Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Archive 29

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31→Archive 35

General question on the boundaries of COI

I apologize in advance for the fact that this question has likely been addressed several times in the archives. I just want to know, how large are the boundaries of COI? Obviously, if I worked for The Coca-Cola Company, it would violate COI if I edited The Coca-Cola Company article. But what if, for example, I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Would it be inappropriate for me to edit articles associated with the LDS Church? What if I am a lesbian? Or an avid fan of Game of Thrones? Or what if I know someone who lives in a remote city in Argentina? Could I edit articles on lesbianism, Game of Thrones, or that remote Argentine city, respectively? Could I ask my friend in Argentina for information on the city to add to the article, so long as she has citations that back it up? Are the boundaries primarily around whether or not money is involved with the editing? Please either answer my questions or direct me to archived sections where these questions are addressed. I apologize again that this has probably been asked a dozen times before, and I understand there may not be a clear answer. Thanks. Michipedian (talk) 01:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

So we generally draw a distinction between being 1) a fan or hater and 2) having an actual "external interest" that generates a conflict between that interest and working on that topic in WP. The WP:Advocacy essay does a pretty good job of laying out the difference. However in terms of how people edit, both advocates and people with a COI tend to edit and behave similarly -- both want to put content into WP that is badly sourced or unsourced and that violates NPOV in order to further their external interest -- to promote or denigrate X. And both kinds of editors often have little desire to understand the mission of WP or the policies or guidelines or to try work well with other editors, so both tend to behave badly.
But everybody comes to WP with points of view - what we ask everyone to do is put that aside, find the best reliable sources that they can, and summarize those sources in a neutral manner. This is all described in WP:YESPOV, which is part of the NPOV policy. (And I hope that answers your question about a friend in Argentina -- what they say doesn't matter; what matters are what reliable sources say, as we define "reliable source")
When people can't or won't set aside their POV and won't edit and behave according to the mission and policies and guidelines, they end up failing to get what they want and leaving here angry, or the community ends up indefinitely blocking them for being not here to build an encyclopedia. Of course some people start out rocky and eventually find their groove.
Does that answer your question? Jytdog (talk) 01:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I believe so. The point you made about my friend in Argentina is more of a point on WP:OR, right? Michipedian (talk) 01:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
yep :) Jytdog (talk) 04:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
So would I need to disclose the fact that I have a friend living in the city that I am editing about, and that she is providing me with references to help add information about the city? Michipedian (talk) 22:48, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
It depends. If your friend is say in public relations for the town and the goal of your work is to help them promote it for tourism, then heck yes that it is a conflict of interest that you should disclose. If you and your friend have just noticed that there is no article about the town and want to fill that gap, that is no COI. That is how things happen here. Just make sure that there are sufficient independent sources to generate an article about it, and make sure that the content is neutral and well sourced. It can be actually harder to edit about things you are familiar with; people tend to write what they know, and not what sources say. But just knowing something or being familiar with something, does not create a COI. Jytdog (talk) 23:51, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Cool. Thank you for answering my questions. Do you think it would be fair to say that a genuine willingness to keep and add negative information about the subject would indicate a lack of a COI? Michipedian (talk) 01:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
No, I would not. Jytdog (talk) 01:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Michipedian (talk) 23:40, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
One more question on this Jytdog, if I have determined that I do not have a COI but that WP:Advocacy applies to a particular topic that I have edited about, am I expected to disclose that as one would disclose a COI? Michipedian (talk) 07:58, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
I can answer that one: no, a strong opinion is not, in itself, the same thing as a COI. Instead, the key obligation is to follow WP:NPOV. Some editors like to post their opinions on their user pages as a form of transparency (often using userboxes), whereas others keep those views private, and that's entirely a matter of personal choice. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Great, thanks, Tryptofish. I have always listed my areas of interest on my talk page, in part for the sake of transparency, and I have always been very committed to WP:NPOV, so I think I'm good. Just wanted to make sure I'm not violating any guideline. Michipedian (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

If you take the advocacy essay literally (which basically says don't violate or sacrifice policies in order to pursue advocacy) it's very workable. But if you consider the broader definitions of advocacy that it talks about per se as being a COI or problematic, then about 90% of editors would need to wear that scarlet letter. For example, an advocate for better nutrition of children contributing to a child nutrition article. North8000 (talk) 18:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks, North8000! Michipedian (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Responding section

I added content here that was tweaked by the Coretheapple here (fine with that) and then removed by SV with edit note rmv recently added that contradicts what follows. I see no contradiction and apparently neither did Core. User:SlimVirgin please explain.

The added content was the first paragraph below. have presented the whole section to make this easier to discuss.

Once the disclosure and proposal is made at the talk page, the discussion about whether the content is acceptable or not should be based solely on the content policies and guidelines (WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:NOT), and should not be personalized in any way. Focus on content, not the contributor.

Editors responding to edit requests from paid editors are expected to do so carefully, particularly when commercial interests are involved. When large amounts of text are added by or on behalf of the article subject, the article has, in effect, been ghostwritten by the subject without the readers' knowledge. Responding volunteers should therefore carefully check the proposed text and sources. That an article has been expanded does not necessarily mean that it is better.

Make sure the proposed version of the article complies with WP:WEIGHT. Be on the lookout for unnecessary detail that may have been added to overwhelm something negative, and check whether anything important is missing. Look for non-neutral language and unsourced or poorly sourced content. Be cautious about accepting content based on WP:SPS, such as a personal website, or primary sources such as a company website or press release. Responding editors should do their own search for independent sources. If the proposed new text is added to the article, the edit summary should include full attribution; see WP:COIATTRIBUTE below.

-- Jytdog (talk) 19:20, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

You forgot to ping Coretheapple. The addition wasn't discussed anywhere. It arguably adds nothing or it somewhat contradicts what follows, namely that checking edit requests from conflicted editors is not like checking other edits. SarahSV (talk) 20:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
I cut it back a tad but have to agree that it adds nothing , and that removal is the optimal outcome. Jytdog, you are a poor mind reader. I was seeking to come to a proper solution without edit-warring. It is an approach you may want to try sometime. Coretheapple (talk) 20:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
great, will keep these arguments in mind. Jytdog (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I have added some information and expanded the article"Colombo Hindu College with some citations and sources,including Big match of our school.As a student of this school,is it OK to add information and history about my school?Is it considered to be either legal or illegal?Have I committed big mistakes?May I add vision and mission statements of this school?Abishe (talk) 14:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for asking about these things! I took a quick look at the edits that you made, adding sources, and they look fine to me. In my opinion, the section about the "big match", which I think had already started before your edits, looks kind of promotional to me. Adding the school's mission statements should be fine, as long as the additions are sourced properly. There is no inherent COI in editing a page about a school that you attend or previously attended, unless you are being paid money or otherwise receiving personal gain from the edits, or are making non-neutral edits that would amount to promoting the school. The key things to do in your case are to adhere carefully to WP:NPOV and WP:NOTPROMO. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Privacy

I'm thinking of adding something about privacy to the "Edit requests from COI or paid editors" section.

When we click on http://www.companyX.com in a citation, infobox, or external-links section, the WMF sends information about that request to Company X. The amount of information that is sent seems to depend on whether it's an HTTPS page going to an HTTPS or HTTP page, and I'm not clear about the current default. It could be en.wikipedia.org or en.wikipedia.org/page or en.wikipedia.org/page#section.

Explanation here from Astinson (WMF). See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/RfC: Wikimedia referrer policy for more information.

For our purposes, this means that, if we're checking an article about Company X during an edit request, that company can see (a) which IP addresses clicked on its links; (b) that those IPs came from Wikipedia; and (c) perhaps which article and section they came from.

The danger is that companies will be able to deduce, based on the time of the edits, discussions about those edits, and any company links its representatives have offered as sources, which user name belongs to which IP address. This could expose editors to legal problems. If editors are editing from their workplace, the IP addresss could lead to real names. In addition, if a company has employed a Wikipedian to do PR for it, the company might share information about the IP addresses with that person. Therefore, editors concerned about their privacy should consider using anonymizers when accessing company links during edit requests.

I'm not sure how to word this, but I wanted to signal that I intend to add something. Suggestions are welcome, or if someone else knows how to write it accurately and succinctly, please do. If Astinson (WMF) has any information, especially if I've misunderstood something, that would be very helpful too. SarahSV (talk) 21:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: Thanks for pinging me and this is definitely something we should be educating editors about. We are close to publishing the anonomyzing plugins recommendations from our Security team on meta. I will definitely drop a link here (hopefully this week), once they are posted -- the way it is framed may offer good language. Note that the only time that any referrer information would be sent is if the person clicks on a link on Wikipedia, and currently the only information sent is the referral header "en.wikipedia.org". These can be associated with your session in tracking software on the other website. Previously, before we made the change to the referral policy early last year, HTTPS:// to HTTPS:// referrals had been sending more nuanced information (which page). This is created by a browser behavior, which can be turned off with browser plugins or in some case settings/scripts in the browser policy. If editors are concerned about their IP addresses being associated with their passage between websites, our security team is recommending that they use the plugin: many, many websites send some information about referrals alongside the IP address. This does not however, protect against other ways of tracking the "where" and "who" of referrals from Wikipedia through other vectors -- it just anonymizes one of the standard web-tracking strategies. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 22:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Even assuming the IP information goes to the company, I wonder how realistic it is that companies will seek this information and that ISPs will knuckle under to such requests. Coretheapple (talk) 22:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Alex, that's very helpful. I'll wait until the WMF publish their recommendations about anonomyzing plugins. Core, legal issues apart, the company could use the IP address to intimidate, especially if it's passed around and if the editor edits from work. SarahSV (talk) 22:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, if it is a concern (I'm having trouble with that prospect) one just copies the link and accesses it directly rather than from Wikipedia. That way one doesn't require a browser extension, which can slow down browsers. Coretheapple (talk) 23:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
By the way, if this has been a problem in the past, I'd like to know about it! Coretheapple (talk) 23:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm concerned that this is violating the en-wiki policy at WP:Outing, if the software can disclose personal identities, or clues to personal identities, of editors and readers. Editors and readers should not have to know about using a browser extension or using a separate window when they are simply clicking on a link found here. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Lots of websites do this, but on Wikipedia the information companies receive is combined with the proximity of the edits. So User:A arrives to check a paid-editor's edit request. She posts on talk: "I've just looked at the company source you provided, but I'd prefer not to use primary sources." That post allows the company to check which IP address from Wikipedia checked their page at time T.
Core, companies may provide pages as sources that are otherwise not public or not something the public is likely to find, so even if you don't click on the link from Wikipedia, they may still be able to work out, from the timing of posts on talk pages, who has looked at it. SarahSV (talk) 01:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Do I understand Astinson correctly that the IP address is always transmitted (though not always with accompanying information)? Coretheapple (talk) 01:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I believe that's always transmitted, along with what type of device, and user-agent string (browser and system details). SarahSV (talk) 02:48, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Has this ever been a live issue? It seems like a situation that has no ready solution. I'm not clear how this can be addressed in the guideline. Coretheapple (talk) 03:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
The solution is to use an anonymizer or don't click on company links. The point of raising it is simply to warn people who might not otherwise have thought of it. Lots of editors won't care, but some will.
The WMF has a privacy policy and confidentiality agreements for users who have access to private data via the WMF. But paid editors may have access to it with no restrictions. If you're a paid editor with, say, 30 company clients, you potentially have access to all the IP addresses and user-agent strings that click on company links on Wikipedia. The company might hand over the logs to help the paid editor track how helpful the links were. If you can match the times of access to posts and edits, you can match the IP addresses and user-agent strings to user names. That could become a reasonably large database after a while. SarahSV (talk) 03:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it's necessary for the web site to know where to send a response, so it needs the IP address. isaacl (talk) 04:24, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure if your proposed changes are best suited for this page. It's a more general privacy issue that affects every reader in many different ways, so I think it would be better to put it on a page of its own (perhaps a more formalized version of Wikipedia:How to not get outed on Wikipedia). In particular, putting it in the "Edit requests from COI or paid editors" section would seem to counsel these editors to be aware of certain measures that can help limit the amount of scrutiny they can face from check users. While I appreciate security through obscurity is illusory, I would prefer not to lay out guidance on preserving privacy in the same section that paid editors are expected to read to understand how they can contribute to Wikipedia content. isaacl (talk) 04:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi Isaac, I haven't made a proposal yet. I was thinking of just one or two sentences. Re: your point about CU, I wasn't talking about using proxies to edit, but using anonymizers to access certain sites. Anyway, I'll wait for the WMF to publish its recommendations. SarahSV (talk) 17:35, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
If this is addressed here, I would suggest providing link to anonymizers, so that users unfamiliar with the technology can utilize it. Likewise I would recommend a brief and non-technical explanation of the issues, along with an explicit mention of the fact that this is just a precaution some users might wish to take and not a very big deal. Coretheapple (talk) 17:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
When the time comes to actually add the information, I see a lot of merit in isaacl's suggestion that it should actually be at Wikipedia:Personal security practices, Wikipedia:On privacy, confidentiality and discretion, and/or Wikipedia:How to not get outed on Wikipedia, because it can affect a lot more editors than just those with interests in COI. Here, there could be a brief mention and a link to the details. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
It also occurs to me that anything we might recommend needs to be compatible with Wikipedia:Open proxies. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Well by definition, if your origin IP address is being anonymized, through any technology (such as a VPN), then you are impeding the ability of check users to do certain checks. Thanks @Tryptofish: for those links: I think Wikipedia:Personal security practices would be the best page to include additional information on this topic. A simple pointer to it from this page might be a workable approach. isaacl (talk) 19:53, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
"Proposed changes" was a shorthand for "the content that you were musing about adding to the 'Edit requests from COI or paid editors' section". My apologies for any confusion. isaacl (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
  • What are you guys going on about? The WMF site doesn't do this, this is a feature of your browser. Hench why the solution, per the WMF, is a browser plugin. There are anonymizing browsers out there that do not transmit referral information but the only way to hide your IP is to use a proxy or TOR. This isn't a feature of mediawiki software, this is a feature of your browser. Also, btw, if you disable this feature in your browser, you may struggle to submit forms. The referrer header is critical to CSRF protection on many websites while others resort to CSRF tokens (because its so easy for a hacker to fake a referrer.) All of the discussion about what the WMF software is doing and whether or not it violates the privacy policy needs a serious dose of facts because a lot of what you guys are saying is fear-mongering.--v/r - TP 23:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
  • TParis, the site shows that we are coming from en.wikipedia.org. That, along with the times of certain posts and the time the external site was accessed, might help to match user names to IP addresses. SarahSV (talk) 00:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
  • SlimVirgin: No, the site doesn't show that. Your browser does. Because it is a feature of your browser. MediaWiki servers sends you a text-based file formatted according to the HTML standards and the text file contains an HREF tag. At that point, the mediawiki server has no further connection to your computer. Your browser interprets the HREF tag as a clickable link. When your click it, your browser packs up information about you, including the site you were on when you clicked the link, and sends it as an HTTP header to the new site. This is entirely a feature of your browser. Mediawiki software doesn't do it, and can't stop it. Only you can with your browser. But if you do, some websites may not work.--v/r - TP 00:12, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
  • The WMF said above: "Note that the only time that any referrer information would be sent is if the person clicks on a link on Wikipedia, and currently the only information sent is the referral header 'en.wikipedia.org'". There was an RfC recently to ask the WMF to become a silent referrer instead. SarahSV (talk) 00:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, you have to be on Wikipedia for Wikipedia to be the referrer. That's the entire point of a referrer. Your browser says to the next page "Hey, I got a link to your site from that guy". It's the same way you walk into a new restaurant and say "Yeah, Joe said you have good food". Joe didn't call the restaurant. You went there and told the restaurant who told you about them. Same exact thing. That's why the solution to the RFC is a browser plugin - because your browser is the program that is doing it. Your confusion, and the confusion of everyone else, is exactly what I am referring to in my first post. You have misinformation, I am trying to help you all. This stuff is literally my day job.--v/r - TP 00:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for help. I do appreciate it. Re: Joe. He could ask you not to repeat any more restaurant suggestions from him, and the WMF could become a silent referrer.
Browser plug-ins are good, but they slow things down. Anyway, the point here is that lots of editors don't realize how much information companies may collect about them when they do reviews for paid editors. That's the only point I'm making, namely that I'd like to add a couple of "be aware of such-and-such" sentences in the relevant section. If you would like to write something for the guideline, that would be very helpful. SarahSV (talk) 01:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
There is no technology that currently exists (I even just googled it to make sure it wasn't a thing) that allows a website to force a browser not to report it as a referrer. That would have to happen as a browser plugin. As far as a warning goes, it's fine but you know my opinion about the COI policy being bloated already. This belongs in a general "Internet Safety" message.--v/r - TP 01:12, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm pretty good with restaurants, but I lack anything remotely resembling expertise with digital matters, so thank you, TParis, for clearing that up. Is a VPN the kind of plugin you are talking about, or is it something else? --Tryptofish (talk) 01:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
A VPN could certainly obscure your IP address, but it won't stop a referrer header or cookies from passing between your browser and a website. You see, the HTTP protocol passes several headers between the client and server. A typical request for a webpage from your browser to a server looks kinda like this:
GET /spegetti.htm HTTP/1.1
User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE5.01; Windows NT)
Host: www.recipes.com
Referrer: google.com?q=spegetti+recipes
Accept-Language: en-us
Accept-Encoding: gzip, deflate
Connection: Keep-Alive
...
These requests are sent from your browser and all VPN does is tunnel them. Your browser adds all of these headers itself. In the restaurant scenario, VPN is like the delivery service. Your order doesn't change, only how it gets to you.--v/r - TP 01:28, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
That's very interesting, thanks. So is an anonymizer the kind of plugin you are talking about? --Tryptofish (talk) 01:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
It'd depend on the plugin/proxy. What matters is whether or not it strips headers that can be used to fingerprint you. The Tor browser does this.--v/r - TP 01:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
TParis, in that case what is meant (here, for instance) by "silent referrer? SarahSV (talk) 01:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Interesting, brand new meta tag, huh? Doesn't look like Edge browser supports it, but no one uses Edge. Thanks for the link.--v/r - TP 01:36, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Seeking experienced guesses about COI problems

I am curious to get some guesses from experienced Wikipedians about how often a particular kind of paid editing causes problems. Think of all of the companies and organizations which have ever paid editors to come to Wikipedia.

What percentage of paid editors edit Wikipedia biographies, articles for organizations, and articles for products in a promotional way; versus the percentage of paid editors who edit Wikipedia articles in a general field of expertise which does not seem to be related to any company, individual, or product.

Does anyone recall seeing paid editors coming to Wikipedia to share expertise unrelated to promoting an individual, organization, or product? Is there a name for paid Wikipedia editing which excludes editing about individuals, organizations, and products, and which only includes editing in a field of expertise in the usual volunteer wiki way? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Generally there are three kinds - people who work in PR for a given firm or nonprofit and just do stuff about that organization; people who work for large firms and have a few big clients; and freelancers who edit on a wide range of stuff but generally companies or their products, nonprofits, and executives. I would have a hard time percentifying. I reckon somebody could go through COIN filings and come up with actual percentages for what has been dealt with there.
In view, it is a bad idea for paid editors to volunteer-edit in addition to editing for pay, as this inevitably raises questions of whether edits they make where they don't disclose per PAID are actually paid and the person is not being honest. I realize that this creates a catch 22, since one of the criticisms of paid editors is that they are NOTHERE more generally. Its a hard situation. But of the 3 kinds, the editors who would mostly likely be trusted if they edited as volunteers as well, would be those who work in PR for a company or organization, and only do paid editing about that organization. There would be no reason to think other edits were made for pay.
But in my view paid editors can best show they are HERE by being rigorous in only proposing high quality, very well sourced content and being respectful of the fact that they are exploiting the volunteer community which means not being pushy and always being very professional (even when volunteers are not); the most respectful thing is to not waste volunteer time proposing poor quality content. Jytdog (talk) 14:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC) answered the wrong question, sorry Jytdog (talk) 08:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
The kind of neutral content creation you're talking about is extremely rare in my experience. The only thing I can think of right now that is nontrivial is some editing on dive sites in Cyprus (MS Zenobia) by one of the conflicted editors there. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:28, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't really agree; there has been a good teal of paid editing of technical articles in various fields by people from the various companies, usually in-house, which is paid by our definition but not the WMF's, or sometimes outside editors. Some fields of business such as accounting have done it, Almost all of it I know about has been acceptable in content. In some cases the company products have been unavoidably mentioned, because thatre is a very close relationship between it and the overall field, Th edanger is that they will be disproportionately mentioned. That's why I think it does count as COI editing as must be declared by our COI guidelines, so the reader can judge whether it is disproportionate. There has also been similar editing of public issues, particularly environment and education. I consider that this raises a real danger of bias, and absolutely must be declared. Bias here if extreme is usually fairly obvious, but nonetheless all views still need to be presented. (This sort of editing can be particularly insidious when it's by those associated with causes almost everyone here supports. I've noticed a great deal of this,and if it's a popular cause it can be almost impossible to remove a promotional article for it), ) I think our rules wisely require all forms of this to be declared. DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I misunderstood some of the original questions -- which was - is anybody aware of paid editors who really contribute knowledge in their field and don't edit about their company, their products, or their executives (the three most common subjects of PROMO editing). So yes, like what DGG said - somebody paid to edit about say, accounting, who is an expert in accounting and could contribute really expert editing (well sourced) about say Generally accepted accounting principles. Or more in my wheelhouse -- somebody at a biotech company who edited about the underlying biology or disease, or a faculty member or postdoc at a university who had a percent effort paid for, and edited about the field in which they are an expert. This is what DGG answered; i have actually never encountered anything along those lines. Jytdog (talk) 08:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I just wanted to clarify a doubt about whether creating talk pages on English Wikipedia which in fact exists on Commons is good or bad towards the society. For example,I have created a File talk page File talk:Ian Bell batting 2013-14 (2).jpg which also available in Wikimedia Commons.But it was probably uploaded through Commons.If I create a talk page to a File like this will this makes others to be confused about it?Abishe (talk) 03:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

That has nothing at all to do with conflict of interest. It is perfectly fine to create a file talk page on the English Wikipedia, although it is also not required to do so. Basically, a file talk page here on en-wiki is for discussing issues about using the file here, whereas a file talk page at Commons is for issues about using the file anywhere. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I just looked at your user talk page, and I see the comment about it by another editor. That editor was not concerned about COI, but was referring to whether the WikiProject that you put on the talk page is really a WikiProject for that file. You would get the best answers to your question at the WikiProject talk page or at WP:Teahouse. It's not really a question for here. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorted (magazine) dispute

Hi, all. Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Sorted (magazine)#Recents edits to the article. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Should the WP:TALK guideline discourage interleaving?

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#RfC: Should the guideline discourage interleaving?. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

SPI folks are discussing a change regarding undisclosed paid editing (UPE)

Of interest to some of the COI "regulars": WT:Sockpuppet investigations#Massive UPE sockfarms ☆ Bri (talk) 02:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

New AfC Wizard proposal

Has a nice disclosure step. Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_Article_Wizard_Redesign Jytdog (talk) 22:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Implications for other mechanisms for reaching new users

There is an issue closely related to the RfC linked just above, about which I'd like to get some informal feedback from other editors. As of this time, the proposal at that RfC appears to be getting strong support, and I'm guessing that there is a pretty good chance that it will end up happening. If it does, that means that whenever a user starts a new page using the article creation wizard, they will be presented with some very clear questions about whether they have a COI and/or are getting paid, with easy links to the information that they need to know.

I'm asking about how that new feature would affect an idea that I started some time ago, and that I've been thinking about bringing up again. The idea was to have a question during the account registration process that would lead new users who are contemplating COI or paid editing to automatically get a user talk page message that would link to the information that they need to know. The current status of that proposal is here: [1], with links back to earlier discussions. As you can see, that idea is dependent upon developer buy-in for implementation, and there is significant interest but not yet actual follow-through.

My personal opinion is that the new idea about article creation is actually superior to the earlier idea about account registration. It looks to be very clear, to present itself to new users at the optimal time, and to be easier to bring into existence. So that has me thinking that I won't devote more effort to the idea about account creation. What do other editors think about that? Does that sound like the right approach? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Jytdog (talk) 18:47, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Cryptocurrencies and COI

So... is it a conflict of interest, if somebody owns "coin" in a cryptocurrency, and edits content about that cryptocurrency? There was a brief discussion before about the concept in general, now archived here. am bringing this up again, to see if folks think we should add this to the guideline as something that should be considered a financial COI, so folks should disclose it and should not edit directly.... Jytdog (talk) 04:19, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I read with interest from the earlier discussion that there is, in particular, a kind of POV-pushing engaged in by advocates of some of these currencies, which makes me think that there is, indeed, a significant problem in this topic area, that needs to be looked out for. What I'm less sure about is the extent to which this is a COI problem, and the extent to which it is an NPOV problem. If, hypothetically, I were to edit with a positive bias about a company in which I was a stockholder, I think that would be a COI, but I wouldn't extend it so far as to include holdings in a retirement plan mutual fund that includes the company's stock along with many, many others. So that raises a question about the specific extent to which financial holdings in cryptocurrencies rise to a particularly high level with respect to COI, aside from the general POV issues. And I don't know the answer to that. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:47, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
The difference is that these cryptocurrencies are very volatile, and a lot of the advocacy is trying to get more people to participate, which directly increases the value of the currency. This is different from hyping a company and hoping people will then buy stock, and the buyside pressure will drive up the value. Jytdog (talk) 05:07, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Yep. The hype is to get people interested and buying. It's a clear financial COI. If you wanted to compare it to a stock, it would be to hyping up a penny stock - David Gerard (talk) 09:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I would say now that I am in favor of including it here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Sure, no harm in adding cryptocurrencies, as I said last time this came up. Coretheapple (talk) 23:55, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

are welcome vs are welcomed

@Slim Virgin:@Tryptofish: I have a concern with the wording, "Subject-matter experts (SMEs) are welcome on Wikipedia", as opposed to stating Subject-matter experts (SMEs) are welcomed on Wikipedia. My point is that of course subject matter experts are welcome, why wouldn't they be as is any good faith editor? Subject matter experts include physicians, scientists, artists, athletes, academics in general and multiple and diverse kinds of editors. "...are welcome" points to an underlying concern and even potential bias against experts. What we should say, in my opinion, is that we need and welcome experts. My concerns come out of discussions I have watched in which experts were treated badly on Wikipedia; in some cases they did not understand Wikipedia's culture and policies and were treated poorly (who for someone who is an expert in a field can lead to frustration). Eventually they leave. What we must do is support and help editors who mean well and who have a great deal to offer, so that we can benefit from them.(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC))

The purpose of this guideline is not to welcome anyone but rather to identify what COI is in WP and provide ways to manage it. Jytdog (talk) 16:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Your comment does not address my concern. This is a question about wording in the guideline itself so I'd like to focus on that issue. Its not a big deal but its something I'd like to look at.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC))
I am saying that your concern is "putting the emPHAsis on the wrong syllable" in this guideline. There are other places where we welcome people and of course we welcome experts, per WP:EXPERT. Jytdog (talk) 19:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Jytdog. As you well know every aspect of the policies and guidelines not just some "syllables" are subject to misunderstanding and misuse. Its important to make sure the wording is as accurate as we can make it. Right now I don't believe that is the case and I am asking to discuss this especially with the people who have made changes to this specific content.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC))
I was going to change your changes as well. They were just badly written. Jytdog (talk) 20:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
If you say that "X are welcomed", the connotation is that someone is greeting them. As far as I know, no one is filling that role right now. If you want someone to greet them, maybe it can be a task for the Welcoming committee. Regarding your second suggestion about what we should say, how do you propose wording it? Subject matter experts are needed and are gladly received on Wikipedia, ... for example?
Rewording the text is fine, but I don't think it's going to help much with the problems you raise. Perhaps you (or anyone else interested) would like to tackle the issue of experts not understanding Wikipedia's culture and policies? It could be a follow-up to identifying and greeting experts. isaacl (talk) 19:48, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
  • edit conflict response to Isaacl
I guess I haven't been very clear. This is not about trying to make a guideline into a welcome mat; it is about using language that lets editors know we do not treat experts differently than we do any other editor. Right now that isn't the case. We don't even have to say experts, "are welcome to..." which is what is in place now. My suggestion was a simple change that let experts know they are not to be treated differently than others. As far as greeting experts, I would argue that every editor should welcome every other and that isn't the case right now. In my experience experts are sometimes, even often, ridiculed and baited until they become upset or annoyed. Frankly, making it clear in policy/ guideline that experts are welcome might go a long way to making it clear to all editors that every editor is important and perhaps even necessary and might stop some of the poor treatment editors deal with. I thought this could be simple discussion about a very slight word change; its seems to have blown up into something else.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC))
Olive, I actually wasn't really thinking about that when I made my edit. My intention had been primarily to make a simple clarifying copyedit to address the fact that "both on Wikipedia and within their areas of expertise" made it sound like there was some sort of welcoming that is within their area of expertise but not on Wikipedia (welcomed at two different places). Obviously, that was not intended, so I thought that I was being helpful by clarifying it. The change from "welcomed" to "welcome" was just an afterthought. But I agree with other editors that "welcomed" implies that there is an active process of welcoming, which is not accurate, as opposed to simply saying that we are glad to have them here (subject to following the rules etc.). And I also do not think that there is any danger of giving a misleading impression that we do not really mean it when we say "welcome". I understand your concern about driving experts away, but I don't think that the wording here will have any effect on that. Maybe it can be addressed instead at WP:CIVIL or WP:BITE. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
OK. Makes sense. I'm not sure the wording in place right now conveys the right meaning nor did my wording. But thanks for the clarification on your edit summary which I found confusing and your cmt here.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC))
Yes, I did assume you were proposing a wording change. In your first sentence, you said ...as opposed to stating Subject-matter experts (SMEs) are welcomed, which implied to me that you wanted to restore your previous wording saying that experts are welcomed. Due to the associated connotation, I don't believe this is an improvement over "welcome". Then you said What we should say, in my opinion, is that we need and welcome experts., and I made a proposal that is in alignment with this. What do you think of my proposal?
I don't mind just discussing a wording change, but like I said, I don't see it resulting in any change in how experts are integrated into the community. For that, some kind of ongoing initiative program is needed. isaacl (talk) 04:16, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:COISELF

Following a minor misunderstanding on my part at WP:TH (the bottom section of the discussion here (permalink)), I would like request that COISELF is slightly reworded from
You should not create or edit articles about yourself, your family, friends, or foes.
to
You should generally refrain from creating articles about yourself, or anyone you know, unless through the Articles for Creation process.

The text as it stands seems to contradict WP:AUTO, which states that Creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged and, If you create an autobiography, you must have no promotional intent and must be willing to accept it being neutralized if it is not neutral, both of which imply that one may create an autobiography. Cullen328 advised me that AfC accepts autobiographies, see this section on my talk page (the bottom section on this permalink). –Sb2001 23:49, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I think that is great. Jytdog (talk) 23:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
I concur, Sb2001, and agree that the misunderstanding was minor. I commend you for addressing this discrepancy. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
That being said, only a very small percentage of editors will be successful in writing an acceptable article about themselves. It requires a rare combination of indisputable notabilty, humility and Wikipedia skills. I can only think of one or two examples that have come to my attention. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Using tools in exchange for pay

Discussion here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:13, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

per that discussion User:Godric on Leave added a small bit of material a few days ago and then self-reverted. I've reverted half of his self revert and expect that more will be added later. The total addition now is
  • "you should not accept any such affected article(s) at articles for creation process." in 2 places. I added a similar phrase at WP:AfC a few days ago and started a discussion there (no opposes so far).
This has been fairly bold on my part, but let's at least get the discussion going. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)


RfC - Assessing the status of the WP:COI guideline

withdrawn Jytdog (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This guideline has existed since 2004 when it looked like this and was called "Vanity pages". It has since been elaborated and refined, especially following the changes in the ToU in 2014.

Here in Wikipedia:

The heart of this document, is that people with a COI should disclose it, and should put proposed edits to mainspace through prior review instead of making them directly (in other words, put drafts through AfC for new articles, and for existing articles, make proposals on the talk page). The document mentions that per our paid-contribution disclosure policy and the ToU, paid editors must disclose. The document includes the common sense notion that conflicted and paid editors can directly make noncontroversial edits in mainspace like removing vandalism, and it accommodates GLAM/WIR editors in a common sense way.

The document makes it clear that the policy against harassment takes precedence over it, and that OUTING is strictly enforced.

It has been a long time since we assessed the status of this document. The question here is: is this "policy" or "guideline" in the community? I am asking about what we normally expect from each other, what we actually do and say as we work, the kinds of arguments that people actually make on noticeboards, etc. Jytdog (talk) 16:37, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

!votes

  • I'm interpreting your question as "Should this be promoted to a policy?" (correct me if you intend something else). To that, I'd say no, simply because of the number of exceptions to the rule with respect to conflict-of-interest editing. Wikipedians-in-Residence, for instance, technically have a conflict but in practice are fine directly editing articles about holdings of the museum/art gallery they work for. ~ Rob13Talk 17:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • In my view - in what I read and what I see other people doing, this has come to be lived by the community as policy. It is something that editors have come to normally expect of others and that they call out and cite at noticeboards etc. I am well aware that this is my perception. Jytdog (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, it is clearly a guideline. I think that some editors treat it as a de facto policy, but many other editors do not. I tend to like the idea of making it into a policy, but that would first require making it something with nearly black-and-white rules that can be enforced without excess drama. But as of now, it is pretty far from being a policy. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I'll agree with Jytdog that this is a de facto policy. I don't really think the WiR exceptions are that big of a deal: WiR's should still follow this page when they are writing about the history of their employer. Most of them don't so it doesn't apply to them in those cases. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Policy IMO this is policy. The TOU are not optional or simple best practice. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:14, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Fortunately, we already have a policy to meet the TOU: Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. The TOU does not cover COI editing in general, only the specific subset of paid editing. - Bilby (talk) 01:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Furthermore, the terms of use only cover the need to disclose one's status as a paid editor. It does not place any constraints on what pages a paid editor can edit. isaacl (talk) 04:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • It doesn't matter what we call it--we treat it as policy. DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • It is a guideline. It even states as much. The community has always regarded policies such as WP:Harassment as trumping WP:COI. That said, violating guidelines can still result in being blocked, editors should still follow them, and both policies and guidelines can allow for reasonable exceptions. I'm not sure how you are going to tell the difference except in the one important case where we've always said that where a policy conflicts with COI, the policy takes precedence, and I don't see that this has changed. - Bilby (talk) 05:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • It is a guideline that should be a policy. Those who say it is treated like policy should try enforcing it against an administrator one of these days. They'll tell you to go take a flying leap. Not quite clear what the point is of this RfC. If it is whether to promote to policy, I would favor. Coretheapple (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

  • User:BU Rob13. No I am not asking if this should be promoted to policy. I am asking what the status of this is in the editing community. If you think this is currently treated as a guideline, please say so. If you think this is currently treated as policy, please say so. And about GLAM etc, the document deals with those exceptions as noted in the opening statement. Just like every other policy/guideline deals with exceptions. That issue has been thoroughly hashed over as this actual document has been refined and in the practice of the community for many years now. Jytdog (talk) 18:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
User:BU Rob13 Per WP:PAG the policies and guidelines are written expressions of living community consensus as expressed in the practice of the community. Written policies and guidelines fall out of sync with actual community practice and need to be updated to match. This is entirely normal. For example we very recently updated WP:BLOCK and WP:BAN per this discussion to catch those policies up to community practice. This RfC is not attempting to change anything. It is attempting to assess living community consensus and practice. If the assessment is that it is lived policy in the community, then the writing will be updated to reflect that. If the assessment is that this is lived by the community as a guideline, then nothing will change. Jytdog (talk) 18:25, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • User:Tryptofish Would you please explain why, in your view, something that is policy must have black and white "rules"? Much of WP is nuanced and calls for judgement to employ - for example BLP, NOT, and what kind of sources are actually reliable enough to verify content... Jytdog (talk) 01:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Sure. First of all, I want to make clear that I don't mean an absolutely rigid set of "rule 1, rule 2....". And of course policies require judgment to enforce: that's why we don't let non-admin editors block one another. But it's clearer what constitutes a BLP violation than what constitutes a COI violation when the COI situation is a borderline case. And, while I agree with you that NOT and sourcing are policies that are ones that require some understanding of community norms in order to apply fairly, there are also plenty of bright-line polices like 3RR or SOCK for which there is broad community buy-in. As of right now, I think that COI comes fairly close to being what we want a policy to look like, and I want there to be a COI policy, but I'm not yet willing to describe it as a de facto policy. For example, there is consensus that OUTING trumps COI, but we are very far from being able to determine the border between them in a way that there is broad consensus. (A long-time administrator who is running for ArbCom just said that it's OK to ask an editor thought to have a COI: "Is your real name xyz?". I suspect that there are plenty of other administrators who would consider that question a blockable offense.) Anyone who looks at ANI can see that NLT violations get handled quickly and simply, whereas CIVIL violations usually just stir up a shit-storm. A workable policy has to be one where most members of the community will say of a particular infraction: yes, that justifies a block. I'm with you in wanting to raise COI to policy level, but I don't think that "well, we already have an RfC where many editors said it is a de facto policy" is a winning argument for a subsequent RfC about promoting it to a policy. And keep in mind that this RfC, so far, is getting responses mostly from editors who are interested in COI. Start an RfC about adding a new policy, and a lot of opposition is suddenly going to emerge. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Hm. There are lots of places were we are constantly working out boundaries. BLP and PSCI is a perennial one for example. I have probably thought about the OUTING/COI-investigation intersection, and worked its edges, more than a lot of folks (and yes, screwed it up once big time)... but it is really not that hard to navigate, especially if you keep in mind that OUTING takes precedence. That really is a bright shiny line and COI management can take place on the "safe" side of that line. And admins are just people and occasionally do write clueless things about policy. Jytdog (talk) 20:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
People being just human is why policies ought not to be simply what is in the eye of the beholder. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it is why consensus is so important here! When one person goes astray we pull them back in. RfCs are how we assess consensus. Jytdog (talk) 20:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • AFAICS, the COI guideline is currently treated like most guidelines, and therefore always open to far too much debate over its implementation in individual cases. It's blatantly disregarded by those who have a COI. The problem is in the word 'guideline'. One dictionary definition is: a general rule, principle, or piece of advice, which means it is not mandatory to follow it. The COI guideline should be updated and made into a policy. It might not need to be codified to the letter in a Teutonic matter, but it would make it easier to deal with infringements. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Jytdog, what is the endgame here? Let's say that this is renamed as a policy, not as a guideline. What do you expect this to achieve? - Bilby (talk) 06:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
I have much the same question. In fact, this RfC will not be sufficient to rename it as a policy, and as such, it strikes me as malformed and somewhat of a waste of time. Believe me, if hypothetically the close of this RfC is that editors decided that we are currently treating the guideline as though it were a policy, and someone then tried to change it to a policy on that basis, there would be a huge outcry. And if instead a second RfC were opened about raising it to a policy, there will be many editors who will oppose, who will not care at all what the outcome of this RfC was. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Endgame?
I really do think that the notion that COI needs to be managed is very widespread in WP -- the big fat part of the bell curve. This RfC is a way to test that perception.
The issue has become unfortunately very ... involuted, over-thought, and overly emotional for a lot of people here in WP when people talk about it abstractly.
But in the actual practice of the community, we see this over and over at ANI for example, where there is disruption that is caused by people with a COI (including paid editors) directly editing content, edit warring, etc. Almost nobody thinks that is a good thing. Almost nobody thinks somebody coming here and directly editing in mainspace under a COI is a good thing, in their own actual practice of editing and interacting with other editors.
Which is exactly why I framed this RfC as I did. I am asking people what they actually expect of other editors... what they see other editors expecting and doing, etc. Not about abstract stuff.
And this whole notion of COI management is widely accepted and common as dirt in the real world as well. All serious publishers have a COI policy; nobody would want a judge ruling on a case where they have a COI, etc. It is common sense in the real world. We all walk around with the notion that unmanaged COI is a bad thing. All of us.
And this document has been worked over and refined, and it really does reflect the expectations I see people expressing every day, here in WP.
And i think if enough people respond to the actual RfC question and not whatever song is playing in their head about the abstract issues, we will see that. I think.
The endgame? If the overwhelming consensus here is that this is treated as policy, then updating the word "guideline" to "policy" is trivial and we can take whatever steps people want, to accomplish that. If things are divided or people say this is treated as a guideline, then we listen carefully (i am am listening carefully) and see what is up with that.
Some people talking/!voting have what i consider to be somewhat unWikipedian notions of "policy" that they are "rules" that are imposed. They aren't like that. Some of the difficulty here might be about confusion on that level. That complicates things, but it always does. Jytdog (talk) 20:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Lotsa luck telling people not to listen to their own thoughts. (And I think that's the first time anyone has called me "unWikipedian". :) ) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Ask a question, people answer how they like. Doesn't make trying to get an answer to a specific question a bad thing. It is hard though, for people to reflect on what they actually do and expect, as opposed to what their "position on the matter" is. (there was a recent NYT editorial about the gap between positions people take and what they actually do and expect. That was about men and their sexuality -- an entirely different ball of wax of course.) Jytdog (talk) 20:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
And what i wrote was "have what i consider to be somewhat unWikipedian notions about..." and that was not with you in mind. Jytdog (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
And trypto, if in light of what I have written here, you still consider this "malformed" please let me know. I (unsurprisingly) think it is perfectly formed to ask what i wanted to ask. But maybe the question is too weird and doesn't work (in the CLUE sense of "what works"). Jytdog (talk) 21:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm not taking the unWiki thing seriously, no worries. As for the rest, I guess I'm not going to convince you, and that's OK. I'm coming from a position of liking the idea of making COI a policy, so I want that effort to succeed. I'm having a hard time seeing how this RfC question is more useful than asking directly if it should be changed to be a policy, and I want to make you aware that getting it to be a policy will be a heavy lift. The community is surprisingly resistant to any kind of policy change. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
I guess what I'm asking is what do you see as changing? If this is named "policy", it doesn't become any more enforceable than it currently is. In part because we currently enforce guidelines as well as policies, but also in part because WP:COI doesn't proscribe COI editing. It doesn't say that you can't edit with a COI, or that you must disclose, or that you can't directly create new articles. The only hard rule is the new one, that you must not accept an article at AfC where you have a COI. It is different in regard to paid editing, but even there the only proscribed additional action is editing without disclosure, and that is covered by the WP:PAID policy.
The only policy that this regularly conflicts with is WP:Harassment,and there we've always said (and still say) that not revealing personal information takes precedence over identifying a COI. Being a policy might allow that to change, I guess, so that might be one outcome, but I hope not.
So my best guess, based on what you said, is that naming it a "profile" will raise its profile, but one of the most important practical rules we have is WP:Notability, and that's a guideline. So what I'm wondering is what I'm missing. Why push for this to become a policy? What do you see happening if this is renamed "policy" instead of "guideline"? - Bilby (talk) 22:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
You are so not listening, and I don't know what to do about that Bilby. It is really hard. I am not pushing for this to become a policy. I am asking editors in the community if the definitions and processes in this document are something that -- in their actual practice and what they actually expect:
  • a) have wide acceptance among editors and describe standards that all users should normally follow; or
  • b) are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus that editors should attempt to follow.
This is exactly what the RfC asks. What is so hard to understand about that? The written policies and guidelines are only expressions of the living consensus in the community. Jytdog (talk) 23:01, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
I can see what the RfC asks. I can't see why it is being asked. But I guess that will emerge in time. - Bilby (talk) 23:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
It looks to me like Bilby is indeed listening. Not finding what you (Jytdog) say is clear does not mean not listening. And I share Bilby's perception that what the RfC asks is clear, but why it asks it is not. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
I have written three replies now and I cannot reply without using foul language. Neither of you are taking this for the very straightforward thing that it is. I give up. This is a waste of my time, and please know that you have damaged our relationship. Jytdog (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

help with raising COI issue

I suspect a User may be massively editing the article about themself, and related articles, and I'm not sure how to proceed.

I've read the guideline, and sec. 9 How to handle... says to "raise the issue in a civil manner on the editor's talk page..." but the very next subheading is, Avoid outing. These seem to be in conflict. I can't just put, "Are you John Doe?" on their talk page, because that would be outing, but if I say, "Are you involved with COI on any of the articles you are editing," that seems so vague as to be worthless. Given their editing pattern, someone might figure out who I suspected them of being all the same. So how to proceed? Mathglot (talk) 08:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see much of a conflict from the mentioned point of view.Outing policy is roughly a measure against publishing off-wiki evidence on en-wiki, linking a real-world person with an en-wiki user, irrespective of it's accuracy.

We can obviously ask such statements to J.Doe, in good-faith, if his edits are to a page:--John Doe or something around that.But, if he denies that we can't do much except to aware him about COI (Remeber only the subject does not have a COI about himself/herself.It extends to his/her friends, relatives, staff etc.) and (maybe) use necessary sanctions and blocks on (assumed) grounds of COI but without ever identifying him as the subject, however sure we may be.

If there is a case, where, J.Doe supposedly edits J.Doe or other linked articles and confirms himself to be the subject.Later, the acc. gets blocked for some reason and J.Doe resorts to sock-puppeting in the name of ABraCabra, this time, denying to be the subject.But, if a CU/SPI finds the two linked, it at most gives out a self-declared info that Abracabra was the subject.(Even SPI's almost never link accounts with a real person.) And, there's definitely no outing.Regards:)Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 10:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is something to be careful about in my view... but i am very cautious, having been indeffed for violating OUTING while working on COI stuff (I did cite an off-wiki link -- very stupid of me)
Here is my approach--
If the person's username is very similar to their real the article subject's name, you can do something like the section at the bottom of this page, which kind of forks them against IMPERSONATE.
If their username is not similar to their real the article subject's name, you can just give a standard COI message -- all they have to do is acknowledge a connection to the subject, they don't have to say "I am the subject". The acknowledgement of the connection is enough to go forward and explain how COI is managed in WP and ask them to stop editing directly. If you want to use my standard message for explaining why I am bringing this up, giving them notice, explaining why it matters, and asking them to disclose a connection (the goal is dialogue, drawing them out) it is here. If they don't respond, then you can bring it to COIN and just say "this person appears to have a very close connection with the subject of the article". Jytdog (talk) 10:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC) (so easy to be sloppy and bake assumptions in.. fixed. ack. always have to remember that we do not know who people actually are! Jytdog (talk) 19:31, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Hmm...Soft-blocks for impersonation are definitely a smart way:)Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 10:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
I think Jytdog has it exactly right. One point that is separate from the impersonation issue that I think is worth repeating and underlining, because it relates directly to the original question here, is that instead of asking "Are you John Doe?", you can ask "Are you connected to John Doe?" Asking about being "connected" is all you really need, and it is never outing. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:03, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
@Winged Blades of Godric, Jytdog, and Tryptofish: Thanks, these responses have been helpful (and so has T's recent partial revert at COI). In this case, the user name is dissimilar to the suspected real name. To save future q&a of this sort, it would be nice if WP:COI had some suggested verbiage that could be copy-pasted onto a user's page, rather than have everyone coming upon it for the first time have to design their own, and wonder if they're risking outing. I see now the link to template {{Uw-coi}} at the bottom of the page which I didn't notice before (and there's also {{Welcome-COI}}, not applicable for this experienced editor) which could be used, but they sound a bit accusatory, especially the part about paid editing at the bottom, which I don't suspect them of. Would love to have a shorter, sweeter, gentler version, Template:Uw-coi-brief or some such. I was thinking of just copy-pasting the text from uw-coi up through the 5 bullets, and skipping the rest, but I think I like the snippet from Jytdog's sandbox better, and adapted it. How bout this:
Draft verbiage for experienced coi uw with username ≠ article subject name; adapted from Jytdog
In a couple of cases, I changed some wording and highlighted that in green. Changes for style, paragraph marks, and wikilinks are not highlighted. The struck text at "Peer review" is not so necessary, imho, as this is an experienced user.

Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a [[WP:Some Guideline Here?|form of peer review]].

Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you want to be involved in articles where you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do (and if you are paid, some things you must do).

  • Disclosure is the most important, and first step. While you need not disclose your identity (anonymity is strictly protected by our outing policy) would you please disclose if you have some connection with XXXI will substitute the article name here, either directly, or indirectly through a third party (e.g. a PR agency or the like)? You can answer however you wish (giving personally identifying information or not), but if there is a connection, please disclose it.
  • Peer reviewLinked to policy After you respond, I can walk you through how the peer review part happens we can discuss the peer review process. and then, if you like, I can provide you with some more general orientation as to how this place works. Please reply here, just below, to keep the discussion in one place.
Thanks! ~~~~
And if they do respond, I'll need some additional help to know what to say about peer review.
Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
If you look at my sandbox where you took that stuff from, just below it is my "template" for Step 2 which is about how to disclose, and the very important concrete instructions about how to post things for review instead of editing directly. Jytdog (talk) 22:58, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Wow, lot of stuff there I missed, and then I see there's a variant, and concrete examples of how it all went. Lots of stuff to digest for someone looking at all this for the first time; would be nice if some version of this got into the guideline with some copy-pasteable boilerplate, and/or template mods or new templates. I'll wait a bit to see if anyone else wants to comment on the adapted draft above; if not, I'll post it, and come back here if need be, after they respond. Mathglot (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
I am glad you find this stuff useful. The two-step "templates" are things I have developed and use, trying to keep in mind what this guideline and the PAID policy say, the many perspectives on COI and paid editing in the community, and the many ways that humans can react to this kind of approach.. and i adapt them for each new person I am dealing with. I don't know if they are template-able, and i wouldn't, well, presume to do that myself. If you are interested in making some kind of formalized templates out of them I suggest you try to use them raw a bit to get a feel for how they work and how people react to them before formalizing them. But that is just my perspective. Jytdog (talk) 01:37, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: and @everybody else: Since my original post above, I placed another COI template and request along the lines of our discussion above, regarding a different matter. The article concerned, is Waclaw Struszynski, and I placed it at the creator's Talk page: Gfg1234 (talk · contribs). Professor Gott has graciously replied at my Talk page, here. I think the article subject is clearly notable, the article was a bit of a mess at the outset, but he has been cleaning it up steadily (I helped in minor fashion); those are all content issues, of course, but just by way of indicating that this is certainly not just some non-notable vanity project, and I view the COI thing as orthogonal to that.

So what do I do about the COI issue now, given his positive disclosure? (I.e., now it's the peer review thing? Am clueless what to say in reply.) It's totally fine if one of you wants to jump in and take this one over and respond to him, but if you want to coach me a bit here, that'd be cool, and hopefully will also help spread the workload in future cases, once I come up to speed. Your choice, am fine either way. Mathglot (talk) 06:02, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for posting again with the follow up. I took your invitation and stepped in. I moved the reply to their talk page and replied there. The whole thing is at User_talk:Gfg1234#Conflict_of_interest_in_Wikipedia. This person appears to be a "fan", not to have a COI per se. The editing of fans and people with a COI look very much the same. This is the key ambiguity that asking questions helps resolve.
fwiw, when i talk to folks about COI, I want it to be a conversation and not too startling. So in the opening of the discussion, I introduce myself (like I would if i met someone at a conference), and explain why I have approached them, explain that I am giving them a notice of policy/guideline, give it (this is the where template:COI is used) and then follow up with a bit more explanation and the actual request for a reply. ( I also ask them to reply just below, which helps avoid the reply-at-your-page problem).
This person was very gracious, happily... I built in the more human-like beginning stuff because many people respond negatively to these questions being raised out of the blue. again, just fwiw.
But i totally get why the questions about WP:APPARENTCOI were raised for you, and also want to say thanks for helping pull this person into the WP community and our mission.
OH, also... some people react really negatively when you both change the edits they made to the article, and raise the COI question. It can start to feel to the other person like you are personally attacking them in order to contest their edits. People unfortunately do sometimes jump to conspiracy-theorizing too quickly when there are content disputes, and it can ~look~ that way to people who come across the situation later if things get ugly, even if you are completely correct that their edits reflect advocacy/COI. Mixing content and behavior issues can get tangle-y. So in my experience it wise to address the behavior stuff first, before you fix the article. Once the discussion has played out, and you explain how we manage COI or how the person can better manage their own fan-hood as is needed, you can go back and fix the article, with you and the other person on the same page, as it were. Jytdog (talk) 15:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Responding to requests

Regarding how best to respond to requests from paid editors to insert their text into articles, I'd like to add this to the section "Responding to requests" (diff of proposal):

If the proposed paid text is added to the article, this should be done as a regular edit, not by merging the history of the article and the history of a paid draft. Merging histories distorts the article history, and makes it harder for others to see where the paid text begins. The edit summary should include the name of the paid editor, a link to the draft or edit request, and that the edit contains a paid contribution—for example: "Text inserted on behalf of paid editor User:X; copied from Draft:Paid draft."

I wrote this after noticing someone merge a paid draft with the article history, which left the history harder to interpret. SarahSV (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to add that I took some of the words from the section on copyright at WP:COIATTRIBUTE, which says:

If editors choose to add material to an article on behalf of a COI or paid editor, they must provide attribution for the text in the edit summary. The edit summary should include the name of the COI or paid editor, a link to the draft or edit request, and that the edit contains a COI or paid contribution. For example: "Text inserted on behalf of paid editor User:X; copied from Draft:Paid draft." In addition to complying with copyright requirements, this transparency allows editors and readers to determine the extent of COI input into the article.

SarahSV (talk) 19:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Seems great to me. Jytdog (talk) 21:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
For the scenario that prompted this proposal, the draft article contained a mixture of edits by paid and unpaid editors. I'm not sure that combining all of their contributions into a single edit to the mainspace article is always the best approach. isaacl (talk) 02:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Copying over retains the history of the target page, and linking to the draft you copied satisfies Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. SarahSV (talk) 03:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
The issue is that the edit summary you propose is manageable for a single paid editor, but unwieldy for multiple editors, particularly when some are paid and some are not. Perhaps in many cases it is the best way forward, but I'm not certain that it should be the only permissible way, as it requires the single edit to be further traced back by readers to determine what content was provided by the paid editor. isaacl (talk) 04:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

The problem with merging paid drafts into existing articles is this:

1. Where the draft page and target page have been edited in parallel, history merging can mess up the page history because edits to the old version now appear to be edits to the new one (see Wikipedia:Parallel histories). Looking at the article that prompted this, Forcepoint, you can see that a couple of diffs no longer work. For example, the InternetArchiveBot, "Rescuing 2 sources and tagging 0 as dead" at 15:08, 3 October 2017‎, appears to have rewritten the article. [2] Diffs like this are confusing to future editors, especially in an article with more edits than this, who may want to identify the last non-paid version.
2. Merging the histories of paid drafts and existing articles about commercial enterprises means that we're arguably hosting covert advertising with no way for anyone but experienced editors to be able to work out which edits were paid.
3. The admin tools are needed to merge histories because the target page has to be deleted and undeleted. (There's now a history-merging tool; I don't know whether admin tools are needed for that.) If the admin has been working with the paid editor, this raises the advanced-permissions issue that people have been discussing recently.

I'm therefore proposing (diff of proposed text) that we add to "Responding to requests" that volunteers helping paid editors should not merge histories. Rather, they should copy paid drafts into the target page, with an edit summary that links to the draft (like this), thereby satisfying Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. They should also add that it's a paid draft.

Pinging Doc James, Smallbones, Coretheapple, Kudpung, TonyBallioni, and Dennis Brown. SarahSV (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Edit summary attribution is almost always the preferred method of attribution here. Histmerges are pains, and cause issues. There will rarely be more than 2 or 3 editors on a draft, which means edit summary attribution is very manageable. The other method is to have an attribution talk subpage listing all authors who contributed to the text that is merged, and reference that in edit summary attribution. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I am only willing to fix well defined errors when it comes to paid editors. I am not willing to support the entire rewriting of articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:23, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
@Doc James: the proposed text wouldn't actively support the rewriting of articles. It would say only that, if it's done, the page histories should not be merged. SarahSV (talk) 20:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
SV I am fine with that change. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I histmerged the articles because that is the normal course of action. Differentiating for paid versus not paid, other than making an edit summary to that effect, is unnecessary. We've done histmerges forever here and it is how we generally preserve copyright and show how the article came to be. In the case given, it is obvious when the paid editor made changes, there is no intermingling of edits. I think everyone is getting too excited because it is a paid editor, but in this case, one that asked for peer review, got it, and made a better version. He kind of had to do it in isolation and merge. Had he not been a paid editor, he would have made the same series of edits. Histmerge is what makes the history make sense and tells you how it got there. If it had been one or two edits by one editor, then a copy/paste would have been the solution, but that wasn't the case. Drmies, myself and another editor made small edits to restore some of the criticism that the original had. Since I don't care about the subject matter, just the neutrality, that certainly wouldn't prevent me from merging after others had agreed the new version was better. There is no need to change anything because nothing was broken, got broken or is broken. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Regarding issue 1, it's a problem regardless of whether or not any of the editors are paid, so it should be addressed for everyone (for example, ban history merges except under specific conditions). Regarding issue 2, if it's desirable to easily identify paid edits while browsing through an article's history, then we should change the guidance for all paid edits, stating that the edit summary must flag them as paid edits. (Or, as you suggested, make paid editors create a separate account for paid edits, and put "paid editor" or something like it in the name.) It seems odd to only single out this specific scenario, rather than marking all edits. isaacl (talk) 03:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Dennis and Isaacl, see Wikipedia:Parallel versions. We're not supposed to merge histories in these circumstances. That it's paid editing is an additional reason to keep the page histories clear, but of course it's not the only one. The reason for mentioning it in this guideline is that it seems to be happening with paid drafts. Forcepoint is just an example. SarahSV (talk) 04:32, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Everything happens sometimes; I don't think we should starting replicating guidance for each intersection of two scenarios. If the existing guidance on history merges isn't being followed, then prohibiting it in only one specific scenario seems to be addressing the issue at the wrong scope. We should strive to fix the general case. isaacl (talk) 04:44, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
There is nothing to fix in the general case. Anthony Appleyard handles the majority of histmerge requests and is very aware of how parallel histories work. Documenting it here for admins who do not typically work in areas involving history fixes and copyright is beneficial for them. It is only explaining the general policy towards people who are unlikely to have much experience with it. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
To be explicit, just deal with issues as they would be normally: if administrators are not using the history merge tool within the confines of the conditions where it is reasonable, then comment on their talk page and discuss the matter with them. If there is a persistent issue, bring it up for general discussion on a noticeboard. If there seems to be an issue with many administrators, then make the guidance more strict. I don't see a need for special guidance related to conflict of interest editing. isaacl (talk) 05:09, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
This wouldn't be special guidance. It'd just be a quick summary of what the standard procedure is. I don't see what the opposition of listing best practices here is for admins who are unlikely to know the shortcut to the actual guidance. Avoiding situations that confuse page histories is a plus and I see no negatives to more admins and editors knowing what the standard practice should be. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:16, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
The proposal isn't to summarize standard procedure; the proposal is to ban history merges entirely. If history merges should be banned except under specific conditions, then it ought to be done for all types of merges, not just ones related to conflicts of interest. isaacl (talk) 05:19, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
That is already the standard procedure. We do not do history merges for simple merging of text. We do basic edit summary attribution. There is absolutely nothing new here. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
We should just point to Wikipedia:Merging#How to merge for details on the mechanics. isaacl (talk) 05:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
This isn't about COI in general, it's about paid edits. The current section on attribution (WP:PAIDATTRIBUTE) assumes that paid drafts won't be added to existing articles via history merges; that's obvious from the way it's written. When that was written, I don't think it occurred to anyone that paid editors would request history merges. So this proposal brings the issue up to date by expanding the "Responding to requests" section. SarahSV (talk) 05:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
The current section on attribution applies to conflict of interest editors generally, but that aside, why replicate existing guidance here? Just point people to the procedure for merging content, which already says not to request a history merge. isaacl (talk) 05:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Because a significant portion of our active editors have no idea how to merge pages and do proper attribution so adding a basic summary in places where people are likely to see it decreases the workload on everyone. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's a balance: it increases the workload of keeping copies of the information up-to-date. But as long as people are willing to do so, it's OK. isaacl (talk) 16:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Isaacl, guidance is replicated all the time. If you want to expand on it elsewhere, you're welcome to do that, but this is a proposal to expand on it here. SarahSV (talk) 05:44, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Edit summary attribution is the standard for merging content in these cases, not history merges. I don't care about the paid editing stuff here, I just see no reason why we would do a history merge when simple edit summary attribution works just fine. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:36, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
per Tony - I can't see doing a history merge if it is both more complicated and obscures the true editing history. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
A histmerge is not so complicated and can't obscure the true editing history because everything is kept intact. Every edit, including the page source of the edits that were merged, which is automatically included in the summary when you do a histmerge. THAT is the reason to use it. THAT is the reason I'm surprised people are up in arms. It provides the most information and full disclosure of source. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:55, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
That is false. Histmerges can obscure the true editing history, and they frequently do. See WP:PARALLEL. I’m not up in arms: I have no clue what article you are talking about. If you histmerged when a simple edit summary would have sufficed, it’s not a big deal, just a one time mistake. What I do care about, however, is making it clear what our attribution policy for merges prefers, which is edit summary attribution. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Dennis Brown, please see the history of Forcepoint. Because of the merge, it looks as though InternetArchiveBot rewrote the article (diff), and that you rewrote it again (diff). In fact you and the bot were editing different pages, but now they've been merged. If you're not an experienced editor, you'll wonder what on earth was going on, especially on an article with more edits than that one. SarahSV (talk) 18:09, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Sure, we've discussed this before. I dislike having every scenario treated as a place to replicate guidance that is more effectively covered elsewhere. After all, the whole point of a wiki is the ability to quickly link to related information and to quickly follow these links, thereby avoiding the need to duplicate info. And why should some scenarios be singled out for replicating info? But if people are willing to keep it all in sync, more power to them. (Maybe some kind of sectional transclusion could be done to help, though that has an effect on the time required to generate a page.) isaacl (talk) 17:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

মাননীয় প্রধানমন্ত্রী শেখ হাসিনার সৈনিক বিষ্ণু পদ সাহা সাভার উপজেলা 16 ডিসেম্বর নিদর্শনা চাই

I've removed this section written in Bangla. It appeared via Google translate to be political or nationalist content and I couldn't figure out what it had to do with COI. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest/Archive_29&oldid=1118165776"