User:Bri/COI investigations and outing policy
 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
WP:COIN investigations must proceed, by policy, in accordance with the WP:OUTING policy. In other words, the importance of not outing other editors trumps the need to prevent and investigate COI. So what does this mean for COI investigations? Is it possible to investigate while still remaining in bounds?
In a word, yes. COI investigations can be divided into these classes:
- Those that rely purely on on-wiki evidence
- Those that incorporate off-wiki evidence but it doesn't need to be shared to make a connection
- Those that incorporate off-wiki evidence that does need to be shared to make a connection
Type #1 obviously has no outing issues, nor does #2. Only in case #3 is there a possibility of outing. How then can the investigator share this information? There are established procedures to make this possible, involving email to the oversight mail list. Also, the more editing a COI editor does, the more likely #3 is to become #2, it never goes the other way around.
An overly strict application of WP:OUTING can have a chilling effect on investigators and ultimately bad effects on the Wikipedia project, because investigations are needed (see User:Brianhe/What's wrong with undisclosed paid editing for specifics). Where this is most likely to be felt is when canny sockfarm/meatfarm operators, who use disposable accounts to do their COI/paid editing. COIN in conjunction with SPI, following established policies and procedures, can make a dent in this. Really stopping it will require actions that don't currently appear currently politically tenable.