Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Archive 24

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. 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 20

←

Archive 22

→

Self-promotion via images

An ongoing discussion at AN[1] raises an issue that we might want to consider addressing in this guideline: self-promotion via images. On the one hand, if I provide an image to Wikipedia, either directly or through Commons, I am doing Wikipedia a great favor. We need good images. But as indicated in the AN discussion, there are advantages to the photographer of having images on Wikipedia if the photographer uses his real name, and especially if he inserts his name in the name of the file: e.g. "File:Portrait of James Notableguy by John Doe." It could be a form of advertising for the photogrpaher.

Should the insertion of such photos be considered self-promotion and thus a conflict of interest? I tend to think not.

However, if there is a dispute over the photo, as there was at Donald Trump and other articles in the case being discussed at AN, then I would say yes, that is a conflict of interest and the user should be cautioned in this guideline to avoid such discussions. Comments? Coretheapple (talk) 13:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment: I agree. I don't think Users should be able to promote one of their photos over another, especially if their name is in the filename. They will obviously think their photo is superior to any other photo and will also try to turn the discussion in their favor. Although, I believe that having the photo have your name in the photo is the same as having a company name in the photo. When you are a photographer, you are the company and the photo shouldn't be used, but I doubt anything will be done about that. If the user wants to add their photo to articles that allow it, then fine, if they get rejected, they should only be allowed to start the discussion with the user of why it was rejected and not asking other users to agree that this is the photo that needs to be used. Chase (talk) 16:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

So there are a few aspects to this:

Filenaming - Including an author/business/website in an image's filename. Although most people don't seem to like it, the practice has been upheld as acceptable many times on Commons. More precisely, an author/business/website in the filename is not among the valid reasons for renaming a file. We can gripe about this all we want here, but it's really a conversation to be held on Commons unless we want to do something wacky like creating duplicates of all files with such filenames to host their renamed version only on enwiki. That, I think, is a big discussion that would be best held elsewhere. There are also infinite variations on this. What about people who just add their last name? Or just their initials? What about a little two word phrase or searchable bunch of random characters? Etc.
Basic behavioral issues - If you make a bold edit (replacing an image qualifies), then follow WP:BRD, don't WP:EDITWAR, etc. Taken care of elsewhere.
Non-disclosure - I think it's obvious that COI would apply to any scenario when a person stands to benefit from a particular edit. When advocating for a particular position, including the inclusion of one image over another, disclosure of a potential COI makes sense.
Advocating for one's own image - As long as there's disclosure, I don't think there's a problem with advocating for the merits of one's own image over another as long as it's done on the talk page and there's no disruption of the article. Our other behavioral guidelines already set sensible guidelines for this.

We do have a section on images, which to me seems more about someone with a page-level COI inserting images about that subject rather than someone whose COI is with regard to the image itself.

Perhaps what's needed is just something along the lines of: "It is not controversial for the owner or author of an image to add it to relevant articles, as long as doing so complies with Wikipedia's image use policy. However, because image owners/authors stand to benefit from their work being displayed on Wikipedia, when the use of a particular image is controversial, it is advisable to proceed in accordance with the guidelines on this page, including disclosing ownership/authorship on the talk page." The idea being "don't worry about it... until someone takes issue, and then it's a good idea to mention it's yours". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:39, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

AN/I seems to have taken on this problem for now. John Nagle (talk) 18:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Not speaking to the individual case. speaking only to the include or not include part of this, not the naming.... Generally, this kind of behavior falls under WP:SELFCITE in my view. I suggest amending that paragraph to clarify that as follows: "Using material you have written or published or images you have created is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion - propose the edit on the article's talk page and allow others to review it." Jytdog (talk) 19:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC) (clarify via redaction... Jytdog (talk) 22:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC))

Comment: Surely if a photography is willing to provide a decent photo under Creative Commons, the least we can do if they wish, is credit them in the filename? --Iantresman (talk) 19:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Specifically about the filename, it's really something that only editors, not readers, pay attention to. If I provided an image with the filename ending in "... by Tryptofish", very few readers would actually look to see that filename. Thus, it's not really promotional. On the other hand, it's a reasonable compliance with the "attribution" part of the CC-by-SA license. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- The point is that the photographer is using Wikipedia for self promotion because using Google to search for the photographer's name results in a zillion references to his images because Google promotes items that include the search term. I find it offensive when people try to use Wikipedia's success for self promotion. We don't promote the names of the editors who write the actual content; credits are given in history. Johnuniq (talk) 23:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I believe its time for an update to this, we have been limiting it to articles and namespace thus far and thus why some of the real vandals have been able to fly under the radar cause we do not have an explicit policy against it. I believe its about time we changed that and yes Johnuniq is right, wikipedia is being used as a 'repository" because Google caches all our wikis including commons...If we are going to talk about "attribution" i.e for those not well versed with commons terms is when a photographer releases their images under a "commons creative attribution and/or share-alike licence"..It simply means if we upload his images to commons, we have to attribute him for the use of his images..Now lets take the issue discussed in OP by Coretheapple. Lets use this image (File:Grover Norquist by Gage Skidmore 2.jpg) as an example for an attribution

We have attributed the author's name in the Author section of the image
We have attributed the author's name in the Permission section just below it
We have attributed the author's name in the Licensing section below that
If uploaded by the author himself, it appears in the File History section as well
And finally for photographers who release most of their images to commons, they get a Special Category as well

So tell me, we already give most photographer atleast 2 attributions in an image and yet for some reason, some want more? Its not really the fault of Wikimedia Commons or its policies, it was created to allow photographers to get attribution by using their names in the image byline if necessary but unfortunately, some think its the only way to "promote" their images even though the idea was infact for it to be used by known/published photographers, it has been abused by certain editors and I believe its time we took that into account as well. Self Promotion comes in many ways and in smaller wikis we block users who write an article about themselves on mainspace/userspace promoting a product but we do nothing about 'paid' photographers doing the same?..We need a strong policy on this to deter future abusers--Ste moc 00:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't view simple attribution in a file name as a form of promotion, nor would I be in favor of creating bureaucratic rules making it more onerous for users to add their own image to an article any more than we should make it more difficult for users to add their own text to an article. I do however, strongly oppose any editor edit warring to keep their images in articles and any other editors edit warring to keep any editors images out of an article. If the governing community at Commons wants to create a guideline for keeping artists names out of filenames, they can pursue that. We should not filter content based on who created it or the simple fact that their name appears in the file name.- Mr X 02:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
One of the requirements for adding an image to commons is that the image title needs to be descriptive(policy) and I'm not sure how the name of the person in the image along with the photographer is deemed 'descriptive' in the first place, now lets say if the picture is of the white house taken by Jimbo Wales and he uploads its as "The White House by Jimbo Wales", by looking at the title, all we assume is that its a picture of the white house taken by Jimbo Wales, nothing else, that is not very descriptive now is it? Now as another example, this photographer added an image File:Donald J. Trump at Marriott Marquis NYC September 7th 2016 04.jpg which not only describes the person in the picture, but the location of the picture, the day and even the year it was taken, now that is "descriptive" and the author did not even desire to add his name to the byline of the image as he has been attributed via the author section and via his own category which is something we give photographers who add 20 or more images to commons (if they desire), the rest of the information can easily be added to the picture's "description" section..so now MrX and others who are inquisitive about this, which kind of naming would you prefer?--Ste moc 02:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment - I agree in part with Stemoc, but adding more restrictions to what we already have will probably not go over too well at Commons. Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#User-created_images is a policy whereas COI is a guideline. It doesn't make sense to alter a policy so it will fit a guideline. Watermarking images is discouraged, and I don't have a problem with that since it is branding. The uploader is required to provide a copyright release from the copyright owner, and the two are often the same. In some situations, descriptions must be a bit more detailed, such as with FU where you have a small part of a whole work, and while the whole work is copyrighted by one entity, each part may not be, which is why some descriptions require a bit more detail. We actually have a boatload of restrictions as it is now, and there's certainly no shortage of upload police making sure everything is in order. There is nothing that prevents anyone from using their real name on WP - anonymity is an option, not a requirement. Also keep in mind that we already have a media repository with millions of images, drawings, videos, etc. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry about that, I'm bringing the discussion to commons too..I feel no matter how many rules we make here, at the end of the day, the images are added to commons, not enwiki so a change has to be made there before we can make a change here ...--Ste moc 03:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with folks who say the naming issue needs to be handled at the Commons, for images that are uploaded there. For images that are uploaded in WP, I think we could add something in the WP:SELFCITE section along the lines of: "If you upload an image to Wikipedia, please do not include your byline in the file name." The person will of course claim credit in the licensing section, which is appropriate and fine.

but in my view the problems that arise with conflicted editors are primarily behavioral - namely edit warring or WP:Civil POV pushing... the disruption that happens when a person who created an image (or authored an article they want to cite) demands it be used when independent editors disagree. This guideline should make clear this is not OK and they should yield, as I noted above. Jytdog (talk) 03:59, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

We generally only add non-free images to enwiki so I'm not sure why we would allow a photographer to add a non-free image to enwiki? (With his name in the byline). If the author refuses to release his image on a licence more acceptable by commons then surely, there is no need for his image to be used on enwiki altogether right? Yes, from time to time free images do get added to enwiki (generally unintentionally) so yeah this change might help with that but I'm sure we will one day come up with an option where free images are directly uploaded to common instead of just enwiki..may need some updating with the centralauth feature on mediawiki though..--Ste moc 04:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

A person who takes a photo or creates an image is the "author" ( in copyright law) and is the original owner of the image. He or she might be under contract with some company or some one that requires him or her to assign ownership to the company or person. But who ever owns it, has the power to license it how ever they like. Authorship, ownership, and licensing are three distinct things. So if a hobbyist takes a picture and wants to upload it, they can. They authored it, they own it (so they have the right to license it) and they license it under the cc license or whatever they choose. They still are author and owner but they have chosen to give everyone the right to use the image. Do you see? Jytdog (talk) 04:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

You misunderstood me, generally we add 2 types of WP:NFC images to enwiki, Logos/posters and images of deceased people..If someone wants to use say an image of a deceased person on enwiki which is not free, they can only upload it here and 90% of the time, that image we use is sourced from online so may not have a clear licence but we may still use it under NFC as there is no free option, so lets say If some photographer says, "Ok, you can use my image on enwiki but its not free adn i will not release it in under a free licence, but I also want my name in the byline of the image" so basically the photographer has NOT released the image freely and since the person whose image was requested is dead, we are allowed to add a low-resolution non-free image so why would we accept someone allowing us to use their image just so that they can promote themselves instead of finding 'any other' non-free image which we could use instead?..As i said, my comment is regarding images added to enwiki ONLY, not commons....If we decide to make changes to enwiki policies regarding this, we may need to make this very clear..--Ste moc 05:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh I am sorry, i did misunderstand you. sorry. Jytdog (talk) 06:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Putting aside the issue of file naming, which is beyond our control, what's needed is a rule 1) requiring editors to disclose on article talk pages, conspicuously, that they are creators of the photos in question and 2) a 0RR or 1RR limitation on reverts of their photos. That way editors can still upload photos they have created but limits the extent to which they can make pests of themselves about them. I'm not sure what else is reasonable. We want people to upload pictures they have taken, and I suggest that this makes it a different situation than most COI scenarios dealt with in the guideline. Coretheapple (talk) 12:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
It is absolutely possible to promote your own images in a fashion that goes against best-practice norms. However, I don't think it is a big enough issue to be addressed in this guideline. It can be handled elsewhere and through other forums, such as simply promoting adherence of WP:BRD.

I think the underlying issue here is a misinterpretation of what we mean by conflict of interest (specifically a COI that actually matters). COIs are everywhere, whenever you write something it may be in your interest to keep it there, and you may have a COI to cover your favorite football team, or to write about the school you went to as a child (quite an oft-cited entry-point into editing). These examples however is not what we traditionally come to refer to as COI, and I think it is of utmost importance that we actually keep a rational approach to COI. We can not spell out everything or each possible type of COI! Bloating guidelines with possible examples only results in fewer people reading them, and the gist of them being misinterpreted and ignored: "its not one of the examples".Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 14:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

comment - Core, are you taking into account the 10 requirements of WP:FU that must be met, one of them being that no other free media is available or possible to obtain? With the latter in mind, adding more restrictions to already overly restricted uploads is not helpful, especially considering the rare possibility of an edit war breaking out between two FU images. Discouraging the addition of media that would be impossible to obtain otherwise serves no good purpose. Edit warring is already a policy, so there is nothing in this discussion so far that compels me to support any kind of sanctions against contributors of media. Doing so defies AGF and discriminates against media contributors. We should also keep in mind that technology is changing, so we should be encouraging, not discouraging, media uploads. Of the 10 FU requirements, #8 involves subjectivity which tends to create more disruption than it eliminates. It would be far more helpful to do something about the ambiguity in the FU guideline. Also, as others have eluded to above, few readers if any, will go through the trouble of finding out who authored the media, much less care. Forcing the author of media to disclose same on the article TP is a double whammy especially if the author uploaded under their user name. OTRS has the copyright holder release info which is restricted to OTRS members. You may be opening a can of worms regarding outing. I'm also of the mind that COI disclosures on the TP of articles damages the overall credibility of Wikipedia and leaves readers with the false impression that the article is neither accurate nor trustworthy, despite the fact that it was reviewed and approved by neutral editors, or that the image has no bearing on the credibility of the article. On the other hand, such disclosure of a media author could also be seen as more "publicity" which cancels the reason for adding it. This proposal appears to create more PAG conflicts than the COI it is trying to resolve. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you should re-read my comment. I'm not suggesting any restrictions on uploading images, but would suggest (this is not policy but a guideline) limited reversions and disclosure after uploading them. Coretheapple (talk) 15:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

What is the point of a disclosure? The uploader is visible to all at the file description page... Neither do I see the point of limiting reversions, when that is never done when it comes to other COIs — handling a COI is not about imposing arbitrary limitations.

And it's really not that simple, I've been called out for "self-promotion" because I tried to replace someone's image of their penis with an illustration from an anatomy atlas that I had uploaded. Should I have been limited in the amount of reverts there? Too many rules often has the result that none of them are followed.

No one here is denying that issues exist, but the best way to address them is not by imposing more rules and examples in a guideline. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 15:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

does anybody have a concrete suggestion to amend this guideline, other than the one I proposed above? I suggested amending the WP:SELFCITE paragraph to clarify as follows: "Using material you have written or published or images or videos you have created is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion - propose the edit on the article's talk page and allow others to review it." Folks seem to be in agreement that the COI here can be disruptive; this would address it. Jytdog (talk) 17:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I would oppose those words because they confuse two issues: self-citing, which is discouraged even though this guideline is wishy-washy about it, and taking photographs to illustrate articles, which is welcomed and not merely "allowed within reason". Core's point is the key one, namely that people should not make pests of themselves when adding their own photographs to articles. If something needs to be added, it should be along those lines. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Slim, the disruption happens when the image/video creator attempts to force the image in, over the objections of others. It is exactly analogous to people trying force in a citation to their own article - which is exactly what Coretheapple is saying. Please suggest a change to the above that would be workable for you or alternative language for elsewhere. Jytdog (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Several issues are getting mixed up. Part of the complaint seems to be that photographers sometimes self-promote by adding their names to image files, but that's not mentioned in the proposed text. Apart from the name issue, what's left is that people sometimes edit war to include their own photographs. Is that different from edit warring to retain one's own words? And how is either thing COI? I think there can be COI issues in certain circumstances with images, but how to express it and whether it compares to self-citing would need to be thought through. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

The two issues (naming, and trying to force the image in) were raised in the OP and discussed throughout. As to whether 3RR is all we need... well, again the problem with editors who edit under a COI is that they write bad content and behave badly. Other policies and guidelines cover that bad content and bad behavior; by your logic we should delete this guideline as it is all covered elsewhere. In my view this guideline defines problems that arise when people edit under a COI and provides guidance for how to handle those problems. I think there is clear consensus above that people trying to force images/videos they made into articles over the objections of independent editor is a) a real problem b) something this guideline should address. Jytdog (talk) 18:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I just wanted to mention that my suggestions are consistent with what Chase and Rhododendrites indicated above. Coretheapple (talk)

User:Rhododendrites language is great. Where should that go in the guideline? I think, in WP:SELFCITE. Other suggestions? Jytdog (talk) 01:30, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

The restrictions being proposed here conflict with Creative_Commons_license#Rights. The BY portion of CC-BY-SA 4.0, for example, is non-negotiable because it involves copyright attribution – You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). The Commons repository has millions of images and various other kinds of media that have such licenses which can not be repealed or changed. Attempts to impose further restrictions on editors who contribute free media to the project will, in all likelihood, be met with a great deal of resistance, especially considering the COI guideline, which is at the heart of this discussion, conflicts with our image upload policy and licensing. ^{Atsme📞📧} 8:22 pm, Today (UTC−5)

No, it does not, and the guideline can certainly reaffirm that it does not, in the context of dealing with user conduct here related to images after they are uploaded. Remember that this guideline states best practices related to user conduct. It does not have the force of policy. But it can tell people, in effect, "look, don't be a pest after you've uploaded a file. Play nice." That's all we're talking about here. Coretheapple (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Please explain exactly how asking editors who have created media to mind their conflict of interest and not attempt to force their media into articles over objections by other editors, conflicts with any Wikipedia policy. (or for that matter, any Commons policy - but please keep in mind that policies at the Commons do not govern what we do in en-wiki) Jytdog (talk) 03:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree that putting this in SELFCITE would tend to conflate the two. A separate section on images is preferable, as that would allow language indicating that images are welcome and encouraged (as opposed to self-citations, which are not). Coretheapple (talk) 13:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Core, there clearly is sometimes self-promotion via images. I recall a cosmetic surgeon using before-and-after images to promote a controversial procedure. Apart from the obvious COI, it wasn't even clear that they were real before-and-after images or images of the same woman.

But it's important not to conflate COI with advocacy or with the normal editing process in which people donate their work. Jytdog wrote above that it's fine to ask "editors who have created media to mind their conflict of interest and not attempt to force their media into articles over objections by other editors ..." Substitute created media for written text: "editors who have written text to mind their conflict of interest and not attempt to force their text into articles over objections by other editors ..." SarahSV ^(talk) 20:26, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

SV, the crux of this discussion is an assumed COI of all photographers who use their name in the filename of an uploaded image as "It could be a form of advertising for the photogrpaher. [sic]" In the case you exampled, using images may provide visuals for an editor who has a COI with regards to the article, but the images aren't what created the COI. I agree with you that the editor needs to mind his COI and I have no problem if that was indeed the case here, but it isn't. I oppose the automatic labeling of all photographers & other media uploaders as having a COI that has to be managed or that a COI is even at issue. The issue that arose in the case mentioned above was edit warring, plain and simple. Edit warriors don't need a COI to edit war. I've seen plenty of edit wars and disruption over what image to use in an infobox, and the warriors were not the copyright owners, or photogs. I imagine that any attempt to add restrictions that apply specifically to photogs and/or other media uploaders will not be received well because it is a form of discrimination, and it also conflicts with image upload policy and license attribution for copyrighted material. ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:06, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Photographers' names in file names isn't something we can address here; personally I see nothing wrong with it, but it's a Commons issue. The issue here is whether supplying images is any different from supplying text. No one has argued yet that it is. As things stand, someone edit-warring to insert their images is not acting with a COI any more than someone edit-warring to insert their text is. If an editor's text or images promotes their business or something else in which they have a personal or financial stake (e.g. a cosmetic surgeon writing about or offering photographs of clients), that's a separate issue. To maintain that offering images ipso facto involves COI would require a strong argument. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I have been arguing all through this that the parallel is WP:SELFCITE - which is not content-driven but sourcing driven. The parallel is clear - "this thing I made must be in WP", and that thing is attributed to the RW person. For authors who are self-citing (as we now define that) it is their publication; for someone who created an image/video, it is the image/video. It is not like adding text content, which is not attributed to the RW person except in those cases where an editor discloses their RW identity. The COI arises because there is an obvious motive of promotion that may be at play, which is why in both cases the correct thing is for the author/creator to back off and yield to other editors. Jytdog (talk) 01:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, the automatic labeling of media uploaders as COI editors is a conflict of policy. It is noncompliant with WP:AGF and conflicts with WP:IUP. It will create more disruption than it will resolve, not to mention that we're dealing with established PAGs for both Commons and en.Wiki. I agree with you in that it's "important not to conflate COI with advocacy or with the normal editing process in which people donate their work". Most importantly, we must keep in mind that WP:IUP encourages users to upload their own images, and identifies self-promotion as follows: Images with you, friends or family prominently featured in a way that distracts from the image topic are not recommended for the main namespace; User pages are OK. These images are considered self-promotion and the Wikipedia community has repeatedly reached consensus to delete such images. The latter is much different from what was suggested here as self-promotion. SELFCITE is an offshoot of WP:V which advises editors to exercise caution when considering self-published sources. We're talking apples and oranges. Images lend aesthetic value to an article, not promotional value unless the image itself is of a product being promoted in noncompliance with COI editing. I do not support the generalization that all photographers/media uploaders have a COI, and should be forced to accept such a discriminatory action against them for no good reason. Montanabw provided a good explanation below regarding how we should encourage media uploaders, not discourage them, and our policy supports it. ^{Atsme📞📧} 06:16, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

What is bugging me here is the tone I'm hearing from Jytdog (and Jytdog do clarify if I am misunderstanding you) to the effect that, basically, a self-published image in commons is equivalent to a self-published written source. It isn't. Just as our wikipedia work is released under a free license, our images at commons are also released under a free license. The question if images are being used in a self-promoting manner kind of has to be decided on a case-by-case basis. Clearly, taking myself as an example, I am not a professional photographer—I sometimes take drivebys with my cell phone. On the other hand, a self-promoting photographer has to realize that WP is not an advertising platform, but frankly, if he's so pathetic that he's using WP to promote himself, I don't think that's much to worry about. On one hand, yes, people can get attached to their own stuff and need to not WP:OWN articles. For both our writing and our images, we need to be willing to accept the consensus of the community when something better comes along. So what precisely are we debating here? How to shut down a silly troll who is trying to promote himself by adding his own images to articles where it isn't appropriate? Or is there some gigantic problem that's at the level of the paid editing problem? Frankly, I don't see it. Montanabw^(talk) 06:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Nope, that is not what I am saying. Thanks for asking. I am not saying anything about self-published. I am talking about WP:SELFCITE which is a part of the COI guideline. SELFCITE arose because scientists and other people who author publications too often do WP:REFSPAM, where their goal is to get a citation to their work into WP; they often write some crappy content to hook that onto or just stick it in somewhere. They will edit war, trying to get their citation into WP. The conflict of interest there is clear, yes? That doesn't always happen - sometimes when people cite themselves it is a great contribution. But the same thing can be at play with people adding their own images/videos. Sometimes it is great, but sometimes it turns into spamming widely, or even trying to get just one image/video into WP. The problems arise when other editors disagree, and the creator (who has a COI) won't listen to others because of course the thing they made is great and important, etc, and ends up being disruptive. The same principles should apply. (if you read SELFCITE it says folks are welcome to cite themselves within reason and when it makes sense but to back down if others object; very simple to extend that to images/videos for those cases where there is an argument about whether to include or not) Jytdog (talk) 06:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm. Seems like it's just the standard question of OWNership, mostly. And just a couple of editors. So, taking my examples below (where I wrote articles when there were no images or none that were very good) where I illustrated articles I worked on with images I took and uploaded, explain how I would not be subject to some sort of COI criticism? (I've dealt with people who want to edit-war to include their own images from time to time, I don't view it as much different than editing disputes over content, pet theories, or whatever. Can you clarify form me if we have a big problem, or just a few problematic editors? Montanabw^(talk) 09:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I think that Jytdog is raising a valid but narrow point. I haven't followed this issue, but off the top of my head I would say that uploading images can give rise to a COI under limited circumstances. Professional photographers can use Wikipedia to promote their work. I have no idea if this is a problem or if it has ever happened. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Montanabw, yes one of the behavior problems that editing with a COI leads to is OWN. But more broadly, content and sourcing have to be objected to, based on the relevant policy or guideline. No one can object to a ref or image created by ...say Kim... solely on the grounds that Kim added it to the article. (although if Kim is actually spamming, that behavior makes the addition an issue). So let's say Kim replaces an image of a rabbit in an article with an image that Kim made, and Pat thinks the former image was higher quality in some way, and Pat reverts and says why. Then Kim reverts back with a bunch of emotion and says "this new image is better because blah blah"... WP now has a problem that is difficult in any case but made worse by the underlying COI. That is how COI exacerbates behavior problems in WP. Extending to SELFCITE to media, will just help calm those waters and should not bar anyone from contributing productively. Figureof9 these kinds of issues can arise for sure with professional photographers but the issues can be just as intense with amateur media creators - the external relationship can be driven by ego as well as $. (scientists who REFSPAM don't directly gain financially from doing so - more immediately about ego/reputation...) Jytdog (talk) 19:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break

Just to make sure that I'm understanding this discussion correctly, this is just a discussion and not a plan to change any of the guidelines without community-wide consensus, correct? ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:46, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Community-wide discussions are for changes in policy on fundamental matters, as I understand it. This is far, far less momentous. The aim is here is to discuss wording that will provide guidance for editors on how to play nice after they have uploaded images, so as to head off the kind of sturm und drang we saw recently played out in multiple articles, while at the same time recognizing that we want people to upload photos. Remember that this is a guideline. It guides. Coretheapple (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Core, you know I've always respected your position on many issues, but this one raises some concerns that I'm trying to properly understand and work through. While guidelines are supposed to be as you suggest, I have had a much different experience whenever COI is involved, and I'm certainly not alone. I'm not going to add all the diffs rather I'll suffice it with the fact that formal guidelines have won arguments in much the same way as policies. In fact, what is happening right now - the attempt to add restrictions to Commons images in a COI guideline is very disconcerting. I have not had the best experience with COIN so I may be biased in that regard, but you could also look past the bias and acknowledge the fact that things can go wrong unexpectedly and see it as a problem we need to avoid. I just read some of the arguments at the AN/I discussion, and agree with several. I also don't see a major problem with proposing a MOS naming convention if that's the main issue, but to go further than that based on preconceived notions that image uploaders automatically have a COI is wrong and does more harm to the project than the issues it's trying to resolve. Try to liken it to Proj Med and the many wonderful experts who have graced WP with their talent and knowledge. The same would apply to software developers. Are they automatically guilty of COI? Are they automatically expanding their practice or professional careers? No, of course not, and neither are Commons users. The issue is edit warring, not because of a COI - and from what I understand at the AN/I thread, the uploader tried to replace a photo he shot with another photo he shot - I think this whole issue has been blown out of proportion and needs community-wide input. Meanwhile, I thank you for your kind consideration and if nothing else comes of my suggestions, I thank you kindly for at least taking the time to read my comments. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:14, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

But it's hard for me to address your points as you keep reading things into this discussion that aren't there. I suggest that you narrowly approach this as I am doing, which is what users should do after they've uploaded photos. The photos are there. Now what's the nice way to proceed? How they upload photos, how they name them, is beyond the scope of a Wikipedia behavioral guideline. Coretheapple (talk) 17:29, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

If you'll look back through my comments, you will see my suggestions. I've repeated some of them below:

Change the upload template
Suggest naming conventions in the image upload policy
Consider each issue on a case by case basis because you will find it has nothing to do with COI and everything to do with editing behavior. We all have motivations, which I also explained, and in the case of images, I'm more inclined to believe it's vanity.

Hope that helps. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think you're overcomplicating matters. What you suggest would require a change in policy, when that simply is not necessary in order to discourage editors from overlitigating images in which they are personally invested. As for viewing things on a case-by-case basis, that's what we do. The purpose of behavioral guidelines is to give people general principles that are widely followed. Remember too that this entire guideline (except regarding paid editing, which refers to a Foundation-mandated practice) is voluntary. Coretheapple (talk) 19:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Core, but we already have lots of PAGs in place to discourage editors from over litigating images regardless of whether or not they are "personally invested" in the image. As I mentioned above, I've seen plenty of edit wars and disruption over what image to use in an infobox, and the edit warriors were not the copyright owners, or photogs. The proposal here now targets and labels a specific group of editors unfairly. Commons has its own PAGs where the majority of our images originate. I see no justification for discriminating against Commons users by automatically labeling or even implying that all media uploaders/copyright owners are COI editors, which is how I interpret this proposal. Perhaps you haven't considered the repurcussions or potential abuses such labeling may create? Could it be that you are oversimplifying? One more thought - after re-examining my suggestions, I realized that naming conventions and templates are a Commons issue, not en.Wiki. If you're proposing to change the COI guideline to specifically target Commons uploaders/photogs, etc. then the wider community needs to be involved, and so do the Commons users who may be negatively effected. ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:06, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

^{Core, just wanted to add that I see your point regarding this one editor: Gage Skidmore ^{Atsme📞📧} 05:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)}

Comment: We need to not get too cranky about this; my take is existing editing rules cover the topic well enough. As SarahSV mentioned above, we are encouraged to take photos to illustrate articles. For example, in Hackamore, all but one image in there is a photo that I took and uploaded so that the article had illustrations. At the time, there were no other images in the category (now there are a few that are not my photos, but not many: [2] ) I also took all the images for Dude Rancher Lodge and all but two of the images at Sip 'n Dip Lounge (and those two I uploaded from Flickr). So on one hand, we all have to watch our own biases and personal COI, and not "own" our own stuff if there is something better out there, on the other hand, we have enough trouble finding high-quality images of certain things that the last thing I want to see if discouraging people from contributing their work. While I am not a professional photographer, I have sold some of my work -- so where does one draw the line between the amateur and the professional? And does it need to be drawn at all? I'm also going to ping Ealdgyth, who also has contributed a significant number of photos to WP, and see if she has any comments. Montanabw^(talk) 21:07, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

It would help guide newcomers to this discussion if someone could cite some specific examples of COI via images. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Reality check. Context matters. Visual artists of any kind advance their reputations by showing their work in environments where excellence has been established. Wikipedia, where there are thousands of images that are at best of an amateur quality is not such an environment. No artist can expect that their careers will be advanced by allowing use of an image here. As an example, National Geographic has established over decades a reputation for excellence in photographic images. Even there, while it might be prestigious for a photographer to have their work used in National Geographic, no long term career is established with a few images. That a photographer of any level will somehow advance a career by using or releasing an image here is not realistic. If it were possible to advance a career in this way I suspect we'd have a flood of visual artists submitting work on articles.

Second per Slim Virgin and Montana. We cannot support article writers to take and use photographic images often in areas that are obscure and where there is no visual image, and then turn around and cite them for COI. Like written content an image has to be the best for the article. If contentious the community decides what is best and what is not. (16:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleolive oil (talk • contribs)

LOO - SELFCITE is part of this guideline for a reason. You are apparently unaware of it but yes, people come to WP with the goal of adding WP:REFSPAM. SELFCITE has been part of this guideline for years and years because of this. And yes the parallel problem with regard to people who created media trying to force it into WP over others' objections happens, and an instance of that, is what led to this thread being opened. Jytdog (talk) 19:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you consider other opinions distortions. These are opinions, Jytdog as.your comment is an an opinion. If an editor is edit warring to get either their content or their image into an article, they are edit warring. Its simple.Tthe only difference between these kinds of content is simply that one is visual and one is written. If I have an interest in an article I could research both the written and visual information on that topic, and I may include one or both in an article. I wonder if you are confusing Interest with Conflict of interest, or if you are confusing the attachment editors might feel for content either visual or written they might have created with COI. (Littleolive oil (talk) 19:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC))

Jytdog, please stop sniping at people and making assumptions such as " You are apparently unaware of it" Focus on the issue, not the person. We all know the guidelines, we just differ about interpretation and application. Also, I am not seeing a crisis here. Keep in mind that, technically, we all actually do "own" our contributions here (subject to the cc-by-sa license terms, blah, blah, blah...), and really, you are merely describing human nature; the tendency to like one's own stuff. Our guidelines and policies on decorum and civility already address your concerns, I think. Frankly, I fail to see that there is any kind of actual issue that is not solvable by current mechanisms. If anyone promotes their own material, and the community deems it inferior to previous material, then WP:BURDEN applies, and if they edit-war, we have mechanisms in place to solve that issue. I've dealt with this issue dozens of times in the past 10 years, usually with the tendentious editor stomping off in a huff, declaring me a mean bully for not recognizing their superiority and inborn brilliance, kvetching that WP is hostile to newbies, mean to them, unconcerned about accuracy, and all the usual personal attacks that are routinely leveled against those who exercise stewardship over content. It's just "put on your big kid pants and deal with it," round 2,000,765,999...′ Montanabw^(talk) 23:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Montanabw, no sniping - above you brought SPS into play which is not relevant here - what is relevant with regard to this guideline (the talk page of which we are on) is WP:SELFCITE. It isn't complicated. Jytdog (talk) 23:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Silly restriction. People who upload quality images deserve to have their own identified as their own. If they are edit warring to add it to an article, we can block them for edit warring. Other than that, if it improves the article then it's a nonissue. There is too much effort going into fear mongering over COIs and covering every possible ~~imaginary~~ imaginable base. This policy is going to get to a point, sooner or later, where no one can touch the encyclopedia on any topic if they have a 6-degrees of seperation to the topic.--v/r - T P 06:53, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

What restriction? I don't see anything specific on the table. I'm still not sure what specific abuses are being addressed here, as no one has cited specific abuses that need to be addressed. Jytdog has raised some interesting points but I would like to see exactly what problems are arising out there, if any. P.S. this is a guideline not a policy. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree, Figureofnine. The image uploaders I've been exposed to on Commons and en.Wiki have all been courteous, have a natural eye for quality, and are generous to be sharing their copyrighted works under CC-BY-SA 4.0 . I'm also not aware of anyone spamming - BUT I do see issues cropping up from preconceived notions that when an image is uploaded or disputed for valid reasons, the copyright holder will be the first one to be discriminated against and that isn't fair. If I'm not mistaken, the issue here arose from an AN/I discussion that involved an editor who replaced one of his images with a better image of a controversial political figure...and the poopoo flew. I didn't see anything he did as spamming. What did raise question for me was the fact that the subject editor, Gage Skidmore, has a WP:BLP - now THAT might be considered promotional because his BLP uses his Commons uploads as evidence of notability, and may or may not meet GNG requirements based on other supporting evidence, not the fact that he was sharing quality images on en.Wiki. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

If there is a problem of image-uploaders lobbying for their work, and if there is a COI angle, then it warrants further attention here and possibly a line or two in this guideline. Otherwise it's a one-off. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Damn, I'm surprised to say this, but I think we're largely of the same mind on this. If the problem, though, is image uploaders abusively pushing for their images to be featured and editing against consensus or edit warring, I think we already have policies for that. I'm not sure a mention in this policy is necessary. However, I wouldn't be against a mention as an example of a type of subtle advocacy. But I don't think a restriction of any kind of warranted as we haven't seen widespread examples of this being abused and unable to be handled by other policies.--v/r - T P 17:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I can do without the battlefield mentality, thank you. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

What are you talking about?--v/r - T P 21:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

"Fear mongering over COIs" inter alia. Assumption of good faith applies to everyone. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh Jesus Christ, that was three comments ago and you've already replied to it. What does that have to do with what you're replying to now? Whatever, I'm finding fruitful conversation elsewhere. Teach me to ever offer a olive branch again.--v/r - T P 22:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

You've been combative and "on the warpath" from the getgo in this discussion. Spare me the "olive branch" from whatever grudge you are nurturing and tamp down the hostility please. Thank you. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:40, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Please either substantiate that with diffs or retract that accusation.--v/r - T P 21:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

So that would also apply to anyone who writes prose and likes their sentence better than someone else's. It has nothing to do with who owns the copyright of an image because if you think about it for a minute, we all write prose under a CC-BY-SA 4.0 license. Why do you want to discriminate against one particular group of editors? If you separate them out, then separate all doctors, lawyers, and every other "group" who contributes anything to WP. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@Atsme: Are you talking to me or Figureofnine?--v/r - T P 19:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

User:TParis this is a behavioral guideline and like many guidelines it complements the relevant policies (like RS complements V and helps with OR and NPOV). What this guideline does is provide a structure to help resolve/dissolve a certain bucket of behavioral issues - those caused by COI. Many times I was able to untangle ugly disputes that were driven by one of the editors having a COI, by working with the conflicted editor to help them understand the problem with COI and showing them why following the procedures for conflicted editors is a good thing for everybody. That is why adding media to SELFCITE would be a good thing - when there is a dispute folks could point to this and the creator-editor would understand to back down before things get to EWN or ANI. Just like having RS helps avoid all kinds of drama about what a reliable source is; the community created this guideline for a good reason. Jytdog (talk) 20:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Is it your intention, then, to hold a brainstorming session to discover every possible scenario and write endless legislation against it? We have possibly one case here that really isn't a case. There is no need to change policy because we've imagined a new way it's possible to game the system despite having no evidence it has been gamed in that way before.--v/r - T P 21:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Either/or TParis, as the way I interpret "subtle advocacy" and "lobbying", it's pretty much the same. I'm open to learning all sides of the argument to see if maybe I've missed something which would change my mind about photographers/copyright holders automatically being determined to have a COI that warrants such discrimination. So far, I have not seen one example or one good reason to impose any guidelines or structure to one group of editors over any other who write prose and/or are experts beyond edit warring which we already have in place. If I'm not mistaken, in the case that was brought here, the editor owned the copyright to both images so it wasn't about COI. If the latter wasn't the case, then it would still fall under 3RR, rather than discriminating against the copyright holder because it gives an unfair advantage to the opposition editor who may have a totally different COI or advocacy. Images are primarily aesthetic additions, or else they provide visuals to relevant prose. We already have PAGs for that. Even if one incident could be brought to light here, we have PAGs in place that already address behavior regarding those issues without bringing COI into play to discriminate unfairly. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

this: "the editor owned the copyright to both images so it wasn't about COI" - makes no sense. If somebody has the copyright they have may have the right to grant the licenses necessary to add to it to WP, but that is a separate matter from COI. in general if an editor owns the copyright for some bit of media and wants to add that to WP, yes there is exactly a conflict of interest at play there, and if others object that it doesn't add value or isn't an improvement, that editor should very much back down and not try to force the thing they own or control into WP - people with a COI generally can't see things objectively - that is the whole point of this guideline. . Jytdog (talk)

It makes perfect sense. They owned the copyright to the first image that was already on the article, and the copyright to the second imagine they were replacing it with. If the second image is advocacy for the editor, then so is the first for the same editor. There is no additional advocacy value gained by changing the image. Therefore, their actions could not be advocacy motivated.--v/r - T P 21:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not speaking to that specific case, but the general one. I started going through the EWN archives to find edit wars over images, and in many of the cases one of the editors had created the image and was objecting to its removal or trying to force it in. This is not a rare thing; guidance in this guideline about yielding to others when you have created an image would be useful to help manage those disputes, and could tamp them down early. Jytdog (talk) 22:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

No, no, no, no no. Now you've stretched the topic. This topic was specifically about people who put their name or website in the filename and THEN force it into an article. You've taken that slippery slope, turned it into a water slide, and then dived head first. You jumped from "advocacy in file names" to "any image created by a person". I'd recommend anyone discussing this topic look at how easily you've conflated the issue before any new guidance is written.--v/r - T P 23:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

So many nos! TP, if you read the AN thread cited in the OP (and please do), what prompted that AN filing was the behavior of the conflicted editor - they were arguing incessantly and edit warring to get their images in. (and to add to the madness, doing that in the Trump article) As often happens, people get all focused on the wrong thing in community discussions. En-wiki has no say over how images get named at the Commons. What we have say over is editor behavior and it is clear as day that the editor there was driven by COI. It is very similar to the cases I saw at EWN. Plain as day. We should just add "images/video/media" to the SELFCITE section. Jytdog (talk) 00:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Did you read the AN thread and the multiple talk page discussions and edit wars that lead to it? The reason this issues is bubbling up at all is because of a few editors who have a battleground approach to simple content disputes. While I'm not excusing Calibrador's conduct, conduct of some of the other disputants are equally as bad or worse. One such editor, who is now on his nth block for battleground behavior, followed Calibrador from article to article reverting him any time he placed one of his images in an article. Then he edit warred, issued harassing warnings, and plotted with other editors to gang up against Calibrador. None of this is actually a COI problem; these are basic conduct issue by aggressive editors trying to win against an opponent.- Mr X 01:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

hm, no i wasn't aware that calibrador had a stalker. that is a bad thing and not how COI should be addressed. thanks for pointing that out. Jytdog (talk) 01:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Then it looks like we're having two completely different conversations. I'm addressing Coretheapple's opening statement: "But as indicated in the AN discussion, there are advantages to the photographer of having images on Wikipedia if the photographer uses his real name, and especially if he inserts his name in the name of the file".--v/r - T P 04:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

If you follow the thread from the top, discussions about file naming and discussions about behavior of editors with COI over images have been running from the second comment onwards. I have ignored the naming discussion as it is going no where as that is a commons thing. We can address the behavior of editors with a COI with regard to images here; that's all we can do. Jytdog (talk) 04:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Slogging back through the ANI discussion, what I'm picking up is that a particular user was aggressive about reinstating of his particular images in a high visibility article. In the process he was stalked by a user who was blocked. The question here is whether the guideline needs to deal with images and whether people uploading images need guidance on their behavior beyond what is in policy. I still am not clear if the ANI issue is a one-off. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it's a one off. Occasionally I see photographers being a little aggressive (edit warring, complaining on talk page) about placing their own photos in articles, but outside of this case, I've never seen one not back down after a warning or two.- Mr X 15:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposing file name restrictions/guidelines

I am trying to understand what the community thinks about "Restrictions"/"Guidelines" for file names. I just had a look at Commons:File renaming#Which files should be renamed? and criteria 5 does mention that "blatant advertising" is a valid reason for renaming (although what comprises "blatant advertising" is up for debate). In contrast, our Wikipedia guidelines Wikipedia:File names#What files should be renamed? do not mention any such reason. I'm wondering if we ought to insert something similar.

It is well known that using the artist/photographer's name as part of the image filename (for example: "Haw Par Villa by lemongirl942.com") is a relatively successful Search engine optimization trick. For example, I quote from here

Wikimedia Commons - Sometimes this works, sometimes it doesn’t, but if Google Image optimization is important to you then it’s worth a try – I’ve had success with it. Just upload some photos of you or your artwork to Wikimedia Commons and include your name into the different descriptions they ask you for.
— www.onlinemediamasters.com/seo-for-artists/

CC requires attribution for which there is an "author" field provided when uploading images. Beyond this, I don't see any reason why the artist/photographer's name needs to be included in the filename as well (except in cases of well known derivative works where the author name is needed for disambiguation purposes). I'm wondering if it would be possible to state that photos which are used in Wikipedia articles are not supposed to have the photographer's name/website in the filename. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

One of the important reasons for naming conventions on Commons is also explained here (my bold underline): Not of less importance is the purpose the file name is believed to have; contributors frequently categorizing files have different demands from those who create, process, manage and upload them. Uploaders often have schemas naming their files; moving files might break them. If possible, language and schema should be preserved, as well as the camera or catalogue number. There really is no need for images which are allowed for their educational value and provide aesthetic value to articles to come under scrutiny of COI. It's overreaching in an area that doesn't need policing or minding because we already have policies in place that address whatever issues may arise. Several of us are waiting for actual instances of images used for "self-promotion" that require any kind of restriction per COI. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

The name (or username) of the author has to be included somewhere, indeed. In some cases, such as GLAM uploads, it is a mandate (things like conditions under which images are donated to a museum collection, for example) The issue of SEO is a different issue, and that also could arise from the use of backlinks in the "source" parameter; which in some cases may be required as well. I just went through my Commons uploads and discovered (somewhat to my surprise) that I have uploaded over 1000 images that I personally have taken. Now, my real name appears on none of them, so no SEO help to me, and I'm not a professional photographer anyway. I guess my take is that if people have an incidental commercial benefit to images that are released under a free license, how is that any different from people who use our images for free in their own publications? (Often without attribution; I just spotted about 8 or 10 images from Commons in a series of articles published in Equus (magazine) recently, none attributed even to commons. None were mine, at least). I don't think we have an itch here. And to the extent there could be one, it's more a problem for Commons than here. Montanabw^(talk) 20:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I would oppose any such restriction as being wholly unnecessary and onerous. In all of these recent discussions, no one has articulated what monumental problem that impedes the building of an online encyclopedia is solved by such solutions.- Mr X 22:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

tl;dr, jumping in; people making money off wikipedia already by self-publishing zillions of books under their name, with formal attribution to wikipedia no one sees. So IMO the photographers using their name in the filename is a minor issue. It becomes an issue when we have a real COI, someone starts pushing their photos everywhere. If this causes a controversy (e.g., overuse of images in a page, revert war during attempts to replace with better quality, etc.) then the issue is adequately covered by WP:COI. Otherwise IMO having an "authormarked" image is better than none. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Is there any reason why we can't just move them? It's not hard to do. Guy (Help!) 00:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Guy, there's no reason I can think of to not simply follow our current PAGs when/if an issue arises. However, what I find rather concerning about this whole COI issue is evidenced here. While this particular incident appears to have worked itself out, the fact that it was even an issue is why I strongly oppose images being made subject of COI referencing as what's being discussed here. The project doesn't need this type of policing as it overreaches in an already well-monitored process. What raises the most concern for me is its potential to create unnecessary disruption. When editors start "hunting down" images for the sole purpose of imposing COI tags, it goes against AGF, discourages uploads, hurts editor retention, and it discriminates in a way that it potentially gives an unfair advantage to an opposing editor. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

For me, the important thing is that we avoid the appearance of self-promotion. Naively referencing yourself in the file names makes you look bad tot he outside world, and we should be gently stopping that - moving the file is one obvious way to do that. Guy (Help!) 14:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's a widespread issue, or that it even really matters. Renaming images is not an option in the case that started this discussion because the user uploads his files to Commons. For images uploaded here, WP:FILENAMES should govern, not WP:COI.- Mr X 15:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

JzG|Guy, some people use their real name as part of their username or they self-disclose their user name somewhere on their user page. Do we tell them they can't do that? Where does this end? I think it's silly. If an editor misbehaves with their own images, just like if they cite to their own books, we address it when it happens. Furthermore, sometimes we have our own name on some images we've uploaded to wiki but also published in other places, as we do retain ownership of our work. Would someone hunt us down for that? I think not. Montanabw^(talk) 00:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Montanabw. An author naming herself as an author is not a COI. Philip Roth does not have a COI when he insists that his name appear on the cover of The Human Stain. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:20, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Using names on filenames is not frowned upon, it depends on how frequent one uses it.. I have personally added a 100+ images of my own to wikimedia commons, not a single one carries my name in the filename and neither do i have my own 'vanity' category..I have nothing to gain financially from adding my images to commons, there are many others like me, but there are a handful who are completely opposite, those that always use their names in the filename and those who have something to gain financially by doing it. Read my first post in the beginning of this thread, as mentioned we have many ways of "attributing" authors/photographers but its those that take it a bit too far who are the problem. I'm not sure how a file name restriction would help on enwiki but we probably need to start somewhere..--Ste moc 02:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Ironically, I originally uploaded photos with potentially identifying info (though not my real name, at least) and then frantically tried to get rid of it when someone tried to out me with it. But now, I recectly did create a "photos by Montanabw" category because I was having trouble determining what I had personally uploaded versus stuff I had imported from Flickr and wanted to keep it separated. Also, there is a fun little toy that shows you where your images are being used and the views they get. Far from a "vanity" category (because half my photos were taken with a non-smartphone and are of really suck-egg quality) it is just a fun thing I do for cheap amusement value. In doing so, I discovered to my delight that I've uploaded over 1000 images there. It's a cheap buzz, but it keeps me going! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 03:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Stemoc's post indicates that there is an element of financial gain involved for some users. However I don't see how we can change Commons filenames even if we wanted to. That returns to the original question I posed, which is what if anything to do about behavior that flows from having a COI from uploading images. Coretheapple (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Then please, let's see some examples of an editor who has gained financially from donating images to Wikipedia. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

This is not a regulatory rulemaking. It's a Wikipedia behavioral guideline. I think that one nightmare is sufficient show the potential for abuse, and might warrant a few words. Coretheapple (talk) 18:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

With utmost respect, I disagree. The case in question here wasn't a COI, a point that was adequately addressed in the discussion. No convincing evidence was presented that supports even a few words. We do not need COI guidelines to bleed over into areas where it isn't helpful and may actually create more disruption than it would resolve. We already have policy in place that adequately covers the subject editor's noncompliance, namely edit warring. If this had been an RfC, opposition to adding anything more to the COI guideline would have prevailed. Can we please respect the prevailing arguments in this discussion and move on? ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:02, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Well yes, we're discussing this. It's not as if I or anyone is trying to edit-war some language into the guideline, God forbid. Coretheapple (talk) 22:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

^{^{Atsme📞📧} 23:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)}

Paid editing disclose

Wondering what peoples thoughts are on requiring people to (1) disclose their Wikipedia account within accounts like Fiverr that are being used for paid editing and (2) disclosing their accounts like Fiverr that are used for paid editing here on Wikipedia. Would allow us to stop paid editors from pretending to be established editors as those being impersonated could than request take down of the accounts on Fiverr by pointing to this policy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

How can we force people on Fiverr to disclose their paid accounts? With the hostility toward paid editors here, I seriously doubt you can motivate or incentivize anyone to disclose their accounts on a 3rd party website where you have no control of the terms of use there. You might be able to create rules on here requiring people to disclose their Fiverr accounts - but we have no control of other websites.--v/r - T P 05:48, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Fiverr requires people to follow the rules of other websites, especially when doing work on those websites. If people are impersonating Wikipedians on Fiverr, this arrangement would make it simpler to have Fiverr remove those accounts. The incentive to disclose would be to not have the account you transact paid Wikipedia editing through taken down. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:19, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

No kidding? Well maybe you'd have some policy grounds. But you still would have a helluva time enforcing it. Folks can just create burner accounts for use on Fiverr and claim their main account has 10,000 edits. Or not even mention their main accounts - 90% of their customers couldn't validate the claim. You be better off if Fiverr were to create some kind of OAuth app that could validate the who and how many edits.--v/r - T P 06:37, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

The OAuth is a good idea. We could than have a policy that those without OAuth attachment cannot advertise paid editing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

On my work with the Wikimedia legal team, we have found a few platforms that are quick to remove posts that violate their terms of use. The terms of use for Fiverr, for example, say that they may remove Gigs that "violate a third party's terms of service" (eg, they will rove Gigs that violate Twitter or Facebook's rules, and could do the same for Gigs that violate a Wikipedia policy). These sort of policies may have some variability from site to site, but it's helpful from my perspective to have clear and simple written rules, even where it may not be guaranteed to be enforced 100% of the time. Stephen LaPorte (WMF) (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Soliciting / advising paid editing in talk pages

Recently I run into a case when in a talk page someone recommended someone else to use the service of a paid editor and even gave this paid editors' user name. I felt extremely uneasy with this abuse of wikipedia space for promotion of someone's business of paid wikiediting. Do we have / need a guideline to handle this? Staszek Lem (talk) 21:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I definitely see the same problem you do. I don't really see any solution though - can you propose one? I see you reported something over at WP:COIN - so far so good, but ...

As far as writing something for WP:COI or even WP:PAID, I can see some possible problems, e.g. joe jobs. Also saying no advertising paid editing on Wikipedia would seem to just repeat WP:NOADS, but then we do require paid editors to state that they are paid, which can be viewed as something like an ad. Maybe just something after the required disclosure sections saying something like "other than the required disclosures, paid editors should be careful not to advertise their service on Wikipedia" - pretty clumsy at best.

So, please do pursue this further, but I'm personally flummoxed by the "ad"

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anything clumsy in a separate clause: "Paid editors are prohibited to advertise their services anywhere on Wikipedia and using Wikipedia tools, broadly construed, with the exception of the required disclosure. This ban includes, but not limited to, creating wikipedia categories related to paid editing, offering help, claiming "wikiexperience", describing "success stories", etc". Staszek Lem (talk) 02:42, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, how about the following text as a seperate section following Wikipedia:Paid-contribution_disclosure#How_to_disclose:

Advertising and promotion of paid editing

No editor may advertise or promote paid editing on Wikipedia (per WP:NOT). All advertisement or promotion of specific paid editors or paid editing services should be removed immediately. The required disclosures are not considered a form of advertisement or promotion.

[I'm not sure the "(per WP:NOT)" is needed, but it does show that this is *not a new policy*]

Per the discussion below we might add something like:

Users who advertise their paid-editing services off-Wiki may not impersonate another editor and may not claim any editor's account name unless that account has a paid editing disclosure on the user page. Editors who believe they are being impersonated should report this at WP:COIN and to the off-Wiki website.

This is entirely consistent with the "no impersonation" part of the ToU already quoted at WP:Paid. If we think that this is properly placed at WP:PAID we should continue the discussion there. The last part need some work. @Staszek Lem and Doc James: - what do you think? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:01, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

We would have a bit of a check and balance if the other website account had to say "this is my Wikipedia account" and the Wikipedian has to say "this other account is mine". Would allow us to enforce the ToU. OAuth might also work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:41, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

The 2-way nature of your addition would definitely make the proposed change more effective. I do wonder whether telling editors what they have to do (rather than what they can't do) on another website is possible. Perhaps in this guideline instead? On the policy page WP:Paid, I think my proposal is almost ready to go, as it only prohibits advertising and promotion (already prohibited at WP:NOT) and impersonation (already prohibited by the ToU). But please let us all know what you think is best. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm trying to think of how @Doc James:'s ideas could be put into WP:COI. Perhaps in the Miscellaneous section

Advertising by paid editors

No editor may advertise or promote paid editing on Wikipedia. All advertisement or promotion of specific paid editors or paid editing services should be removed immediately. The required disclosures are not considered a form of advertisement or promotion.
Any advertising posted outside of Wikipedia should include a link to your user page to let your clients know about your status and qualifications as a Wikipedia editor. The user page must include a paid editing disclosure.
You may not impersonate another editor by linking to his or her page in an advertisement.

I'll ping @SlimVirgin: because she always finds a way to make my prose better.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

How about "Any advertising posted outside of Wikipedia must include a link to your user page to let your clients know about your status and qualifications as a Wikipedia editor. The user page must include a paid editing disclosure and link to accounts were you transact business." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:37, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Your suggestion omits a part of mine: This ban includes, but not limited to, creating wikipedia categories related to paid editing, offering help, claiming "wikiexperience", describing "success stories", etc" I think it is important to close loopholes for indirect advertising. Rather than boldly writing "If you want your bio stay, to me thou shalt pay" the p-editor may describe at length how experienced he is, how he's ahold of all nooks and crannies, how not a single article of his was deleted, etc., and then say he is not advertising his service. In other words, nothing which may help convincing J. Random Vip to use services of this p-editor is allowed. This ban may also cover one-sided essays on how good paid editing is. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I think we've made progress on what we want. Now we need to concentrate on how we say it. I think James's "and link to accounts were you transact business" might be a bit vague and would be difficult to include in a guideline. We could try to include it in the policy, but so far people have been very conservative about changing the policy. I'll suggest making the simpler changes in the policy first, then working out what people will accept beyond that. @Staszek Lem:, I think a more general statement is better, rather than a series of specifics. It seems to me that the more specifics you give the narrower people tend to interpret what you're saying. But please write up the exact words you want included and we can work out the wording. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

How about the first sentence: "No editor may advertise or promote paid editing on Wikipedia, neither directly nor indirectly". I agree that what constitutes an advert must be decided by common sense rather than specific instructions, and the paid editor has no say in this. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:30, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

There's a parallel discussion at WT:PAID. I'd prefer this be policy, but if we have to have it here, that's ok too. I would guess one editor over there would object to your "indirectly" but let's see what happens and keep going on this. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Guys, it appears I owe you an apology: I came so strongly on this issue due to my sloppy reading. The text which offended me was basically suggesting to use paid editing or services of one wikipedian. I mislooked this "or" in that long rant and took it for promotion of a certain paid editor. In fact, that text did not imply that the named wikipedian was a paid editor. Still, it did promote paid editing and looks like I hit the nerve. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:51, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Requiring paid editors to link to their Wikipedia user page from their advertisements is requiring them to disclose their personal identity. This is a pretty big change in policy, not just in procedure, and as such, a broader discussion amongst the community is needed to establish a consensus. isaacl (talk) 19:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I fact, this may be a Wikimedia issue to decide, since this is kinda legal issue. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Lead

Coretheapple, I think for the first time ever, I was relatively happy with the lead. It explained the ambivalence of the community, offered advice, retained "strongly discouraged", and described the only bit that's mandatory (the paid-editor disclosure part).

Your partial revert has introduced the old tone, and it now says some of the same things twice. Please re-read the lead you changed and reconsider. I think it really does work, which is not to say it can't be improved. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:38, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I think the previous language in that paragraph was more direct, simpler. Not seeing what's wrong with how it was. Coretheapple (talk) 16:08, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh I see about the repetition. Thanks for changing that back. But I think we need to keep the old language in the second paragraph unless we have a consensus otherwise. It's been there for ages. It is direct and forthright. I see no problem with it. I sort of see why you removed the former second paragraph, the one how it wasn't a judgment, yadda yadda. Your changes were quite extensive, were not just stylistic but were substantive and went beyond what I changed back. Still I agree that simplifying is a good idea and that the former second paragraph was unnecessary detail. Coretheapple (talk) 16:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Here are the two versions of the second paragraph:

Current

COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. It undermines public confidence, and risks causing public embarrassment to the individuals being promoted. If such editing causes disruption, an administrator may opt to place blocks on the involved accounts.

SV

COI editing, including editing for pay, is not forbidden on Wikipedia; the community is divided about the extent to which it should be disallowed. But in general it is strongly discouraged, in part because editors with a COI cannot know whether or how much it has influenced their editing. COI editing undermines public confidence in Wikipedia, risks causing public embarrassment to those being promoted, and may cause extra work for volunteers. If it causes disruption, accounts may be blocked.

SarahSV ^(talk) 16:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Core, the problem is that COI and paid editing are allowed and indeed ubiquitous. WP:Articles for Creation, for example, asks paid and COI editors to disclose. Guidelines have to be prescriptive and descriptive; that is, we're supposed to summarize best practice, not an ideal state. I would like to add something about AFC to the guideline, which I can't really do if the whole tone is "don't do it". We ought to explain in the lead that the community is divided; otherwise nothing makes sense to new editors who see the contradictions. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a guideline, and it says so at the very top what that means. The community is divided about pretty much everything. We don't have to say that elsewhere, and certainly not here because indeed there is a problem and because (and this language is not removed) it is strongly discouraged. Why complicate matters further if this guideline is complex? I'm not seeing all the complexity anyway, to be frank. Coretheapple (talk) 16:31, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I strongly agree that the old version was better except perhaps for the language "editors with a COI cannot know whether or how much it has influenced their editing." The meaning of that isn't obvious. After re-reading and studying the linked section (which IMO is a bit too wordy and philosophical) I do see the point, but it should be expressed more clearly and directly. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with that. As for tone and signalling "don't do it." Well, I sure as hell hope so. If that is not our desire, then let's take out about it being "strongly discouraged," and while we're at it let's shut down the COI noticeboard, whose very existence sends that same message. Coretheapple (talk) 16:36, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

In general, I think that the guideline as previously is fine. Can it be improved? Well, sure, anything can be improved. But let's not treat COI editors like morons. They come here to push an agenda. We show them the COI guideline. At that point, they read it. In no version that I have ever seen has it ever been so complex as to not be understandable. But just because people don't choose to comply is no reason to weaken it or to be apologetic about it.

Typical situation: There is one COI situation, a person who is the son of a notable but minor historical character. All he does is edit his dad's bio. This guideline has been pointed out to him repeatedly. Yet over and over again he chooses to disregard not only this guideline but policies on sourcing, because he is here to push his agenda. He just doesn't care about our guidelines and policies. He doesn't even sign his talk page comments, even though he has been asked to do so. He is not a moron. He just doesn't care. Let's not act as if COI editors lack reading comprehension, please. Coretheapple (talk) 16:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

They don't all come to push an agenda, that's the thing. A common query is: "We are a company that does X (where X is some interesting thing), and we believe there are enough sources to create an entry. Here are the sources. We want to abide by your rules, so please tell us whether we can go ahead and create it, hire an editor to do it for us, or find volunteers to help us."

That's a perfectly legitimate position. What's the correct answer? "There are no volunteers to help; we're not allowed to recommend paid editors (and we wouldn't know who to recommend anyway); and yes, you're allowed to create it via AfC or on your own, but it's very strongly discouraged so some editors might try to have it deleted because of that, or they might not: wait and see. Here's the guideline, by the way, which offers no guidance. Good luck with the templates." SarahSV ^(talk) 17:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

The reasonable ones without an agenda, like the unreasonable ones with an agenda, have all the information they need in the guideline and then some, and unless they are utter fools they are capable of understanding what is set down before them in writing. If they have any questions they can (and do) ask in any number of venues. Coretheapple (talk) 18:04, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

re: "They don't all come to push an agenda" -- Yes they do. They want to promote their business. A pretty much agenda in my book. Of course, there is nothing wrong with this. The wrong starts when they take a position that they are somehow entitled for wikipedians to abide their wishes. They are a business, right? They have expenditures for advertisement, right? Then let the hell their PR dept work hard for their money and learn the freaking rules. And for me the rule Number One: "If nobody wrote a wikipedia aricle about you, then probably you are not that important as you think, and you have to work hard to convince volunteer wikipedians to move a finger for you". Staszek Lem (talk) 19:18, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, then tell me what the rules are. If a company wants to abide by the rules, and would like to know whether it can have an article about itself, and if so how, what do we say? SarahSV ^(talk) 19:27, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

We have literally zero obligation, under even the most contorted view of our obligation as editors, to facilitate or to provide plain-language explanations or easy-peasy paint-by-number rules to companies that want to create COI articles. On the contrary, our guideline says explicitly that it is "strongly discouraged." Yes, we have editors who disagree and yes there are contradictions, such as the AfC process. Wikipedia is a hornet's nest of contradictions, and COI editing is no exception. Coretheapple (talk) 19:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I suppose one's response might be "well, isn't that bad? Shouldn't we fix it?" First, I don't believe there is a problem that requires fixing; I don't buy the argument that there are great yearning masses of confused nice people out there. Secondly, if it is difficult or confusing for companies to create articles on Wikipedia, my response is "cry me a river." Coretheapple (talk) 19:36, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I answered below, in other place where you asked essentially the same question.Staszek Lem (talk) 19:36, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

To avoid confusion, rather than speaking about the "guideline as previously" or the "old version", can we refer to them as "current version" and "SV version" as labelled above? I think the current version is more concise and so prefer it. The sentence in the SV version about the community being divided feels like conciliatory outreach towards those who debate this issue. I don't think it is necessary, particularly in the lead, though, as I think the distinction between "strongly discouraged" and "forbidden" is sufficiently well understood by those involved in the discussion. For those who are engaging in conflict-of-interest editing, typically they are quick to point out this distinction and don't need any help. isaacl (talk) 17:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Regarding providing a rationale for discouraging conflict-of-interest editing, perhaps it can be worded as follows: "Editors with a conflict of interest can often fail to understand how their personal biases affect the neutrality of their writing." isaacl (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Some of the text in this guideline is for internal use, to explain to Wikipedia editors why we have a COI policy. Nothing wrong with that, and I'm not saying we should take it out, but that does make the guideline longer and doesn't provide useful information for outsiders. We don't have to justify having a COI guideline. It is ordinary practice everywhere but Wikipedia. We may want to revisit such passages at some point. Coretheapple (talk) 18:36, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Core and Isaacl, the guideline has to be usable by new editors. At the moment it's inconsistent and unhelpful, and it doesn't explain why (namely, that the community is divided). The templates are awkward to use for people with no experience of them. Are they allowed to edit with a COI or not? What will happen if they do? We don't say. Core, what would your advice be to the company I mentioned above? SarahSV ^(talk) 19:09, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't encourage accounts or IPs that want to create articles about their companies, so I leave that question to the many, many editors who are literally thrilled to do so. I have a question for you: are you suggesting that this one paragraph makes the entire guideline "inconsistent and unhelpful"? Because that's all we're talking about. Coretheapple (talk) 19:25, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
The proper advice must be in WP:How to start a new article and its summary must be in the missing section WP:COI#Starting a new artcicle on a subject where you have a COI. I do agree this guideline has grown into a monstrosity. For starters, it must be split into 3 major supersections: "General", "Editing a subject where you have a COI", and "How other wikipedians deal with people with COI", or whatever better titles be. The latter one naturally splits into two natural subsections: "Providing assistance" and "Dealing with violations". Staszek Lem (talk) 19:37, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

@Coretheapple: No, not only that paragraph. But the version of the lead that I wrote is better because it explains that the community is divided, says more about why COI is a problem for us, and the tone is not so harsh. With that lead in place, I was planning to go through the guideline to make it more user friendly.

I would normally have taken this page off my watchlist months ago (in fact I did for a bit). The problem is that I've made so many edits to it—while required to retain certain words—that I feel I need to fix it, but I'm not allowed to (and I'm not sure how to). Perhaps I should find someone to sponsor me to rewrite it on a draft page. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Personally I think that this guideline is neither harsh nor lacking in user-friendliness, and I'm really perplexed that you would come to that conclusion. May I suggest that what you are perceiving is not people being confused or bewildered but something else entirely: persons subject to this guideline simply don't like it. They understand it just fine. Coretheapple (talk) 19:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

@Coretheapple:Each section, taken separately, is OK. But IMO the whole guideline is poorly structured. What do you think about my, rather cosmetic, suggestion above? Staszek Lem (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I like the idea of breaking up the article into three parts/separate articles: one targeting editors with conflicts of interest, one targeting editors interacting with conflicted editors, and one with background information outlining the scope of the issue. isaacl (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

(ec) I'm not opposed in principle to any rewrite as long as it doesn't change the thrust, tone or content of the guideline. The structure doesn't bother me as it does not have to read like an organic whole. Affected editors can go to the table of content on each specific point. Some (copyright for instance) may not be applicable. In general I think there are simply better uses of our time.Coretheapple (talk) 20:40, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Saying that the community is divided doesn't help new editors follow the guidelines, so resolving any contradictions is a better approach. To be honest, it isn't a division between the community on policy that is the sticking point. It's a division amongst dominating editors on the best way to communicate policy and guidelines to the intended audience. There is a lack of willingness to find suitable compromises that makes it very hard to alter pages on various hot-button topics. isaacl (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

What I've found is that editors who are genuinely ignorant of the COI rules are easily identifiable, as their user names are the same as the article they are editing. There's no deception there. User:RamseyCoretheapple wants an article on his dad, Feodor Coretheapple. They create the article in question, or perhaps edit it to include the awards and honors Mr. Coretheapple received in his illustrious career. Or they go on the talk page to describe how great dad was and all the wonderful things about him. At that point one sends them a polite note, of which there are several available in template form. Then one of two things happens: they comply with the COI rules, and become productive citizens, or they don't. They just keep on keeping on, ignoring site rules on verfiability, etc. etc.

I have never encountered a situation in which the rules were somehow confounding or confusing. If anyone has ever heard such a complaint I'd like to see a link. However, I have seen situations in which editors have practically resorted to baby talk with noncompliant editors, under the delusion that somehow they didn't "understand" things that have been repeatedly pointed out to them. Coretheapple (talk) 22:02, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Excessive citing an author

Quite often, during a routine cleanup, I run into an author, or even a single book, being cited abundantly. I came to distinguish 4 different situations:

An author is really prominent; or the domain is very narrow, with few authorities
A wikipedian grabbed a book in the library, found it instructive and enriched wikipedia with its wisdom wherever applicable
An researcher or a group started citing their primary source articles everywhere in wikipedia.
A student gets a wikipedia assignment on a subject, and being lazy (or smartass), fills it from the textbook of the instructing professor.

The latter two are clearly a promotion. The third one is covered in WP:SELFCITE. Do we need to cover Number 4, i.e., whether a student citing abundantly his professor has COI and whether it must be disclosed? Staszek Lem (talk) 20:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Does scenario number 4 happen much, from what you can see? Coretheapple (talk) 21:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I noticed this because I saw it twice, but my watchlist is not that large. Also, after some more thinking, it seems to me now this is a rather harmless case. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:46, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

@Staszek Lem: re scenario 4, do you mean an assignment to edit Wikipedia? Coretheapple (talk) 13:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

You didn't know? There is a bunch of professors out there who give assignments to students to write wikipedia. There is a whole enchilada for this: Wikipedia:School and university projects, {{Educational assignment}}, Wikipedia:Education noticeboard, Wikipedia:Training/For students , Wikipedia:Education noticeboard, and whats not, all under m:Wiki Education Foundation whic was spun off as 501(c)3 Wiki Education Foundation. I became interested in it about a year ago (hence Scenario 4), but then went away, after some ambivalent experience. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:39, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

No, I wasn't aware of that. Thanks. Coretheapple (talk) 20:42, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Also a defunct Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination (and maybe some other pages) lists quite a few wikipedians who have been involved with this. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

P.S. It even has a wikipedia article, Wiki Education Foundation. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

It's not working

Editors who find they need to disclose their COI come to this page to figure out how to do it. Also, it seems likely that such editors may be relatively new to editing Wikipedia. For this reason, it seems important that we keep the jargon to a minimum and try to explain exactly how to perform the steps we are requiring. Instructions like, "Insert diff to disclosure on your User page" will leave them baffled. Can someone add some explanation as to what that means and how to do it (or provide a hyperlink that will show readers how it is done?). Thanks! KDS4444 (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, on a broader note, I have noticed this: [virtually] no one actually admits they have a COI with regard to any actual Wikipedia articles, and I think this might be a problem.

I am certain of this because I am an OTRS volunteer, and we get tickets in all the time that go something like, "I need help editing my notable father's page" or "I keep updating the article on me but someone keeps undoing it" or "My company has put me in charge of making sure our Wikipedia article is complete, and I need help modifying its content." I respond to such requests with, "First and foremost you need to disclose that you have a conflict of interest with regard to this article— you can do it by visiting this page here." I have seen other OTRS agents do the same. But in the end, the person in question never actually ends up using the connected contributor template, or the UserboxCOI template, and never makes a statement of disclosure on their userpage. And there is nothing I or anyone can do to force them to do this.
I have also caught other editors making baldfaced COI edits, and suggested that they might want to disclose any COI on their user page. They steadfastly refuse, or just ignore the suggestion.
Editors don't do these things, I think, for two reasons:

1.) There are too many things to do when you decide to declare a COI (tag the talk page, tag my user page, use the edit request template, make sure my edit summaries mention my COI, make sure any other discussions I enter into anywhere else on Wikipedia also mention my COI, be concise, etc.) that it is much too easy for even well-intentioned law-abiding editors to say, "Meh... Not today." and
2.) The infrequency with which editors happen upon article talk pages and user pages that do disclose a COI makes them seem like public punishment for being caught breaking the rules (about 8,000 article talk pages are currently so marked, which if my math is right is about 0.15%). Certainly the tone with which we approach COI editing on this page makes it seem like punishment. And what benefit is there for the discloser? Well... Apparently none. No benefit. Only costs. We cannot expect our countless editors who happen to fall into COI editing to adopt a system which results in only costs. It will never happen/ has not happened yet. A lot of editing is COI editing because people end up writing about what they know: their work, their family, etc. and it makes no good sense to them to announce to the world that the one thing they want to write about is the one thing on which they must not, and it then seems completely absurd to be expected to also admit publicly that this conflict exists. It's like tattling on yourself: no one does it. And so long as COI editing is treated with the negativity that it is here, this will never change. Not that I want to encourage rampant COI editing! But all we seem to be accomplishing with this page is shoving the problem further under the rug. (Or is that all it is really supposed to do, I wonder?) KDS4444 (talk) 03:58, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I think that until we sort out the silly prohibitions surrounding outing, we will never get that sorted out. -Roxy the dog™ bark 13:18, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I think that when you get around countries prosecuting their citizens for their speech and corporations (churches) suing the crap out of people who report on their bad behavior then you might be able to make a dent on the "silly" (actually fundamentally cornerstone to our community) outing policy.--v/r - T P 20:56, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Increasingly I agree with KDS4444. COI and paid editing are ubiquitous. We don't have enough volunteers and there's no prospect of numbers increasing—the reverse is true—so paid editing is filling the vacuum. The page contradicts itself (don't edit with a COI, but if you do, use these templates). It's too complicated, with too much micromanaging. The tone and content need to change, and I think we should move all the stuff about templates to the end ("here are some templates in case you find them useful"). SarahSV ^(talk) 21:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@Slimvirgin: @Docjames: @Doc James: : see above and comment, if you will. KDS4444 (talk) 10:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, I've encouraged Jimbo to drop in, as he has published about this subject to some extent. KDS4444 (talk) 10:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I read it, and I find your point odd. "Conflict of interest" is negative? Re-read that. We are talking "conflict of interest" - the world out-side of Wikipedia made it so, the worst thing Wikipedia can do is go against the world, and pretend 'conflict of interest' is awesome. Sure, many people do not have experience with how to handle a conflict of interest in writing (which always has and always will center around disclosure of the conflict) but the response to that should not be 'don't handle it, don't contemplate your conflict, we are pro conflict-of-interest because we are blind to the world, and just want you to be happy'. Part of the social-contract here is 'good faith' - good faith rests on honesty. Sure, some people will never be honest, but that does not mean you don't ask and even make clear that is the expectation. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree. The assumption of much of what I've seen in this section is that we have an obligation to make life easier and more trouble-free for editors who have a COI. After all they are new editors, and doggone it we owe it to them. Folks, we owe COI editors nothing other than a courteous referral to this guideline. If they can't understand this guideline, if they find it "baffling" or they find it confusing or forbidding (and I haven't seen a single shred of evidence in support of that contention) they can make inquiries requesting clarification. Not a single diff has been provided showing a single COI editor expressing bafflement with a single word in this guideline. Coretheapple (talk) 15:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

As an OTRS volunteer I have encountered this issue more than once. Of course, I cannot discuss the names of those involved because I have signed an OTRS confidentiality agreement not to do so. Further, that was not related to my point. My point was that we have this set of guidelines, and that my intuition and my experience as well as a cursory statistical look make me believe that it isn't being followed very much. Declaring a COI comes with only consequences, which is perhaps how it should be, but the result is that no one does it (declares). If we have an existing set of guidelines that would be good if everyone followed but almost nobody affected by that guideline actually does, then it seems like that guideline might be worth some reconsidering. I am not trying to suggest we "help out" COI editors, but I am wondering if there are ways we can make declaring a COI easier and more routine so that we can all be more aware of its rate of occurrence. And maybe there is no way to do that, and the current system which is routinely sidestepped is the best we can do. If that is so, then we can wrap this discussion up and I can apologize for mentioning it. What I was hoping for was for thoughts on how to get COIs declared a little more often. Honestly, I have been thinking about it, and I have not come up with any yet. Which makes me very disappointed in me! KDS4444 (talk) 05:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, being a guideline and thus unenforceable, it is frequently not followed, sometimes not even by experienced users, not even by administrators in more than one instance ---- quite blatantly, quite in-your-face "whaddaya gonna do about it" style in one notorious example. (I'm not referring to any editor involved in this or any other discussion visible on this page currently.) I would suggest that noncompliance is a problem because people don't want to comply and for no other reason, irrespective of the wording of this guideline. There is no possible way to make declaring a COI, or complying with the suggestions of this unenforceable guideline, more palatable. However, there is the distinct danger that if we make this guideline less forthright, less negative in its wording --- for this is a negative practice that we want do strongly discourage ---- we risk making things harder for editors seeking to make people comply. Coretheapple (talk) 13:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Core, the problem is that Wikipedia did not enforce the COI guideline for years. The community couldn't even agree that COI editing was a bad thing. As a result, we have an enormous number of articles, particularly company articles and biographies, written by the subjects. The parallel growth of social-networking sites means that everyone assumes you need to have your personal and company bio on Facebook, Wikipedia, etc. People regularly call their WP bios "my page". They mean it quite literally, and are horrified that anyone can change it. (That's a legitimate position. We are the weird ones thinking that it's okay to let anyone in the world change the first Google hit for someone's name.)

Within that context (not the ideal Wikipedia, but the actual one), what do we say to the good-faith person who says: "I want to abide by your rules, and I understand that you don't like COI, but all my competitors have their own pages. What should I do to create mine?" It's not a question of them feeling entitled, or volunteers feeling obliged. It's a question of: what does the guideline advise them to do and advise us to tell them? It doesn't do much of either. It wags a finger and leaves us to muddle along, and so we end up coming down harshly on a few COI people and letting most of them do what they want. SarahSV ^(talk) 14:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes there is a lot of COI in the project. It is a guideline, so it is unenforceable. Perhaps there should be no COI guideline at all, in which case you should feel free to propose this one for deletion, though I trust you are aware that even an effort to delete this guideline would be an enormous public relations black eye for the project. I and others addressed your hypothetical COI user at some length below. Coretheapple (talk) 14:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Concerns

This is the worst idea I have ever heard for a wiki. I get that you want a biased answer, but what if someone makes a BS claim and doesn't back it up? Who knows more about that organization / person than someone who works there / knows / is that person? Everyone I know agrees this is a terrible idea, and this needs to be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JayRulesWikipedia (talk • contribs) 15:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

@JayRulesWikipedia: you must declare that you work for a company. NO discussion. You will get blocked if you continue you violate the rules. As for being "stupid", no it's not. It prevents people like you from coming here and making the pages purely advertising. Either follow the rules and stop complaining or leave. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 16:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Think of it this way: One of our primary rules is that content must be based on coverage in reliable sources. So let's say the New York Times was going to write an article about your company. Would they just let the company write the article or would they have a reporter do it? This is the point here. This isn't a social media platform where you can come to get out the word and control your brand message, that simply is not what this is for. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Calm down there Sparky. Haven't you ever heard of Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers? Your comments on Acroterion's talk page were especially rude.--v/r - T P 17:51, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll bite when it's clear they have no regard for COI or WP:PA (calling Acroterion a "dick") or anything major for that matter. Normally, I'm a soft fluffy bunny. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 18:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Acroterion is a grown up - they've probably been called worse in their life. They'll be fine.--v/r - T P 18:38, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I think I'll survive a little name-calling without deep and lasting scars. I've been called lots worse by really horrible people without lasting effect, and Jay's not one of those, he's just having a bad day. Acroterion (talk) 03:09, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

All that being said, I can understand the argument that "Who knows better about a subject than the people who work for or are that subject?" It seems like we are cutting off the best possible sources of information, even perfectly neutral and verifiable information! But look: we are not "cutting it off", we are requesting that such information be channeled appropriately so that we can be especially certain of its appropriateness given the likelihood that it may NOT be neutral or verifiable. Editors are perfectly welcome to contribute to those articles with which they have a COI— by placing the "requested edit" template on the relevant talk page and making their proposed edit beneath it, and by declaring the COI on their user page. It isn't that such edits are "forbidden", it is that they demand heightened scrutiny. And if they are neutral, verifiable edits, then that shouldn't be a problem for anyone, yes? People get the idea that declaring a COI is like shooting yourself in the foot (so why bother?). It isn't meant to be that, it is meant to ensure that at least one other pair of eyes has a look at what you are doing before you do it. It's a bit paternalistic, but it seems reasonable and fair to me, given what is at stake. The stigma is unfortunate. KDS4444 (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I am a family COI editor and I agree with all of the above. Who knows the subject matter better than the COI? If the writing is neutral and referenced (once pointed out, it's easy to do), COI's are invaluable to WP. Further, where would WP be without COIs? It's logical to assume that COIs get many of WP's articles up and running. Others may edit, add and subtract, but COIs start many of the articles. If you look at some of the Fortune 500 articles, only an insider would have such detailed company information. I came across an article for a small company that was written by one person in the sandbox with company history, references, and photos -- you just know the article was written by a COI. However, there is no indication this person was challenged. The problem is that the COIs who suffer are the COIs who do the right thing and declare. Because of declaring, COIs are overly scrutinized and can't edit their articles. Except for typos, they can't correct mistakes, update, or add valuable information -- because Request Edit doesn't work. The last time I looked at my Request Edits, there were 169 in the queue to be reviewed. I realize that Request Edits are done by volunteers, but there has to be a way to streamline the process so COIs aren't penalized for declaring. I think that if the ramifications of declaring weren't so horrendous, more hidden COIs would come forward and declare. KDS4444, COI declaring is shooting yourself in the foot. I can't begin to tell you what I've been through. There is a stigma -- a terrible stigma -- attached to the label, and now I see why some COI's hide. Yes, it's reasonable and fair that another's eyes see the edits before they're posted, but the Request Edit process isn't the answer. I have no suggestions as of now because I'm relatively new to COI editing; I'm just relaying what I've encountered in the short period of time that I've been a family COI editor.Cstwct (talk) 16:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you can provide more disclosure as to what you mean by "family COI editor." I trust you mean that you are writing about a member of your family. The problem with such editing is that it tends to skew the project in the direction of subjects with loving or self-promoting family members. While I'm sure you're family member is a worthy subject, what about all the other potential subjects of articles that aren't so blessed? When the subject operates a business, it also means that wikipedia becomes another advertising vehicle for the subject of the article. However, none of what I've described is the reason for the COI guideline, which is incorporated in the guideline. Request edits often don't get attention because persons who aren't family members don't think the requested edits are of consequence. Given the number of request edits that you cite I suspect that might be the reason why they are not being tended to as often as you like, or not tended to at all. Some editors enjoy working with COI editors and cherish the opportunity of guiding them through the process and helping them use Wikipedia bandwidth to promote their relatives/friends/etc. Others do not. The COI guideline, in taking the position that COI editing is strongly discouraged, takes a middle road by discouraging but not prohibiting COI editing. Yes, this creates inconvenience for COI editors, but that is its intended purpose, because COI editing is viewed as undesirable, on the grounds that readers are entitled to read articles not written by their subjects, friends, children or spouses. Hope this helps. Coretheapple (talk) 18:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Looking through your contributions I see that you've created an article on your spouse, and I see that this article is high in Google rankings, the other being personal websites. I see also that you were active in an AfD discussion. I also note that you directly edited the article in question as recently as two days ago[3]. I think you've managed the Wikipedia system quite well, and would gently suggest that your complaint is, at the very least, overreaching. Coretheapple (talk) 19:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Coretheapple. WP has articles about my spouse and my father. I have two simple Request Edits (both highlight delete), and my own edits consisted of correcting typos left by other editors. I've managed the WP system only because I've had great guidance from Marchjuly, who has been generous and patient in teaching me the ins and outs of the system. I respectfully suggest that if you went through what I went through as a family COI, you wouldn't state my complaint is overreaching. I agree there should be neutrality, and my articles have been stripped of all sentiment so only neutrality remains. However, the article on my father was also stripped of documented historical facts and left a stub. I admit I was over the top in writing about him. You mentioned that some editors enjoy working with COI editors and cherish the opportunity of guiding them through the process. Do you mean there are editors who will help you write your article from a neutral standpoint? If so, please recommend someone. My father's article needs to be rewritten with neutrality. Finally, I can't be convinced that strangers write the initial WP articles having to do with companies or biographies. What incentive would a stranger have to spend countless hours writing and researching unless there is a financial interest or the article's subject is a family member? I just read about professors instructing their students to create articles. Not sure how that fits into WP's guidelines. Thank you.Cstwct (talk) 20:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I have to strongly take issue with your statement that you "can't be convinced that strangers write the initial WP articles having to do with companies or biographies." This is a cynical as well as inaccurate characterization of the volunteers who edit Wikipedia. I personally have worked long and hard on various biographies of persons because I find them interesting, not because I have any connection to the subject matter. I haven't done the same with companies because my interest is less. However, if I can find the time I hope to write about a particular cleanser ("Zud") that has no article, assuming I can find the sources. I have no connection to the manufacturer of Zud, or to any of the persons I written about because I feel that they have made notable contributions to the performing arts or otherwise have made their mark. That's what motivates the vast majority of editors, not self interest. You ask "What incentive would a stranger have to spend countless hours writing and researching unless there is a financial interest or the article's subject is a family member?" Yes, i know that perplexes you because you are here to push your own personal agenda, not to build an encyclopedia. To be frank the very attitudes you express are the reason we have a COI guideline, and the reason it needs to be strengthened, not weakened. You should not assume that other editors have COIs because most volunteer editors, unlike you, are not here to promote a personal agenda. Coretheapple (talk) 20:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

As for editors who can help you through the process: I see from your contributions that you have already received such attention, and are doing an excellent job getting the material you want into Wikipedia. Not only do I think you don't need help, I think that you might be in a position to help other COI editors accomplish their goals. Coretheapple (talk) 21:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I just finished writing a response to you, hit save changes, and the browser malfunctioned. Now I see your post above. And, yes, I'd love to help other COI editors! But not paid COI editors. I want to post my response, because it's heartfelt:

I'm sorry if you took my comments personally. I'm not talking about WP editors, like yourself, who are truly interested in editing articles. My comments were overly broad. I have the greatest respect and appreciation for editors like Marchjuly and Katie, who have been so kind to me. I've also watched as a terrific editor just improved one of my articles, and my Request Edits were resolved (as I was writing to you). My articles do not promote a "personal agenda". The articles deserve to be on WP or they wouldn't be on. And, yes, I guess I am cynical because I've had a tough time this past month, not only with the WT article, but with the privacy issue as well. Actually, the articles are secondary; lack of privacy is the hardest issue for me to accept. I didn't realize when I first started that my conversations with WP weren't private; that they're visible to the public. I don't think I can get over that. In any event, I'm truly sorry if I hurt your feelings. The last thing I want to do is hurt hard-working WP editors, and I know there are many. You've given me a new perspective on my argument and a deeper understanding of Wikipedia. Thank you for your sharing what you do and for giving me a different and enlightening viewpoint.Cstwct (talk) 21:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Look, many many editors are here to push an agenda of some kind, including, most commonly, a political or ideological agenda. The rules concerning content are quite strict. COI is but one type of agenda, which in your case is that you are here primarily to write about persons to whom you have personal ties. As you can see from the reading list at the top of this page, efforts are made to patiently educate persons who have a COI as to why COI is not desirable, however such efforts are often rebuffed. I think it would benefit you greatly to understand why COI is "strongly discouraged" and what it would mean if indeed all or most of the articles on Wikipedia were a product of COI. The project's reputation is anything but sterling. Personally I feel that its reputation is "not my problem" as it is not "my" reputation at state but that of Wales and the entity that he created. The perception that articles are written by their subjects or friends, whether paid or not,is seriously deleterious to the reputation of the project, which is why there is a COI rule. This is not to say that other agendas are not bad, just that the fact that they are bad does not made COI less bad. Coretheapple (talk) 21:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The fact is, COI is an influence on the editor. I mentioned that article on Zud, the cleanser. I just find it interesting, don't ask me why. It used to be available widely but no longer. It is very caustic. Was it toxic in some fashion? If so, it goes in the article. Period. If I had a COI, there is a fine chance that I might "forget" or downplay such concerns, or not write the article at all. That is just one element of why COI is discouraged. Coretheapple (talk) 21:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I do understand why COIs are strongly discouraged. You can't not have a bias if you're writing about someone you love or an agenda you feel strongly about. Re being rebuffed, I think in the beginning, yes, because there is an emotional attachment to the article. I didn't think I was biased when I wrote my articles; so when they were initially neutralized, I was hostile. It was a painful experience. However, if you're open-minded and as you begin to understand why, and that it's impossible to write without bias, I think the resistance fades away. But this takes time, and a COI can make a lot of mistakes along the way. I disagree that COI guidelines should be strengthened -- they're very strong now. I think the issue is getting more COIs to declare and work with WP. Maybe taking away the stigma and showing COIs they can be a valuable asset to WP would help. Don't know about those with political or ideological agendas, though. Thank you for letting me work through my feelings and understand another perspective. It's a different type of conversation than one where you're learning about what you can and can't do. I looked up Zud. It's still being sold on the internet. The warnings are gruesome -- you need to wear a mask in order to use it. Cstwct (talk) 00:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes discussing this has motivated me to begin my Zud article, if someone hasn't already beaten me to it. The last I looked, Zud was about an entirely different subject. Coretheapple (talk) 00:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)Postscript: Not a single source on Zud cleanser, even though searching on Newspapers.com indicates it has been around since at least 1943. So I guess there will be no article on that. However, I did stumble on Bar Keepers Friend, and, apropos our discussion, the edit history and origin shows not a hint of COI. Coretheapple (talk) 13:52, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Paid editing?

Would being "instructed" by one's superior (like in this case) to create a Wikipedia article about said superior be considered a form of paid editing or just a simple COI? -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I read that and my reaction is a massive, blood curdling...... WTF??????? Anyway, recovering briefly from the shock, I guess yes it would be paid editing, but I am not sure. That is one for the record books. Thanks for raising the issue. ~~You may want to raise that on Jimbo's talk page.~~ Meanwhile I've posted on COIN, just to make other editors aware of the situation. It's a delicate situation. We certainly don't want to get the editor in question in trouble with the general. Coretheapple (talk) 14:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's paid editing. --Ronz (talk) 16:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

The way I see it, if the subordinate writes the article during their business hours, it is direct paid editing, plain and simple. If outside business hours, it is either goodwill paid editing or editing under duress. The latter case is kinda "negative pay" editing: "if you don't edit, you are off into the streets". Staszek Lem (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I've asked the guy to email me as a fellow Airman and I'll discuss why this is a bad idea.--v/r - T P 19:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Both the editor in question and Wikipedia are put in a very awkward situation by this particular general's desire for publicity. This is not good. Coretheapple (talk) 21:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure this is just a misunderstanding, typical of people unfamiliar with Wikipedia, that I can easily clear up and relate it back to military terms that they will understand.--v/r - T P 21:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who responded and is working to try and sort this out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Appreciate your raising the issue widely, so it can be sorted out. Coretheapple (talk) 13:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

"Request edits" to an absurd level

Attracted by user:Cstwct's post here, I looked at his activity and see some of his edit requests in Talk:William Tunberg (artist), no doubt up to the WP:COI letter, still strike me as quite absurd:

Fix typo under Career (delete "noted")
Cite needed for Karl Tunberg & Ben Hur: "Karl Tunberg Oscar Nominee for Ben Hur". April 11, 1992. Los Angeles Times. [1]</ref>
To resolve cite needed for Tunberg's drawing style (Career, 2nd to last paragraph): Delete paragraph that needs cite. Beginning "Tunberg's signature drawing..." and ending "...uses marquetry on three-dimensional surfaces.
Delete Marquetry section. Original intent to develop this section has been abandoned

"Please please delete what I wrote" -- Really? IMO something is inherently wrong with our guideline in this respect. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@Staszek Lem: The attitude expressed by this account seems to be as follows: 1. We ourselves have COIs, otherwise we wouldn't be spending long hours working on articles (either that, I guess, or we are "chumps") and 2. When we aren't giving vent to our own undisclosed COI, we are at the beck and call of COI editors in polishing the prose of articles on their spouses and parents. Coretheapple (talk) 21:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@Coretheapple: Actually I was tempted to call WP:POINT on this occasion. Still, IMO the guideline, in addition to "Request edit", must have some other mechanisms, such as "Request edit approval" or something like "COI pending changes" functionality. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Since this is just a behavioral guideline I don't know how that can be done. Coretheapple (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@Staszek Lem: One approach may be to include in this guideline a specific caution urging editors to not bombard editors with edit requests. WP:PER, which is just an information page, is silent on the issue, and it really belongs here anyway. Coretheapple (talk) 21:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Just for reference, I was one of the editors trying to help Cstwct with some of the issues she was having. I encouraged her to use the template whenever she wanted to make any major changes to the article, but also referred her to WP:COIADVICE and WP:PSCOI for more specific information. I also tried to encourage her to keep her edit requests brief and to the point and try to make them one at a time. I really wasn't trying to be pointy or bite anyone. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: While I can't speak for Staszek I am pretty sure that he was not directing any criticism to you whatsoever, but was commenting on the frequency of the request edits. That was my understanding and I was commenting on that basis. Coretheapple (talk) 14:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I was not clear; I thought it was self-evident: the absurd part was the "request-edits" to fix a typo, to add a reference, etc. I don't think a COI editor must be forbidden to do these themselves and the guideline must clearly say something about this. I understand that "bombarding" with such requests was probably not of "bad faith". I may readily believe a COI editor was grossly intimidated with our policy and did not want to touch the article text with a 7-foot pole. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying things Coretheapple and Staszek Lem. FWIW, I think it was probably a combination of being frustrated and a lack of familiarity with how to use the template which lead to those edit requests, not really an attempt on her part to be WP:POINTy. Part of her frustration probably was due to the fact that she is basically an SPA who has had been editing off and on since 2009 without anyone commenting on her edits; then, she creates a new article which suddenly finds her edits now being scrutinized by others. I can understand that frustration and maybe Wikipedia needs to figure out a way to make its concerns about COI more clear to editors who might not be familiar with the guidelines. Maybe a checkbox-link which links to Wikipedia:General disclaimer or Wikipedia:COI could be added to Special:CreateAccount which needs to be checked for the registration to be completed or maybe some language about COI editing could be added to the top of each editing window as part of the "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted...." statement. Anyway, Cstwct seems to have a better idea as to what Wikipedia expects of COI editors and a better feel for using the templates, so I think things should be OK from here on out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:44, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Quite possibly, but my general experience with COI issues is that lack of compliance with rules stems from a singleminded interest in pursuing an agenda and lack of interest in Wiikipedia procedures, even simple ones. I encountered recently a COI editor, who has been editing long than I have, who to this day does not sign their talk page posts despite being asked to do so repeatedly. They just don't care.. Coretheapple (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)