaps he's the CEO of XYZ) shouldn't matter. What matters is the content. Either it's compliant with our content specific policies, or it's not. If it is, then it's fine to remain. If it's not, then it needs to be taken out. Who put it in or why (including whether they have a COI or not) does not matter.
I love and appreciate the healthy/potential-COI tables being worked on above. But if a friend, relative or business partner was sufficiently notable to have an article on WP, and I made an edit to it, so what? If it's properly cited to RS and does not conflict with any other policies or guidelines, why does it matter whether I or someone without a potential COI put in that material?
Imagine if all the time and energy spent on the supposed COI issue was instead directed to making more sure edits complied without content-specific policies and guidelines.
It seems to me we should be encouraging editing, even COI editing. For example, if Bill Gates wants to contribute to improve Microsoft, I don't see why that would necessarily be any more of a problem than a staunch Obama supporter editing Barack Obama. If any of the edits are a problem, someone else will revert or fix it, just as we do for any other problematic edits.
We all have biases that affect our edits. COI is but one of those biases, and is no more problematic than most any other biased edit, often less problematic. I say, live and let live. Have faith in our content-based policies and guidelines.
I honestly believe WP would be improved if this entire page was deleted. -- B2 C 00:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Behavioral guidelines, which are inherently subjective and the source of untold wasted time and resources, cause more problems than they resolve. To clarify, I consider WP:NPA (for example) to be a content guideline (talk page content, but still content). But policy/guidelines trying to limit or prohibit COI or no-paid-editing address WHY people edit rather than WHAT they edit. That's just nuts.
I have no problem with paid editing. If someone wants to pay someone else to expand the article on Napoleon, or IBM, I have no problem with that, as long as they don't violate our content guidelines in those edits. -- B2 C 23:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Why is paid editing, that does not violate our content guidelines, a problem at all? -- B2 C 17:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Most of the contributors in this section seem to be entirely clueless how the real world works. If Wikipedia in effect offers free advertising to everybody - guess what? - the "encyclopedia" will be filled up with ads. Even though we have content rules and guidelines that say "no advertising" that doesn't mean that the ads will disappear- rather the advertisers will just fight over their free ads until volunteers drop from exhaustion.
"Any editor who discusses proposed changes to WP:COI or to any conflict of interest policy or guideline, should disclose in that discussion if he or she has been paid to edit on Wikipedia." Smallbones( smalltalk) 22:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
For the record, nobody has every paid me anything for even a single byte I've added, deleted or changed on Wikipedia. -- B2 C 00:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Your logic, B2C, is pretty sound. And the witchhunt mentality you describe is a problem. My idea is that COI editing has to only be disclosed, but no ban whatsoever, content and policy is all that matters, but if an editor is trolled or in violation of policy, the COI is one piece of evidence pointing to a POV-pushing edit. But then again, the attribution of motive IS the core problem you are addressing, so I can see problems even with my proposal. But here's the thing: WP in general is vehemently opposed -and rightly so, IMHO - to accepting advertising of any kind, that's a pillar and at the core of wikipedia. From that core, Jimbo and WMF are of the view that paid editing (and by extension, COI editing) is a corollary of that pillar. How would you respond to that concern? (If I were in their shoes, I'd ask you: a) do you think advretising is OK or b) do you think COI is different from advertising, and if so, how?) Montanabw (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
For example, imagine if the head of GM advertising edits a WP article, or pays you to to edit WP article, about a Chevrolet car to have it say that it won Motor Trend Car of the Year. Is that "advertising"? Should that be allowed? I say if it's cited to the relevant Motor Trend article, or, even better, to a NY Times or similar secondary source referring to the Motor Trend award, it's perfectly fine. The COI of the person who made the edit, or whether they were paid to do it, or whether they disclosed who they were or that they were paid, should not matter. All that should matter is that the material meets our content standards. Period. That's what's so great our content standards. That's what's so great about Wikipedia. It's about time we let the world know! -- B2 C 07:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
All this focus on COI and paid editing distracts us from delivering that message. It sends the opposite message. It suggests we don't have such standards, and that's why we need to address COI and paid editing directly. It's wrong. It's detrimental to our mission.
We can manage and control COI and paid editing just fine, because of our standards. Wikipedia rocks. -- B2 C 19:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
There is no reliance on "as long as the editing is good". When I use WP for research, and I find anything that's dubious at all, I check the reference myself. If it's not there, or doesn't support the content, I know not to rely on it. Verifiable does not mean it's necessarily supported by reliable sources; it means you can verify whether it is supported by reliable sources. And you can do that just as well for content entered by an editor who is paid, or one with a COI, as you can by a pure and virtuous editor.
It's true that we have latitude, and it's possible that we can use that latitude to leave out crucial material, and that makes us imperfect. But that cost, I believe, is minor, compared to the cost of having and especially trying to enforce rules against COI or paid editing. -- B2 C 23:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
IMHO, that's why anyone can edit; companies are here all the time, the most obnoxious stuff is almost always tossed and if they get "butt hurt" about it, they are subject to the same behavioral sanctions as anyone else. That's the beauty of it, and why I see no need for COI witchhunts, bad edits are bad edits. Montanabw (talk) 21:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Just reverted a pretty blatent COI today here: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Cheyenne_Frontier_Days&diff=595010960&oldid=586523546 I'm posting it as an example of a pretty typical newbie COI-type edit and would like folks to apply the idea we are discussing here to how one might handle this situation. Montanabw (talk) 04:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
BTW- In this situation you really should give the newbie a talk page welcome, because the edit history isn't necessarily a place they will look (or even be aware of existing). I have left them one of the "policy welcome" templates. Gigs ( talk) 19:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
@ Gigs, Where is the template you used to get that first section? That's a cool one. (And thanks for doing that, I was too cranky to follow up as I should have) also thanks for ADMASQ, didn't know about that one. Montanabw (talk) 21:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC) @B2C, you are right that we should AGF on these folks. Some do really well. A year or two ago, I helped someone with a COI to vastly improve the Gypsy horse; they clearly had expertise and access to solid source material that I did not, set me straight on where the usual sources are incorrect. In turn, I reviewed their additions, and still do - I am satisfied that NPOV and WP:RS are met. Likewise, a lovely but now inactive editor, ThatPeskyCommoner, took New Forest Pony clear to TFA, in the process making vast improvments to several other pony breed articles and wrote the wonderful History of the horse in Britain; I believe she is an owner and breeder of NF Ponies, hence, has a COI, but it didn't keep her from becoming an outstanding editor. OTOH, Gigs is right that 90% of these initially COI editors can't get past it. So it all depends. Montanabw (talk) 21:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Anyway, my point here is that there is no need to drop AGF for the 90% of COI editors that are acting in bad faith, much less for the 10%. -- B2 C 22:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Dear Friends, Wiki doesnot allow us to write about myself, why?
Will it not be accepted if I write it in 'third person'?
Along, can I write about my team, set up for social works by us?
Please kindly answer as I am a new user of wiki.
Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yogirajbiplab ( talk • contribs) 08:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
For quite some time, this sentence was part of WP:COI, and referenced in discussions:
“ | Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. | ” |
It was removed in this edit, part of a series of edits by an editor doing a general clean-up and copy edit (see series of edits by SlimVirgin in late October '12). I'd assumed there was a specific reason and consensus for its removal, but that doesn't appear to be the case (which isn't meant to reflect in any way whatsoever on SlimVirgin's conduct). Quite possibly it was deleted because it was under "citing yourself" and kind of peripheral to that section. It's a pretty important issue. Should it be restored?
Personally I think it should be. WP should be making clear to people with such expertise that they're welcome here.
Note, I recently opened a thread at COI/N on myself and whether I have a COI because of my own profession: WP:COIN#Acupuncture. I'm not trying to game that discussion, and have mentioned in that thread that I'm posting here. Feel free to comment there too. Thanks. -- Middle 8 ( leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 06:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
It appears that the m:Terms of use/Paid contributions amendment will be passed, at least in some form, and that this page may confuse editors in some respects if the amendment does pass. Yes, there are 3 weeks left in the comment period, and then the Board of Trustees does then have to pass the amendment specifically by a resolution. But, it's also clear that only 21% of !voters oppose the amendment and that we'll have some clean up to do here once the amendment is implemented.
I simply propose that we get to work on the needed changes now. My specific proposals include:
On that day we post at the beginning of the text: "Wikipedia's Terms of Use have recently been changed, see (link). As a result we may be making adjustments to this guideline. Until these adjustments are made all paid editors must strictly follow the terms of both this guideline and the Terms of Use."
There are many other passages that will need this cleanup. I think it's time to get started. Smallbones( smalltalk) 20:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
The proposed change to the terms of use regarding disclosing paid edits has now gone through the required 30 day comment period, and the results of the feedback seem very clear. Just counting !votes is of course oversimplified, but gives a strong indication that the change will be implemented (up to the board of course).
With only 20.0% opposing the proposed change, I'll predict that the change will be made, essentially as proposed, soon - within a month at the latest.
I do think that the current text of WP:COI would be a bit confusing in spots given the ToU change, so I've done the copyediting needed at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Post Tou update, with my proposed changes (minor copyedits really) highlighted.
I propose that we go ahead with these changes if and when the board acts as I have predicted. Smallbones( smalltalk) 15:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
An RfC regarding allowing role accounts Gigs ( talk) 15:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
When signing up to wikipedia I was on the belief that wikipedia was a truthful source of information. When I googled Louise Glover, the information that I got from Louiseglover.com did not match what I found on wikipedia... so I attempted to change it, to match what this person says themselves. Wikipedia changed it back, saying that my changes resembles someone elses. I dont know what they mean by this ??
As a journalist when searching for info regarding Louise Glover I could not find anything about her career from the last 4 years. Whats going on ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew1416 ( talk • contribs) 17:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
it is not unduly self-serving" (that is actually the first criterion in the list). If other editors feel that the information you changed was promotional then it violates that criterion
I've been noticing this for the last couple of years but realized only recently that "billable hours" are probably the cause.
A paid editor arrives at the talk page, requests something impossible or impenetrable, or points out something trivial that you're surprised they even noticed (a spelling mistake in the third sentence of the fifth section). There's a bit of discussion and the edit takes place or is turned down. Three months later, they arrive asking for almost the same thing, or they offer a new list of sources, or they make the edit that was turned down, though they know they'll be reverted. This can go on for months or years.
If editors keep responding to the requests, it takes up a lot of volunteer time with fruitless discussion. The paid editor often absents himself after his first few posts while the volunteers are left to argue. I used to wonder in some cases (when it was an employee of a contentious company) whether it was deliberate disruption.
But since reading about this issue on the mailing list, I can see that paid editors simply need to justify their existence to their employers: "searched for sources: 12 hours; posted three comments on the talk page and replied to concerns: two hours; made two edits that were reverted: one hour," etc. If they don't make these posts, they have nothing to write in their reports for the employer. So the employer ends up paying for pointless posts, which volunteers feel obliged to respond to at the cost of precious time and good relationships with other editors.
Should we try to write something about this in the guideline – how to spot "billable-hours editing" and the best way to deal with it? Pinging Smallbones and Coretheapple. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I support this in general, the only problem is how to get the proper wording into the guideline. As a simple attempt to start off that discussion, I'll suggest putting the following as the 2nd paragraph under "paid editing":
I'm sure somebody can come up with something better, but this might cover the basics. Smallbones( smalltalk) 01:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the original question on the best way to deal with overly-verbose contributions: unfortunately, as some of the recent threads at the administrators' incidents noticeboard illustrate, there are various editors who object to any action being taken to try to curb an editor from swamping conversation. This makes it hard to do anything if the editor in question stays sufficiently within the bounds of civil discourse and is not receptive to suggestions and advice from others. The "assume good faith" guideline, as useful as it is for encouraging collaboration, is unfortunately a hinderance when trying to deal with those who are unable to engage productive with the community. Other than continuing to try to engage the editors on their discussion pages, sadly I don't know what else can be done. isaacl ( talk) 03:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Incorporating suggestions from @ Slim Virgin: and @ Isaacl:, I think we might be able to make some progress:
Pinging @ Coretheapple:, @ Makyen: and @ Atama: as well. Smallbones( smalltalk) 16:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
this is fine with me:
Smallbones( smalltalk) 16:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
How about explicitly kicking the confirmed abuser in the shin, e..g with a special template in the article talk page and user talk page, so that their employer may see their money wasted? Also, it will help us accumulate statistics about dishonest "page mills". Staszek Lem ( talk) 19:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm always concerned when changes are made to guidelines or policies during contentious discussions that would effectively allow an editor in that discussion to be sanctioned."
Second, seems we are penalizing COI declared editors for something we see all the time in other-editor behaviour."
The practice of overwhelming unpaid editors with length is the prime tactic of paid POV-pushers. See Deepak Chopra, mentioned above, and User:Hamilton83 on Jack Welch. I could find thousands more, but I decided just to mention the ones where I was the one overwhelmed by the disparity in fairness between volunteer and paid hours. Why do we let people do this to our volunteers, exactly? Hipocrite ( talk) 12:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Hey, guys. So, let's say I'm a big fan of using my employer's software and I want to work on those articles as a Wikipedian, without payment or outside influence. Is that still a COI due to my close proximity to the software publisher? I'd edit with the intent of upholding policies and procedures, much like I would with any other article. I'm just seeking some clarification here and making sure I don't do something foolish. — Deckiller ( t- c- l) 11:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
"If either of the following applies to you: you are receiving monetary or other benefits or considerations to edit Wikipedia as a representative of an organization (whether directly as an employee or contractor of that organization, or indirectly as an employee or contractor of a firm hired by that organization for public relations purposes), or you expect to derive monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Wikipedia (for example, by being an owner, officer, or other stakeholder of an organization; or by having some other form of close financial relationship with a topic you wish to write about), then you are very strongly discouraged from directly editing Wikipedia in areas where those external relationships could reasonably be said to undermine your ability to remain neutral. If you have a financial connection to a topic – including, but not limited to, as an owner, employee, contractor or other stakeholder – you are advised to refrain from editing affected articles directly."
One of the best things to do if you have a COI and want to be careful is to use {{ Request edit}}. I had occasion to try and find something like that recently but couldn't locate it. If it's mentioned on this page, it's not displayed prominently enough. I don't see it in the "Advice" section nor is it listed under "See also", when it should probably be in both places. Just a heads-up. I'm not active enough on Wikipedia these days to feel comfy editing a policy page but I thought I'd point this out. equazcion → 03:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Greetings. I am a potential-COI editor who has high hopes of setting up some quiet, policy-compliant, drama-free editing, with transparent and clear-cut ethics. It occurs to me that the ethical potential-COI editor who has pledged to uphold 5P would be bound by those ethics to have a greater interest in this page being a crystal-clear guideline than the average editor. (Naturally, experience shows that many conflicted editors come to this talk with hidden agendas and not with a noble interest in being on the right side of the law, and so I am prepared for initial skepticism as to whether I might be such. As a Project Cooperation member, I'm of course interested in any review and informal mentoring and guidance in case I might edit with imbalance as well.) So I took courage to act on that apparent duty.
So is this the right page for potentially extended questions from those who honestly think (as I) that the guideline would be well-served by greater clarity?
For instance, it seems the definitions of COI slip around quite a bit conceptually in the article. I like consistent terms. The meaning of "your own interests" seems not to mean all your interests but only those that differ from WP's interests as implied through policy (chiefly encyclopedic improvement and maintenance). If everyone were to agree my own interests are truly identical with WP's on any topic (AGF routinely assigned to "nonconflicted" editors), then it would be misleading to strongly discourage me to promote "my own interests" on that topic, because I'm interested in encyclopedic coverage of it and am submitting any other interest (e.g. unconscious bias) to WP's interests as judged by consensus. So it seems that when a phrase like "your own interests" appears, it really means something like "your own independent interests", i.e. those contrary to WP's implied interests. Just to get the ball rolling, is that anywhere near a correct inference? Frieda Beamy ( talk) 12:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Just noting here that I swapped our "warts and all" example for GLAM, to emphasize the "mission-aligned" aspect:
Hope that's okay. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not ready to propose specific wording here and think that other editors should outline what they'd like to see. But the main points I'd like to see are:
Smallbones( smalltalk) 16:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Suggested text:
Wikipedians-in-Residence (WIRs) are editors who work with non-profit organizations that are aligned with our mission of collecting and developing educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate that content effectively and globally. WIRs serve as a liaison between the Wikipedia community and members of the mission-aligned organization. They must not engage in public relations or marketing for that organization and they must operate within the bounds defined by "the core characteristics of a Wikipedian in Residence" at outreach and work closely with a Wikipedia project. Whether or not they are paid by the organization, they must identify their WIR status on their user page and in their edit summaries - for example by prefacing the summary with WIR. We encourage WIRs and the members of their organizations to participate in building Wikipedia.
I'm not sure that "non-profit" has been explicitly stated before, but think that every WIR so far has been in a non-profit. I'd also suggest that if WP:Medicine want to post their own "core characteristics of a Wikipedian in Residence" we include that in the text and if other projects want to have WIRs then they develop their own, and we add "or similar project statements" in if needed. Smallbones( smalltalk) 20:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
My main interest on this is to describe the current WIR program and make sure that folks realize that it does not conflict with WP:COI. I'm afraid that some editors like to wikilawyer this guideline and some of the proposed wording might encourage them to greatly expand the definition of a WIR. In particular the "use Wikipedia for pr or marketing" phrase might signal to them that naming a museum pr person as a WIR would be ok. I don't think that has been done previously, and I wouldn't support that interpretation at all. Also a WIR who can't find an active Wikipedia community to work with wouldn't be much of a liaison IMHO. Finally - I love the quote from WittyLama - it says exactly what we want to do. But I checked with him on his talk page and he suggests that it might be too "idealistic" to directly put in the guideline.
So reworking it, I suggest:
Wikipedians in residence
Wikipedians in residence (WIRs) are editors who work with organizations that are aligned with Wikipedia's mission of
WIRs serve as a liaison between the Wikipedia community and members of the mission-aligned organization. They must not engage in public relations or marketing for that organization. They must operate within the bounds defined by "the core characteristics of a Wikipedian in Residence" at outreach and work closely with a Wikipedia project or the Wikipedia community. Whether or not they are paid by the organization, they must identify their WIR status on their user page and should identify relevant edits (e.g. by prefacing the edit summary with WIR). We encourage WIRs and the members of their organizations to participate in building Wikipedia.
with appropriate link and checked quote Smallbones( smalltalk) 05:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm puzzled by the first sentence in this section:
The puzzlement is with the last item, "personal or semi-personal photos". My strong impression is that we want people to submit photos of themselves, if they are the subject of an article (submitting to Commons, with appropriate copyrights, of course). But the above sentence seems to discourage such submissions. Perhaps someone could either clarify the sentence, or correct my misimpression of the desirability of such photos on Wikipedia.
And while I'm being nit-picky, I'll note that the first and second sentences of the section are quite redundant, which I believe is a undesirable. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
WP:Statement on Wikipedia from participating communications firms everybody here should be aware of this. I'll note that I had nothing to do with this (though I was informed of their meeting beforehand). I think it's a great day for Wikipedia, but of course this is not the end of the Corporate PR COI problem on Wikipedia. Rather it is a great step to build on.
I've suggested on the talk page there, that WP:COI include some sort of statement that we encourage PR firms to sign on to this. Minor problem - the UK based CIPR made a similar statement off-Wiki a couple of years ago and it might be seen as disrespect to our UK fellow editors to favor this US based initiative. So I'll give no concrete suggestions now. Smallbones( smalltalk) 14:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
<post-fix of mist-threading due to my overlooked edit conflict>
WP:COI has a phrase: "The writing of "puff pieces" and advertisements is prohibited." I am pretty sure this is a rather generic guideline. Is it covered somewhere? WP:NOT-ish?
Staszek Lem (
talk) 18:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
On the other hand, what's wrong with "advertisements"? Earlier I was advised to look up a dictionary, so I did now], and I see nothing evil with adverts. The real problem is biased language. An advert may be pretty neutral and factual. "The Company Co. makes goodies for 150 years. Its goodies are ranked Extra Cute by Bite Me magazine survey and earned 2013 "Golden Armpit Award" . Concluding, I think this phrase must be fixed. Some ideas may be borrowed from WP:PEACOCK. Staszek Lem ( talk) 18:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
The definition of advertising is very simple (from dictionary.com)
ad·ver·tis·ing noun
if you would like this restated in my own words "Any communication from a business meant to increase sales, attract customers, or otherwise increase the value of the business" but that's slightly narrower than the above definition. No matter - "promotion" is a broader term than advertising, and it is prohibited, "marketing" is broader still, and it is also prohibited. "Public relations" is a sub-set of promotion, and it is also prohibited.
So a very basic example of an ad would be - a farmer places the following notice in a newspaper. "Hay for sale, contact Ole McDonald at 555-1212." An example on Wikipedia would be when a company employee edits an article on the company and writes "The company sells widgets, doodads, zappers and other products."
So if we could find admins to enforce these rules, we'd be doing just fine. Smallbones( smalltalk) 03:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Smallbones cited a provision of this policy with which I was not acquainted, WP:PAY. It is a very good policy but it warrants strengthening, to avoid multiple user accounts advocating for particular articles. I suggest wording saying in sum and substance as follows:
"To avoid undue burden on volunteer time and resources, every article subject should employ only one account."
-- Figureofnine ( talk • contribs) 03:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
There is language in WP:COI that I believe works against the purpose of the guideline, though I'm sure that it was meant to increase the strength of it:
"Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question."
I'll suggest instead:
"Paid advocates should not directly edit articles, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question."
The very strongly discouraged language underwent a slow transformation from "discouraged" to "strongly discouraged" to "very strongly discouraged" and then was put in bold. While I'm sure this was meant to increase the discouragement, instead it seems to read "something here is missing, you're allowed to do something but we're not going to say what it is."
My proposed "should not" language is the usual, direct way to get the meaning across. It means "It may not be an absolute prohibition for all cases, but you should not do it."
Very strongly discouraged occurs 3 times in the guideline and this suggested change should be made for all 3 cases. Smallbones( smalltalk) 14:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Paid advocates must not edit articles related to their area of advocacy, and should instead propose changes on article talk pages, unless the Wikipedia community reaches a consensus agreement to the contrary.isaacl ( talk) 08:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Back to initial observation: "very strongly discouraged" was criticized because it borders with ridiculous. Do we need to throw a tantrum and bang with the fist on the table? I vote to get rid of "very": if "strongly discouraged" is not discouraging enough, then extra "very" will not help, because the most probable violators are either those who did not read the policy or those who chose to ignore it. And I am sure that the latter ones will not even be "super extra strongly discouraged or else". Staszek Lem ( talk) 17:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Everybody seems to at least agree that very strongly discouraged is bad form - I'll make the changes I indicated above. Smallbones( smalltalk) 17:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Are there any sanctions for ignoring this discouragement? If yes, then what are they? If not, then what is the purpose of all this shouting? Neither boldface nor even large font will help against evil ones. Staszek Lem ( talk) 18:03, 12 June 2014 (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.
The Wikimedia Foundation has made updates to the m:Terms of Use which conflict with the existing COI guideline requiring either updates or a explicit English Wikipedia consensus that the COI guideline fulfills the policy requirement of the Terms of Use to override it's conditions on COI editing. Several issues have been discussed on this page relating to the Terms of Use. The terms of use are in effect for all projects unless a project develops a local consensus otherwise and that consensus may be more restrictive or less restrictive. Commons is currently discussing this very thing.
A Wikimedia Project community may adopt an alternative paid contribution disclosure policy. If a Project adopts an alternative disclosure policy, you may comply with that policy instead of the requirements in this section when contributing to that Project. An alternative paid contribution policy will only supersede these requirements if it is approved by the relevant Project community and listed in the alternative disclosure policy page.
According to WMF Legal, there is nothing wrong with a guideline being considered a 'policy' according to WMF's terms of use, but that a local project consensus needs to explicitly state its purpose as overriding the m:Terms of Use.--v/r - T P 18:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
The terms of use mandate disclosure on any one of three pages: on editors user page, on an article talk page, or in an edit summary. Current English Wikipedia policy is to strongly encourage disclosure. We have these options that range from explicit compliance with the WMF to explicit refusal and a range in the middle:
Are other editors, not the paid editors themselves, who are aware that paid editing is taking place under any obligations to disclose that information to the wider community?
What is the community's goal regarding paid editing. Does WP:COI actively describe the conditions on which paid editing, or paid editing to talk pages, would be acceptable, agreeable, or is our goal to stop all paid editing?
Not neutrally worded. That is not what the WMF has said, and its characterization in this RfC is clearly meant to prejudice this discussion. There is also no agreement that there is a substantive conflict between WP:TOU disclosure policy and WP:COI, and that statement in the RfC is also clearly meant to prejudice this discussion. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 18:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Except that the TOU does explicitly distinguish between guidelines and policies. You have to read the whole portion of the TOU in context. [6] "Applicable law, or community and Foundation policies and guidelines, such as those addressing conflicts of interest, may further limit paid contributions or require more detailed disclosure." Then in the next paragraph, "A Wikimedia Project community may adopt an alternative paid contribution disclosure policy. If a Project adopts an alternative disclosure policy, you may comply with that policy instead of the requirements in this section when contributing to that Project." This TOU doesn't come out of nowhere. It was written with this project in mind, and I think the Foundation knows perfectly well that we have guidelines and policies, and that they are different. A behavioral guideline can't overrule a policy, and never has. It seems to me that yes, we can overturn the TOU here, but in so doing we would turn this from a guideline into a policy.
However, if the apologists for/"faciltators" of paid editing want to make a mess out of this, or replace this weak TOU with something weaker, as far as I am concerned they are welcome to do so, as the Foundation is responsible for this ambiguity and richly deserves any reputational hit that will flow from it. Coretheapple ( talk) 14:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I reject the premise that there is a clear contradiction between the ToU and our guideline (one could argue that there may be, but that is different from what the RfC says) and I reject the implication that the ToU requires us to take any action. It is malformed and should be withdrawn. I don't object to an RfC but it needs to be better formed. Jytdog ( talk) 18:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Obviously, this is going to be a difficult RfC. I get what TP is saying about needing to get some kind of structure, but OTOH, you don't want people voting on whether the questions were the right questions, as often happens in these contentious RfCs. I have to stay neutral and I'm not taking a position, but maybe a little more discussion about how best to word the questions would be helpful. - Dank ( push to talk) 20:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
What a complete and utter mess. Burn it with fire and start over. Gigs ( talk) 17:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
The current state is that:
Making changes to the current state
I hope everybody agrees to these basics, but feel that it would be best to affirm that through !votes.
Support as proposer Smallbones( smalltalk) 21:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
"Does this provision mean that paid contributions are always allowed as long as they are disclosed?"
"No. Users must also comply with each Wikimedia project’s additional policies and guidelines, as well as any applicable laws. For example, English Wikipedia’s policy on neutral point of view requires that editing be done fairly, proportionally and (as far as possible) without bias; these requirements must be followed even if the contributor discloses making paid edits." Smallbones( smalltalk) 04:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
It's at the top of this page, but I think that editors need to be reminded of this. The COI guideline says "Any editor who discusses proposed changes to WP:COI or to any conflict of interest policy or guideline, should disclose in that discussion if he or she has been paid to edit on Wikipedia." Coretheapple ( talk) 22:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
The ToU say: "Applicable law, or community and Foundation policies and guidelines, such as those addressing conflicts of interest, may further limit paid contributions or require more detailed disclosure." This is interesting. The ToU give force to our guideline - a "guideline" is something that indeed "may further limit paid contributions" under the ToU, which is higher than anything else we have here. That is quite an authorization. I imagine that is an interpretation that may be upsetting. But I didn't catch that before at all. Jytdog ( talk) 06:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Does this provision mean that paid contributions are always allowed as long as they are disclosed?
"No. Users must also comply with each Wikimedia project’s additional policies and guidelines, as well as any applicable laws. For example, English Wikipedia’s policy on neutral point of view requires that editing be done fairly, proportionally and (as far as possible) without bias; these requirements must be followed even if the contributor discloses making paid edits."
@ Slaporte (WMF): The Terms of Use amendment and FAQs refer to "applicable law", but the amendment doesn't say what applicable law is, rather referring generally to the FTC, EU law, and California and New York state law and suggesting that other laws may apply as well.
In Section 13 "Disputes and Jurisdiction" of the ToU (which was not amended) it states: "You agree to submit to the personal jurisdiction of, and agree that venue is proper in, the courts located in San Francisco County, California, in any legal action or proceeding relating to us or these Terms of Use."
Does this mean that California state laws and US federal laws have a special status in a legal dispute over paid editing involving the WMF, but that other laws may apply as well? That's probably too big of a question to be put all in one sentence, but perhaps you can address this in parts.
Also at the very bottom of the ToU is a date when they were last revised. It says 2012 right now. Shouldn't it be June 16, 2014?
Smallbones( smalltalk) 15:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
If I were to edit an article related or unrelated to my field of employment while at work (i.e. “on the clock,”) then a literal reading of the revised terms of service would suggest that I must disclose my identity. After all, while at work people may be paid by the hour regardless of what they are doing. Furthermore, the new guideline mentions paid editing in the context of “deceptive activities” and “fraud.” Actual paid editing may not necessarily constitute fraud; even if somebody were to pay me to express a point of view, the ultimate end-result may be to make an article better in quality, or even to make it more neutral or remove bias. If that is the case, then such editing might neither be deceptive nor be fraudulent. By contrast, receiving compensation for time spent at work when I actually edit Wikipedia instead of doing my job may arguably constitute fraud against my employer and therefore violate the revised terms of service. (In reality my employer cares only that the editing does not interfere with the job being done, but other employers have a blanket policy against personal Internet usage.) 173.79.225.57 ( talk) 17:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Those who take part in COI editing are supposed to be "strongly discouraged." This discouragement will not come from anyone except editors of good conscience. It is our responsibility to use not just milquetoast words when talking about this practice—words just as easily ignored as said—but to discourage it strongly in the face of resistance. And resistance exists.
Resistance to this discouragement is caused by narcissism. Some COI editors perhaps do not care at all about bettering this encyclopedia, but they offer no real resistance, even if they repeat some talking points. Real, honest resistance instead stems from the narcissistic view that one's abilities as an editor are just that much better. Editors with this view believe that the strong discouragement should only apply to others, not them; that they are not affected by their conflict of interest; that they edit neutrally despite any financial incentive not to do so. By their own self-love, they are the exceptional editors: "COI editing should be strongly discouraged, yes, sure, whatever, but I shall still do it, because I am allowed and I am the exception better than the rule of others."
How do we strongly discourage these editors? We tell them, whenever the issue of their COI editing comes up, why it is that the practice is strongly discouraged: because it hurts this encyclopedia. Their behaviour hurts this encyclopedia. No COI editor has ever displayed a relevant body of work that has been free of shortcomings in terms of neutrality. The existence of such shortcomings can always be reasonably suspected as being caused by a relevant conflict of interest where one exists. Such suspicions destroy trust. And we should tell them too of the consensus of our reliable sources concerning conflict of interest authorship: No one is immune, even when one is not consciously aware of being affected by their conflict of interest (Moore & Loewenstein 2004 [7]). If these messages and others are pressed consistently, perhaps we can move from inadequate, merest discouragement to the strong discouragement required by this guideline.
And every time someone tries to apologize for or enable COI editing, ask that person: "How is what you're saying consistent with our goal of strongly discouraging for COI editing?" If they cannot adequately answer this, then rightly tell them that they are failing to live up to the consensus on how a Wikipedian should behave as represented by this guideline. -- Atethnekos ( Discussion, Contributions) 08:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
TParis, my perspective is that COI editing remains an incredible contentious issue on enWP and the community is far from settled on the issue. I don't think its accurate to say "we'll find it agreeable"! There are editors who will be very antagonistic toward COI editors and some who will encourage them. The community cannot agree on any policy on this issue; the best it could do is to issue this guideline, with which the community remains uneasy. The guideline allows the presence of editors with a COI in the community and offers behavioral guidelines for what COI editors should and should not do, with most of the emphasis on restrictions. Because of this unsettledness, COI editors can expect trouble on Talk pages, but if they stay within the guidelines they are very unlikely to meet with any further restrictions or admininistrative actions. Jytdog ( talk) 18:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)