Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Proposed rewrites of Templates

I have created a {{COI-check}} template and propose a rewrite of the {{COI}} template. Discussion is at Template talk:COI, and your thoughts are appreciated. THF (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

BIAS and COI

I am troubled by the deletion of the blog in the AfD of Dave Johnson (blogger) by User:Fram. The blog entry shows:

1. that the deletion nominator feels the subject (Dave Johnson (blogger)) is relevant, because he wrote about it at length himself.
2. There appears to be some political bias and possible conflict of interest in this deletion nomination.

Under the circumstances, I would suggest closing this AfD. If someone else wants to nominate, they can.

I don't understand the entire history of this situation, so maybe this is out of bounds.

I don't know if I am breaking any rules by posting this. I have never dealt with WP:OUTING and only briefly dealt with COI, which resulted in nothing happening. Please advise if I am. Ikip (talk) 12:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I have raised your concern at WP:ANI. THF (talk) 12:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Policy?

Is anyone interested in helping to get this into shape so that it could be promoted to policy? We seem increasingly to be dealing with people who are self-promoting, and it would be good if we had a page that prohibited it without exception. On the other hand, we don't want to exclude people who may be experts in something, so the wording would need to be just right. The writing would also need to be tightened generally. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately I've been bogged down for a month in an article where individuals with clear religious/nationalist POVs that really are COIs have insisted on trashing a critic's BLP, and if I ever get out from under it, certainly would like to see this article be upgraded. (I still haven't fixed the language for identifying entities I commented on above.) It seems that if there is a Noticeboard where people get warnings (which I used successfully in article in question), it should be the reflection of a policy not just a behavioral essay. On the other hand, of course, the policy has to be very clear to avoid one person with a minor POV being accused of COI, while someone else's employee gets away with all sorts of shenanigans. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

What makes it clear that editors "with clear religious/nationalist POVs that really are COIs" are "trashing a critic's BLP"? Your edit, above, seems not to assume good faith, and to assume, rather, religious/nationalist POVs. I know that you intend well in your edits, but someone opposing your well meant editing goals does not necessarily make their editing goals bad, or COI. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

There's no doubt that getting such editors sanctioned the First time they start accusing other editors of being antisemites is a good way to start the process of proving WP:COI as a nationality. If someone lists having lived in a certain nation for several years on their talk page that's another good indication.

But as someone commented somewhere on this essay WP:Advocacy if we can't enforce Civil:POV pushing and WP:tenditious editing, it's hard to go after advocacy, except when there are clear violations or indications like above, plus lots of other evidence from a number of editors. And a settled arbitration like WP:ARBPIA or similar arbitrations. It's just a matter of having one more clear policy that such people can violate. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

What is for one person POV pushing can for another editor be a good faith edit. What makes me particularly concerned is when an editor finds bad faith, and COI, on one side of a disputed issue and never on the other. In other words, attempts to block editors on one side of an editing dispute, using COI as the grounds, may be just a wikilawering attempt to remove an editorial obstacle to one's own editing goals. WP assumes that all editors have a POV, and the intent is to get a balanced article by balancing POVs through compromise. If one side tries to get rid of the other, or to scare them through threats of sanctions, the possibility of a balanced article is diminished. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

In opening this thread, SlimVirgin suggested promoting the COI guideline into a policy, and tightening the language. I'd have to see some details before believing it would be an improvement. EdJohnston (talk) 17:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Concrete proposals always help but I can't make any til get finished with a current editing conflict where two editors follow me around constantly and comment on just about any policy idea I have, whether or not related to current conflict. Sigh... Anyway Wikipedia:Advocacy has some ideas. But it also is a matter of not throwing the baby of knowledge/interest out with the bathwater of POV pushing and edit warring. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thinking about it, real solution is for wikipedia to raise lots of money to hire a bunch of part-time admins to deal with the WORST offenders of various policies, clearly, decisively, repeatedly. Generally most people with a conflict of interest will be breaking all sorts of rules way before it becomes clear they are guns for hire. And if they are good editors, who really cares? How about raising money by registering all users, letting them have their first 500 edits free, and then charging a couple cents an edit. When is that micropayment system they keep talking about going to get going? Or start wikipedia's own paypal. And then fine abusers $1 a warning, $5 a block. And make sure their accounts page is open for all eyes to see. Carol the fiend... :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

<*Chuckle*> It’s so tempting, isn’t it, Carol? At least making them submit to a thorough whacking with a wet trout would give a little satisfaction.

I would like to point out that an attempt to raise WP:COI to policy will require revisiting the point I made last October regarding the essential conflicts between WP:Outing and WP:COI. The fact that the latter is a policy and the former is a guideline was offered as the main reason for a general refusal to address that conflict: if it’s an absolute rule – as generally asserted at WT:Outing – that no one can be “outted” (a term that I continue to insist is unfortunate and inappropriately applied to the phenomenon), then it’s technically improper to identify anyone as having a COI in many (if not all) cases. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

At what point does POV cross into COI? I suppose, just to be sure WP is pure, every editor who has a POV could be indefed. That would certainly eliminate any crowding problem here. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

<backdent> Actually I just got in a debate about policy/guidelines and guidelines are really almost the same as policies, just a tad more flexible, so in the end it's not that big a deal. See Template_talk:Policy#Let.27s_make_the_box_yellow CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

اردو زبان لفظ اردو عربی زبان کا لفظ ہے جس کا معانی لشکرہے۔ Asiftahir (talk) 11:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree we need it to get tougher, whether that means calling it a "policy" or not. Too many people are using Wikipedia for self-promotion, and the situation seems to me to be getting worse. (And is partly the reason I semi-retired). Here is what I would suggest (with some comments in italics and brackets).

• A COI is defined as: when the article is about yourself, a family member, a friend, or an employer. (This is pretty much what it is now).
• You may not edit an article where you have a COI (subject to other WP policies, e.g. deleting libelous stuff per WP:BLP is acceptable). (This is a step up from the current wording of "strongly discouraged").
• If you have a COI and you wish to change content, raise it on the Talk page.
• If you have a COI, and raising it on the Talk page does not work (which is likely to happen on a little-used page), there is a general page (called "WP:COMPLAINTS" or similar) to raise complaints.
• Unauthorised edits by a person with a COI should be blanket reverted, with a message directing the editor to the article's Talk page.
• If an article has been created by a person with a COI, that is grounds for deleting the article. (Because there are too many borderline notable people who are advertising themselves on Wikipedia).

Peter Ballard (talk) 10:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This should never be policy. It is a guideline for editing only. It is intended for reading by individuals who may have a conflict of interest. It is not intended for admins to beat new contributors over the head with. It should never be used as a rationale for blocking. There are appropriate policies elsewhere. --Bastique ^demandez 20:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

COI applies to edits, not editors. A great deal of the discussion above seems to be about associating people with COI. The goal seems to be to tag the editor as COI, and thus silence them. This is plain wrong. Declaring a person to be COI is nothing more than an Ad hominem attack.

Besides, think about it - qualifying a person as COI is much harder and more dicey than qualifying their words as POV.

Wikipedia's active COI policy is absolutely correct. "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." Note the language - it speaks to the editor's motivation - not the situation. It is true some insiders engage in wrong COI edits, and it's also true some are incorrigible. However -- WP:EQ WP:AGF WP:DONTBITE are crystal clear -- they get a presumption of innocence, and their words get measured against Wikipedia policies just like everyone else's.

So I strongly disagree with Peter Ballard's scorched earth policy - I'm sorry if those problems occur frequently on Wikipedia, but that doesn't entitle you to assume everyone's a bad guy. Hey, there are already enough bad guys out there... we don't need to turn good guys into bad. If a person is an unreliable editor, that will come out quite soon. If the edits studiously satisfy Wikipedia policies, then Wikipedia has no cause for action. Again, the COI policy is very clear - it doesn't say "prohibited", it says "dangerous". If the insider wants to risk the "dangerous", i.e. the scandal if caught out at it ... well, that's between the insider and the scandalmongers. All we can do is warn the insider about this. Harpwolf (talk) 22:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

COI applies to edits, not editors (above) may also be viewed as "Sin" vs. "Sinner" and "learning from all people." Both of these concepts are tied to what some may call "religion." Being "religious" involves 2 areas, one of which is "between a person and their fellow person." Conflict_of_Interest may in some cases be a matter of the definition(s) of Balance based on "eyes of the beholder."

I recently looked at some of the comments at Talk:Antisemitism#Hyphen and Talk:Antisemitism#Hyphen (continued_from_above) regarding the choice over naming an article "antisemitism" vs. "anti-Semitism" (and possibly "anti-semitism"). More bytes on Wiki's servers can be filled on this and other matters and yet the appetite for learning may still not be met.

There are some topics for which there can't be 2 sides permitted to have a place without destroying. An example, perhaps not a good one, might be: copying copyrighted text into Wikipedia to openly demonstrate that an individual or organization is saying one thing in one place and another thing, possibly its opposite, in another.

In short, there is something called Evil and our job is to try to avoid doing that which is wrong. ("First turn away from Evil, then begin to do good.") Dad7 (talk) 20:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I must admit I never thought of it in the "sin vs sinner" light and I don't see anything religous about it (unless you count Wikipedia policy as religion! *chuckle*) I see it as more a case that, just as the WP:COI policy said at the time I wrote the above... COI is more about someone editing to advance their personal agenda rather to improve Wikipedia. And that can be very subtle. For instance John Doe edits Ford Motor to say it went bankrupt in 2009, citing a blog which is in error. Bill Ford himself reverts the edit, citing it as plain wrong. Does that automatically make it a COI edit? Think carefully, review WP:COI.

Next, suppose John Doe absolutely hates Ford, and this bias made him too quick to believe a blog that was wrong. Think that through - who's the COI editor? Who's serving himself rather than Wikipedia? I submit this case is a turnabout - the willful outsider, not the insider, is the real COI. This is more common than you might think. Now, you might say "Well Bill didn't need to fix the Ford page, another editor would do it in minutes". True. But in a huge number of cases, the field is so specific that the population of knowledgeable people is too low. There isn't enough of a "crowd" to achieve critical mass. So the insiders have to work it out responsibly. Harpwolf (talk) 05:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Help with a copyrighted version of a game?

I'm not really sure how to handle this so I haven't filed it yet. There's been an article on Ladder golf for awhile, which is a lawn or backyard game. Earlier this month [1], User:Laddergolf erased everything and wrote a new article with only their copyrighted version of the rules, with the edit summary "Ladder Golf® is a brand name for a tossing game. Not a generic term for this type of game." I would assume that User:Laddergolf is a representative of that company. A user reverted it back [2] saying "see WP:TRADEMARK". User:Laddergolf reverted it again [3], saying "Ladder Golf is a brand name for a tossing game and not a generic term used to describe a type of game. Please create your own page for similar generic type games." Then a couple days ago I restored the original version [4], and now an IP which I assume is User:Laddergolf has reverted it again. That's happened a couple more times, with the last revert by them saying "Seriously.. Who do I need to contact about your trademark infringement. Why do you keep changing this to something that is not Ladder Golf!" What do we do? I would argue that it's just a game that happens to have trademarked rules, just like kickball and beer pong, but that doesn't mean they own that game. --AW (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

For US usage, at least, they own the name. They are trying to prevent it become genericized trademark. Their defense of the name is a necessary legal component to maintaining ownership of it.

I'd suggest that we move it to one of the popular alternative names, such as "Hillbilly Golf", with a redirect, and focus on the general concept of the game rather than the trademarked name, much as we have "Facial tissue" separate from Kleenex. Information on the trademarked version of the game in the main article can specify that it is trademarked in the US and also note that the term is used generally, if reliable sources support that. If the trademarked game "Ladder Golf" ever becomes notable enough for its own article, then it can have one. Currently, I don't know that it would be, since most of the news references I see are to the concept. If there are ever versions of Ladder Golf outside of the United States, then we have no issues, since Wikipedia is not US centric, and their right to the name in the United States does not supersede the rights of others to the name elsewhere. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Good point, I'll do that. Thanks. --AW (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Page about yourself

I would like to create a page about myself in Wiki as well as having my own webpage outside of Wiki. The page in Wiki is intended to reflect the knowledge that materials technologists have. Having said that it may be better to create a page entitled Materials Technology or something along these lines. I would welcome comments, ideas and thoughts so that I or someone else can get started. A page on Wiki would open it up for editing by others as opposed to any individual writing about themselves. Comments welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JRPatel (talk • contribs) 08:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

For a page about yourself, every Wikipedia editor has a "User" page which is "your page"... kinda. Yours is at User:JRPatel This page doesn't quite belong to you, others can edit it too, but generally what you put there won't be messed with. Wikipedia is not like a free hosting site. Every page must meet Notability tests among others. If you've read them and you're sure, go for it :) You already know about COI obviously. (Harpwolf (talk) 21:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Would this be considered outing?

A user set up an account in their real name (first initial, last name). The account is single purpose, making only edits to the article for a particular organisation, and to link other articles to the main article. The organisation has questionable notability, and the article is written like an ad right now. In a simple Google search, I found that someone with the same name as the SPA is the public relations director for the organisation. Would it be outing to ask the user on their talk page about a COI, or to mention COI on the article talk page? Dawn Bard (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fair to give the usual COI warning template, or something similar that you put in your own words. To minimize the chance of outing, you may want to avoid saying why you believe a COI is present. In a case like what you've described, if the article is written like an ad, you have a good case for promotional editing, and there is a clause about that in WP:COI that doesn't require showing the editor's affiliation. The fact that the account does nothing but promote a single organization is enough to get COIN involved. EdJohnston (talk) 16:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

If it's written like an advertisement, I would tell the user about the proper ways to organize Wikipedia articles. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Administrative action COI?

If an administrator issues a page protection in response to a vandalism/harassment solely on that page, and the vandal contests the page protection as being issued on incorrect grounds and in conflict with existing policy, is it a conflict of interest if the same administrator blocks the vandal after the vandal contests the protection? I am not sure if COI applies to administrative actions or if this is too complex and situational to have a policy. Some guy (talk) 08:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

COI usually applies when an editor has a real-life connection to the topic. Your example doesn't seem to involve that. From a look at your contributions, if my surmise is correct, it seems that this case is already being looked into elsewhere and doesn't need our review. EdJohnston (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I am double-checking my understanding of policy before continuing to a formal complaint; I had no idea of COI applied and now I know it does not. Thank you for your feedback. Some guy (talk) 22:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Requested Articles and Articles for Creation

Under the section "Suggesting changes to articles, or requesting a new article", this page does not mention Wikipedia:Requested articles or Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Is there a reason we do not direct editors who may have a COI to these channels? The Articles for creation wikiproject in particular looks like a good way to balance our need for quality with our need to welcome bold new contributors. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Paid Editing

This is overdue, probably: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Paid Editing. Given that this (and related WP:COI issues) seem to be coming up more and more, I've launched this basic RFC. We've never had an actual community discussion or mandate about this. Please review the statements, leave yours, endorse as you see fit. Should make for an interesting and enlightening discussion. rootology (C)(T) 19:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

editing my own page

I wasn't aware it would be a problem to go in and make a few edits to my biography. Since there were obvious mistakes, I thought it would make it more accurate. I did nothing to glamorize or promote or exaggerate anything, but now the page is all messed up with messages about "conflict of interest" and so forth, and someone has gone in and take stuff out, as well as added errors. One error, for example, is that I did the first 5.11 climb in America. I doubt this is true. I did the first 5.11 in Yosemite and probably the first in Eldorado Canyon, but Royal Robbins, Dave Rearick, and John Gill, among others, such as Greg Lowe, did 5.11 prior to my first routes of that grade level. How do I now clean up the mess? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pat Ament (talk • contribs) 04:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Request input on possible COI

Hello. Looking for some input on a possible ongoing long term COI. Thanks Garycompugeek (talk) 15:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Newby-biting incited by this policy

Lots of idiots write unencyclopedic material intended to promote their own businesses (and the reason for my calling them "idiots" is their usual lack of any attempt to make the articles conform to Wikipedia's usages and conventions). This COI policy is needed in order to deal with that.

But on the other hand, you have people like user:Waabu, who adds an external link to one of his own web pages to 14 Wikipedia articles in 61 minutes, and it's relevant and appropriate material in every case, and would be considered a good contribution if put there by anyone else.

So what happens under this policy?

One might think that an extreme concern with the hazards of conflict of interest could lead someone to tell him politely that he should ask another regular user to be the one to add the material—perhaps someone who can judge the fitness of the material for the articles.

But instead, he gets a notice that says:

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Algonquian peoples. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

That is rude. In this case, it is newby-biting. Why does such a notice have to be the same dumb boilerplate message that might be appropriate for an idiot trying to promote his business or alter search-engine rankings? Michael Hardy (talk) 21:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Two important points about the above:

• The standard template that mentions "inappropriate material" should be used only when the material is inappropriate; not when the person adding it should recuse himself from the decision to add it because of a conflict, and it would be appropriate if added by someone else.
• That same standard template that warns people against "advertising or promotion" should be used only in cases of advertising or promotion; not indiscriminately used in all cases where the person adding the material should have recused himself from that decision because of a conflict.

In the case mentioned above, the material itself was in some instances clearly appropriate; it was only the fact that the person adding it had a conflict that could be considered inappropriate. And in the case mentioned above, no one has even attempted to make any case that advertising or promotion was the purpose, and it's hard to see how they could make such a case. Michael Hardy (talk) 11:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I partially agree with you that I think people are sometimes too quick to jump on a potential COI and revert without considering whether the change was appropriate or not. I would note the COI guideline doesn't actually say any change made by someone with a COI should be reverted. On the other hand, I can understand why if someone adds 14 links to the same website particularly if at least some of them are inappropriate (or has a history of that) or makes many or large scale edits to an article particularly if some of them are inappropriate (or has a history of that) why other contributors are not going to bother to check each edit to see if they're okay. Especially on a BLP situation, I think editors should not revert if the only 'problem' is a COI. I think if you do come across some edits that are inappropriate, editors should be encouraged to explain or mention these rather then reverting because the other editor had a COI. Links are perhaps the most difficult issue due to the frequency of spam and the fact they are going to be seem as spam when added by an editor with a COI regardless of whether they are appropriate Nil Einne (talk) 12:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree. I may have prevented a similar problem a few months ago. A nature lover had first created a nice, completely advertising free, well researched website with edibility information about numerous wild flowers, and then started adding the information to the articles where it was relevant. He knew he needed sources, so he linked to the only online source where all this information can be found: his own website. Based on general impressions of how certain people handle such situations, I immediately decided that I had to protect him against overeager spam fighters. Hans Adler 12:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

---

I haven't yet done emendations per the discussion above because this overlaps with WP:SPAM and it appears that maybe that page and some templates associated with it may be involved, and I wasn't sure where the emendations would go in this policy. (The "new templates" discussion below is also relevant.) I've now commented at Wikipedia talk:Spam. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I must say I disagree with this. Biting the newbies and informing them of our policies are completely different matters. We shouldn't allow Wikipedia to fill up with stuff that is against our policies just because the editors who do it are new. They should be politely pointed at the relevant guidelines, which I believe is what the standard templates do. Of course if the user has a question about the policies the templating editor should answer them in his/her own words instead of pasting a harsher template, but I belive the templates do a commendable job at getting the word out to new users that we have standards and if users are welcome to edit here as long as they abide by our policies and guidelines. As always, the templating editor should know what is written on the template before they use it and if none applies to the situation the editor should write a message on the spot.

I think the problem with the scenario described above is that the templating editor started off with a third warning instead of a first warning which is much more polite. If the new user was presented with a welcoming template (which we do have and they are the ones recommended for first offenses) then it wouldn't seem to be biting. My experience is that the templates work quite well if the templater knows what they say and uses them when the advice on them is relevant. ThemFromSpace 23:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem with welcoming templates is that the COI welcoming template only applies to editors who created the article that they have a COI with. It doesn't apply to editors who have a COI at an article that they didn't create. Other than that there is only a single COI template (so there's no such thing as a "third warning"). I find myself having to leave editors a personal COI warning almost every time, which isn't a bad thing of course but it's more time-consuming. -- Atama頭 23:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

New templates needed

Someone has said on my talk page that the warnings added to user talk:waabu "have been formulated with great attention to precision regarding graduated severity." That is nonsense. There was not only no precision in their application to this case, but in fact the templates could not have been more inappropriate. They assume guilt from the beginning and they violate the policy requiring an assumption of good faith.

• The first one (which appears twice on the user talk page) says Wikipedia should not be used for advertising or promotion. I submit that such a template should be used only when there are signs of advertising or promotion. There are none in this case. It says the links fail to comply with policies. In fact, many of the links (e.g. the ones to toponymy and Algonquian peoples would have been considered appropriate if an unconflicted person had added them. What was inappropriate was not the links themselves, but at most that the person adding them should have asked others to judge whether they should be added. One should not say that the links violate policies when in fact what violates policies is something other than the links themselves. It implies the user was trying to treat Wikipedia as a "collection of links" or to use Wikipedia for "advertising or promotion". It's language about "search engine rankings" does not say that he runs the risk of being suspected of such things, but rather it just assumes guilt. It fails to say that since he should recuse himself because of a conflict, he should ask others without such conflicts to judge whether the links should be added. It fails to mention the provisions in WP:COI about "declaring an interest". It makes it appear that if he moves ahead at all, bad faith will be assumed.
• The second one is entirely negative, telling the person only what to avoid, and not telling him how to move ahead with the matter. It fails to say that since he should recuse himself because of a conflict, he should ask others without such conflicts to judge whether the links should be added. It also fails to mention the provisions in WP:COI about "declaring an interest". It makes it appear that if he moves ahead at all, bad faith will be assumed.
• The third one says that the links themselves were inappropriate, rather than that he was not the right person to add the links. To say the links themselves were inappropriate means they would still be inappropriate even if added by someone else. That is clearly false in the cases of Algonquian peoples and toponymy.
• The third one gives great emphasis to the word "spamming". Spamming means certain kinds of inappropriate links, not links added by a person who should have asked others to make the call on whether to add them, because of a conflict. This is a clear-cut case of guilty-until-proven-innocent, and that in a case where there is no evidence of guilt.
• The third one refers to "advertising or promotion". Such language should not be used except in cases of advertising or promotion. Whoever decided to use this template in this case ignored that. The person using the template did not attempt to provide any evidence or arguments showing that there was advertising or promotion in this case.
• The third one clearly states that the person is guilty as charged, in this case of spamming. To draw such a conclusion in this situation is just dishonest. I don't see how it could be viewed otherwise. It says "If you continued spamming...". Spamming consists of actually inappropriate links, not of links that another, unconflicted, person should have passed judgment on. The phrase "If you continue spamming..." implies that the person intended to add material that he should have known was inappropriate. The material was not inappropriate; at most what was inappropriate was to proceed without either "declaring an interest" or asking others to make the call.

The use of these templates in this case was a massive violation of the policy of assuming good faith. Michael Hardy (talk) 12:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you here. The only template available for a person with a COI is uw-coi, and only that. There's no friendly "welcome to Wikipedia but you might have a COI" template, at least listed on this guideline. Generally if I see someone with a COI who I think hasn't been violating any other policies I'll usually just leave them a personal message rather than the template, but a friendlier COI template option would be helpful. -- Atama^chat 04:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a vast number of people answering, so we need to set to work writing the new templates and the policy revisions. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I would give it a couple more days before making any changes. Not everyone checks their watchlist every day. I won't have time to participate in the discussion but I promise not to complain about the result. Rees11 (talk) 13:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I see from Michael Hardy's talk page that the standard arguments have been aired, so I won't say much at the moment. I hope there is extreme clarity in any new template to show that there is a problem when a new editor makes minor additions to 10 articles, 9 of which just happen to add links to the same web site. At the very least, the problem is that there is an apparent COI which should be resolved before the editor adds the same link to more articles. Of course there can be no guideline about what is reasonable ("anyone wanting to promote their web site is advised to add links at the rate of 5 per day because consensus says that is ok"). Lots of examples of people adding unhelpful links are shown at WT:WikiProject Spam, and the attacks are going to escalate as the popularity of Wikipedia grows, so any new templates need to make clear that the addition of multiple links to the same site suggests that WP:COI applies. It's not relevant to the general principle, but in the case of the new user mentioned above, two added links that I checked go to the same list of documents which (I think) cannot be viewed without at least registering with a "verification required" email address, in apparent conflict with WP:ELNO#6. Johnuniq (talk) 02:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

When Template:uw-coi was created, some effort was put into making it helpful. I'm not at all distressed that such a template was used in Waabu's case. It includes links to such places as Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations which was also carefully written so that sincere new editors, affiliated with companies, who just didn't know the ropes could figure out how to contribute here appropriately. If the need is just for a slightly friendlier version of uw-coi, I wouldn't object to that. I note that, in his entire history on Wikipedia, Waabu has never left a talk message, and I personally would not want to keep any of his links. If people think he was not well-treated, I propose that someone open a report at WP:COIN so that others can comment on his case. EdJohnston (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

We need to be more specific than just saying the template should be "slightly friendlier". We need to get rid of the presumption of guilt and tell him how to proceed if he's innocent.

If someome writes good content by editing Wikipedia articles, he may get a barnstar, but if he puts exactly the same content in external web sites and then links to it, he gets accused of "spam" because he has a conflict of interests, since the writing he's linking to are his own. That's an absurd situation. 22:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Waabu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Waabu has an interesting point here. If you write something on your website, then cut/paste it into Wikipedia, that's all manner of policy violation. If you write it on Wikipedia first, then cut/paste it onto your own web page, that's excellent web-2.0 reuse encouraged under GPL. Harpwolf (talk) 04:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Cases at WP:COIN often involve new editors. Some percent of these are just inexperienced, and need a few pointers. Others are 'unguidable' and need escalating warnings. There is a shakeout period when a person has made very few Wikipedia edits and we don't know which of these two is more probable. If there is any hint that a person is trying to add real content and just needs a bit of help, if the matter is filed at COIN they will get sympathy quickly. A tougher case is the one like Waabu's where the only activity consists of adding external links. The spam people can't just stand still forever, in a case like his when a person won't respond to warnings. Somebody who won't talk is necessarily treated with less sympathy than one who comes in willing to negotiate. Responses to the early messages should be carefully watched, but in Waabu's case there was no response. That is probably why he got a series of warnings that became less and less sympathetic. EdJohnston (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that, ceteris paribus, those who won't talk deserve less respect. But the notices to his page presumed him guilty unless proven innocent, and did not offer to listen attentively to explanations that would show he was innocent. The things he'd written that he linked to could have earned him barnstars if he'd written them as Wikipedia articles. The proper thing to do would be to explain that he should declare a conflict on the COI noticeboard and to explain what behaviors could arouse suspicions. That was not done. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that there are a tremendous number of single purpose accounts and everything is stacked in their favor: having worked out how to format a link, an SPA can simply paste the link into more articles with a few easy clicks. I think that a person of good will who added their link to ten articles, then got the first message shown on User talk:Waabu would have to accept that the text had a point, even if it is somewhat dogmatic. In this user's case, it is unfortunate how two editors arrived at the same time, each wanting to add the warning. By then, Waabu had performed 22 edits, each concerned with linking to one web site, so I feel that the warnings are quite reasonable. Personally I would like some mechanism (the edit filter?) to show a friendly warning (with a link to a friendly guideline) when a new user adds any external link, then the template can assume that the guidelines have been seen. Re this particular case, has anyone read a documents linked to by Waabu? Am I correct in thinking that you have to register (and provide a verified email address) in order to do so? Johnuniq (talk) 04:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I looked at one of the documents and didn't need to register or log in or anything like that. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

We do have Template:Welcome-COI, which nobody has brought up here yet. It's accessible in Friendly. I usually greet linkspammers with Template:uw-spam1 which doesn't use the projorative term "spam". Once users have been presented with the relevant guidelines they can be warned more strongly if they continue to go against them. Generally the most important thing about templating newbies is to know what is written on the templates you use. ThemFromSpace 07:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

That may be just what we need; next we need to modify the manual to prescribe that template. Whatever happens, the template should never implicitly accuse the person of anything beyond what the particular case calls for. And that happens with the currently conventional templates. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't bring up Template:Welcome-COI because I couldn't find it. It's not mentioned anywhere on WP:COI, not that I could find. That's why in my initial reply I stated, "There's no friendly 'welcome to Wikipedia but you might have a COI' template, at least listed on this guideline." The COI guideline should state that if you don't have reason to suspect that a person has malicious intent then you should use the welcome template, for a new editor at least. I will say that there are situations where an established editor has a COI and the welcome template isn't appropriate, or where a person only has an interest in promotion and doesn't show any wish to actually improve the encyclopedia, and in those cases it's best to use the "warning" template rather than the "welcome" template. -- Atama^chat 23:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yea, the template is only a few months old and not popular yet. I agree that prescriptions for its usage should be written into the guidelines. ThemFromSpace 03:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

An update... I tried to use the Template:Welcome-COI template today on a new editor with a fairly clear COI. However, when attempting to apply it I noticed two problems. The first is that the template assumes that the editor created the article, which isn't always the case (and certainly wasn't the case today). The second problem is that it tries to do some sort of "subst", I'm assuming an attempt to put the editor's name in the article automatically, but it fails and just gives raw code in place of the name. Finally, it would be nice to be able to add the article name after a pipe the way you can with Template:uw-coi but it currently doesn't work. I might see about editing that welcome template myself to address these problems. -- Atama^chat 22:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Well remember how folks arrive at use of a template. Read WP:COI again - It's a very common cause of other problems, but not a problem of itself. So most likely there's also something else - POV, tendentiousness, and the like. Saying COI instead of POV ought to be a case of trying to be helpful, to further customize the answer for the person. But your guess of COI can be wrong, and then you look stupid. COI is sometimes used when the net-cop can't find any other violation. Since the template says essentially "YOU should not edit this article because of an irrevocable personal characteristic", it's a real favorite among abusive wiki-bullies. With such a damnation, what is there to do but go away? Of course if the template recipient actually follows the links, he reads a WP:COI policy and guidelines which say something quite different: COI applies to edits not editors; here are common mistakes; proceed with care. Doing so, of course, taunts the wiki-bully... hilarity ensues! Remember - even the best wiki-cops have perhaps read the guidelines once, several years back... but read the template everyday. Ever try to tell a wiki-cop to go read the guidelines again, LOL, that ain't gonna happen... so a correct template is a big win. Harpwolf (talk) 04:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

"COI applies to edits not editors"... I'm sorry, but that is absolute nonsense. There is no such thing as a "COI edit". Also, what you're "quoting" from the COI guideline doesn't even exist there. I do appreciate the spirit of your comment (which is basically "don't bite the newbies"), which is something I agree with. But you seem to be misinformed. The COI guideline is specifically about editors and their relationship to what they are editing. COI is somewhat like SPA (and in fact in many cases a person with a COI is a SPA). It isn't something that is automatically pejorative. I've seen editors with a conflict of interest who have made fantastic improvements to an article. I've seen the same from single-purpose accounts. Declaring a COI is not saying anything about the nature of a person's edits, it's saying something about that person's connection to what they are editing. There is one very true statement that you made, however, that I think every editor who interacts with another editor who has a COI should remember, "It's a very common cause of other problems, but not a problem of itself." Very true and very important. -- Atama頭 20:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You know, *laugh* I actually read it wrong. And so did you. Read the first two paragraphs of WP:COI again. They are clear enough. (and good thing, because most of the rest is necessarily weaselized). COI means not only do you have cross-interests, but that you have failed to put Wikipedia first while editing. That sure sounds pejorative to me. How do you determine that another editor is "advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia" without mind-reading? Only way I can think is to look at the edits... so we're back to my notion that it's about the edits. Harpwolf (talk) 07:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

How do you determine that another editor is "advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia" without mind-reading? - Read the guideline. It explains how you determine that. You're selectively quoting the guideline and making incorrect assumptions. There's an entire section called "What is a conflict of interest?" that you're ignoring.

Let me explain it in clear language rather than just referring to the guideline. Fred and Bob are both editors in Wikipedia. Fred works for a company that sells bottled water. Bob has no affiliation with the company but drinks the water on a regular basis and really likes it. If Fred were to write on the company's article that the bottled water is refreshing, that would be a conflict of interest because as an employee he is tied closely to the article's subject and his motives would be quesionable. If Bob were to make the exact same edit, word-for-word, no COI exists because Bob is just giving his personal opinion and would have nothing to gain from promoting the product. Both edits would probably be violations of WP:OR and WP:NPOV, but only Fred has a COI. Again, not because of the edit, but because of Fred's affiliation with the company. So clearly it's not the edit itself that is the COI concern, it is the editor. A conflict of interest is really just a "red flag" that can bring more scrutiny to the edits that an editor makes, but of itself isn't necessarily a problem. -- Atama頭 19:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me take this a step further, Atama. Suppose the Fred/Bob edit was actually compliant with all Wikipedia rules and guidelines, such as "In August 2009, XYZ Bottled Water Co. acquired through a stock purchase the ABC Aquifer Management Co. and its clean water holdings in the state of Wyoming." And the edit was fully and properly cited to both the New York Times and to the Wall Street Journal. The very model of a modern Wikipedian! Now, if Bob makes that edit, it's lovely. But if Fred makes that same edit, he has a conflict of interest. So, what is your recommendation to the Wikipedia community, to Bob, and to Fred? Are we actually saying that if Fred is "caught" making that edit, he should be reprimanded; but if Bob is found to be making the edit, he should be rewarded a barnstar? This is why I found Wikipedia's attempt to create the WP:COI policy as a reaction to my enterprise, MyWikiBiz, to be a logically flawed effort. I'm not trying to troll here -- I honestly would like to know your reaction to my scenario above. (Note, for the truly dense, I will explain my position once again -- editors with a financial conflict of interest may often have more incentive to build a factually accurate encyclopedic article about their subject than do disinterested volunteers. The secret sauce to prevent undue bias creeping in is full disclosure, coupled with harmonious community support of the conflicted party's efforts to help build encyclopedic content. Somehow, most Wikipedians, including the Big Cheese, missed this fairly simple bit of logic and experience when they had the chance back in 2006. Confrontation and the adversarial relationships they produced were the chosen path, instead.) -- Thekohser 03:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I spend quite a bit of time at the COI noticeboard (it's a cool place to hang out). There is nothing wrong with having a COI. Nothing at all! In fact, I've applauded people with conflicts of interest at articles they've edited. Look here where I suggested how to deal with a COI editor who hadn't done anything wrong. Look here where I told an editor with an obvious COI to continue the good work he was doing. I said already that there's nothing pejorative about having a conflict of interest. This guideline doesn't say you can't edit an article where a COI exists, it just makes suggestions on how to avoid conflict when you have a COI. I hope that answered your question? -- Atama頭 04:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Yes, I see the fat lot of good your support got one of them. Happy to see that the Imperial War Museum guy fared better. Now, may I ask -- what will happen if I begin editing the article about Comcast in the same style that User:IxK85 edited Imperial War Museum? -- Thekohser 12:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to see my efforts are appreciated. I would assume that if you did as good a job as IxK85 on any article you'd be commended for it (I'd commend you for it, certainly). Do you think you might have a COI with Comcast? If you did, what I would suggest (to anyone who wants to edit an article where they have a potential COI) is to declare it somewhere. For example, the company that I work for has an article on Wikipedia. I've read it but have never edited it. I believe that I would have a COI if I did. I don't have any desire to edit it, but if I did I would state on my user page that I am affiliated with the company. That way if something happened, let's say I accidentally edit while not logged in, if someone gets suspicious and traces the IP to my employer I won't get blamed for trying to hide my affiliations. Also I consider it courteous to be open about such things, but that's just my personal opinion. -- Atama頭 15:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Personal interest other than material gain or recogition

I have reverted changes to the description, as they were inaccurate. There was no finding by any non-involved editor of a CoI; material or otherwise. Continued conflation of POV with COI can only further confuse issues. -- Avi (talk) 18:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

You can't have it both contrary ways, Avi. Indeed my edit reflected exactly that -- the claim you supported here, along with the editors not involved with editing circumcision articles, was that one needed material gain or recognition to be involved in a personal interest or else there is no COI; and that outside advocacy in an area is not indicative of a COI when editing articles in that area. My edits here[5], which you instantly reverted citing WP:POINT (!)[6], reflected exactly that position, your position and those of the editors outside circumcision articles, not the position that there was a finding of COI in that case -- your comment above being a non-sequitur. Your instant reversion of edits reflecting the position you yourself argue, however, does show that the issue is not "resolved" (and collapsed, hidden away, minimized) as was inaccurately marked by yet another editor wishing the issue to go away. Either make the guideline consistent with your arguments, or admit that the guideline applies in the case of any personal interest, not just that for material gain or recognition. It's really quite simple. For the record, I don't care which is decided, but I demand consistency between the text of the guideline and the prevailing interpretation of the guideline. It seems to be worthless otherwise. Blackworm (talk) 18:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Also speaking of hiding things away.... Blackworm (talk) 19:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not know anything about the background to the above difference of opinion, but I support keeping the COI guideline as simple as possible, and I prefer the version which appears to have existed for some time. Essentially the proposed change was to introduce the text shown in bold:

Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests involving material gain or recognition, or those of other individuals or of organizations, including employers, unless you are certain that the interests of Wikipedia remain paramount.

I do not like the new text because it provides unnecessary encouragement to someone who might dream up a new COI motivation (the new text provides too much wriggle room). Per WP:BURO, guidelines should describe in general terms what should be avoided, without listing exactly what is prohibted (with the suggestion that if it isn't on the list it's ok). Johnuniq (talk) 04:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

At the same time a clear distinction has to be made between WP:COI and WP:NPOV. Otherwise we might as well delete this guideline. If we allow editors to assume that any intangible benefit an editor might receive from editing an article presents a conflict of interest then any editor with a point of view could have a potential COI. The background to the above difference of opinion, which I was involved in simply to comment on the applicability of COI claims in a dispute, involved that exact problem. For example, an editor who is a fan of Star Wars shouldn't be discouraged from editing the article simply because they like the Star Wars films. They may gain an intangible benefit (a "warm and fuzzy feeling") by hyping up their favorite films but that's a far cry from someone who works for Lucasfilm doing the same. It's critical that a distinction be made, or there's no point to this guideline. I think that it should be stressed that there must be a tangible benefit to an editor working on an article, either through promotion (or defamation) or because they are being paid to do so. Maybe not in those exact words. -- Atama^chat 23:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I still think it is best for the COI guideline to be as open as possible because no legal phrase has ever been effective in defining all bad behavior to be avoided. If someone labels a Star Wars fan as having "COI", that issue will have to be argued out on a case-by-case basis; we can't give genuine COI promoters any wriggle room to argue that their particular benefit is not covered by the precise wording in our guideline. Johnuniq (talk) 08:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems the behaviour to be avoided is largely on a case-by-case basis. This guideline carries little weight with me, given the enforcement of both its language and its contrary application. Blackworm (talk) 01:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I still think it is best for the COI guideline to be as open as possible because no legal phrase has ever been effective in defining all bad behavior to be avoided. What do you mean by "as open as possible"? Firstly, we're not "defining all bad behavior to be avoided", we're defining what could be considered a conflict of interest. It doesn't have to be a checklist of behavior that a person goes down to verify 100% whether or not a person has a COI. But it must distinguish a COI from simply having a point of view, and currently it fails in that. I suggest that if people want to have wishy-washy language that's so open that it could potentially apply to any person who edits Wikipedia with a bias or belief (and that naturally applies to every person who edits, period) then we should consider retiring this guideline and the conflict of interest noticeboard, because they are redundant when we already have a WP:NPOV policy and WP:NPOV/N noticeboard. -- Atama^chat 20:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we were discussing adding the following underlined words to the nutshell: "Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests involving material gain or recognition, or those of other individuals or of organizations, including employers, unless you are certain that the interests of Wikipedia remain paramount." The underlined words suggest that some "interests" are not considered COI, and inventive minds will then argue that their "interest" is outside the underlined words. Wikipedia is not the law: we do not have to spell out precise definitions for what is and what is not legal, and it is best for the nutshell to encapsulate the central principle without any wriggle room. There could be some words in the article to say, for example, that it is not a COI for a Catholic to edit an article on Catholicism, if that were really felt necessary, however I would not try to explain common sense in the nutshell. Johnuniq (talk) 01:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

But many, not just many but most interests are not considered COI. We don't need to specify wording as if it was a "law", it's not even a Wikipedia policy. But it needs to be differentiated from WP:NPOV. Maybe you can explain how a guideline that suggests that a person shouldn't edit an article whose subject they are fond of is needed when there is already a policy stating that your edits must conform to a neutral point of view? I'm personally a big fan of Dr Pepper, should I refrain from editing the article? -- Atama^chat 22:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Are we talking about some semantic issue? I mean "interest" as in "conflict of interest". Yes, there are quite a few other interests, but the nutshell is not the place to spell out what "interest" means. I might be interested in apple pie, but that is different from the meaning in the rest of the nutshell ("the interests of Wikipedia"). If we were drafting a law for which a breach meant 5 years imprisonment, we would have to spell out precisely what we mean (and even then, the courts would grow fat from debating what we really meant). However, what we are doing is trying to make it clear that when an editor's "interest" clashes with that of Wikipedia, the editor loses. If necessary, the article can offer wriggle room ("a person who likes apple pie is welcome to edit articles on apple pie"), but it's not needed in the nutshell. Johnuniq (talk) 03:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not semantics at all. I'm not disagreeing with you. It doesn't have to be rigidly defined, I'd say it shouldn't be and probably can't be. All I care about is that this guideline isn't redundant. I don't see how the guideline as written differs from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Dealing with biased contributors in any substantial way, but it should, because a conflict of interest doesn't mean simply having a bias. We don't have to define it precisely, but since we have examples of what a COI is, shouldn't we have some examples of what a COI isn't? -- Atama^chat 05:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good, so long as it's not somewhere prominent like the nutshell (if in a prominent place, it may be the only thing that is read, or may have undue weight). I also agree that COI is different from bias, one quick thought being that I may have a COI but still do good edits in the topic of my interest, while significant bias would color many of my edits. Johnuniq (talk) 05:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Non-controversial edits

Where others have put in a request for citation, filling in the citation request should be consider a Non-controversial edit. I have been dinged for doing this to a bio page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology/Workshop&oldid=292921824. If nobody objects I would like to add this and then do it. After all, who knows where the cites are better than the subject of a bio page? And if someone request a citation, filing in the request should be non controversial. Keith Henson (talk) 04:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Legal antagonists: relation with WP:NLT

Is really the Legal Antagonists section related with the WP:NLT? The Junk Police (reports|works) 09:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

COI question

I mainly refer COI as conflict of interested people to a case, like Pope to Catholic sex abuse cases or some editors editing per their religious beliefs. My question is do COI limited to people involved a case per organisation and economically, or do it involve religious-political beliefs like a Catholic writer's comment in Catholic sex abuse cases. Do COI involves the case, or is there any other policy about that case. Since apparently involved parties by race or religion have comments on the articles, yet when stating their origin there are some interest as "do not label" or do not yellow badge people. Which policies I should read about the case. Kasaalan (talk) 07:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Clearly no, although the guideline as written certainly suggests that would be the case. You should not consider a person's religion, beliefs, race, or nationality to be a conflict of interest, ever. That is discrimination and is antithetical to the core values of this project. A perfect example is here, an arbitration case which actually gained media attention in its results. The media reported this as saying that Scientologists were banned from Wikipedia. This is not the case, editors who believe in Scientology are welcome to Wikipedia, and are also allowed to edit Scientology-related articles as long as they follow the usual policies and guidelines, and don't focus on Scientology-related articles as single-purpose accounts (those restrictions apply to everyone, actually, not just Scientologists). Arbcom did, however, block edits coming from IPs affiliated with the church itself. Now, while that arbitration wasn't based solely on COI matters (it was seeking to prevent further disruption of Scientology topics) you can be sure that COI was a factor in the decision-making.

In your example above, a Catholic shouldn't be considered to have a COI at a Catholocism-related article. On the other hand, if that Catholic happened to be working for the Holy See in their PR department, a COI would certainly apply. As I stated before, a COI should only apply when a tangible benefit could be gained from editing an article. This can't be rigidly defined, but some examples would be if you were an employee or owner of a company that had an article, or whose product had an article, if you were close friends or a relative of the subject of an article (or if you were yourself the subject of the article), if the article were something that you had created (a piece of software, a book, a film)... One thing I ask myself, is that if the editor were a judge, and the judge had a case before them involving the subject of the article, would that judge be expected to recuse themselves? Again, that's a subjective judgement but it should not be so broad as to include any interest a person may have in the subject. Surely a Catholic might be interested in editing the article you suggested above, but their contributions shouldn't be given a second thought if such contributions were otherwise proper. I hope this helps make such a murky subject a bit more clear. -- Atama^chat 20:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation so COI is only covers, directly involved parties.

I may be "racist" against myself, yet personally I try to stay away my own country's [political-war related] conflicts in wikipedia, and try to deal with other world issues, which I try to handle more neutral. Yet on the other hand I confront with some users, since they deal with their primary-secondary conflicts as [mostly] involved parties, and the balance is somehow broken through AFD, DRV or editing processes.

Yet is there any policy for involved commenting parties of a conflict.

I know the Scientology case well and they asked that ban themselves, yet that is another issue.

As an editor, I have been dealt with lots of Wikipedia:Single-purpose accounts especially on religious oriented conflicts. Race and religious beliefs differ, yet on the other hand some religiously involved parties lots of time edit by their belief system's bias, some happen to tell their origin rest does not, yet is it clearly apparent by their edits. When an apparently Catholic tries to trim Catholic sex abuse cases, or a Judaist for Yeshiva Torah Temimah pedophilia case, with no consensus and tries to WP:AFD it, there should be a Wiki Policy about stating their own involvement to the case first somehow. That is not about contributing, yet that is about WP:BIAS. There are some systematic bias in wikipedia, which is hard to track or locate, yet that even include some admins. Yet that is about editor side, my main question is about references in the article.

Second when building racially or religiously involved matters like Catholic sex abuse cases, it became obligatory to note critical or commenting parties' stance, especially when they alleges extreme criticism or defense. Yet when you do you should "label" the references somehow as conservative, leftist, Israel, Jewish, Arab, Catholic or any other way.

A 2005 article in the Western People, a conservative Irish newspaper proposed that clerical celibacy contributed ...

When we do note the origin of the sources, arguing parties happen to claim "racism, anti-religion, yellow badge" etc. However presenting comments from "religiously or racially" involved parties of the conflict [like they are 3rd party] is misleading by itself in the first place. It is really hard for conflicting cases. Not noting the references origin is misleading, and when you do note, it is alleged as "labelling". So is there any Wiki policy that deals with the issue about Neutrality of the sources. I don't like to trim even WP:POV sources, yet stating their origin is essential to me. Kasaalan (talk) 15:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Is it a conflict of intrest if you work for a company and are trying to update the companies page? Most people who don't work for the company may not know the correct info or have the desire to produce current and accurate info...Also I read that I can submita draft to an editor for review of the content to make sure it is un-biased. If this is correct does it matter who the editor is? LesliemariecLesliemariec (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Updating an article for a company you work for is an unambiguous conflict of interest. Your safest bet is to propose the changes on the talk page of the article. If your request goes unnoticed, you can post at the conflict of interest noticeboard and make the request there (that board is both for COI complaints and for people with an acknowledged COI asking for advice and requesting changes). By the way, thank you for asking and for wanting to comply with Wikipedia's guidelines. -- Atama頭 17:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Archives

I have proposed an exception to the finantial section

employees of archives are excepted when adding "Research resources" to articles pointing to holdings of original 
materials about a topic.

About a year ago Stanford Special Collections and University Archives got shut down for adding material which pointed to their archives of unique materials. See for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_F._Durand

The goals of such archives are essentially congruent with those of the Wikipedia. Archives are providing service and almost never have a finantial motivation in adding pointers to their materials to Wikipedia.

I will leave this up for comments for a week or two and make the change if there is no objection. Keith Henson (talk) 14:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality is an important objective and one of the 5 pillars on Wikipedia. Archive Webmasters and system administrators (employees) have an invested interest in "increasing" traffic and broadening exposure to there site, despite not outwardly appearing to have financial motivation. Employees and affiliates such as these have to show "results" in order to justify employment to the Archive. This is not congruent, but an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia and the aims of the "Archives" employee. The decision about when it would be beneficial for articles to include particular links should not be left to the affiliates of those websites, but to neutral editors.--Hu12 (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't clear about the nature of the kind of archives I am talking about. These are physical repositories of paper and related that have been donated to universities and a few other similar places. To use them you normally have to go there (there is no charge to use archives beyond copy charges). I suppose having this information on Wikipedia will increase the number of people who consult original sources and to that extent could be considered promotion.

Ellwood Patterson Cubberley Papers, 1886-1965 (3.25 linear ft.) are housed in the Department of Special 
Collections and University Archives at Stanford University Libraries

This is the kind of notice they would be putting in and while there are web pointers to Special Collections and the library, I suppose they could be left off and let people Google for them. I doubt that the web traffic to such sites is considered in employment reviews, but it might be.

I agree that the people in the archives are going to have a certain level of internal motivation (like being paid) to attach information about where original source material about a topic is located. In spite of that, it would seem to be benificial to Wikipedia to inform its users where additional materials can be located. And if the special collections people don't put it in, who will? Attaching location data to articles is tedious not to mention that the employees are the only ones who know what is in their special collections. Keith Henson (talk) 01:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that a financial motive is not necessary for a COI to exist. Promotion is another way for a COI to exist. Writing an article about your father would have no financial motive, but by inflating his importance you would in turn be promoting yourself by proxy. Someone adding links to their own web site to an article would increase awareness and drive traffic to that site, even if they make no money off of it. Those are certainly conflicts of interest. -- Atama頭 18:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The question about this COI exception is: do the users of Wikipedia benifit from knowing where to find original material? And can Wikipedia trust archivist/librarians not to abuse this exception? If this policy change is accepted perhaps it should be reviewed in a few weeks or months. Keith Henson (talk) 01:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

There was a similar case about the Newberry Library in Chicago discussed at length at User_talk:JeremyA#Biting_Newb.28ur.29y.3F and at Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Libraries It strikes me as common sense that research institutions putting ways to access further info on a subject are acting in the best interest of Wikipedia and building a better encyclopedia. Consider this fantasy case (yes, I just made it up): say the Library of Congress decided to better inform people on the extent of its collections by selectively linking specific resources (e.g. photos, indexes of material at Presidential Libraries, collections of personal papers) to Wikipedia articles. Wouldn't that be one of the best things that could happen to Wikipedia?

In short allowing this type of external link would build a better encyclopedia. Smallbones (talk) 05:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Most topics covered in encyclopedias have been studied for a long time, and there could be hundreds of major repositories with information related to each article. There are many thousands of articles on Wikipedia that could have a link saying that extra information is held at the Library of Congress. At some point, it stops helping the article because readers can't see the really useful links. Johnuniq (talk) 08:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there are many links that would be more useful than a link to a true research archive. One or two links per article of this type shouldn't confuse anybody. Perhaps the discussion should move to WT:EL where they argue about links to Twitter, YouTube, blogs, etc. Research archives are clearly much more encyclopedic than most of their other arguable links. In the meantime, post the link to the article's talk page, if somebody else think that it's worthwhile, it will be made part of the article. Smallbones (talk) 16:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It adds another step, but it's a possible solution. Re worrying about lots of links, it's fairly seldom that more than one archive has original material on a particular subject. More than 90% of this stuff is the donated papers of someone relatively famous. It is not often that these papers get donated to more than one place. Exceptions are such things as the Stanford archive of a heap of dime novels. Keith Henson (talk) 04:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Smallbones, I think that while there's certainly a potential COI for an archivist to link to the archives where they are employed, the potential benefit to Wikipedia outweighs any such conflict. I guess the thing to ask is this... We have numerous examples of people linking to their own web sites or trying to puff up their employer in an article, only to benefit themselves and often making the article worse in the process (by violating WP:NPOV for example). Does anyone recall an incident where an archivist was inappropriately linking to their own archive? Or is such a thing only hypothetical? -- Atama頭 16:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

FWIW. My concerns are not so much about the content of the site, as by the behavior/motivation of the individuals adding the links. heirin lies the neutrality problem. Perhaps having individuals work with specific wikiprojects would be benificial, however lets face it archives need money and funding. Lets look a bit at the Newberry Library case (mentioned above);

• http://www.newberry.org/giving/donate.html Giving to the Newberry Library
• http://www.newberry.org/giving/
• http://www.newberry.org/giving/Corporate.html Corporate Support
• http://www.newberry.org/giving/Foundation.html foundation giving
• http://www.newberry.org/giving/Estate.html Estate Planning and Life Income Gifts

Clearly the Newberry Library does have an invested interest in "increasing" traffic and broadening exposure to there site. Despite not outwardly appearing to have financial motivation, like the links added by User Newberry_Library_SC, organizations need to measure and justify their archives. Statistics can be used to justify additional funding. They can show, for example, traffic improvement and page hit ratios. Which is why the decision about when it would be beneficial for articles to include Archive links should not be left to the affiliates of those websites, but to neutral editors. --Hu12 (talk) 16:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... I went and read through the Newberry discussion on Jeremy's talk page. I suppose what needs to be decided is whether such links are appropriate at all. In a sense, those links are an advertisement to researchers working on the article. It's almost like putting a link to Amazon.com that shows you all the books related to the subject. Unlike Amazon the archivists aren't directly selling you something, but advertising is advertising. After all, we treat people who spam for charities no different than people who spam for profit. -- Atama頭 17:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, really? How did we treat this spammer? Note, you'll want to be careful with that one. They donated $2 million to the Wikimedia Foundation, and they've lodged a representative on the Board of Trustees. -- Thekohser 18:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't see anything on the talkpage nor any mention of this IP on wikipedia[7]. Doesn't seem to be spamming at all... Just some past COI edits to Omidyar Network, Here and Pierre Omidyar, Here. That IP 207.47.3.98 is registered to Omidyar Network Services, LLC. Probably should not have been editing those articles. On the other hand, for $2 million I'd say they didn't get their "edits" worth. (I digress) LOL:)--Hu12 (talk) 20:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't decide if this is potentially valuable to Wikipedia or a source of trouble. If this is accepted, I suggest it be revisited in not more than a couple of months to see if it is useful and not being abused. If it isn't accepted, then the alternative of putting the information on the talk pages should be offered to the archives. That would not require a policy change but it would generate a lot of work for editors and someone would probably just write a bot for it. Keith Henson (talk) 04:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully request that discussion in this thread be limited to updating the COI guideline and that discussion on the appropriateness and treatment of links be done at Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Libraries. This will insure that input is received from those most experienced in each subject. There are several concerns that come up frequently with edits by archive personnel that should perhaps be highlighted in the COI guideline. First, they often use shared, single-purpose accounts. They should be referred to WP:SPA and WP:NOSHARE. Secondly, they should be cautioned about WP:NPOV, and not to introduce material that shows their institution or benefactors in a positive light. Lastly, they should be cautioned to read WP:ELNO and post any questions about the appropriateness of links they intend to add at the External Links Noticeboard that we're in the process of getting up and running. UncleDouggie (talk) 07:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up these points. I commented at Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Libraries.

I am not sure that "Research resources" or whatever it gets called should be considered a link. If it just points to the organization holding the material, there is no point in a link. If it points to a finding aid, maybe. (Well, maybe if it provides directions to the real world location a link to that would be useful.)

Re WP:SPA and WP:NOSHARE, even if people use a personal handle, it is going to be obvious that they are working for a library or archive. Nobody else would have a clue as to what holdings they have! So should we write exceptions for people adding pointers to the locations of original materials to those two policies? (Actually, SPA are not forbidden: "If you wish to continue working as a SPA, capitalize on the strengths of that role, particularly as regards sources." NOSHARE should not be a problem for archive employees, just create an account for each adding pointers.) I am in complete agreement with NPOV and showing organizations in a positive light (beyond the fact that they *have* someone's papers). But adding material saying where original material is located isn't advocating a point of view, at least I can't imagine a situation where it would be. Keith Henson (talk) 04:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that archive employees can work within these policies. They typically do follow NPOV, but they often fail at the others. The only policy that we might want to amend is WP:ORGNAME, to say that usernames containing a library/archive as part of the name are permitted so long as they follow all other policies. This is because, as you said, it's not hard to figure out where they work. An intern working for such an organization may want to use a different account for personal contributions not related to their work so that their personal contributions aren't associated with the organization. This is also currently permitted. UncleDouggie (talk) 11:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I just looked at WP:ORGNAME. The applicable line seems to be "Explicit use of a name or url of a company, group or product as a username is not permitted. Your username should represent you." Long as they use a user name like mike-at-newberry-lib they should be ok under this policy. (I will ask on the talk page.) And, as you point out, multiple accounts are permitted when there is a good reason. Thanks for bringing up the various ramifications of this proposal. Keith Henson (talk) 14:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Current practice at UAA is to block usernames that contain the name of a group, and "mike-at-newberry-lib" would be softblocked based on current enforcement trends. I do not agree with it but I'm just letting you know how it is; an amendment to the username policy would likely be needed. Shereth 15:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Changing WP:ORGNAME has been rejected in favor of encouraging such users to declare their affiliation on their user page. UncleDouggie (talk) 09:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I oppose this proposal, the term "Archive/Library" is far too broad. While there are indeed good archive sites out there that could be included, there are plenty of spam/non RS ones. And who's to say libraries/archives don't spam/promote themselves? IAR and common sense just be used in cases where the links added are "good". Triplestop x3 20:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Triplestop, if you want to use a more restrictive term or define the characteristics of good archives, I will go along with you. (We could even have organizations apply to get this exception or block accounts that spam.) Second I agree with you that IAR and common sense should be enough. But it doesn't seem to work out that way. About a year ago Stanford Special Collections (which is about as good an archive as you can find) had an intern start putting in links where they had substantial holding related to Wikipedia articles. All 100 of them were reverted.

After they read the COI rules, which [which they read as] outright forbid[ing] people from being assigned to work on Wikipedia this way, they decided they couldn't do it and didn't come back. (I put the links back in on about 40 of the articles, but ran out of time and patience.) So unless you go deep into the history of the articles, the information is lost. My guess is that Stanford Special Collections has original papers related to thousands of Wikipedia articles. It seems to me that Wikipedia would benefit from that information being added, but I am not going to go against consensus (even if I could). Keith Henson (talk) 00:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Which COI rules are you talking about that "outright forbid people" from anything? -- Atama頭 01:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"Financial

If you fit either of these descriptions:

you are receiving monetary or other benefits or considerations to edit Wikipedia as a representative of an organization (whether directly as an employee or contractor of that organization, or indirectly as an employee or contractor of a firm hired by that organization for public relations purposes); or,"

Stanford Special Collections people read this and gave up on Wikipedia. Keith Henson (talk) 01:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we should soften this policy. As it clearly states, the intent is to avoid violations of WP:NPOV. It seems to me that archive/library employees don't have a big problem in this particular area, so there's no need to ram it down their throat and make them give up. The policy as written is not absolute and exceptions can even be made. So let's be more accommodating and focus on enforcing the other policies instead for these folks. I propose we add an exceptions section under financial with an exception for the Reward Board and another for "Archive or library employees who provide contributions on their organization's unique holdings related to the main subject of an article. Such employees are especially reminded to review WP:NPOV, WP:EL and WP:NOSHARE. UncleDouggie (talk) 08:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"Stanford Special Collections people read this and gave up on Wikipedia."' - That's their problem. These are guidelines making suggestions about propriety. This isn't a policy setting rules. There's no need to "soften" what looks like one of the softest guidelines in Wikipedia. Did someone chase them off Wikipedia in a fit of zeal or did they just misunderstand what they were reading? Either way, all we can do is write the guidelines, we can't do anything about people who misinterpret them. -- Atama頭 15:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Third paragraph under Financial already provides an exception for the Rewards Board so we don't have to change that. As you point out, the intent is to support WP:NPOV. And (again as you point out) archives/libraries generally support NPOV anyway. The other reason for the policy is to prevent Wikipedia from being used commercially or for promotion. Very few archives are commercial. There is an element of promotion that is unavoidable in the location information.

The other big problem with these organizations is "culture clash." Wikipedia is a strange place for organizations to interface with. They generally don't understand a statement like: "The policy as written is not absolute and exceptions can even be made".

As I think deeper about this, Wikipedia might consider an outreach program to these people. They have a lot to offer. They also need guidance if they are going to fit into the local culture. It's true anyone can edit Wikipedia. It's also true that unless you fit into the culture, someone is likely to revert your edits within a day--especially if you do a lot of them.

User pages like this might help (assuming we add the exception).

"Hi. I'm Sam. I work for Special Collections at the University of xyz. I am here under exception x of WP:COI Financial and have been assigned to add Research resources pointers to articles where Special Collections has relevant materials and external links to finding aids and scans of related materials. Please let me know on my talk page if editors find link errors or have any other questions about these additions to the articles."

Perhaps the local culture would be more friendly if these people don't just barge in and start adding pointers/links.

After reading some of the Newberry library clash I can see there needs to be some effort put into managing expectations. Libraries are putting more and more stuff on line. Wikipedia could be the primary link to finding that material. The minimum is just saying they have original materials, the next step is on line finding aids that describe the material, and finally, some of this material is scanned and put online. The last two are external links, the first is just a notice of where research material can be found if you want to travel there (or talk the archive into making and mailing copies). As a suggestion, "Research resources" should not be considered an external link, but a pointer to where you can find this material in the physical world. Keith Henson (talk) 16:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you Keith. As for whether we actually need to soften the policy, the rest of the partial quote above is:

...then we very strongly encourage you to avoid editing Wikipedia in areas where there is a conflict of interest that may make your edits non-neutral (biased). Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy states that all articles must represent views fairly and without bias, and conflicts of interest may significantly and negatively affect Wikipedia's ability to fulfill this requirement. If your financially-motivated edits would be non-neutral, do not post them. UncleDouggie (talk) 07:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The COI exception we are talking about here is really limited. If it becomes policy we are letting archive agents say the a library/archive/special collection has material about the topic of the article, nothing more. They have no reason to say anything beyond what they have and where it is. The assumption we are making in letting them off financial COI is that such pointers are inherently unbiased. If you can think of an exception case, please let us know. Keith Henson (talk) 17:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is one of the softest guidelines in Wikipedia. It reads like we don't want them, but our lawyers said we can't outright ban them, so we left in a narrow escape clause that they will never be able to satisfy. As soon as one of their edits is reverted based on claimed COI or spam, their fears will be realized and they will leave. They won't have the experience to fight it, or even know that there is such a thing as WP:NPOV/N. The tone of this text contradicts the "guideline" nature of the document claimed in the intro. I realize that the guideline has developed in response to real problems. Sometimes when doing this we cast the net too wide. UncleDouggie (talk) 07:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

If an edit is reverted based on spam, and properly done, then they shouldn't have been spamming in the first place and I don't have much sympathy. If an edit is reverted with a claim of "COI" then the editor who made the revert needs to be told that such a revert is invalid, we don't revert someone just because they have a COI. UncleDouggie, you're seeing what's simply not there in the guidelines. "Very strongly encourage" means just what it says, it's not a rule. Nobody can justifiably stop someone from editing only because of a COI, and if they try then that editor should be warned. If there is a large consensus of editors who feel that a particular editor who has a COI shouldn't edit an article, then the editor can be topic-banned but the same can happen to anyone. Frankly, seeing this as "we don't really allow it but we can't say that because of our lawyers" is nonsense and borderline paranoia. Wikipedia has plenty of fairly stone-clad rules that unambiguously say do not do this. Just about every policy in Wikipedia is full of strong language because those are rules people aren't allowed to break (except in special circumstances). Take a look at WP:OUTING, or WP:BLP, or WP:OR that are full of words like "must not" or "will be immediately reverted". Some guidelines, like WP:N are nearly as important as policy and enforced strongly. The COI guideline is as much to help people who have a COI as those who are identifying another editor with a COI. The guideline only suggests how a person with a COI can avoid conflict, and suggests how a person can contribute without "making waves". If someone reads this guideline and gets spooked then they're reading it wrong. If someone reads this guideline and makes bold edits that get reverted and decides that Wikipedia doesn't want them, then they ignored the suggestions on using the talk pages. Any policy or guideline can be misread or misinterpreted and that often leads to conflict in the encyclopedia, and the COI guidelines seem to be better than most, using clear language rather than legalese. If a person can't understand these guidelines then I wonder how well they would function in Wikipedia anyway. -- Atama頭 16:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Is it spam or COI when an archive assigns some intern to put in hundreds or thousands of pointers in articles to their holdings? The interns are getting paid and that makes their edits suspect if not forbidden on COI grounds. *I* think such pointers to original source materials are good for Wikipedia but YMMV. I submit the Stanford example a year ago as one where just on the application of policy, good information was discouraged to the point they gave up. (They made other newbie errors, but I know that reading the COI policy was what made them give up.) As to how they would function in Wikipedia, the answer is not well at all. The employees or interns who would be putting in such information are not usually the combative personalities who do well on Wikipedia. Re "bold edits," putting in a note where some documents can be found may be useful, but it is about as far from "bold" as I can imagine.

We don't have to make an exception in COI for archive agents putting in useful pointers. It has been suggested that we tell them to put the pointers on the article's talk page and let regular editors copy/paste the pointers into the articles. Or we can just drop the whole thing. Keith Henson (talk) 17:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Could we please have some other non-paranoid editors read the entire guideline from the point-of-view of an archive intern and give us their opinion? It's pretty clear that Atama, Keith and I aren't going to reach a consensus here by ourselves. Thanks! UncleDouggie (talk) 21:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I concur, I think we're just going back to the same arguments over and over. (And I don't mean offense by "borderline paranoia"; no implication of mental illness, nor personal persecution, but I did mean that the interpretation of the quoted passage was seeing a non-existent threat.) -- Atama頭 22:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

One minor addition to UncleDouggie's comment. The policy needs to be read from the viewpoint of the intern's manager, especially after having an entire day of the intern's work deleted.[[8]] (July 21) There is always more work to do in a library than they have people to do it. If they see Wikipedia as a hostile place, they are not going to waste time with it. I find it interesting that one library that puts up links gets the links tagged: (Tag: possible conflict of interest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Spcoll.) Right now Wikipedia doesn't have a consistent policy toward the addition to this type of pointers by special collections.

At the root of this, do Wikipedians want this kind of input from archives and related places? If no, end of discussion. If yes, what (if anything) should be changed? I am open to anyone's answers to both questions. Keith Henson (talk) 17:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I just don't think adding specific exemptions like this is the right answer for this. Perhaps a section on describing what type of edits that may be construed as COI are actually welcomed, as well as emphasizing compliance with the external links page. Triplestop x3 02:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a good approach. Unless someone has a better idea, I will add your suggestion to the non controversial edits section in a few days. Or someone else can do it. Keith Henson (talk) 19:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

On the basis of the above discussion I believe this incorporates all the comments, objections and suggestions. If I have missed anything, please comment.

Non-controversial edits DRAFT

Editors who may have a conflict of interest are allowed to make certain kinds of non-controversial edits, such as:

(snip 1-6)

7 Adding pointers (Research resources) to primary sources in archives, special collections, libraries, etc. or External links to finding aids and digital or digitized primary sources. Editors working for such organizations are requested to review WP:NPOV, (seldom a problem), WP:EL (useful links related to the article, not promotion), WP:NOSHARE and WP:ORGNAME. The last two mean don't create a shared organizational account and don't include the name of the organization in the account name. It is recommended but not required for such editors to declare their affiliation on their user page.

To determine what is controversial, use common sense. If another good faith editor objects, then it's controversial.

Keith Henson (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's a slightly modified version:

“ Editors who may have a conflict of interest are allowed to make certain kinds of non-controversial edits, such as:

(snip 1-6)

7. Adding pointers to primary sources in archives, special collections or libraries in the Research resources section of an article. Also, adding External links to digital primary sources. Editors working for such organizations are requested to review WP:EL (useful links to on-line, non-promotional material related to the article), WP:NPOV, WP:NOSHARE and WP:ORGNAME. The last two mean don't create a shared organizational account and don't include the name of the organization in the account name. It is recommended but not required for such editors to declare their affiliation on their user page.

If another editor objects for any reason, then it's a controversial edit. Such edits should be discussed on the article's talk page.

”

I took out the AGF ref because I didn't think it made sense in this context. It could be read to say that some editors who object are acting in bad faith. But, we're supposed to AGF, so it just seemed out of place. UncleDouggie (talk) 07:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, with minor additions to your version I added it as #7. Archive people make a distinction between material that was born digital they hold and "digitized" (usually scanned) paper. Finding aids (if online) give more detail about what they have. The last line on AGF was in the original but your version is better so I updated it too. I thought about adding something about NPOV, but decided it probably won't be an issue. (Pointing to where someone's papers are is the essence of neutral.) If it ever becomes a problem the editors can jump on it.

"Research resources (section)" might need to be defined. They are not links other than to the institution that has the material.

We should come back to this in 2-3 months and see if it does what we want and is not being abused. Keith Henson (talk) 19:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Self-citation

I write for a music review site called Roughstock. While the reputability of the site has never been questioned, I've been a bit afraid of citing my own single and album reviews in articles. The closest I've come so far to adding my own review is in Joey (song), where someone else added my review and I trimmed a little so that it didn't look like my review was receiving undue weight. WP:COI says "Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable and conforms to the content policies." The site seems to conform to the policies — it has a somewhat bloglike format like The 9513, which was also declared reputable by various other editors; in addition, main Roughstock editor Matt Bjorke has reviewed for other publications such as About.com, and guest editor Michael Sudhalter also writes for Country Standard Time magazine. I think that the use of my review on "Joey" is neutrally worded. Would it be acceptable to cite my own reviews on song and album articles in a similarly neutral fashion? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the sort of thing that might be best taken up on the conflict of interest noticeboard where you can ask about your own potential conflict of interest. Or are you asking here to make a general comment/ask a general question about self-citing in articles? Generally it's considered a COI to link to materials you've written yourself because it could be considered self-promotional. The example you provided above (trimming where someone else added your review) doesn't seem to present a conflict because someone else presented it in the first place. So if you're asking if you'd have a COI with those links the answer would seem to be "yes" in my opinion.

The other question, should you provide those references anyway? This guideline doesn't forbid anyone from contributing anything, so you certainly can. In my opinion if you want to avoid the appearance of impropriety, suggest your reviews as sources on the talk pages of articles where you feel they are appropriate. Or you can go ahead and add them directly to the articles but declare your COI openly on the talk page of such articles so that nobody thinks that you're trying to sneak in self-promotion. -- Atama頭 20:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll take it to COIN. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite the lead?

I've got a new editor that I'm trying to bring around from promotional editing to constructive editing because he/she does have good material to offer. I keep pointing him/her at policies and guidelines and he/she keeps finding some way to interpret them in their favor. I'm not asking for any help in this particular case, I can handle it for now. However, the latest misinterpretation on the lead of WP:COI is perhaps eye-opening for us. We know what it means, but it's hard sometimes for us to read it as an editor with a COI might see it.

The sentence in question is: "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." The interpretation is that if an editor contributes material that clearly advances the aims of Wikipedia, they may also advance their outside interests so long as the outside interests are negligible in comparison. So, adding 100 good words entitles one to add 5 promotional words. The nutshell sentence can also be interpreted this way. It seems that we don't want to permit any direct advancement of outside interests period. I say direct because if I contribute to an article in my professional field, it may advance my industry and I may then derive indirect benefit. I don't think we want to ban this; we need all the experts we can get.

My proposed nutshell: Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals or of organizations, including employers, unless you are certain that a neutral editor would agree that your edits are in the best interests of Wikipedia.

My proposed rewrite for the bold sentence in the lead: "When an editor's purpose is to advance outside interests, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." UncleDouggie (talk) 05:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the general outline of your comments. One way around the problem might be to define conflict of interest in objective terms, rather than as a state of mind. The state of mind might be what we really want to stop, be if there is no way to objectively say "this is coi" and "this is not coi" then it will be difficult to enforce. With a state of mind definition the only person who would really know about whether there is a coi or not (the editor in question) would always be inclined to say that there is not a coi - and how are we to say he is wrong? Smallbones (talk) 22:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I too agree with the concerns expressed, and would support the change. In response to Smallbones, how about: "If an edit advances outside interests, rather than the aims of Wikipedia, the editor stands in a conflict of interest." LK (talk) 02:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's keep it as simple as possible: If an edit advances outside interests, the editor stands in a conflict of interest. UncleDouggie (talk) 05:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

A great deal of our legitimate editing advances outside interests. If I write that The New York Times made a profit last year of X million, and was voted the world's greatest newspaper, I'm advancing its interests. The problem arises only if I place the interests of the Times above the interests of Wikipedia; that is, if my main or sole reason for being an editor is to advance the interests of the Times. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

What about this? "When an editor's primary goal is to advance outside interests, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." -- Atama頭 08:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, we've gone full circle with no agreement, and everyone has good points. The root problem is that the boldface sentence is just plain wrong. The sentence before it is the correct one, it's just not in bold: COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. I propose we keep that one and delete Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest. UncleDouggie (talk) 09:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Now that I look at it again, the one I want to keep has a similar problem to what SlimVirgin identified. I wonder how much of the rest of the guideline is also messed up? How about COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups with whom you have a relationship. It's still not perfect, but I can't stand to look at anymore bold right now. UncleDouggie (talk) 09:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Now, how about my proposed nutshell sentence? I know, I didn't put it bold above so everyone ignored it. OK then, my proposed nutshell: Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals or of organizations, including employers, unless you are certain that a neutral editor would agree that your edits are in the best interests of Wikipedia. UncleDouggie (talk) 09:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm good with that as the nutshell sentence, I see no obvious flaw. However, the sentence we were discussing still needs to be fixed. Following SV's objection, I suggest, If an edit advances outside interests, and does not advance the aims of Wikipedia, the editor stands in a conflict of interest. LK (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems that people are OK with the new nutshell, so I'm going to put it in. It's a fairly small change, but I think it helps. On COI editing, I propose:

"COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia to:

1. Advance your own interests
2. Advance the interests of your employer
3. Advance the interests of other individuals, companies, or groups in cases where you value such interests above the interests of Wikipedia"

This restricts the value judgement to the cases identified by SlimVirgin while making the first two cases unambiguously COI. UncleDouggie (talk) 08:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess this didn't horrify anyone. Does anyone feel that we need more discussion before making the update? UncleDouggie (talk) 06:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's a modification with one more caveat:

"COI editing involves contributions in any of the following categories:

1. Theories supported or refuted by research in which you have participated
2. Advancement of your own interests
3. Advancement of the interests of your employer
4. Advancement of the interests of other individuals, companies, or groups in cases where you value such interests above the interests of Wikipedia"

UncleDouggie (talk) 12:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

(1) Is wide open to misinterpretation and use to attack subject matter experts. A creationist can accuse a biologist of 'conflict of interest' if he/she has done research involving the 'theory' of evolution (which is pretty much everyone in the field, as evolution is a bedrock of modern biology). The cases where an article may directly affect the career or standing in the community of a researcher, is already covered by (2). LK (talk) 13:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This certainly wasn't my intent, but I agree it's a problem. We could drop it. Let's see if others feel it's worth coming up with better wording. UncleDouggie (talk) 14:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

For (4), I would remove the caveat altogether, and make it, "Where you value the interests of other individuals, companies, or groups other than Wikipedia." Otherwise, the supporter of a particluar group can argue that his COI is fine, as he values that group's interests slightly less than the interests of Wikipedia. LK (talk) 13:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This was pretty much my proposal half-way up this topic, but it was legitimately shot out of the sky by SlimVirgin. The same objection applies here. UncleDouggie (talk) 14:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

There's no way around it, we have to look at intent. Your original, "where you value such interests above the interests of Wikipedia" also looks at intent. COI is about intent. We have to say that when you intend to advance an outside group's interests, you have a COI. LK (talk) 15:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I modified my proposal. At the same time, I removed intent intent from cases 1-3 to give the lawyers less room to wiggle through. UncleDouggie (talk) 22:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Statement on what COI is not

I think it's a good idea to have a statement concerning what COI is not near the beginning of the page. I've just had someone argue to me (an admin no less), that COI is what drives Wikipedia, because whenever someone knowledgeable in an academic discipline (like a professional biologist for instance) edits with the intent of making articles reflect the beliefs in that academic discipline, they have a conflict of interest.

In WP:SYN, they have the statement: "Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis—it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by researching the most reliable published sources on the topic and summarizing their claims in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim." I suggest that we include a similar statement:
"When edits are made with the common goal of the Wikipedia community to build a better encyclopedia, there is no conflict of interest. Editors advance Wikipedia's interests by editing articles to impartially summarize reliable sources with proper weight for all notable viewpoints. "
--LK (talk) 16:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The proposed wording reflects what good experienced editors know, but the guideline is not necessarily for good experienced editors. I'm just wondering what kind of trucks some folks are going to try to drive through that little opening, e.g. a business owner writes text that clearly promotes his business. When questioned he states "it's building a better encyclopedia," since it's all true and in RSs (even if he did leave a few unpleasant things out). I'm sure there are several other ways to twist your perfectly pure text. So my only question is "Does the text clearly distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable editing so that all parties can understand it?" Smallbones (talk) 17:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's a thought - how about a new symbol, much like a footnote subscript, that identifies information that has been added by someone with an acknowledged COI? Or even an article/section tag? "Sections of this article include information that has been directly edited by a representative of the company the article is about and may reflect bias" or some such. --Insider201283 (talk) 18:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

We already have a COI tag for articles. But I'm against putting a red letter on everyone with a COI. It's a good thing to be able to recognize and acknowledge editors who have a COI, and it's important to protect the encyclopedia against disruptive editing caused by COIs who are attempting to promote one entity or another. But at the same time there are some good editors who contribute positively despite the COI. The guideline as written takes pains to not stigmatize COI editors and I think we should honor that. -- Atama頭 19:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The word "bias" typically carries a pejorative tone, so such a tag would itself be introducing bias to the article. In my experience, often when a representative of a company edits the article about the company, it is to correct some glaring error (even a six-year-long mistake) that a volunteer editor published. That's not bias, unless truth and verifiability are a form of "bias". -- Thekohser 19:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, the guideline specifically allows for non-controversial edits. The current COI tag is intended to be placed when a COI editor violates policy in their edits, and inserts language that has a particular POV and/or is promotional. It should be accompanied by an explanation of the tag on the talk page. But it shouldn't be placed just because an editor might have a COI. A new, more strongly-worded tag isn't needed. -- Atama頭 20:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems like we've stalled here. Are people OK with my inclusion of a statement about what COI is not? LK (talk) 07:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it is needed. It is technically true that practically everybody has a conflict of interest somewhere, and that almost everybody edits in those areas (I'm working in chemistry, still I do edit many pages about chemicals and related subjects .. but I do try to not advance my own situation). That is a 'conflict of interest', but it is not a problem. We should not include a statement that it is not a conflict of interest, the guideline should (and is, IMHO) say that people with a conflict of interest should not edit to advance their own situation. The argument has been used against me sometimes, 'sure, I have a conflict of interest, but I am a specialist in the field, so of course I edit my own pages' ... the problem is, that those editors don't neutrally word their own results or knowledge. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No – words like those would be excellent if contributors have no hint of a problem to begin with. However, there really are people who (perhaps unintentionally) would interpret your statement as a green light to "impartially summarize reliable sources..." by spamming the benefits of their organization complete with references to their PR-produced sources which (AGF!) they believe are reliable, and of course everyone believes "I am impartial". Johnuniq (talk) 07:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The proposed statement would cause more trouble by people misinterpreting it. It's better to clean up the existing language on what COI is, which is what I'm attempting in the topic above this one. As you can see from that discussion, defining COI accurately is really hard. Once we get it right, the last thing we need is to further confuse the issue by including an inverse statement. UncleDouggie (talk) 08:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I can see how problems can arise from people who have COI but refuse to admit it. But, we do need something about how biologists editing biology articles in topics that are not related to their research or jobs do not have COI. Subject matter experts has been accused of having COI just because they are subject matter experts. For example, Dirk Beetstra seems to express that opinion above. So, how about: "A person with knowledge and interest in a particular subject matter does not automatically have a Conflict of Interest, if that person edits in that area. There is no conflict of interest when a person edits solely with the intent to create a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia." LK (talk) 15:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Scaring away experts, or giving editors the ammo to attack experts by citing COI is bad. And I've seen it happen. I'm not sure the best way to add the info, maybe at the end of "What is a conflict of interest?" but before listing examples of conflict of interest, that might be a good location. -- Atama頭 16:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Added statement to place suggested. LK (talk) 07:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the statement and I think others will as well. Please don't make such changes to the guideline with only a few hours notice. People aren't online all the time or even every day. I could drive a truck through that statement. If someone is making edits related to their employer, they DO have a COI. There are no exceptions and I've proposed new language in the thread above to make this clear. Having a COI doesn't mean that a user absolutely can't make an edit. The guideline explains this. The answer to permitting more editing isn't to redefine away COI, but rather define better what a COI editor is allowed to do. Making neutral edits is essential of course. We need to know who has a COI so others can take a closer look to make sure the edits really are neutral. UncleDouggie (talk) 07:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, I agree. As UncleDouggie pointed out below, we already have text that says, "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest." It is located in WP:COI#Citing oneself. So that language would be redundant even absent the other concerns. -- Atama頭 22:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Lets look at the statements in question:

1. A person with subject matter knowledge and interest does not automatically have a conflict of interest when editing in that area.
2. There is no conflict of interest if a person edits with the sole intent of creating a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia.

Do you have a problem with 1 or with 2? LK (talk) 10:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I have a problem with both of them given the way that they are phrased:

1. I'm not aware of a guideline that says a SME is automatically in a conflict of interest by virtue of their knowledge, so the statement isn't needed. All it does is open us up to a trap in which anyone can claim that because they are a SME, they don't have to worry about COI. This is further reinforced by the second statement.
2. We already have a policy about neutral editing. This statement then says that if an editor follows NPOV they don't have a COI. The conclusion is that because everyone is supposed to follow NPOV anyway, we can throw out the entire COI guideline. I'm sure this wasn't your intent. But this is how the statement will be interpreted by editors angling for a way around the rules.

Just read about the wiki-lawyering we're trying to counteract in the topic above this one. That's trivial compared to how these statements will be abused. If you feel that the current guideline is wrong, let's fix it. Creating conflicting inverse statements won't get us there. UncleDouggie (talk) 11:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

So, from above, you do agree that both statements are correct, but are just afraid that they can be wikilawyered. All statements can be wikilawyered. You are only thinking about one side of the problem. What about the newbie biting of scientists that's going on, like Atama notes above? I too have personally seen newbies attacked with COI just because they are subject matter experts. As for you arguments that we don't need it because it's already covered in other policies, you can say that all the behaviours noted in the COI guideline is already covered in V, OR and NPV, why do we need this guideline? We need guidelines to point out the obvious, because sometimes the obvious is not obvious to everyone. LK (talk) 11:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

From a literal reading, #1 is correct but #2 is incorrect due to the "sole intent" language because there's quite a difference between intent and final product. I've tried to address this with the recent update to the nutshell to give more clear guidance. I still don't think that #1 should be included in this form. I would support something along the lines of: "Contributions by SMEs are encouraged. In the cases where a SME has a conflict of interest, it may be best to add material to the article talk page for discussion and inclusion into the article by neutral editors." I would appreciate comments on the "Rewrite the lead?" topic because I think our first order of business is to cleanup the shortcomings of the current guideline before we try to add more escape clauses. I will note that three other editors in this thread have objected to the new clause as well so I don't think I'm alone. UncleDouggie (talk) 12:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It turns out that we already have the first statement in the form of "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest." UncleDouggie (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)