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 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
I've opened an RfC on whether Wikipedia:No paid advocacy (BRIGHTLINE) should become policy. See Wikipedia talk:No paid advocacy. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for the ignorance in this question (although I did just read the last couple of years of archives). Can we discuss promoting this guideline to a policy? Every organization I know has a COI policy that is easy to find and actionable. Let's have one. Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 02:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
WITHDRAWN. I want to concentrate the conversation at WP:NOT. Sorry I brought this up here. Jytdog ( talk) 04:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Three points:
I'm tempted to remove this little section.
-- Elvey ( talk) 01:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
We cover German and UK law, but not US law. My reading of the law as laid down by the FTC is that undisclosed paid advocacy is illegal. The FTC issued "Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising". The FTC stated (in March 2013) that the Guides
My reading of the Guides is that the FTC indicates that a paid editor would be considered an endorser and liable for any false statements she made on wikipedia. Furthermore, the seller is also liable for misrepresentations made through the endorsement. (See Examples 3 and 5 on page 4 at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2009/10/091005revisedendorsementguides.pdf.)
Furthermore, per § 255.5, (page 10): The paid position of the editor must be fully disclosed, because it might materially affect the weight or credibility of the endorsement (i.e., the connection is not reasonably expected by the audience), so such CoI disclosure is a legal requirement, but e make no mention of this here! (See Examples 7, 8, and 9 on page 12 at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2009/10/091005revisedendorsementguides.pdf.)
I'm not sure we should be adding info on the US law here, to match the UK and German info; doesn't all such info belong in a policy, not a guideline?
I strongly encourage the community to have policy lay out the legal liability issues with such editing. -- Elvey ( talk) 06:52, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
"All editors are responsible for following U.S. law on undisclosed advertising, which is described by the Federal Trade Commission at Endorsement Guidelines and Dot Com Disclosures"
If/when the US CoI law issue is laid out in policy, I think a reference to our ToU would be appropriate. Speaking of the ToU, I think you meant to write "(link at the bottom of every page)", as that is more accurate. Respect for this law is so central to NPOV & CoI that it merits summarizing the key requirements of the US law, not just referring readers to external documents. -- Elvey ( talk) 19:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
It's not clear to me that the disclosure requirement can be met by paid advocates under the FTC's current regs unless we do something pretty radical like create and allow some sort of notification template on article pages to provide the sort of disclosure the FTC legally requires. The FTC is explicit, "If a disclosure is necessary … and it is not possible to make the disclosure clearly and conspicuously, then that ad should not be disseminated. I see past edits of paid advocates as typically meeting the FTC's definition of 'endorsements' requiring clear and conspicuous disclosure. -- Elvey ( talk) 19:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
They are not allowed without disclosure and I think it's clear that disclosure would not be possible on an article page without "crapping up the user experience" (to quote a PR guy). The whole document covers lots of unrelated stuff so may be a bit confusing on first reading. The important part is § 255.5 Disclosure of material connections and the best examples under it are numbers 7 and 8. So maybe we could refer directly to them and prohibit that type of activity. Smallbones( smalltalk) 20:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Why is it so important that we green-light edits on behalf of a university? Surely the nature of the edits is more important than the type of organisation? It would be better to have policy wording which reflects the general case rather than distracting readers with irrelevant detail about which sector the sponsoring organisation works in. bobrayner ( talk) 00:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I noticed the Wiki-PR fiasco in the news this morning, and it motivated me to come back to Wikipedia to check out some items in a current area of interest of mine -- the history and business of canning. Imagine my surprise when I saw that Wikipedia has an article about Silgan Holdings, but when I clicked "What links here", I saw that one of the few inbound links was from Wikipedia:Reward board? Apparently a Wikipedia administrator SGGH accepted $75 to write the article about the business. Is this acceptable under the conflict of interest policy? Certainly it is "paid editing", but is it "paid advocacy editing" (as I see Jimmy Wales naming the problem)? Some clarification of this particular case would be welcome. -- I'm not that crazy ( talk) 13:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I guess Wikipedia_talk:No_paid_advocacy should have addressed that issue, but I had problems opening that page. I want to mention a difference between this page and Wikipedia:No paid advocacy
This page says:
"If either of the following applies to you:.[....]then you are very strongly discouraged from editing Wikipedia in areas where those external relationships could reasonably be said to undermine your ability to remain neutral."
While No paid advocacy says:
"Editors with a financial conflict of interest (such as business owners and public-relations professionals acting on their behalf) must not edit affected articles directly."
Well, how bad do people think editing with conflict of interest (especially financially) is? I am quite new with this issue, so please let me know more.-- 朝鲜的轮子 ( talk) 14:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
It tells: "Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing...". This must be changed because any advocacy and "advocates" (no matter paid or not) are forbidden, not discouraged, according to WP:SOAP. My very best wishes ( talk) 17:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
At best the text may be rephrased somewhere in the descriptive part, explicitly saying that Sue conveyed our policy to wide piblic and not that we are doing this because Sue said it is a Good Thing. Even better, this phrase may be added to some wikipedia articles about wikipedia, its community and policies. Staszek Lem ( talk) 04:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC) Following the above logic, A replaced the intto ref to WMF with:
because:
I'm a very well read and well educated native born 'Merican, and when I first read that quote I thought to myself, "some kind of bad guy, i reckon" The term "black hat" does not have a crystal clear common meaning in common culture. (maybe it does among web geeks.. I don't know) What does it mean, to you all who find its meaning obvious? I am curious if you even think the same thing.... Jytdog ( talk) 20:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
More about "black hat": Sorry to say, but it seems Sue does not have a clue what she was talking about. Paid editing is not about malice. Advocacy is not malice: it is everyday life: it is one of freedoms to put forth their opinions. The fact that wikipedia refuses to be a forum does not make people with opinions bad. There is no reason to vilify paid editors in order to disallow them or severely restrict them. Staszek Lem ( talk) 22:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, you should know better than pushing changes into a policy by means of revert war without reaching consensus for change in talk page. Staszek Lem ( talk) 22:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
It looks like I'm the 4th editor to revert S Lem's very questionable removal of text, and the removal of a reference. There looks like 1 possible editor supporting him here. I don't mind Lem discussing this further and seeing if he can get some support, but I absolutely freak out when somebody deletes a footnote. Smallbones( smalltalk) 02:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, if you insist that an opinion of a small board which far from being always right is to be singled out among the work of the whole wikipedia community, who am I to fight this when you don't respond to my arguments and just revert me? Good luck with selecting a new prophet for wikipedia. It is ironic that a policy about paid advocacy is to be based on an opinion of a paid body. Staszek Lem ( talk) 15:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
AFAIK wikipedia is inclined to forbid paid editing because in the case of malice it will great waste of resource to fight it, not because it is always malice. I am willing to extend WP:AGF unto paid editors, but I am equally willing to severely restrict them. Staszek Lem ( talk) 16:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
All the bickering above failed to address my main objection: is it true or false that the following construct is a logical fallacy?
I don't mind the presence of the opinions of Sue Gardner or Barack Obama or Al Gore in any description of our policy (e.g., in the lede), but I strongly object presenting their opinion in the definition of our policy, because I think the above reasoning is fallacious. Please prove that I am wrong. It will be OK if WMF includes a statement about paid advocacy into their Terms of Usage and therefore the POV of WMF becomes defining for wikipedia policy. In this case the correct footnote would be to the WMF ToU. Still, historically it will be important to note that the opinion of wikipedia community about paid editing predates the opinion of WMF by years and objections to these are of the same gist as objections to advertising in wikipedia: loss of freedom and independence. Staszek Lem ( talk) 15:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Since nobody else shares my opinion, I am willing to attribute it to my paranoia :-) and close this thread. Sorry for disturbance. Staszek Lem ( talk) 18:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC) |
We tend to dislike getting paid by a specific organization or individual, for relatively obvious reasons. At the same time we seem to accept and even endorse GLAM volunteers such as Wikipedians-in-Residence at museums or such, presumably because we assume that non-profits who hire them are "the good guys". For that reason I also assume that we are ok with this interesting initiative - gathering funds for Wikipedia contributions via Kickstarter ( [1], [2]). If you agree, I'd like to add the Wikipedian-in-Residence example to WP:PAID. I am not sure how to write up the Kickstarter idea, but it may be worth discussing the feasibility and impact on this if this idea catches up in the long run. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm having trouble determining what to do, if anything, about an account that seems to only exist to add references to his own academic papers/books. It doesn't appear particularly egregious so asking here seems more appropriate than the noticeboard. Specifically, I noticed this diff which came up on my watchlist, Dbaronov adding a citation (presumably his own work).
Looking at his contributions, the only edits made were to add references to his work in 10 different articles (from topics like the one on positivism, linked above, to Slavery in Brazil. The sources don't appear to be self-published and seem to be at least relevant to the articles in question, but it does seem somewhere between WP:SELFCITE, and WP:SELFPROMOTE to add mere references without actually adding to the article (i.e. no inline citations, just the book listed at the end). Does that count as "excessive"? Would it be worse to add the book and cite it in context?
-- Rhododendrites ( talk) 15:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Giving this a bump (to the extent Wikipedia works that way :) ) because the same user added another couple citations: 1 2. I started to leave him a message but stopped again, realizing once I said "read these" there was no real cause for him to do anything differently based on current wording. -- Rhododendrites ( talk) 17:26, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Conflict_of_Interest_templating_bot,
Please comment at the bot request. Currently, of the 500 pages to which the bot added the tag, there have been "...at least two requested edits made by clicking on links in the bot added notice, see Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Theo's_Little_Bot/coi_tracker/bot. You can find the requested edits on the linked talkpages doing a cmd/ctrl-F for 'The above requested edit was made by clicking on a link in an automatically added'." Theopolisme ( talk) 15:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Is it a conflict of interest for a photographer to add their photos on Wikipedia articles or specifically produce new photos for adding them on specific Wikipedia articles? Cogiati ( talk) 22:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
OK, Cogiati, I'll tell you when "cosplay is an important element of the character", as evidenced in the article: Mai Shiranui#Cosplay and modeling (this is possibly the best example to bring right now). And I hope you understand now. -- Niemti ( talk) 08:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh and another example: Jade (Mortal Kombat)#Cosplay and criticism. Now go and compare with Tira (Soulcalibur) where the word "cosplay" isn't even mentioned. maybe it;'s an overlooked aspect or whatever, and you're free to add it if you find reliable sources, but right now there's nothing. -- Niemti ( talk) 08:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Please see the relevant WP:AN discussion: WP:AN#WMF cease and desist against WikiPR. Thanks Ross Hill ( talk) 21:09, 19 Nov 2013 ( UTC) 21:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Is it ok to edit articles about political opponents? Is it ok for government agencies to edit articles about opposition groups? Is it ok for employees of government agencies to edit articles critical of their agency or government? Is it ok to try to prevent reliably sourced but politically embarrassing or confidential material from being posted on Wikipedia? Is it ok to edit articles about critics of your policies, industry or business? Ghostofnemo ( talk) 04:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, I wasn't taking it to that extreme. If I work for the FBI, I shouldn't be editing the Occupy movement article. And if I'm a campaign worker for Barack Obama, I shouldn't be editing the article about Mitt Romney. I don't see how the proposal above could be construed in the manner you are suggesting. Ghostofnemo ( talk) 00:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I was glad to see that the Board of Trustees recently strengthened and reconfirmed its "BLP resolution", the foundation of our BLP policy. See [3] In most ways this was simply an extension of BLP protection to images, and a clarification that that is what they meant all along. But I was pleased to see that in both versions they addressed paid editing in the same language.
"Many people create articles that are overly promotional in tone: about themselves, people they admire, or those they are paid to represent. These are not neutral, and have no place in our projects." Resolution:Media about living people, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, 2013
I'll suggest that we include this quote in the section on paid editing together with some strengthening language in the guideline itself, such as "Paid editors who insert material into an article that is promotional in tone may be presumed to be violating our policy on neutrality, and thus banned." I'll also suggest that this makes our paid advocacy section sound pretty wishy-washy. I'll suggest specific language in a few minutes, but something like "Any and all advocacy is prohibited by our policy WP:NOT. In particular advertising, promotion, public relations, and marketing are specifically prohibited. All prohibitions on paid editing also apply to paid advocacy."
Specifics will follow. Smallbones( smalltalk) 21:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Moved to Talk:Serpentine Galleries
Smallbones( smalltalk) 15:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
"Many people create articles that are overly promotional in tone: about themselves, people they admire, or those they are paid to represent. These are not neutral, and have no place in our projects." Resolution:Media about living people, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, 2013
Paid editing is the practice of accepting money to edit Wikipedia. Paid editors who insert material that is promotional in tone into an article may be presumed to be violating our policy on neutrality. This may lead to the editor being blocked.
The act of accepting money or rewards for editing Wikipedia is not always problematic. There may be benign examples of editors being paid – for example, a university asking you to write up its warts-and-all history. Another benign example is the reward board, a place where editors can post financial and other incentives: it is a transparent process, the goal of which is usually to raise articles to featured- or good-article status (but be wary of editors asking you to make edits that challenge your sense of neutrality). If you intend to participate in this kind of paid editing, transparency and neutrality are key. Editing in a way that biases the coverage of Wikipedia or that violates our core policies is not acceptable.
Paid advocacy – that is, being paid to promote something or someone on Wikipedia – is a subset of paid editing. All advocacy is prohibited by our policy WP:NOT. In particular advertising, promotion, public relations, and marketing are specifically prohibited. All rules on paid editing also apply to paid advocacy. Any apparent paid advocacy, apparent violation of U.S. law on covert advertising (see below) or presumed violations of WP:NPOV may result in the editor being blocked.'"
Sue Gardner, executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation, wrote in October 2013 that the Foundation regards paid advocacy as a "black hat" practice that "violates the core principles that have made Wikipedia so valuable for so many people." [1]
If either of the following applies to you:
then you are very strongly discouraged from 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. You may use the article talk pages to suggest changes, or the {{ request edit}} template to request edits, and should provide full disclosure of your connection. Requested edits are subject to the same editorial standards as any other, and may not be acted upon. The writing of "puff pieces" and advertisements is prohibited.
All editors are expected to follow United States law on undisclosed paid advocacy, which is described by the Federal Trade Commission at Endorsement Guidelines and Dot Com Disclosures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smallbones ( talk • contribs)
I obviously disagree with davidwr. A major problem has been that paid editors have said that they don't believe that this "guideline" is a "rule" and thus they can ignore it. The Board of Trustees has stated, and now restated, that promotional articles by paid editors are not neutral and have no place on Wikipedia. We need to make that perfectly clear to paid editors, simply informing them that this conduct is not allowed. As far as any banning or punishment goes, of course we do not jump in and ban on sight, but we need to inform them that the rule here is a policy WP:NPOV, for which they may be banned.
David goes on about the many procedures that we will take in the case that a paid editor breaks the policy. Of course we have procedures that apply whenever anybody breaks a policy, but we do not confuse the issue by repeating at length the procedures while we are trying to describe the policy. Those procedures (but not piling procedures on top of procedures) are a given. A clean clear explanation of the policy and the Board's resolution are needed first. Smallbones( smalltalk) 17:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
It's worth bearing in mind that the problem with COI is not that it does lead to promotional editing, but that it will tend to lead to it. So focusing on the actual edits at any given time is a mistake. The problem is the tendency of that editor to be unable to be loyal, if you like, to Wikipedia, because he is loyal to someone else. From the guideline, paraphrasing Davies:
First, a person P with a conflict of interest may fail to exercise good judgment; he writes that people with a conflict often "esteem too highly their own reliability," and fail to realize the extent to which the conflict has affected their judgment. Second, if the people relying on P do not know that she has a conflict of interest, P is betraying their trust by allowing them to believe that her judgment is more reliable than it is. Third, even if P does inform those who rely on her that she has a conflict of interest, thereby removing the moral problem, the technical problem will remain, namely that P will be less competent than she would otherwise be, and in addition may bring the reputation of others, including her profession, into disrepute.
However, Wikipedia recognizes the large volume of good faith contributions by people who have some affiliation to the articles they work on.Such affiliations (good or bad) should be evaluated irrespective of the type of enterprise they come from. That's our challenge.-- Mike Cline ( talk) 19:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Two things struck me about the Board's BLP restatement
Normally, Board resolutions aren't applied directly into deletion discussions, etc. unless the application is so overwhelmingly obvious that there's no point in citing a policy. Resolutions instruct or inform policy, so are just as strong or meaningful as policy; they should just be incorporated into policy or guidelines to work in everyday situations, however. But nobody has seemed to notice the paid part of this resolution yet. Therefore, I think it is important that we note this here.
Presuming a policy violation is stronger than just a guideline - maybe this should go into WP:NPOV, but it would likely reach the target audience - paid editors - better here. Maybe in both places. Maybe at WP:NOT as well. Blocking is normally not mentioned in guidelines, but I think if we are to let paid editors know what is expected of them, that a notice of the possibility of being blocked for this is appropriate.
The short version - Having the Boards statement quoted plus "Paid editors who insert material that is promotional in tone into an article may be presumed to be violating our policy on neutrality." in the financial section, is definitely needed. I think the other stuff adds to it and explains it, but is not anywhere as important.
As far as "this is not perfect" or "but it doesn't matter if nobody enforces it" or other comments I may have misunderstood from above: I sympathize, but we gotta do everything we can do, IMHO. As far as "this discriminates against businesses" I don't see it - it's about all paid editors. Smallbones( smalltalk) 19:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
"Paid editors who insert material that is promotional in tone into an article may be presumed to be violating our policy on neutrality."how would you evaluate these two situations (notionalized to protect the innocent). Both represent real-world edits in WP.
As far as the endangered species example: there are official lists for this type of thing, so it seems just a matter of reliable sources. RS say endangered - the factual content stays in. RS say "not endangered" - the non-factual content is removed. Same for Acme, with the possible addition of whether product X is relevant or overwieghted. Endangered species is obviously relevant for "genus species", but whether Grey Goose vodka or Brand X vodka is included in a certain candy is probably not relevant (Last time I checked, vodka is defined by the US customs service as "tasteless and odorless neutral grain spirits")
As far as difficulty defining "paid", I don't see it as a major difficulty. Odd cases around the edges, perhaps, but we all know when we're getting paid to do something. Advocacy is pretty simple to define for major groups, lawyers, public relations folks, marketers - by contract, ethical codes, and even criminal law in some cases - these folks must do their employer's bidding, must advocate for their employers. A criminal attorney who posted a NPOV summary of his client's case on Wikipedia would stand a good chance of going to jail and would be disbarred. PR people who did the same over periods that included good news and bad news would almost certainly be breaking the standard industry ethical codes (e.g. saying "management didn't handle that situation very well.") Defining "promotional-tone"? Writing down a fool-proof definition might be difficult (and only valuable to fools), but almost every American is trained from an early age to identify promotional material, and I think most people can identify most promotional material without any difficulty. Smallbones( smalltalk) 04:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article. Clearly an editor could be “declared” a paid editor through direct or indirect self-declaration, but can someone be “declared” a “Paid Editor” on mere suspicion and/or circumstantial evidence? A review of a lot of different COIN investigations reveals a propensity for the following type of accusations:
Circumstantially, the contribution history looks exactly like one would expect from a COI account.In your view, what evidence should the community demand to “declare” someone a paid editor? Should we allow the use of mere “suspicion” (circumstantial evidence) or do we need to require something more empirical or factual? Maybe said more succinctly: Do we want to take a Rules of evidence or Vigilante approach to "paid editing"? -- Mike Cline ( talk) 00:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I think that the qualifiers "paid" and "promotional" (both conditions must be present) make it a well calibrated and universally valid statement. Just as with the definition of a COI at the beginning of the policy, the most universally valid statements (the true "guiding light" ones) by their very nature are short on implementation detailed and sometimes are practically unenforceable. And, as a matter of fact, this one has only a few areas where it as is is enforceable, which is to prevent blatant Wikipedia-POVing industries from becoming pervasive. These are NOT reasons to not adopt a "guiding light" statement,and so the "guiding light" statement should be adopted. We should spiffy it up, keep it as one succinct statement, and pass it. North8000 ( talk) 13:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the word "paid" is not a trifling matter. It is not uncommon for editors to claim that, even though they are employees of the subjects of articles, they are not specifically "paid" to edit articles. We want to encompass situations in which (supposedly) an enthusiastic employee decides to get brownie points from his employer by souping up the article on his company or boss. Same for situations in which the editor is unregistered but the IP is traceable directly to the subject of the article. Coretheapple ( talk) 20:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Also, as anyone can see by wandering into deletion discussions for businesses, there are just so many articles created by businesses about themselves that it creates a real burden for the rest of us. I believe that in many if not most instances businesses are simply ignorant of Wikipedia rules. Someone, possibly Mike, suggested that some kind of mechanism be created in which persons creating accounts sign off on a warning in which it is stated in boldface that editors are not to create articles about themselves or employers. That really needs to be implemented. Coretheapple ( talk) 20:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Paid editing is the practice of accepting money to edit Wikipedia. Paid editors who insert material that is promotional in tone into an article may be presumed to be violating our policy on neutrality. [2] Advertising, promotion, public relations, and marketing are prohibited by our policy WP:NOT.
The act of accepting money or rewards for editing Wikipedia is not always problematic. There may be benign examples of editors being paid – for example, a university asking you to write up its warts-and-all history. Another benign example is the reward board, a place where editors can post financial and other incentives: it is a transparent process, the goal of which is usually to raise articles to featured- or good-article status (but be wary of editors asking you to make edits that challenge your sense of neutrality). If you intend to participate in this kind of paid editing, transparency and neutrality are key. Editing in a way that biases the coverage of Wikipedia or that violates our core policies is not acceptable.
References at bottom of page
Coretheapple, I don't think anyone wants them to be "airtight" necessarily, it's just right now they are somewhat toothless, and out of line with the position of the foundation. Part of the issue on getting consensus seems to stem from editors that work in friendly topic areas, generally with a small group of other interested editors, some of which could technically be said to have a conflict of interest, but who are generally interested in neutral coverage of their topic and of building the encyclopedia.
On the other side of the coin, you have the administrative types (with or without the bit) who are fighting a crushing tidal wave of promotional crap and biased editing from people who's main interest in Wikipedia is what it says about them, their company, or their client. We've always found it hard to get a good solid policy tool to deal with the crapflood without making the "enthusiast" type editors fear witchhunts against them. Gigs ( talk) 22:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
In response to the discussions above, I thought I’d lay out a bit of a strawman relative to the types of concerns I have. I personally think “paid editing” as we call it is bad for WP. But I believe that subjective, indiscriminate COI inquisitions are even worse and cause far more overall and long-term damage to the encyclopedia than the relatively few instances of “paid editing” that seem to occur. The inquisitions occur because we’ve created vague, subjectively interpretable language that gives license to the I know it when I see it behavior that allows any editor to be accusatory to another editor without regard to WP:AGF. Vague language, and the subjective enforcement it engenders also further reinforces community biases against different classes of editors and organizations. It is truly mindboggling how a community that prides itself on NPOV, RS and V has 20/20 vision (I know it when I see it) when it comes to commercial organizations but is effectively blind (I know it when I see it) relative to more favored classes of organizations and editors. So the below strawman language is something I think is much less vague and fairly addresses “Paid, COI, Advocacy and such” across all classes of editors and organizations. Examples are notional and probably need more refinement to ensure all classes and editors and organizations are fairly addressed. (Please feel free to add to the examples that you might think fit into the category. The language does not address the more complex COIs that “competition”, “family relationships” and such bring to the table. The language does not at this point address specific enforcement processes which would need to be crafted at some point.
“Non-paid advocacy”: Editors who have a close association such as membership, volunteer status, participation in governance, etc. with any organization (see WP:ORG for the WP definition of an organization) or the organization’s activities should not engage in editing any Wikipedia articles that would give the appearance that they are promoting or advocating the mission, purpose, policies, political positions, products, services or otherwise POVs of the organization. Wikipedia contributions to such articles when such associations exist must comply with WP:NPOV and WP:RS and will subject to close community scrutiny.
Remember, for this most part this is just a strawman to describe/define the nexus between undesirable COI/article editing. Although vagueness or subjectivity cannot be removed completely, I do think it conveys a more precise and fair application of COI concerns to all classes of editors and organizations. It does not address enforcement processes because those would necessarily follow consensus on what is and what is not an undesirable COI. Any thoughts? -- Mike Cline ( talk)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest&diff=585324530&oldid=584281012 was just reverted. Should we go with the language the FTC uses, or the language we use here at wikipedia, or what?-- Elvey ( talk) 01:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
What happened to the Karl Marx bit? "Friedrich Engels would have had difficulty editing the Karl Marx article, because he was a close friend, follower, and collaborator of Marx" (seen here) is a simple and easily understood expression of our position on writing about people to whom you're closely connected. Right now is the first time I've looked at this policy page in some years, and I can't understand the removal of simple bits, such as the Marx example, the Wikipedia:Suggestions for COI compliance link, and the "How not to handle COI" section. Nyttend ( talk) 12:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
The example is simply wrong. For a more pertinent example, would there be anything wrong with Bill Clinton editing the Hillary Clinton article? The answer is the same as for anyone else editing that article: Maybe; it depends on the content of the edit.
If we would simply focus on content and ignore who is editing, in almost all contexts, the benefits to WP would vastly outweigh any possible minor detriments. Even someone with a history of vandalism or disruption can make an edit that improves an article.
Every edit should be judged on its own merits without regard to who made the edit. Any policies or guidelines contrary to this fundamental principle, including WP:COI, are detrimental to Wikipedia. --B2C
-- B2 C 01:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Dear wikipedia-community,
My superior, a professor of mathematics, has asked me to translate (and post) her German wikipedia-article into the english one.
As I am not sure whether this is a conflict of interest, I would like to ask you how to proceed with this.
The article would contain the following text:
Goulnara Nurullovna Arzhantseva, also Goulnara Arjantseva (Russian: Гульна́ра Нурулловна Аржа́нцева; * 28 November 1973, Perm Oblast, Soviet Union) is a Russian mathematician. She is professor of algebra at the Faculty of Mathematics of the University of Vienna and one of the two Deputy Directors of the Erwin Schrödinger International Institute for Mathematical Physics. Arzhantseva attended the Kolmogorov’s specialized physics & mathematics school for young talents of the Moscow State University. Afterwards she studied mathematics at the same university. She earned her PhD in 1998 with a dissertation on “Generic Properties of Finitely Presented Groups” under the guidance of Professor Alexander Ol’shanskii. Thereafter she had academic positions at the University of Geneva and the University of Neuchâtel (both Switzerland). In October 2010 she started her position as professor at the University of Vienna. She is the first female full professor of mathematics at the University of Vienna since its creation in 1365. Her research areas are algebra, metric geometry, low-dimensional topology as well as geometric, analytic, combinatorial and computational aspects of group theory. Arzhantseva received a Starting Independent Researcher Grant of the European Research Council (ERC) in 2010.
Thank you in advance, 2001:62A:4:2F00:FC60:A188:EC6B:5B04 ( talk) 10:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
This guideline should cover both the "wiki-classic" position of
and the recently-reverted position of
The first is what I call a "real" conflict of interest. Only the editor knows if he has one. The second is one that is sometimes called an "apparent" conflict of interest. In many if not most cases they are one in the same. But not always. This guideline should cover both.
If there is initial support for the idea that both real and apparent COIs are problems that need to be covered by this guideline in the next few days, I plan on opening an WP:RFC or WP:CENT, as a change this substantial needs broader support than just those of people watching this page. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 01:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
I've rewritten the first two (now three) paragraphs to move the lead more clearly away from the idea that COI is about an internal mental state. That involved removing "when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest."
I think that sentence was causing confusion by making editors think it was okay to write an article about themselves or a client, so long as they believed that advancing Wikipedia's interests was more important to them. But COI is about a person's relationships, not about their beliefs. It is a fact about the world, not about a state of mind.
I've edited the first two paragraphs to make that clearer. I've also added a sentence to clarify that the word interest in conflict of interest doesn't refer to something a person is simply curious about. So the top of the lead now reads:
Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, your family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial or other connections. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. A common definition of conflict of interest is "a set of circumstances that creates a risk that professional judgment or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest." [1]
The word interest in conflict of interest refers to something that a person has a stake in or stands to benefit from, not something he is merely curious about; the word (from Middle English, interess) originally meant "the possession of a share in or a right to something." [2]
Conflict of interest is not an internal mental state; it is not about beliefs or biases, although it can lead to bias. It is about a person's roles and relationships in the world, and the tendency to bias that we assume exists when roles conflict. [3] Deciding that someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgment about that person or his actual beliefs. [4] Examples of conflict-of-interest editing would be writing about a spouse, legal opponent or client. In each case the person's primary role (that of being a Wikipedian while editing) is undermined by a secondary role. The conflict of interest these relationships create has been described as "dirt in a sensitive gauge." [5]
SlimVirgin (talk) 00:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Add: I'm not going to push this further and I won't notify the community, its a suggestion. Those with more interest and expertise in the area can take it from here.( Littleolive oil ( talk) 22:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC))
This statement is wide open to subjective interpretation and especially with the final "other connection." which could include anything and everything and in the wrong hands will be used against editors.
Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, your family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial or other connections. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest.
I don't want to argue this with you, Slim. I respect your knowledge and the body of work you've done on policy. I see problems when a policy is open to subjective interpretation. I would like to see this opened up so there is community input, but I'll leave it at that. Best wishes. And in the end there is only one way to establish a COI and that is in the edits. Anything else is speculation.( Littleolive oil ( talk) 22:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC))
Thanks Atama for the comment. I understand COI. What I've seen lots of is misuse, so a change in wording that will in my mind cause even more problems is a concern. COI on Wikipedia is by no means clear cut in the minds of its users which is why I'd opt for more input, but I won't push that further. Nice to see you around again.:O)( Littleolive oil ( talk) 22:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC))
No one is wrong here, not Dreadstar with his often extraordinary clarity of thinking, you Atama, with your experience, and fair and compassionate handling of COI issues, nor Slim Virgin with her extensive, perhaps unmatched knowledge of policy. You are each looking at this from a different angle, given your experience. My concern is that key words were removed in the rewrite SV did which may change how the policy reads, allowing for interpreations that could lead to abuses. COI has been discussed extensively in the last year or so including in RfCs and is highly contentious. Clearly there is no definitive, stable (as much as is possible to have stability in a guideline), position within the community on COI except what exists in the guideline. That guideline, in my opinion, should then not be changed except with larger community input so that the policy reflects the community as a whole. I'd like to say more but have to rush. I may be able to revisit this later today. Best wishes all.( Littleolive oil ( talk) 16:32, 25 January 2014 (UTC))
"As Wikipedians and encyclopedists, our job is to put the interests of the encyclopedia first. Anyone who prioritizes outside interests over the interests of the encyclopedia is subject to a conflict of interest. Material that appears to promote the interests or visibility of an article's author, family members, or associates places the author in a conflict of interest. When editors write to promote their own interests, their contributions often show a characteristic lack of connection to anything the general reader might want to consult as a reference..." [4]
Just to be clear about the differences we're discussing. This is for the beginning of the lead:
Proposal
Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, your family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial or other connections. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. A common definition of conflict of interest is "a set of circumstances that creates a risk that professional judgment or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest." [1] The word interest in conflict of interest refers to something that a person has a stake in or stands to benefit from, not something he is merely curious about; the word (from Middle English, interess) originally meant "the possession of a share in or a right to something." [2] Conflict of interest is not an internal mental state; it is not about beliefs or biases, although it can lead to bias. It is about a person's roles and relationships in the world, and the tendency to bias that we assume exists when roles conflict. [3] Deciding that someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgment about that person or his actual beliefs. [4] Examples of conflict-of-interest editing would be writing about a spouse, legal opponent or client. In each case the person's primary role (that of being a Wikipedian while editing) is undermined by a secondary role. The conflict of interest these relationships create has been described as "dirt in a sensitive gauge." [5]
|
Current
A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor. COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia to promote your own interests, including your business or financial interests, or those of your external relationships, such as with family, friends or employers. [1] When an external relationship undermines, or could reasonably be said to undermine, your role as a Wikipedian, you have a conflict of interest. This is often expressed as: when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.
|
I think that is an improvement. The only addition I'd like to see is that an identified/potential COI is not in itself an indication of inappropriate editing, and could actually be a benefit to the project, such as when an editor write knowledgeably (ie. with appropriate reference to WP:V & WP:RS & WP:NPOV) about a subject which they are interested, such as a published expert on trains, who writes about trains, or a scientists writes about science. -- Iantresman ( talk) 00:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Are you thinking that the proposed lead should include a summary of that, just to emphasize the point? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:06, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
The introductory sentence states: "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia to promote your own interests". I don't believe there is an editor on Wikipedia who doesn't editor articles in which they are interested, that coincides with promoting them (actually or apparently). I don't think this is what the sentence means, and there should be a clear differentiation between editing articles in which you are editing, and editing such articles inappropriately. -- Iantresman ( talk) 19:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
The original COI guideline was at Wikipedia:Editing with a conflict of interest, created by Eloquence in August 2006 and merged in October that year into what had been Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines. The combination of those two pages became the current WP:COI.
First sentence of Wikipedia:Editing with a conflict of interest: "In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a clear conflict of interest, or where such a conflict can or might be justifiably assumed based on the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged." So the idea that there was once a version that said COI editing was okay, so long as the edits were neutral, is false so far as I can tell. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps some of the recent disagreement could be bridged by the use of the phrase "potential conflict of interest". The way I'd use this is that if you are writing about a topic where you have any of the many connections that have been discussed here you have a potential conflict of interest. That only become an actual conflict of interest when those interests, well, actually conflict, that is when something one is doing on behalf of one's non-Wikipedian interests conflict with Wikipedia's interest of producing an excellent neutral encyclopedia article. For example, someone writing about him- or herself always has a potential conflict of interest, but there is no actual conflict of interest in (for example) correcting your own inaccurately reported birthdate. - Jmabel | Talk 03:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Atama, just picking up on something you wrote above, I would like us to move away from the idea that actual or potential COIs are badges of shame. They're not judgments about the editor at all, or about anyone's honesty, integrity, biases or lack thereof.
They are simply statements about the world (you are married to this person, you are employed by that person, you are the author of this book), so you have a potential COI with respect to those articles and an actual COI if you edit them. But it's a comment about the relationship, not a judgment about the editor. And even actual COIs can be managed (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Escape, disclosure or management). SlimVirgin (talk) 20:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
I'll just remind folks of the last sentence in the intro.
"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) 04:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, my concern with a definition - current or proposed - is how it ties in with the consequences. We all agree some people take a COI to an extreme and would, if left unchecked, actually forbid anyone with actual knowledge from editing as an expert (see WP:CHEESE). This is my concern with the "yourself, your family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial or other connections. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest." Whoa! Combine that with an extreme "no one with a COI can edit" position and we have a mess. So that's my concern. The above statement does express a legitimate concern, but it must be paired with an answer to the "so what do we do if someone has a COI?" consequences. Am I making sense here? OTOH, this is less problematic: "A common definition of conflict of interest is "a set of circumstances that creates a risk that professional judgment or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest." But again, how do we demonstrate this? We can really only look at results. I don't think it's possible for anyone to be 100% neutral on anything if you actually have expertise with the topic; of course, you have a viewpoint. But if you are a good faith editor, you learn to recognize and acknowledge your own bias so that you find a way to either write neutrally or have someone else check your work. So, my conclusion is that before we go off to the races defining a COI here, we need to trot over to the other drama boards where they are ranting about COI and paid editing and look at what the consequences are for having a COI. Montanabw (talk) 05:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Any external relationship – personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal – can trigger a conflict of interest. How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense. An article about a band should not be written by the band's manager, and a biography should not be written by the subject's spouse. But subject-matter experts are welcome to contribute to articles in their areas of expertise, while being careful to make sure that their external relationships in that field do not interfere with their primary role on Wikipedia.
If there's a problem with the sentence: "Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest" (but really I can't see why it would be problematic, and it's already in the guideline), we could rephrase:
Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, your family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial or other connections. The source of a conflict of interest is always an external relationship of some kind. A common definition of conflict of interest is "a set of circumstances that creates a risk that professional judgment or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest." [1]
Would that be an improvement? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, your family, friends, clients, employers, or financial connections. The source of a conflict of interest is an external relationship of some kind. A common definition of conflict of interest is "a set of circumstances that creates a risk that professional judgment or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest."
SV .. just no. I'm sorry you're wrong here. All due respect to your tenure here, but the changes you're trying to make are major changes that affect the fundamental meaning of "wp:coi". Dreadstar is right in what he says above. I know you watch over policy pages; and I respect and admire that ... but you're trying to make fundamental changes here that would need to go through a major RfC. "COI" was never meant to be a "Bacon number" ... respect the history and what Wikipedia is supposed to be please. — Ched ZILLA 23:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Full disclosure: I just created Thunder (mascot). For the sake of playing with how extreme things could go, let's see: I'm rooting for the Broncos, I own Arabian horses and as I think I noted somewhere in here that I happen to be a co-owner of a sweet little 22 year old mare who was bred by Thunder's owner (though I didn't buy from her and have never actually met the lady). Seriously, shall I disclose my COI at the article? (Hmph!) I'm mostly joking, but I'm serious inasmuch as some people would probably say "yes." So I'm putting it up as a theoretical. Montanabw (talk) 00:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
My understanding is that WP:PRIVACY is more important than WP:COI (which is not to suggest that WP:COI is unimportant). If an editor's off-wiki website includes information which may suggest a possible conflict if interest, can it be alluded to without WP:OUTING them? Does it matter what this information is? eg. Suppose I'm a member of the Vegetarian Society, can another editor claim a COI if I edit articles on the vegetarianism? What about if I am the press officer of said society? What if I own and run a vegetarian store? -- Iantresman ( talk) 13:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
IMHO, most of the time when I come across a problematic COI, the content they add sucks for other reasons anyway, (NPOV, Notability, copyvio, etc.) and that provides ample grounds for doing what needs to be done. Usually a problematic COI will come back at those of us trying to fix the problem with a "don't you know who I am and that I am so terribly important in my Godlike nature!" rant that self-outs voluntarily. Then they act like a troll and get themselves blocked. Or else they just slink off. If someone with a COI can write a neutral, notable, original, sourced article, then what the heck, let them, tag is you insist, but why go on a witchhunt after them? Montanabw (talk) 05:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
We regularly identify and "out" spammers and sockpuppeteers. Privacy is not a blank check to abuse Wikipedia. One recent case was an IP editor pretending to be someone independent suggesting changes to his biography. The IP was 1 digit different from a previously SPI/CU confirmed IP of the subject of the biography. I'm not going to pretend that is someone other than the subject of the article because of "privacy" concerns, that's ludicrous. I thanked him for suggesting changes on talk, and chastised him for continuing to pretend to be different people. If that is "outing" people, then I will continue to "out" people because to do otherwise would be ridiculous. Gigs ( talk) 16:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
A person:
Gray areas. Edits articles related to:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gigs ( talk • contribs)
@ SlimVirgin I think we would draw the line in a similar position regarding what constitutes COI. Other editors have their own thoughts. I think the guidelines needs to give better examples of (a) clear problematic COI (b) (b) a healthy topic interest, but not a conflict of interest. The advantage of doing this is to reduce the number of spurious WP:COIN cases, reduce the harassment of some editors by others. -- Iantresman ( talk) 11:23, 29 January 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 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
I've opened an RfC on whether Wikipedia:No paid advocacy (BRIGHTLINE) should become policy. See Wikipedia talk:No paid advocacy. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for the ignorance in this question (although I did just read the last couple of years of archives). Can we discuss promoting this guideline to a policy? Every organization I know has a COI policy that is easy to find and actionable. Let's have one. Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 02:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
WITHDRAWN. I want to concentrate the conversation at WP:NOT. Sorry I brought this up here. Jytdog ( talk) 04:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Three points:
I'm tempted to remove this little section.
-- Elvey ( talk) 01:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
We cover German and UK law, but not US law. My reading of the law as laid down by the FTC is that undisclosed paid advocacy is illegal. The FTC issued "Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising". The FTC stated (in March 2013) that the Guides
My reading of the Guides is that the FTC indicates that a paid editor would be considered an endorser and liable for any false statements she made on wikipedia. Furthermore, the seller is also liable for misrepresentations made through the endorsement. (See Examples 3 and 5 on page 4 at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2009/10/091005revisedendorsementguides.pdf.)
Furthermore, per § 255.5, (page 10): The paid position of the editor must be fully disclosed, because it might materially affect the weight or credibility of the endorsement (i.e., the connection is not reasonably expected by the audience), so such CoI disclosure is a legal requirement, but e make no mention of this here! (See Examples 7, 8, and 9 on page 12 at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2009/10/091005revisedendorsementguides.pdf.)
I'm not sure we should be adding info on the US law here, to match the UK and German info; doesn't all such info belong in a policy, not a guideline?
I strongly encourage the community to have policy lay out the legal liability issues with such editing. -- Elvey ( talk) 06:52, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
"All editors are responsible for following U.S. law on undisclosed advertising, which is described by the Federal Trade Commission at Endorsement Guidelines and Dot Com Disclosures"
If/when the US CoI law issue is laid out in policy, I think a reference to our ToU would be appropriate. Speaking of the ToU, I think you meant to write "(link at the bottom of every page)", as that is more accurate. Respect for this law is so central to NPOV & CoI that it merits summarizing the key requirements of the US law, not just referring readers to external documents. -- Elvey ( talk) 19:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
It's not clear to me that the disclosure requirement can be met by paid advocates under the FTC's current regs unless we do something pretty radical like create and allow some sort of notification template on article pages to provide the sort of disclosure the FTC legally requires. The FTC is explicit, "If a disclosure is necessary … and it is not possible to make the disclosure clearly and conspicuously, then that ad should not be disseminated. I see past edits of paid advocates as typically meeting the FTC's definition of 'endorsements' requiring clear and conspicuous disclosure. -- Elvey ( talk) 19:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
They are not allowed without disclosure and I think it's clear that disclosure would not be possible on an article page without "crapping up the user experience" (to quote a PR guy). The whole document covers lots of unrelated stuff so may be a bit confusing on first reading. The important part is § 255.5 Disclosure of material connections and the best examples under it are numbers 7 and 8. So maybe we could refer directly to them and prohibit that type of activity. Smallbones( smalltalk) 20:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Why is it so important that we green-light edits on behalf of a university? Surely the nature of the edits is more important than the type of organisation? It would be better to have policy wording which reflects the general case rather than distracting readers with irrelevant detail about which sector the sponsoring organisation works in. bobrayner ( talk) 00:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I noticed the Wiki-PR fiasco in the news this morning, and it motivated me to come back to Wikipedia to check out some items in a current area of interest of mine -- the history and business of canning. Imagine my surprise when I saw that Wikipedia has an article about Silgan Holdings, but when I clicked "What links here", I saw that one of the few inbound links was from Wikipedia:Reward board? Apparently a Wikipedia administrator SGGH accepted $75 to write the article about the business. Is this acceptable under the conflict of interest policy? Certainly it is "paid editing", but is it "paid advocacy editing" (as I see Jimmy Wales naming the problem)? Some clarification of this particular case would be welcome. -- I'm not that crazy ( talk) 13:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I guess Wikipedia_talk:No_paid_advocacy should have addressed that issue, but I had problems opening that page. I want to mention a difference between this page and Wikipedia:No paid advocacy
This page says:
"If either of the following applies to you:.[....]then you are very strongly discouraged from editing Wikipedia in areas where those external relationships could reasonably be said to undermine your ability to remain neutral."
While No paid advocacy says:
"Editors with a financial conflict of interest (such as business owners and public-relations professionals acting on their behalf) must not edit affected articles directly."
Well, how bad do people think editing with conflict of interest (especially financially) is? I am quite new with this issue, so please let me know more.-- 朝鲜的轮子 ( talk) 14:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
It tells: "Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing...". This must be changed because any advocacy and "advocates" (no matter paid or not) are forbidden, not discouraged, according to WP:SOAP. My very best wishes ( talk) 17:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
At best the text may be rephrased somewhere in the descriptive part, explicitly saying that Sue conveyed our policy to wide piblic and not that we are doing this because Sue said it is a Good Thing. Even better, this phrase may be added to some wikipedia articles about wikipedia, its community and policies. Staszek Lem ( talk) 04:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC) Following the above logic, A replaced the intto ref to WMF with:
because:
I'm a very well read and well educated native born 'Merican, and when I first read that quote I thought to myself, "some kind of bad guy, i reckon" The term "black hat" does not have a crystal clear common meaning in common culture. (maybe it does among web geeks.. I don't know) What does it mean, to you all who find its meaning obvious? I am curious if you even think the same thing.... Jytdog ( talk) 20:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
More about "black hat": Sorry to say, but it seems Sue does not have a clue what she was talking about. Paid editing is not about malice. Advocacy is not malice: it is everyday life: it is one of freedoms to put forth their opinions. The fact that wikipedia refuses to be a forum does not make people with opinions bad. There is no reason to vilify paid editors in order to disallow them or severely restrict them. Staszek Lem ( talk) 22:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, you should know better than pushing changes into a policy by means of revert war without reaching consensus for change in talk page. Staszek Lem ( talk) 22:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
It looks like I'm the 4th editor to revert S Lem's very questionable removal of text, and the removal of a reference. There looks like 1 possible editor supporting him here. I don't mind Lem discussing this further and seeing if he can get some support, but I absolutely freak out when somebody deletes a footnote. Smallbones( smalltalk) 02:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, if you insist that an opinion of a small board which far from being always right is to be singled out among the work of the whole wikipedia community, who am I to fight this when you don't respond to my arguments and just revert me? Good luck with selecting a new prophet for wikipedia. It is ironic that a policy about paid advocacy is to be based on an opinion of a paid body. Staszek Lem ( talk) 15:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
AFAIK wikipedia is inclined to forbid paid editing because in the case of malice it will great waste of resource to fight it, not because it is always malice. I am willing to extend WP:AGF unto paid editors, but I am equally willing to severely restrict them. Staszek Lem ( talk) 16:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
All the bickering above failed to address my main objection: is it true or false that the following construct is a logical fallacy?
I don't mind the presence of the opinions of Sue Gardner or Barack Obama or Al Gore in any description of our policy (e.g., in the lede), but I strongly object presenting their opinion in the definition of our policy, because I think the above reasoning is fallacious. Please prove that I am wrong. It will be OK if WMF includes a statement about paid advocacy into their Terms of Usage and therefore the POV of WMF becomes defining for wikipedia policy. In this case the correct footnote would be to the WMF ToU. Still, historically it will be important to note that the opinion of wikipedia community about paid editing predates the opinion of WMF by years and objections to these are of the same gist as objections to advertising in wikipedia: loss of freedom and independence. Staszek Lem ( talk) 15:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Since nobody else shares my opinion, I am willing to attribute it to my paranoia :-) and close this thread. Sorry for disturbance. Staszek Lem ( talk) 18:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC) |
We tend to dislike getting paid by a specific organization or individual, for relatively obvious reasons. At the same time we seem to accept and even endorse GLAM volunteers such as Wikipedians-in-Residence at museums or such, presumably because we assume that non-profits who hire them are "the good guys". For that reason I also assume that we are ok with this interesting initiative - gathering funds for Wikipedia contributions via Kickstarter ( [1], [2]). If you agree, I'd like to add the Wikipedian-in-Residence example to WP:PAID. I am not sure how to write up the Kickstarter idea, but it may be worth discussing the feasibility and impact on this if this idea catches up in the long run. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm having trouble determining what to do, if anything, about an account that seems to only exist to add references to his own academic papers/books. It doesn't appear particularly egregious so asking here seems more appropriate than the noticeboard. Specifically, I noticed this diff which came up on my watchlist, Dbaronov adding a citation (presumably his own work).
Looking at his contributions, the only edits made were to add references to his work in 10 different articles (from topics like the one on positivism, linked above, to Slavery in Brazil. The sources don't appear to be self-published and seem to be at least relevant to the articles in question, but it does seem somewhere between WP:SELFCITE, and WP:SELFPROMOTE to add mere references without actually adding to the article (i.e. no inline citations, just the book listed at the end). Does that count as "excessive"? Would it be worse to add the book and cite it in context?
-- Rhododendrites ( talk) 15:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Giving this a bump (to the extent Wikipedia works that way :) ) because the same user added another couple citations: 1 2. I started to leave him a message but stopped again, realizing once I said "read these" there was no real cause for him to do anything differently based on current wording. -- Rhododendrites ( talk) 17:26, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Conflict_of_Interest_templating_bot,
Please comment at the bot request. Currently, of the 500 pages to which the bot added the tag, there have been "...at least two requested edits made by clicking on links in the bot added notice, see Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Theo's_Little_Bot/coi_tracker/bot. You can find the requested edits on the linked talkpages doing a cmd/ctrl-F for 'The above requested edit was made by clicking on a link in an automatically added'." Theopolisme ( talk) 15:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Is it a conflict of interest for a photographer to add their photos on Wikipedia articles or specifically produce new photos for adding them on specific Wikipedia articles? Cogiati ( talk) 22:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
OK, Cogiati, I'll tell you when "cosplay is an important element of the character", as evidenced in the article: Mai Shiranui#Cosplay and modeling (this is possibly the best example to bring right now). And I hope you understand now. -- Niemti ( talk) 08:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh and another example: Jade (Mortal Kombat)#Cosplay and criticism. Now go and compare with Tira (Soulcalibur) where the word "cosplay" isn't even mentioned. maybe it;'s an overlooked aspect or whatever, and you're free to add it if you find reliable sources, but right now there's nothing. -- Niemti ( talk) 08:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Please see the relevant WP:AN discussion: WP:AN#WMF cease and desist against WikiPR. Thanks Ross Hill ( talk) 21:09, 19 Nov 2013 ( UTC) 21:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Is it ok to edit articles about political opponents? Is it ok for government agencies to edit articles about opposition groups? Is it ok for employees of government agencies to edit articles critical of their agency or government? Is it ok to try to prevent reliably sourced but politically embarrassing or confidential material from being posted on Wikipedia? Is it ok to edit articles about critics of your policies, industry or business? Ghostofnemo ( talk) 04:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, I wasn't taking it to that extreme. If I work for the FBI, I shouldn't be editing the Occupy movement article. And if I'm a campaign worker for Barack Obama, I shouldn't be editing the article about Mitt Romney. I don't see how the proposal above could be construed in the manner you are suggesting. Ghostofnemo ( talk) 00:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I was glad to see that the Board of Trustees recently strengthened and reconfirmed its "BLP resolution", the foundation of our BLP policy. See [3] In most ways this was simply an extension of BLP protection to images, and a clarification that that is what they meant all along. But I was pleased to see that in both versions they addressed paid editing in the same language.
"Many people create articles that are overly promotional in tone: about themselves, people they admire, or those they are paid to represent. These are not neutral, and have no place in our projects." Resolution:Media about living people, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, 2013
I'll suggest that we include this quote in the section on paid editing together with some strengthening language in the guideline itself, such as "Paid editors who insert material into an article that is promotional in tone may be presumed to be violating our policy on neutrality, and thus banned." I'll also suggest that this makes our paid advocacy section sound pretty wishy-washy. I'll suggest specific language in a few minutes, but something like "Any and all advocacy is prohibited by our policy WP:NOT. In particular advertising, promotion, public relations, and marketing are specifically prohibited. All prohibitions on paid editing also apply to paid advocacy."
Specifics will follow. Smallbones( smalltalk) 21:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Moved to Talk:Serpentine Galleries
Smallbones( smalltalk) 15:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
"Many people create articles that are overly promotional in tone: about themselves, people they admire, or those they are paid to represent. These are not neutral, and have no place in our projects." Resolution:Media about living people, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, 2013
Paid editing is the practice of accepting money to edit Wikipedia. Paid editors who insert material that is promotional in tone into an article may be presumed to be violating our policy on neutrality. This may lead to the editor being blocked.
The act of accepting money or rewards for editing Wikipedia is not always problematic. There may be benign examples of editors being paid – for example, a university asking you to write up its warts-and-all history. Another benign example is the reward board, a place where editors can post financial and other incentives: it is a transparent process, the goal of which is usually to raise articles to featured- or good-article status (but be wary of editors asking you to make edits that challenge your sense of neutrality). If you intend to participate in this kind of paid editing, transparency and neutrality are key. Editing in a way that biases the coverage of Wikipedia or that violates our core policies is not acceptable.
Paid advocacy – that is, being paid to promote something or someone on Wikipedia – is a subset of paid editing. All advocacy is prohibited by our policy WP:NOT. In particular advertising, promotion, public relations, and marketing are specifically prohibited. All rules on paid editing also apply to paid advocacy. Any apparent paid advocacy, apparent violation of U.S. law on covert advertising (see below) or presumed violations of WP:NPOV may result in the editor being blocked.'"
Sue Gardner, executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation, wrote in October 2013 that the Foundation regards paid advocacy as a "black hat" practice that "violates the core principles that have made Wikipedia so valuable for so many people." [1]
If either of the following applies to you:
then you are very strongly discouraged from 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. You may use the article talk pages to suggest changes, or the {{ request edit}} template to request edits, and should provide full disclosure of your connection. Requested edits are subject to the same editorial standards as any other, and may not be acted upon. The writing of "puff pieces" and advertisements is prohibited.
All editors are expected to follow United States law on undisclosed paid advocacy, which is described by the Federal Trade Commission at Endorsement Guidelines and Dot Com Disclosures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smallbones ( talk • contribs)
I obviously disagree with davidwr. A major problem has been that paid editors have said that they don't believe that this "guideline" is a "rule" and thus they can ignore it. The Board of Trustees has stated, and now restated, that promotional articles by paid editors are not neutral and have no place on Wikipedia. We need to make that perfectly clear to paid editors, simply informing them that this conduct is not allowed. As far as any banning or punishment goes, of course we do not jump in and ban on sight, but we need to inform them that the rule here is a policy WP:NPOV, for which they may be banned.
David goes on about the many procedures that we will take in the case that a paid editor breaks the policy. Of course we have procedures that apply whenever anybody breaks a policy, but we do not confuse the issue by repeating at length the procedures while we are trying to describe the policy. Those procedures (but not piling procedures on top of procedures) are a given. A clean clear explanation of the policy and the Board's resolution are needed first. Smallbones( smalltalk) 17:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
It's worth bearing in mind that the problem with COI is not that it does lead to promotional editing, but that it will tend to lead to it. So focusing on the actual edits at any given time is a mistake. The problem is the tendency of that editor to be unable to be loyal, if you like, to Wikipedia, because he is loyal to someone else. From the guideline, paraphrasing Davies:
First, a person P with a conflict of interest may fail to exercise good judgment; he writes that people with a conflict often "esteem too highly their own reliability," and fail to realize the extent to which the conflict has affected their judgment. Second, if the people relying on P do not know that she has a conflict of interest, P is betraying their trust by allowing them to believe that her judgment is more reliable than it is. Third, even if P does inform those who rely on her that she has a conflict of interest, thereby removing the moral problem, the technical problem will remain, namely that P will be less competent than she would otherwise be, and in addition may bring the reputation of others, including her profession, into disrepute.
However, Wikipedia recognizes the large volume of good faith contributions by people who have some affiliation to the articles they work on.Such affiliations (good or bad) should be evaluated irrespective of the type of enterprise they come from. That's our challenge.-- Mike Cline ( talk) 19:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Two things struck me about the Board's BLP restatement
Normally, Board resolutions aren't applied directly into deletion discussions, etc. unless the application is so overwhelmingly obvious that there's no point in citing a policy. Resolutions instruct or inform policy, so are just as strong or meaningful as policy; they should just be incorporated into policy or guidelines to work in everyday situations, however. But nobody has seemed to notice the paid part of this resolution yet. Therefore, I think it is important that we note this here.
Presuming a policy violation is stronger than just a guideline - maybe this should go into WP:NPOV, but it would likely reach the target audience - paid editors - better here. Maybe in both places. Maybe at WP:NOT as well. Blocking is normally not mentioned in guidelines, but I think if we are to let paid editors know what is expected of them, that a notice of the possibility of being blocked for this is appropriate.
The short version - Having the Boards statement quoted plus "Paid editors who insert material that is promotional in tone into an article may be presumed to be violating our policy on neutrality." in the financial section, is definitely needed. I think the other stuff adds to it and explains it, but is not anywhere as important.
As far as "this is not perfect" or "but it doesn't matter if nobody enforces it" or other comments I may have misunderstood from above: I sympathize, but we gotta do everything we can do, IMHO. As far as "this discriminates against businesses" I don't see it - it's about all paid editors. Smallbones( smalltalk) 19:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
"Paid editors who insert material that is promotional in tone into an article may be presumed to be violating our policy on neutrality."how would you evaluate these two situations (notionalized to protect the innocent). Both represent real-world edits in WP.
As far as the endangered species example: there are official lists for this type of thing, so it seems just a matter of reliable sources. RS say endangered - the factual content stays in. RS say "not endangered" - the non-factual content is removed. Same for Acme, with the possible addition of whether product X is relevant or overwieghted. Endangered species is obviously relevant for "genus species", but whether Grey Goose vodka or Brand X vodka is included in a certain candy is probably not relevant (Last time I checked, vodka is defined by the US customs service as "tasteless and odorless neutral grain spirits")
As far as difficulty defining "paid", I don't see it as a major difficulty. Odd cases around the edges, perhaps, but we all know when we're getting paid to do something. Advocacy is pretty simple to define for major groups, lawyers, public relations folks, marketers - by contract, ethical codes, and even criminal law in some cases - these folks must do their employer's bidding, must advocate for their employers. A criminal attorney who posted a NPOV summary of his client's case on Wikipedia would stand a good chance of going to jail and would be disbarred. PR people who did the same over periods that included good news and bad news would almost certainly be breaking the standard industry ethical codes (e.g. saying "management didn't handle that situation very well.") Defining "promotional-tone"? Writing down a fool-proof definition might be difficult (and only valuable to fools), but almost every American is trained from an early age to identify promotional material, and I think most people can identify most promotional material without any difficulty. Smallbones( smalltalk) 04:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article. Clearly an editor could be “declared” a paid editor through direct or indirect self-declaration, but can someone be “declared” a “Paid Editor” on mere suspicion and/or circumstantial evidence? A review of a lot of different COIN investigations reveals a propensity for the following type of accusations:
Circumstantially, the contribution history looks exactly like one would expect from a COI account.In your view, what evidence should the community demand to “declare” someone a paid editor? Should we allow the use of mere “suspicion” (circumstantial evidence) or do we need to require something more empirical or factual? Maybe said more succinctly: Do we want to take a Rules of evidence or Vigilante approach to "paid editing"? -- Mike Cline ( talk) 00:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I think that the qualifiers "paid" and "promotional" (both conditions must be present) make it a well calibrated and universally valid statement. Just as with the definition of a COI at the beginning of the policy, the most universally valid statements (the true "guiding light" ones) by their very nature are short on implementation detailed and sometimes are practically unenforceable. And, as a matter of fact, this one has only a few areas where it as is is enforceable, which is to prevent blatant Wikipedia-POVing industries from becoming pervasive. These are NOT reasons to not adopt a "guiding light" statement,and so the "guiding light" statement should be adopted. We should spiffy it up, keep it as one succinct statement, and pass it. North8000 ( talk) 13:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the word "paid" is not a trifling matter. It is not uncommon for editors to claim that, even though they are employees of the subjects of articles, they are not specifically "paid" to edit articles. We want to encompass situations in which (supposedly) an enthusiastic employee decides to get brownie points from his employer by souping up the article on his company or boss. Same for situations in which the editor is unregistered but the IP is traceable directly to the subject of the article. Coretheapple ( talk) 20:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Also, as anyone can see by wandering into deletion discussions for businesses, there are just so many articles created by businesses about themselves that it creates a real burden for the rest of us. I believe that in many if not most instances businesses are simply ignorant of Wikipedia rules. Someone, possibly Mike, suggested that some kind of mechanism be created in which persons creating accounts sign off on a warning in which it is stated in boldface that editors are not to create articles about themselves or employers. That really needs to be implemented. Coretheapple ( talk) 20:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Paid editing is the practice of accepting money to edit Wikipedia. Paid editors who insert material that is promotional in tone into an article may be presumed to be violating our policy on neutrality. [2] Advertising, promotion, public relations, and marketing are prohibited by our policy WP:NOT.
The act of accepting money or rewards for editing Wikipedia is not always problematic. There may be benign examples of editors being paid – for example, a university asking you to write up its warts-and-all history. Another benign example is the reward board, a place where editors can post financial and other incentives: it is a transparent process, the goal of which is usually to raise articles to featured- or good-article status (but be wary of editors asking you to make edits that challenge your sense of neutrality). If you intend to participate in this kind of paid editing, transparency and neutrality are key. Editing in a way that biases the coverage of Wikipedia or that violates our core policies is not acceptable.
References at bottom of page
Coretheapple, I don't think anyone wants them to be "airtight" necessarily, it's just right now they are somewhat toothless, and out of line with the position of the foundation. Part of the issue on getting consensus seems to stem from editors that work in friendly topic areas, generally with a small group of other interested editors, some of which could technically be said to have a conflict of interest, but who are generally interested in neutral coverage of their topic and of building the encyclopedia.
On the other side of the coin, you have the administrative types (with or without the bit) who are fighting a crushing tidal wave of promotional crap and biased editing from people who's main interest in Wikipedia is what it says about them, their company, or their client. We've always found it hard to get a good solid policy tool to deal with the crapflood without making the "enthusiast" type editors fear witchhunts against them. Gigs ( talk) 22:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
In response to the discussions above, I thought I’d lay out a bit of a strawman relative to the types of concerns I have. I personally think “paid editing” as we call it is bad for WP. But I believe that subjective, indiscriminate COI inquisitions are even worse and cause far more overall and long-term damage to the encyclopedia than the relatively few instances of “paid editing” that seem to occur. The inquisitions occur because we’ve created vague, subjectively interpretable language that gives license to the I know it when I see it behavior that allows any editor to be accusatory to another editor without regard to WP:AGF. Vague language, and the subjective enforcement it engenders also further reinforces community biases against different classes of editors and organizations. It is truly mindboggling how a community that prides itself on NPOV, RS and V has 20/20 vision (I know it when I see it) when it comes to commercial organizations but is effectively blind (I know it when I see it) relative to more favored classes of organizations and editors. So the below strawman language is something I think is much less vague and fairly addresses “Paid, COI, Advocacy and such” across all classes of editors and organizations. Examples are notional and probably need more refinement to ensure all classes and editors and organizations are fairly addressed. (Please feel free to add to the examples that you might think fit into the category. The language does not address the more complex COIs that “competition”, “family relationships” and such bring to the table. The language does not at this point address specific enforcement processes which would need to be crafted at some point.
“Non-paid advocacy”: Editors who have a close association such as membership, volunteer status, participation in governance, etc. with any organization (see WP:ORG for the WP definition of an organization) or the organization’s activities should not engage in editing any Wikipedia articles that would give the appearance that they are promoting or advocating the mission, purpose, policies, political positions, products, services or otherwise POVs of the organization. Wikipedia contributions to such articles when such associations exist must comply with WP:NPOV and WP:RS and will subject to close community scrutiny.
Remember, for this most part this is just a strawman to describe/define the nexus between undesirable COI/article editing. Although vagueness or subjectivity cannot be removed completely, I do think it conveys a more precise and fair application of COI concerns to all classes of editors and organizations. It does not address enforcement processes because those would necessarily follow consensus on what is and what is not an undesirable COI. Any thoughts? -- Mike Cline ( talk)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest&diff=585324530&oldid=584281012 was just reverted. Should we go with the language the FTC uses, or the language we use here at wikipedia, or what?-- Elvey ( talk) 01:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
What happened to the Karl Marx bit? "Friedrich Engels would have had difficulty editing the Karl Marx article, because he was a close friend, follower, and collaborator of Marx" (seen here) is a simple and easily understood expression of our position on writing about people to whom you're closely connected. Right now is the first time I've looked at this policy page in some years, and I can't understand the removal of simple bits, such as the Marx example, the Wikipedia:Suggestions for COI compliance link, and the "How not to handle COI" section. Nyttend ( talk) 12:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
The example is simply wrong. For a more pertinent example, would there be anything wrong with Bill Clinton editing the Hillary Clinton article? The answer is the same as for anyone else editing that article: Maybe; it depends on the content of the edit.
If we would simply focus on content and ignore who is editing, in almost all contexts, the benefits to WP would vastly outweigh any possible minor detriments. Even someone with a history of vandalism or disruption can make an edit that improves an article.
Every edit should be judged on its own merits without regard to who made the edit. Any policies or guidelines contrary to this fundamental principle, including WP:COI, are detrimental to Wikipedia. --B2C
-- B2 C 01:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Dear wikipedia-community,
My superior, a professor of mathematics, has asked me to translate (and post) her German wikipedia-article into the english one.
As I am not sure whether this is a conflict of interest, I would like to ask you how to proceed with this.
The article would contain the following text:
Goulnara Nurullovna Arzhantseva, also Goulnara Arjantseva (Russian: Гульна́ра Нурулловна Аржа́нцева; * 28 November 1973, Perm Oblast, Soviet Union) is a Russian mathematician. She is professor of algebra at the Faculty of Mathematics of the University of Vienna and one of the two Deputy Directors of the Erwin Schrödinger International Institute for Mathematical Physics. Arzhantseva attended the Kolmogorov’s specialized physics & mathematics school for young talents of the Moscow State University. Afterwards she studied mathematics at the same university. She earned her PhD in 1998 with a dissertation on “Generic Properties of Finitely Presented Groups” under the guidance of Professor Alexander Ol’shanskii. Thereafter she had academic positions at the University of Geneva and the University of Neuchâtel (both Switzerland). In October 2010 she started her position as professor at the University of Vienna. She is the first female full professor of mathematics at the University of Vienna since its creation in 1365. Her research areas are algebra, metric geometry, low-dimensional topology as well as geometric, analytic, combinatorial and computational aspects of group theory. Arzhantseva received a Starting Independent Researcher Grant of the European Research Council (ERC) in 2010.
Thank you in advance, 2001:62A:4:2F00:FC60:A188:EC6B:5B04 ( talk) 10:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
This guideline should cover both the "wiki-classic" position of
and the recently-reverted position of
The first is what I call a "real" conflict of interest. Only the editor knows if he has one. The second is one that is sometimes called an "apparent" conflict of interest. In many if not most cases they are one in the same. But not always. This guideline should cover both.
If there is initial support for the idea that both real and apparent COIs are problems that need to be covered by this guideline in the next few days, I plan on opening an WP:RFC or WP:CENT, as a change this substantial needs broader support than just those of people watching this page. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 01:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
I've rewritten the first two (now three) paragraphs to move the lead more clearly away from the idea that COI is about an internal mental state. That involved removing "when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest."
I think that sentence was causing confusion by making editors think it was okay to write an article about themselves or a client, so long as they believed that advancing Wikipedia's interests was more important to them. But COI is about a person's relationships, not about their beliefs. It is a fact about the world, not about a state of mind.
I've edited the first two paragraphs to make that clearer. I've also added a sentence to clarify that the word interest in conflict of interest doesn't refer to something a person is simply curious about. So the top of the lead now reads:
Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, your family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial or other connections. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. A common definition of conflict of interest is "a set of circumstances that creates a risk that professional judgment or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest." [1]
The word interest in conflict of interest refers to something that a person has a stake in or stands to benefit from, not something he is merely curious about; the word (from Middle English, interess) originally meant "the possession of a share in or a right to something." [2]
Conflict of interest is not an internal mental state; it is not about beliefs or biases, although it can lead to bias. It is about a person's roles and relationships in the world, and the tendency to bias that we assume exists when roles conflict. [3] Deciding that someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgment about that person or his actual beliefs. [4] Examples of conflict-of-interest editing would be writing about a spouse, legal opponent or client. In each case the person's primary role (that of being a Wikipedian while editing) is undermined by a secondary role. The conflict of interest these relationships create has been described as "dirt in a sensitive gauge." [5]
SlimVirgin (talk) 00:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Add: I'm not going to push this further and I won't notify the community, its a suggestion. Those with more interest and expertise in the area can take it from here.( Littleolive oil ( talk) 22:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC))
This statement is wide open to subjective interpretation and especially with the final "other connection." which could include anything and everything and in the wrong hands will be used against editors.
Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, your family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial or other connections. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest.
I don't want to argue this with you, Slim. I respect your knowledge and the body of work you've done on policy. I see problems when a policy is open to subjective interpretation. I would like to see this opened up so there is community input, but I'll leave it at that. Best wishes. And in the end there is only one way to establish a COI and that is in the edits. Anything else is speculation.( Littleolive oil ( talk) 22:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC))
Thanks Atama for the comment. I understand COI. What I've seen lots of is misuse, so a change in wording that will in my mind cause even more problems is a concern. COI on Wikipedia is by no means clear cut in the minds of its users which is why I'd opt for more input, but I won't push that further. Nice to see you around again.:O)( Littleolive oil ( talk) 22:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC))
No one is wrong here, not Dreadstar with his often extraordinary clarity of thinking, you Atama, with your experience, and fair and compassionate handling of COI issues, nor Slim Virgin with her extensive, perhaps unmatched knowledge of policy. You are each looking at this from a different angle, given your experience. My concern is that key words were removed in the rewrite SV did which may change how the policy reads, allowing for interpreations that could lead to abuses. COI has been discussed extensively in the last year or so including in RfCs and is highly contentious. Clearly there is no definitive, stable (as much as is possible to have stability in a guideline), position within the community on COI except what exists in the guideline. That guideline, in my opinion, should then not be changed except with larger community input so that the policy reflects the community as a whole. I'd like to say more but have to rush. I may be able to revisit this later today. Best wishes all.( Littleolive oil ( talk) 16:32, 25 January 2014 (UTC))
"As Wikipedians and encyclopedists, our job is to put the interests of the encyclopedia first. Anyone who prioritizes outside interests over the interests of the encyclopedia is subject to a conflict of interest. Material that appears to promote the interests or visibility of an article's author, family members, or associates places the author in a conflict of interest. When editors write to promote their own interests, their contributions often show a characteristic lack of connection to anything the general reader might want to consult as a reference..." [4]
Just to be clear about the differences we're discussing. This is for the beginning of the lead:
Proposal
Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, your family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial or other connections. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. A common definition of conflict of interest is "a set of circumstances that creates a risk that professional judgment or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest." [1] The word interest in conflict of interest refers to something that a person has a stake in or stands to benefit from, not something he is merely curious about; the word (from Middle English, interess) originally meant "the possession of a share in or a right to something." [2] Conflict of interest is not an internal mental state; it is not about beliefs or biases, although it can lead to bias. It is about a person's roles and relationships in the world, and the tendency to bias that we assume exists when roles conflict. [3] Deciding that someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgment about that person or his actual beliefs. [4] Examples of conflict-of-interest editing would be writing about a spouse, legal opponent or client. In each case the person's primary role (that of being a Wikipedian while editing) is undermined by a secondary role. The conflict of interest these relationships create has been described as "dirt in a sensitive gauge." [5]
|
Current
A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor. COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia to promote your own interests, including your business or financial interests, or those of your external relationships, such as with family, friends or employers. [1] When an external relationship undermines, or could reasonably be said to undermine, your role as a Wikipedian, you have a conflict of interest. This is often expressed as: when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.
|
I think that is an improvement. The only addition I'd like to see is that an identified/potential COI is not in itself an indication of inappropriate editing, and could actually be a benefit to the project, such as when an editor write knowledgeably (ie. with appropriate reference to WP:V & WP:RS & WP:NPOV) about a subject which they are interested, such as a published expert on trains, who writes about trains, or a scientists writes about science. -- Iantresman ( talk) 00:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Are you thinking that the proposed lead should include a summary of that, just to emphasize the point? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:06, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
The introductory sentence states: "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia to promote your own interests". I don't believe there is an editor on Wikipedia who doesn't editor articles in which they are interested, that coincides with promoting them (actually or apparently). I don't think this is what the sentence means, and there should be a clear differentiation between editing articles in which you are editing, and editing such articles inappropriately. -- Iantresman ( talk) 19:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
The original COI guideline was at Wikipedia:Editing with a conflict of interest, created by Eloquence in August 2006 and merged in October that year into what had been Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines. The combination of those two pages became the current WP:COI.
First sentence of Wikipedia:Editing with a conflict of interest: "In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a clear conflict of interest, or where such a conflict can or might be justifiably assumed based on the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged." So the idea that there was once a version that said COI editing was okay, so long as the edits were neutral, is false so far as I can tell. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps some of the recent disagreement could be bridged by the use of the phrase "potential conflict of interest". The way I'd use this is that if you are writing about a topic where you have any of the many connections that have been discussed here you have a potential conflict of interest. That only become an actual conflict of interest when those interests, well, actually conflict, that is when something one is doing on behalf of one's non-Wikipedian interests conflict with Wikipedia's interest of producing an excellent neutral encyclopedia article. For example, someone writing about him- or herself always has a potential conflict of interest, but there is no actual conflict of interest in (for example) correcting your own inaccurately reported birthdate. - Jmabel | Talk 03:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Atama, just picking up on something you wrote above, I would like us to move away from the idea that actual or potential COIs are badges of shame. They're not judgments about the editor at all, or about anyone's honesty, integrity, biases or lack thereof.
They are simply statements about the world (you are married to this person, you are employed by that person, you are the author of this book), so you have a potential COI with respect to those articles and an actual COI if you edit them. But it's a comment about the relationship, not a judgment about the editor. And even actual COIs can be managed (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Escape, disclosure or management). SlimVirgin (talk) 20:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
I'll just remind folks of the last sentence in the intro.
"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) 04:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, my concern with a definition - current or proposed - is how it ties in with the consequences. We all agree some people take a COI to an extreme and would, if left unchecked, actually forbid anyone with actual knowledge from editing as an expert (see WP:CHEESE). This is my concern with the "yourself, your family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial or other connections. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest." Whoa! Combine that with an extreme "no one with a COI can edit" position and we have a mess. So that's my concern. The above statement does express a legitimate concern, but it must be paired with an answer to the "so what do we do if someone has a COI?" consequences. Am I making sense here? OTOH, this is less problematic: "A common definition of conflict of interest is "a set of circumstances that creates a risk that professional judgment or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest." But again, how do we demonstrate this? We can really only look at results. I don't think it's possible for anyone to be 100% neutral on anything if you actually have expertise with the topic; of course, you have a viewpoint. But if you are a good faith editor, you learn to recognize and acknowledge your own bias so that you find a way to either write neutrally or have someone else check your work. So, my conclusion is that before we go off to the races defining a COI here, we need to trot over to the other drama boards where they are ranting about COI and paid editing and look at what the consequences are for having a COI. Montanabw (talk) 05:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Any external relationship – personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal – can trigger a conflict of interest. How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense. An article about a band should not be written by the band's manager, and a biography should not be written by the subject's spouse. But subject-matter experts are welcome to contribute to articles in their areas of expertise, while being careful to make sure that their external relationships in that field do not interfere with their primary role on Wikipedia.
If there's a problem with the sentence: "Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest" (but really I can't see why it would be problematic, and it's already in the guideline), we could rephrase:
Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, your family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial or other connections. The source of a conflict of interest is always an external relationship of some kind. A common definition of conflict of interest is "a set of circumstances that creates a risk that professional judgment or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest." [1]
Would that be an improvement? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, your family, friends, clients, employers, or financial connections. The source of a conflict of interest is an external relationship of some kind. A common definition of conflict of interest is "a set of circumstances that creates a risk that professional judgment or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest."
SV .. just no. I'm sorry you're wrong here. All due respect to your tenure here, but the changes you're trying to make are major changes that affect the fundamental meaning of "wp:coi". Dreadstar is right in what he says above. I know you watch over policy pages; and I respect and admire that ... but you're trying to make fundamental changes here that would need to go through a major RfC. "COI" was never meant to be a "Bacon number" ... respect the history and what Wikipedia is supposed to be please. — Ched ZILLA 23:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Full disclosure: I just created Thunder (mascot). For the sake of playing with how extreme things could go, let's see: I'm rooting for the Broncos, I own Arabian horses and as I think I noted somewhere in here that I happen to be a co-owner of a sweet little 22 year old mare who was bred by Thunder's owner (though I didn't buy from her and have never actually met the lady). Seriously, shall I disclose my COI at the article? (Hmph!) I'm mostly joking, but I'm serious inasmuch as some people would probably say "yes." So I'm putting it up as a theoretical. Montanabw (talk) 00:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
My understanding is that WP:PRIVACY is more important than WP:COI (which is not to suggest that WP:COI is unimportant). If an editor's off-wiki website includes information which may suggest a possible conflict if interest, can it be alluded to without WP:OUTING them? Does it matter what this information is? eg. Suppose I'm a member of the Vegetarian Society, can another editor claim a COI if I edit articles on the vegetarianism? What about if I am the press officer of said society? What if I own and run a vegetarian store? -- Iantresman ( talk) 13:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
IMHO, most of the time when I come across a problematic COI, the content they add sucks for other reasons anyway, (NPOV, Notability, copyvio, etc.) and that provides ample grounds for doing what needs to be done. Usually a problematic COI will come back at those of us trying to fix the problem with a "don't you know who I am and that I am so terribly important in my Godlike nature!" rant that self-outs voluntarily. Then they act like a troll and get themselves blocked. Or else they just slink off. If someone with a COI can write a neutral, notable, original, sourced article, then what the heck, let them, tag is you insist, but why go on a witchhunt after them? Montanabw (talk) 05:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
We regularly identify and "out" spammers and sockpuppeteers. Privacy is not a blank check to abuse Wikipedia. One recent case was an IP editor pretending to be someone independent suggesting changes to his biography. The IP was 1 digit different from a previously SPI/CU confirmed IP of the subject of the biography. I'm not going to pretend that is someone other than the subject of the article because of "privacy" concerns, that's ludicrous. I thanked him for suggesting changes on talk, and chastised him for continuing to pretend to be different people. If that is "outing" people, then I will continue to "out" people because to do otherwise would be ridiculous. Gigs ( talk) 16:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
A person:
Gray areas. Edits articles related to:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gigs ( talk • contribs)
@ SlimVirgin I think we would draw the line in a similar position regarding what constitutes COI. Other editors have their own thoughts. I think the guidelines needs to give better examples of (a) clear problematic COI (b) (b) a healthy topic interest, but not a conflict of interest. The advantage of doing this is to reduce the number of spurious WP:COIN cases, reduce the harassment of some editors by others. -- Iantresman ( talk) 11:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)